Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Comparison of the diagnostic performance between magnifying chromoendoscopy and magnifying narrow-band imaging for superficial colorectal neoplasms: an online survey.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 May; 87(5):1318-1323.GE

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Magnifying narrow-band imaging (mag-NBI) and magnifying chromoendoscopy using crystal violet staining for pit pattern analysis (pit pattern) is highly accurate for diagnosing invasion depth of superficial colorectal neoplasms. However, NBI and pit pattern have not been compared.

METHODS

We conducted an online survey of endoscopists interested in image-enhanced endoscopy. Still images using white light, mag-NBI, and pit pattern were collected from lesions diagnosed at the National Cancer Center Hospital (NCCH), Tokyo, Japan. Sixty endoscopists from outside NCCH who typically use magnifying endoscopy were recruited for this survey. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis based on a calculation of the area under the ROC curve.

RESULTS

One hundred early colorectal neoplasms were selected for this survey. Histopathology revealed that, although 67 of the lesions had high-grade dysplasia or carcinoma with superficial submucosal (SM-s) invasion, the other 33 lesions had a carcinoma with deep submucosal invasion (SM-d). Comparing the area under the ROC curve from mag-NBI with that of pit pattern, the latter showed significantly higher diagnostic accuracy for depth invasion (0.83 [95% CI, 0.81-0.85] for mag-NBI, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.85-0.89] for pit pattern, P = .013).

CONCLUSIONS

Pit pattern should be the first choice for diagnosing invasion depth as the most reliable modality rather than mag-NBI.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Endoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.Endoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.Endoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan; Division of Screening Technology, Center for Public Health Sciences, National Cancer Center, Tokyo, Japan.Department of Medical Statistics, Toho University, Tokyo, Japan.Department of Molecular-Targeting Cancer Prevention, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.Department of Endoscopy Fukuoka University Chikushi Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan.Endoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

29309778

Citation

Sakamoto, Taku, et al. "Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance Between Magnifying Chromoendoscopy and Magnifying Narrow-band Imaging for Superficial Colorectal Neoplasms: an Online Survey." Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, vol. 87, no. 5, 2018, pp. 1318-1323.
Sakamoto T, Nakajima T, Matsuda T, et al. Comparison of the diagnostic performance between magnifying chromoendoscopy and magnifying narrow-band imaging for superficial colorectal neoplasms: an online survey. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;87(5):1318-1323.
Sakamoto, T., Nakajima, T., Matsuda, T., Murakami, Y., Ishikawa, H., Yao, K., & Saito, Y. (2018). Comparison of the diagnostic performance between magnifying chromoendoscopy and magnifying narrow-band imaging for superficial colorectal neoplasms: an online survey. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 87(5), 1318-1323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2017.12.021
Sakamoto T, et al. Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance Between Magnifying Chromoendoscopy and Magnifying Narrow-band Imaging for Superficial Colorectal Neoplasms: an Online Survey. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;87(5):1318-1323. PubMed PMID: 29309778.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Comparison of the diagnostic performance between magnifying chromoendoscopy and magnifying narrow-band imaging for superficial colorectal neoplasms: an online survey. AU - Sakamoto,Taku, AU - Nakajima,Takeshi, AU - Matsuda,Takahisa, AU - Murakami,Yoshitaka, AU - Ishikawa,Hideki, AU - Yao,Kenshi, AU - Saito,Yutaka, Y1 - 2018/01/05/ PY - 2017/06/20/received PY - 2017/12/03/accepted PY - 2018/1/9/pubmed PY - 2018/11/7/medline PY - 2018/1/9/entrez SP - 1318 EP - 1323 JF - Gastrointestinal endoscopy JO - Gastrointest. Endosc. VL - 87 IS - 5 N2 - BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Magnifying narrow-band imaging (mag-NBI) and magnifying chromoendoscopy using crystal violet staining for pit pattern analysis (pit pattern) is highly accurate for diagnosing invasion depth of superficial colorectal neoplasms. However, NBI and pit pattern have not been compared. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of endoscopists interested in image-enhanced endoscopy. Still images using white light, mag-NBI, and pit pattern were collected from lesions diagnosed at the National Cancer Center Hospital (NCCH), Tokyo, Japan. Sixty endoscopists from outside NCCH who typically use magnifying endoscopy were recruited for this survey. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis based on a calculation of the area under the ROC curve. RESULTS: One hundred early colorectal neoplasms were selected for this survey. Histopathology revealed that, although 67 of the lesions had high-grade dysplasia or carcinoma with superficial submucosal (SM-s) invasion, the other 33 lesions had a carcinoma with deep submucosal invasion (SM-d). Comparing the area under the ROC curve from mag-NBI with that of pit pattern, the latter showed significantly higher diagnostic accuracy for depth invasion (0.83 [95% CI, 0.81-0.85] for mag-NBI, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.85-0.89] for pit pattern, P = .013). CONCLUSIONS: Pit pattern should be the first choice for diagnosing invasion depth as the most reliable modality rather than mag-NBI. SN - 1097-6779 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/29309778/Comparison_of_the_diagnostic_performance_between_magnifying_chromoendoscopy_and_magnifying_narrow_band_imaging_for_superficial_colorectal_neoplasms:_an_online_survey_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0016-5107(18)30007-5 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -