Is it proper to use non‐magnified narrow‐band imaging for esophageal neoplasia screening? Japanese single‐center, prospective study

Yokoyama, Akira; Ichimasa, Katsuro; Ishiguro, Tomonari; Mori, Yuichi; Ikeda, Haruo; Hayashi, Takemasa; Minami, Hitomi; Hayashi, Seiko; Watanabe, Gen; Inoue, Haruhiro; Kudo, Shin‐ei

doi:10.1111/j.1443-1661.2012.01309.x

Cited by 14 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Two did not provide complete data to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy values in either the per-patient or per-lesion analysis [7, 20]. In one, the examinations were performed by inexperienced endoscopists [8]; and in another, the data were collected retrospectively [21]. …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Narrow band imaging versus lugol chromoendoscopy to diagnose squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIn the early stage esophageal cancer, changes in the mucosa are subtle and pass unnoticed in endoscopic examinations using white light. To increase sensitivity, chromoscopy with Lugol’s solution has been used. Technological advancements have led to the emergence of virtual methods of endoscopic chromoscopy, including narrow band imaging (NBI). NBI enhances the relief of the mucosa and the underlying vascular pattern, providing greater convenience without the risks inherent to the use of vital dye. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the ability of NBI to diagnose squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus and to compare it to chromoscopy with Lugol’s solution.MethodsThis systematic review included all studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of NBI and Lugol chromoendoscopy performed to identify high-grade dysplasia and/or squamous cell carcinoma in the esophagus. In the meta-analysis, we calculated and demonstrated sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood values in forest plots. We also determined summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curves and estimates of the areas under the curves for both per-patient and per-lesion analysis.ResultsThe initial search identified 7079 articles. Of these, 18 studies were included in the systematic review and 12 were used in the meta-analysis, for a total of 1911 patients. In per-patient and per-lesion analysis, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood values for Lugol chromoendoscopy were 92% and 98, 82 and 37%, 5.42 and 1.4, and 0.13 and 0.39, respectively, and for NBI were 88 and 94%, 88 and 65%, 8.32 and 2.62, and 0.16 and 0.12, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference in only specificity values, in which case NBI was superior to Lugol chromoendoscopy in both analyses. In the per-patient analysis, the area under the sROC curve for Lugol chromoendoscopy was 0.9559. In the case of NBI, this value was 0.9611; in the per-lesion analysis, this number was 0.9685 and 0.9587, respectively.ConclusionsNBI was adequate in evaluating the esophagus in order to diagnose high-grade dysplasia and squamous cell carcinoma. In the differentiation of those disorders from other esophageal mucosa alterations, the NBI was shown to be superior than Lugol.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For experienced endoscopists, sensitivity levels were consistent between the two methods [7]. Yokoyama et al showed that NBI without magnification is suitable for esophageal assessment when searching for a neoplasm in a high-risk population, even without high-definition imagery [8]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Narrow band imaging versus lugol chromoendoscopy to diagnose squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Multiple prospective studies have shown that nonmagnified NBI examination is superior to WLI in detection of early esophageal lesions for screening of high-risk patients (10)(11)(12)(13) (15). In addition, NBI endoscopy also had a higher specificity comparing to Lugol chromoendoscopy (per lesion analysis 82% vs. 37%).…”

Section: Review Articlementioning

confidence: 99%

Endoscopic diagnosis and management of early squamous cell carcinoma of esophagus

Yip

Chiu

2017

J. Thorac. Dis.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, diagnosis of early squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the esophagus has been increasingly emphasized. Utilization of image enhanced technology such as narrow band imaging (NBI) and magnification endoscopy allowed detailed examination of the esophageal mucosa. Different patterns of intrapapillary capillary loops (IPCL) have been proven to accurately diagnose and predict the depth of invasion of the tumors. In addition, the application of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has enabled safe en bloc resection of esophageal lesions. Promising results of ESD have been published and ESD is now the standard of therapy in early SCC of esophagus.

show abstract

“…Studies using HD endoscopy failed to show a significant benefit for additional chromoendoscopy (real or virtually) in the detection of dysplasia in squamous cell carcinoma and Barrett's oesophagus [26,27,28,29]. The current ESGE guideline does not classify the white light endoscopy (SD) as sufficiently exact in differentiating and diagnosing pre-neoplasm conditions and lesions ( Helicobacter pylori (HP) gastritis, atrophic gastritis, intestinal metaplasia); thus, the use of the best available endoscopy technique and the collection of sampling biopsies in the endoscopic monitoring are requested for patients with a precancerous condition ([3] chapter 4.1; [30]).…”

Section: Quality Indicators/parameters For Specific Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality Assurance in Endoscopy: Which Parameters?

Denzer

2016

Visc Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The verbalisation of quality standards and parameters by medical societies are relevant for qualitative improvement but may also be an instrument to demand more resources for health care or be a unique characteristic. Within the health care system 3 different quality levels can be defined: structure, process and result quality. Methods: The current S2k guideline of the German Society for Gastroenterology (quality requirements for gastrointestinal endoscopy) AWMF registry no. 021-022 provides recommendations based on the available evidence for the structure quality (requirements for equipment, human resources) as well as for the process quality (patient preparation, conduct, documentation) and result quality (follow-up of specific endoscopic procedures). Results: Based on these recommendations, measurable quality indicators/parameters for the endoscopy have been selected and formulated. General quality parameters for endoscopic examinations are given as well as quality parameters for specific procedures for the preparation, conduct, and follow-up of specific endoscopic interventions. Conclusion: Only the regular review of processes and courses by means of defined measurement parameters builds up the basis for corrections based on facts. In addition, the implementation of recommended standards may be an instrument in demanding more resources from the health care system and, therefore, should be embedded as routine.

show abstract

Is it proper to use non‐magnified narrow‐band imaging for esophageal neoplasia screening? Japanese single‐center, prospective study

Abstract: In both HD and non-HD endoscopy, NBI is less likely than WLI to miss a lesion. Even with non-HD endoscopy, NBI is suitable for esophageal standard examinations in general hospitals.

Cited by 14 publications

References 29 publications

Narrow band imaging versus lugol chromoendoscopy to diagnose squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Narrow band imaging versus lugol chromoendoscopy to diagnose squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Endoscopic diagnosis and management of early squamous cell carcinoma of esophagus

Quality Assurance in Endoscopy: Which Parameters?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About