Is blue light imaging without magnification satisfactory as screening for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma? Post-hoc analysis of multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Yohei Ogata, Waku Hatta, Tomoyuki Koike, So Takahashi, Tamotsu Matsuhashi, Wataru Iwai, Sho Asonuma, Hideki Okata, Motoki Ohyauchi, Hirotaka Ito, Yasuhiko Abe, Yu Sasaki, Masashi Kawamura, Masahiro Saito, Kaname Uno, Fumiyoshi Fujishima, Tomohiro Nakamura, Naoki Nakaya, Katsunori Iijima, Atsushi Masamune
{"title":"Is blue light imaging without magnification satisfactory as screening for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma? Post-hoc analysis of multicenter randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Yohei Ogata, Waku Hatta, Tomoyuki Koike, So Takahashi, Tamotsu Matsuhashi, Wataru Iwai, Sho Asonuma, Hideki Okata, Motoki Ohyauchi, Hirotaka Ito, Yasuhiko Abe, Yu Sasaki, Masashi Kawamura, Masahiro Saito, Kaname Uno, Fumiyoshi Fujishima, Tomohiro Nakamura, Naoki Nakaya, Katsunori Iijima, Atsushi Masamune","doi":"10.1111/den.14788","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Narrow light observation is currently recommended as an alternative to Lugol chromoendoscopy (LCE) to detect esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Studies revealed little difference in sensitivity between the two modalities in expert settings; however, these included small numbers of cases. We aimed to determine whether blue light imaging (BLI) without magnification is satisfactory for preventing misses of ESCC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a post-hoc analysis of a multicenter randomized controlled trial targeting patients at high risk of ESCC in expert settings. In this study, BLI without magnification followed by LCE was performed. The evaluation parameters included: (i) the diagnostic abilities of ESCC; (ii) the endoscopic characteristics of lesions with diagnostic differences between the two modalities; and (iii) the color difference between cancerous and noncancerous areas in BLI and LCE.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This study identified ESCC in 49 of 699 cases. Of these cases, nine (18.4%) were missed by BLI but detected by LCE. In per-patient analysis, the sensitivity of BLI was lower than that of LCE following BLI (83.7% vs. 100.0%; P = 0.013), whereas the specificity and accuracy of BLI were higher (88.2% vs. 81.2%; P < 0.001 and 87.8% vs. 82.5%; P < 0.001, respectively). No significant endoscopic characteristics were identified, but the color difference was lower in BLI than in LCE (21.4 vs. 25.1; P = 0.003).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>LCE following BLI outperformed BLI in terms of sensitivity in patients with high-risk ESCC. Therefore, LCE, in addition to BLI, would still be required in screening esophagogastroduodenoscopy even by expert endoscopists.</p>","PeriodicalId":72813,"journal":{"name":"Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/den.14788","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Narrow light observation is currently recommended as an alternative to Lugol chromoendoscopy (LCE) to detect esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Studies revealed little difference in sensitivity between the two modalities in expert settings; however, these included small numbers of cases. We aimed to determine whether blue light imaging (BLI) without magnification is satisfactory for preventing misses of ESCC.

Methods: This was a post-hoc analysis of a multicenter randomized controlled trial targeting patients at high risk of ESCC in expert settings. In this study, BLI without magnification followed by LCE was performed. The evaluation parameters included: (i) the diagnostic abilities of ESCC; (ii) the endoscopic characteristics of lesions with diagnostic differences between the two modalities; and (iii) the color difference between cancerous and noncancerous areas in BLI and LCE.

Results: This study identified ESCC in 49 of 699 cases. Of these cases, nine (18.4%) were missed by BLI but detected by LCE. In per-patient analysis, the sensitivity of BLI was lower than that of LCE following BLI (83.7% vs. 100.0%; P = 0.013), whereas the specificity and accuracy of BLI were higher (88.2% vs. 81.2%; P < 0.001 and 87.8% vs. 82.5%; P < 0.001, respectively). No significant endoscopic characteristics were identified, but the color difference was lower in BLI than in LCE (21.4 vs. 25.1; P = 0.003).

Conclusion: LCE following BLI outperformed BLI in terms of sensitivity in patients with high-risk ESCC. Therefore, LCE, in addition to BLI, would still be required in screening esophagogastroduodenoscopy even by expert endoscopists.

不放大的蓝光成像作为食管鳞状细胞癌筛查是否令人满意?多中心随机对照试验的事后分析。
目的:目前推荐用窄光观察法替代卢戈尔色内镜(LCE)检测食管鳞状细胞癌(ESCC)。研究表明,在专家环境下,这两种模式的灵敏度差别不大;但是,这些研究涉及的病例数量较少。我们的目的是确定不放大的蓝光成像(BLI)在防止漏诊 ESCC 方面是否令人满意:这是对一项多中心随机对照试验进行的事后分析,该试验针对的是专家环境中的 ESCC 高危患者。在这项研究中,先进行了不放大的BLI检查,然后进行了LCE检查。评估参数包括(i)ESCC的诊断能力;(ii)两种模式下诊断差异的病变内镜特征;(iii)BLI和LCE中癌区和非癌区的颜色差异:本研究在 699 例病例中发现了 49 例 ESCC。在这些病例中,有 9 例(18.4%)被 BLI 遗漏,但被 LCE 检测到。按患者分析,BLI 的灵敏度低于 BLI 后的 LCE(83.7% 对 100.0%;P = 0.013),而 BLI 的特异性和准确性更高(88.2% 对 81.2%;P 结论:BLI 后的 LCE 优于 LCE:在高危 ESCC 患者中,BLI 后的 LCE 在灵敏度方面优于 BLI。因此,即使是内镜专家,在进行食管胃十二指肠镜检查筛查时,除 BLI 外仍需进行 LCE 检查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信