Marta Rodriguez-Carrasco, Gianluca Esposito, Emanuele Dilaghi, Guido Manfredi, Saverio Alicante, Elisabetta Buscarini, Bruno Annibale, Mário Dinis-Ribeiro
{"title":"Endoscopic grading of gastric intestinal metaplasia using blue light imaging in a low-risk population: Multicenter cross-sectional validation study.","authors":"Marta Rodriguez-Carrasco, Gianluca Esposito, Emanuele Dilaghi, Guido Manfredi, Saverio Alicante, Elisabetta Buscarini, Bruno Annibale, Mário Dinis-Ribeiro","doi":"10.1055/a-2500-3748","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background study aims: </strong>Detecting gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) with white light endoscopy (WLE) remains a challenge and virtual chromoendoscopy methods have been shown to increase accuracy. We aimed to externally validate the Endoscopic Grading of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia (EGGIM) using blue light imaging (BLI).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>First, the reliability of BLI and the EGGIM score was evaluated through assessment of 90 images divided into three sets of 30. A multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted at two Italian centers involving 102 patients (510 biopsies). Both per-biopsy and per-patient analyses were performed to ascertain accuracy of BLI in detecting and staging GIM (vs. histology).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>BLI significantly enhanced interobserver agreement of endoscopic diagnosis of GIM, with a Fleiss Kappa of 0.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.3-0.5), compared to 0.2 (95% CI 0.2-0.3) with WLE. Concordance was particularly strong in applying the EGGIM score (weighted Kappa 0.7; 95% CI 0.5-0.9). BLI showed significant improvements in sensitivity over WLE, with an increase observed in both per-biopsy analysis (82%; 95%CI 73.7-89.0 vs. 50%;95% CI 40.6-60.3) and per-patient analysis (96%; 95% CI 84.5-99.4 vs. 68%;95% CI 52.4-81.4). The area under the curve of EGGIM in diagnosing OLGIM III/IV was 0.9 (95% CI 0.8-1.0), confirming EGGIM > 4 being the optimal threshold (sensitivity of 80%, specificity of 88%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study validates BLI integrated with the EGGIM system as an effective strategy, highlighting its precision in identifying advanced GIM stages. BLI's notable sensitivity enhances its use as a complementary tool to WLE, significantly improving gastric cancer risk assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":11671,"journal":{"name":"Endoscopy International Open","volume":"13 ","pages":"a25003748"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11827722/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Endoscopy International Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2500-3748","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background study aims: Detecting gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) with white light endoscopy (WLE) remains a challenge and virtual chromoendoscopy methods have been shown to increase accuracy. We aimed to externally validate the Endoscopic Grading of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia (EGGIM) using blue light imaging (BLI).
Methods: First, the reliability of BLI and the EGGIM score was evaluated through assessment of 90 images divided into three sets of 30. A multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted at two Italian centers involving 102 patients (510 biopsies). Both per-biopsy and per-patient analyses were performed to ascertain accuracy of BLI in detecting and staging GIM (vs. histology).
Results: BLI significantly enhanced interobserver agreement of endoscopic diagnosis of GIM, with a Fleiss Kappa of 0.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.3-0.5), compared to 0.2 (95% CI 0.2-0.3) with WLE. Concordance was particularly strong in applying the EGGIM score (weighted Kappa 0.7; 95% CI 0.5-0.9). BLI showed significant improvements in sensitivity over WLE, with an increase observed in both per-biopsy analysis (82%; 95%CI 73.7-89.0 vs. 50%;95% CI 40.6-60.3) and per-patient analysis (96%; 95% CI 84.5-99.4 vs. 68%;95% CI 52.4-81.4). The area under the curve of EGGIM in diagnosing OLGIM III/IV was 0.9 (95% CI 0.8-1.0), confirming EGGIM > 4 being the optimal threshold (sensitivity of 80%, specificity of 88%).
Conclusions: Our study validates BLI integrated with the EGGIM system as an effective strategy, highlighting its precision in identifying advanced GIM stages. BLI's notable sensitivity enhances its use as a complementary tool to WLE, significantly improving gastric cancer risk assessment.