Optical enhancement with magnification versus white-light endoscopy for detecting gastric intestinal metaplasia and neoplasia: a randomized controlled trial.
{"title":"Optical enhancement with magnification versus white-light endoscopy for detecting gastric intestinal metaplasia and neoplasia: a randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Meng Wan, Guang-Chao Li, Ming-Jun Ma, Jing Liu, Zhen Li, Xiu-Li Zuo, Yan-Qing Li","doi":"10.1016/j.gie.2025.02.015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>The detection of gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM), gastric intraepithelial neoplasia (GIN), and early gastric cancer (EGC) using white-light endoscopy (WLE) is unsatisfactory. This study assessed the value of optical enhancement combined with magnification endoscopy (ME-OE) versus WLE for detecting GIM, GIN, and EGC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients at high risk for gastric cancer were randomly assigned to the ME-OE group or WLE group at a 1:1 ratio. Suspicious GIM, GIN, and EGC lesions underwent targeted biopsy sampling in both groups. The diagnostic yield, diagnostic efficacy, and agreement of suspicious lesions were compared between the 2 groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two hundred eighty-five patients were finally analyzed. The per-patient diagnostic yields of GIM, GIN, and EGC were 36.6% in the ME-OE group and 23.8% in the WLE group (P = .018). The per-lesion diagnostic yield of GIM, GIN, and EGC in the ME-OE group was higher than that in the WLE group (66.7% vs 48.7%, P = .017). Sensitivity (82.8% vs 54.3%, P = .003), specificity (84.2% vs 81.4%, P = .738), positive predictive value (88.9% vs 70.4%, P = .038), negative predictive value (76.2% vs 68.6%, P = .419), and accuracy (83.3% vs 69.2%, P = .028) for GIM were compared between the 2 groups. The intraobserver agreements of experienced endoscopists were excellent for ME-OE (κ = 0.81 and κ = 0.83) and good for WLE (κ = 0.63 and κ = 0.62). The interobserver agreements of experienced endoscopists were good for both groups (κ = 0.75 and κ = 0.61, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ME-OE showed better performance for detecting GIM than WLE in high-risk populations. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04411589.).</p>","PeriodicalId":12542,"journal":{"name":"Gastrointestinal endoscopy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gastrointestinal endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2025.02.015","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and aims: The detection of gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM), gastric intraepithelial neoplasia (GIN), and early gastric cancer (EGC) using white-light endoscopy (WLE) is unsatisfactory. This study assessed the value of optical enhancement combined with magnification endoscopy (ME-OE) versus WLE for detecting GIM, GIN, and EGC.
Methods: Patients at high risk for gastric cancer were randomly assigned to the ME-OE group or WLE group at a 1:1 ratio. Suspicious GIM, GIN, and EGC lesions underwent targeted biopsy sampling in both groups. The diagnostic yield, diagnostic efficacy, and agreement of suspicious lesions were compared between the 2 groups.
Results: Two hundred eighty-five patients were finally analyzed. The per-patient diagnostic yields of GIM, GIN, and EGC were 36.6% in the ME-OE group and 23.8% in the WLE group (P = .018). The per-lesion diagnostic yield of GIM, GIN, and EGC in the ME-OE group was higher than that in the WLE group (66.7% vs 48.7%, P = .017). Sensitivity (82.8% vs 54.3%, P = .003), specificity (84.2% vs 81.4%, P = .738), positive predictive value (88.9% vs 70.4%, P = .038), negative predictive value (76.2% vs 68.6%, P = .419), and accuracy (83.3% vs 69.2%, P = .028) for GIM were compared between the 2 groups. The intraobserver agreements of experienced endoscopists were excellent for ME-OE (κ = 0.81 and κ = 0.83) and good for WLE (κ = 0.63 and κ = 0.62). The interobserver agreements of experienced endoscopists were good for both groups (κ = 0.75 and κ = 0.61, respectively).
Conclusions: ME-OE showed better performance for detecting GIM than WLE in high-risk populations. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04411589.).
期刊介绍:
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy is a journal publishing original, peer-reviewed articles on endoscopic procedures for studying, diagnosing, and treating digestive diseases. It covers outcomes research, prospective studies, and controlled trials of new endoscopic instruments and treatment methods. The online features include full-text articles, video and audio clips, and MEDLINE links. The journal serves as an international forum for the latest developments in the specialty, offering challenging reports from authorities worldwide. It also publishes abstracts of significant articles from other clinical publications, accompanied by expert commentaries.