Vien X Nguyen, Cuong C Nguyen, Giovanni De Petris, Virender K Sharma, Ananya Das
{"title":"Confocal endomicroscopy (CEM) improves efficiency of Barrett surveillance.","authors":"Vien X Nguyen, Cuong C Nguyen, Giovanni De Petris, Virender K Sharma, Ananya Das","doi":"10.4161/jig.22175","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Endoscopists with extensive experience with confocal endomicroscopy (CEM) have demonstrated that this technology is useful for Barrett's esophagus (BE) surveillance. However, data on endoscopists with minimal experience with this technique are limited.</p><p><strong>Hypothesis: </strong>For BE surveillance, an endoscopist with minimal experience in CEM-guided biopsy would achieve a similar diagnostic yield with fewer biopsies when compared to the random 4-quadrant biopsy protocol.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the diagnostic yields of CEM-guided biopsy technique with the random 4-quadrant biopsy protocol.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Randomized controlled trial.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Tertiary care center.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Patients with BE.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Out of 18 patients who underwent routine BE surveillance, 11 and 7 were randomly assigned to group A (CEM-guided) and to group B (random 4-quadrant biopsy), respectively. The pathologists were blinded to all clinical information.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean length of endoscopic Barrett was similar in both groups, (5.1 vs. 6.3 cm, p=0.51). The diagnostic yields for detecting SIM (63.6% vs. 59.5%, p=0.5), low grade dysplasia (11. 6% vs. 11.2%, p=NS), high grade dysplasia (10.1% vs. 11.5%, p=0.88). Although the total number of individual mucosal biopsy performed were 52% lower in the CEM group (129 vs. 269), the overall diagnostic yield (85.3% vs. 82.2%, p=0.53) was similar in both groups.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Small sample size.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>For BE surveillance, limited data suggested that endoscopists with minimal experience in CEM can effective use this technology for \"smart\" biopsy to decrease the need for intense tissue sampling but without lowering the diagnostic yield in detecting dysplasia.</p>","PeriodicalId":89416,"journal":{"name":"Journal of interventional gastroenterology","volume":"2 2","pages":"61-65"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4161/jig.22175","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of interventional gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4161/jig.22175","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
Background: Endoscopists with extensive experience with confocal endomicroscopy (CEM) have demonstrated that this technology is useful for Barrett's esophagus (BE) surveillance. However, data on endoscopists with minimal experience with this technique are limited.
Hypothesis: For BE surveillance, an endoscopist with minimal experience in CEM-guided biopsy would achieve a similar diagnostic yield with fewer biopsies when compared to the random 4-quadrant biopsy protocol.
Objective: To compare the diagnostic yields of CEM-guided biopsy technique with the random 4-quadrant biopsy protocol.
Design: Randomized controlled trial.
Setting: Tertiary care center.
Patients: Patients with BE.
Methods: Out of 18 patients who underwent routine BE surveillance, 11 and 7 were randomly assigned to group A (CEM-guided) and to group B (random 4-quadrant biopsy), respectively. The pathologists were blinded to all clinical information.
Results: Mean length of endoscopic Barrett was similar in both groups, (5.1 vs. 6.3 cm, p=0.51). The diagnostic yields for detecting SIM (63.6% vs. 59.5%, p=0.5), low grade dysplasia (11. 6% vs. 11.2%, p=NS), high grade dysplasia (10.1% vs. 11.5%, p=0.88). Although the total number of individual mucosal biopsy performed were 52% lower in the CEM group (129 vs. 269), the overall diagnostic yield (85.3% vs. 82.2%, p=0.53) was similar in both groups.
Limitations: Small sample size.
Conclusions: For BE surveillance, limited data suggested that endoscopists with minimal experience in CEM can effective use this technology for "smart" biopsy to decrease the need for intense tissue sampling but without lowering the diagnostic yield in detecting dysplasia.
背景:具有丰富共聚焦内镜(CEM)经验的内窥镜医师已经证明该技术对巴雷特食管(BE)的监测是有用的。然而,内窥镜医师对这项技术的经验是有限的。假设:对于BE监测,与随机四象限活检方案相比,具有最低限度cem引导活检经验的内窥镜医师可以通过较少的活检获得相似的诊断率。目的:比较扫描电镜引导活检技术与随机四象限活检技术的诊断率。设计:随机对照试验。环境:三级保健中心。患者:BE患者。方法:在18例接受常规BE监测的患者中,随机分为A组(gem引导)和B组(随机四象限活检),分别为11例和7例。病理学家对所有临床资料一无所知。结果:两组内镜下Barrett的平均长度相似(5.1 vs. 6.3 cm, p=0.51)。SIM的诊断率(63.6% vs. 59.5%, p=0.5),低度发育不良的诊断率(11。6%对11.2%,p=NS),高度发育不良(10.1%对11.5%,p=0.88)。虽然在CEM组中进行的个体粘膜活检总数比对照组低52%(129对269),但两组的总体诊断率(85.3%对82.2%,p=0.53)相似。局限性:样本量小。结论:对于BE监测,有限的数据表明,具有最小CEM经验的内窥镜医师可以有效地使用该技术进行“智能”活检,以减少对高强度组织采样的需求,但不会降低检测异常增生的诊出率。