Blue light imaging and linked color imaging as a screening mode for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in high-risk patients: Multicenter randomized trial

Linked color imaging and upper gastrointestinal neoplasia

White light imaging (WLI) can sometimes miss early upper gastrointestinal (UGI) neoplasms, particularly minimal changes and flat lesions. Moreover, endoscopic diagnosis of UGI neoplasia is strongly influenced by the condition of the surrounding mucosa. Recently, image-enhanced endoscopy techniques have been developed and used in clinical practice; one of which is linked color imaging (LCI), which has an expanded color range for better recognition of slight differences in mucosal color and enables easy diagnosis and differentiation of noncancerous mucosa from carcinoma. LCI does not require magnified observation and can clearly visualize structures using an ultrathin scope; therefore, it is useful for screening and surveillance endoscopy. LCI is particularly useful for detecting gastric cancer after Helicobacter pylori eradication, which accounts for most gastric cancers currently discovered, and displays malignant areas in orange or orange-red surrounded by intestinal metaplasia in lavender. Data on the use of convolutional neural network and computer-aided diagnosis with LCI for UGI neoplasm detection are currently being collected. Further studies are needed to determine the clinical role of LCI and whether it can replace WLI.

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

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.

Surveillance for metachronous cancers after endoscopic resection of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

The literature pertaining to surveillance following treatment for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) was reviewed and summarized, encompassing the current status and future perspectives. Analysis of the standardized mortality and incidence ratios for these cancers indicates an elevated risk of cancer in the oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, and lungs among patients with esophageal SCC compared to the general population. To enhance the efficacy of surveillance for these metachronous cancers, risk stratification is needed. Various factors, including multiple Lugol-voiding lesions, multiple foci of dilated vascular areas, young age, and high mean corpuscular volume, have been identified as predictors of metachronous SCCs. Current practice involves stratifying the risk of metachronous esophageal and head/neck SCCs based on the presence of multiple Lugol-voiding lesions. Endoscopic surveillance, scheduled 6-12 months post-endoscopic resection, has demonstrated effectiveness, with over 90% of metachronous esophageal SCCs treatable through minimally invasive modalities. Narrow-band imaging emerges as the preferred surveillance method for esophageal and head/neck SCC based on comparative studies of various imaging techniques. Innovative approaches, such as artificial intelligence-assisted detection systems and radiofrequency ablation of high-risk background mucosa, may improve outcomes in patients following endoscopic resection.

Linked Color Imaging of Barrett’s Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: Effects on Visibility

Since linked color imaging (LCI) has been reported to increase the color differences in Barrett’s esophageal adenocarcinoma (BA) compared to white light imaging (WLI), a comparison of the visibility scores of various imaging techniques for BA is warranted to determine best practice standards. This study is to clarify the role of LCI, blue light imaging (BLI), and WLI in the evaluation of BA. A group of 19 endoscopists, comprised of 6 experts and 13 trainees, evaluated the visibility of WLI, BLI, and LCI images in 21 superficial BA cases. Visibility scores were compared between WLI, BLI, and LCI. Visibility scores were also evaluated for lesion morphology, background Barrett’s mucosa, and circumferential location. The visibility scores of experts and trainees were analyzed for comparison. The visibility scores of LCI and BLI were 3.83 and 3.31, respectively, compared to three points for WLI. The visibility of LCI was better than that of WLI regardless of lesion morphology, color, background Barrett’s mucosa, and circumferential location. The LCI improved visibility in BA more than the WLI for both experts and trainees. LCI improved the visibility of BA independent of lesion morphology, color, background Barrett’s mucosa, circumferential location, and the endoscopist’s experience.