ENDOSCOPIC SUBMUCOSAL DISSECTION FOR EARLY GASTRIC CANCER USING MAGNIFYING ENDOSCOPY WITH A COMBINATION OF NARROW BAND IMAGING AND ACETIC ACID INSTILLATION

Magnification endoscopy with acetic acid enhancement and a narrow-band imaging system for pit pattern diagnosis of colorectal neoplasms

BACKGROUND AND GOALS

Pit pattern (PP) analysis of colorectal neoplasms using magnification chromoendoscopy with crystal violet (CV-MCE) is useful for predicting histologic features, but it is time consuming. Capillary pattern analysis by magnification endoscopy with narrow-band imaging (NBIME) is a useful and simpler procedure, but its diagnostic accuracy may be inferior to CV-MCE. NBIME with acetic acid enhancement (A-NBIME) is effective for rapid visualization of gastric mucosal microstructures. We performed a prospective study to compare the diagnostic reliability and feasibility of A-NBIME and CV-MCE in PP diagnosis of colorectal neoplasms.

STUDY

The present study consisted of 3 protocols: Study-1 assessed 56 colorectal lesions photographed with A-NBIME and CV-MCE, and the endoscopic images were reviewed by 3 experts to compare the diagnostic concordance; study-2 assessed 202 colorectal lesions photographed with A-NBIME in 116 consecutive patients and the correlation between PP and histologic findings; study-3 randomly allocated 100 patients with colorectal lesions equally to A-NBIME and CV-MCE, and compared the procedure time and visible ratio of PP.

RESULTS

The κ value for interobserver agreement for A-NBIME and CV-MCE was 0.71 (0.66 to 0.75) and 0.80 (0.75 to 0.85), respectively. Intraobserver agreement between modalities for each reviewer was 0.79 (0.70 to 0.88), 0.80 (0.71 to 0.90), and 0.74 (0.67 to 0.82). Non-neoplastic polyps and massively invasive submucosal adenocarcinomas were statistically related to type II and type VI-H/VN. The procedure time was statistically shorter with A-NBIME than with CV-MCE (31 vs. 81 s), and the visible ratio of PP was equivalent (98.9% vs. 98.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

A-NBIME is comparable with CV-MCE in PP diagnosis of colorectal neoplasms and is a simpler technique.

Ease of early gastric cancer demarcation recognition: a comparison of four magnifying endoscopy methods

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Various techniques using magnifying endoscopy (ME) have been developed to enhance images of early gastric cancer (EGC) demarcations, which are often obscure. We investigated four ME methods to determine which is most effective in enhancing the recognition of EGC demarcations: conventional ME (CME), ME with narrow band imaging (NBI-ME), enhanced-magnification endoscopy with acetic acid (EME), and ME with NBI and acetic acid (NBI-EME).

METHODS

Thirty-seven successive patients having a total of 40 EGCs participated in the investigation. The endoscope was fixed and magnification images of EGC demarcations in each patient were recorded using four different ME methods (CME, NBI-ME, EME and NBI-EME). Eight experts and eight non-experts scored each of the four images of each lesion for ease of recognition of demarcation (1 to 4, with 4 being easiest).

RESULTS

The mean scores of expert and non-expert judges, respectively, for images acquired using each technique were: CME 1.23, 1.24; NBI-ME 2.61, 2.95; EME 2.62, 2.32 and NBI-EME 3.54, 3.50. There were significant differences between the mean scores for the four techniques (P < 0.0001) using one-way repeated-measures anova. In a Bonferroni's multiple comparison, the average scores (expert and non-expert) of images acquired using NBI-EME were significantly higher than those acquired using other methods; images acquired by NBI-ME or EME also scored significantly higher than those by CME. Non-experts also scored NBI-ME images significantly higher than CME and EME images.

CONCLUSIONS

Early gastric cancer demarcations were recognized most easily using NBI-EME, and more easily using EME or NBI-ME than CME.