Feasibility of a simplified narrow-band imaging classification system for Barrett's esophagus for novice endoscopists.
Barrett’s esophagus
Classification
Esophageal adenocarcinoma
Magnification endoscopy
Narrow-band imaging
Journal
Journal of gastroenterology
ISSN: 1435-5922
Titre abrégé: J Gastroenterol
Pays: Japan
ID NLM: 9430794
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2019
Jul 2019
Historique:
received:
10
07
2018
accepted:
04
12
2018
pubmed:
4
1
2019
medline:
20
6
2020
entrez:
4
1
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Narrow-band imaging (NBI) classifications for Barrett's esophagus have been proposed for the detection of early esophageal adenocarcinoma. We developed a simplified classification system with demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility among experienced endoscopists, but the feasibility of this system among novice endoscopists was unclear. In the present study, eight novice endoscopists with no experience of magnification endoscopy were asked to review 248 images of Barrett's esophagus (72 dysplastic, 176 non-dysplastic) obtained using high-definition magnification endoscopy with NBI 6 weeks before (1st test), immediately after (2nd test), and 6 weeks after (3rd test) being taught the simplified classification system. The primary outcomes were differences in diagnostic accuracy for dysplasia among the three tests. The specificity and overall accuracy improved significantly in the 2nd vs. 1st test [97% vs. 80% (p < 0.001) and 94% vs. 82% (p < 0.001), respectively], but sensitivity was comparable (87% in both tests; p = 0.42). In the 3rd test, the sensitivity and overall accuracy decreased significantly compared with the 2nd test [82% vs. 87% (p < 0.001) and 93% vs. 94% (p < 0.05), respectively], but there was no significant difference in specificity (97% in both tests; p = 0.16). The kappa values for interobserver agreement for the mucosal pattern, vascular pattern, and predicted histology were substantial, and improved significantly in the 2nd vs. 1st test (0.78 vs. 0.59, 0.70 vs. 0.53, and 0.79 vs. 0.66, respectively; p < 0.001 for all). The simplified NBI classification system may be appropriate for novice endoscopists to use in providing high accuracy and reproducibility.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Narrow-band imaging (NBI) classifications for Barrett's esophagus have been proposed for the detection of early esophageal adenocarcinoma. We developed a simplified classification system with demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility among experienced endoscopists, but the feasibility of this system among novice endoscopists was unclear.
METHODS
METHODS
In the present study, eight novice endoscopists with no experience of magnification endoscopy were asked to review 248 images of Barrett's esophagus (72 dysplastic, 176 non-dysplastic) obtained using high-definition magnification endoscopy with NBI 6 weeks before (1st test), immediately after (2nd test), and 6 weeks after (3rd test) being taught the simplified classification system. The primary outcomes were differences in diagnostic accuracy for dysplasia among the three tests.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The specificity and overall accuracy improved significantly in the 2nd vs. 1st test [97% vs. 80% (p < 0.001) and 94% vs. 82% (p < 0.001), respectively], but sensitivity was comparable (87% in both tests; p = 0.42). In the 3rd test, the sensitivity and overall accuracy decreased significantly compared with the 2nd test [82% vs. 87% (p < 0.001) and 93% vs. 94% (p < 0.05), respectively], but there was no significant difference in specificity (97% in both tests; p = 0.16). The kappa values for interobserver agreement for the mucosal pattern, vascular pattern, and predicted histology were substantial, and improved significantly in the 2nd vs. 1st test (0.78 vs. 0.59, 0.70 vs. 0.53, and 0.79 vs. 0.66, respectively; p < 0.001 for all).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The simplified NBI classification system may be appropriate for novice endoscopists to use in providing high accuracy and reproducibility.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30603885
doi: 10.1007/s00535-018-01537-7
pii: 10.1007/s00535-018-01537-7
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
587-596Références
Gut. 2000 Aug;47(2):251-5
pubmed: 10896917
Am J Gastroenterol. 2000 Dec;95(12):3383-7
pubmed: 11151865
Am J Gastroenterol. 2003 Jul;98(7):1627-33
pubmed: 12873590
Endoscopy. 2004 Sep;36(9):776-81
pubmed: 15326572
Gastrointest Endosc. 2006 Aug;64(2):155-66
pubmed: 16860062
Gastrointest Endosc. 2006 Aug;64(2):167-75
pubmed: 16860063
Gastroenterology. 2006 Nov;131(5):1392-9
pubmed: 17101315
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007 Aug 1;26(3):501-7
pubmed: 17635385
Endoscopy. 2008 Jun;40(6):457-63
pubmed: 18459090
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009 Jul;7(7):736-42; quiz 710
pubmed: 19268726
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009 Sep;21(9):1068-75
pubmed: 19318970
Endoscopy. 2009 Apr;41(4):310-5
pubmed: 19340733
Endoscopy. 2009 May;41(5):462-7
pubmed: 19418401
Psychol Bull. 1968 Oct;70(4):213-20
pubmed: 19673146
Am J Gastroenterol. 2010 Jul;105(7):1523-30
pubmed: 20461069
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010 Jun;19(6):1468-70
pubmed: 20501776
Gastroenterology. 2011 Mar;140(3):1084-91
pubmed: 21376940
Endoscopy. 2011 Sep;43(9):745-51
pubmed: 21833901
Gut. 2013 Jan;62(1):15-21
pubmed: 22315471
Cancer. 2013 Mar 15;119(6):1149-58
pubmed: 23303625
Dig Endosc. 2014 May;26(3):311-21
pubmed: 24754238
Gastroenterology. 2016 Mar;150(3):591-8
pubmed: 26627609
J Gastroenterol. 2017 Apr;52(4):466-475
pubmed: 27448208
Esophagus. 2017;14(1):1-36
pubmed: 28111535
Esophagus. 2017;14(1):37-65
pubmed: 28111536
Esophagus. 2018 Jun 19;:null
pubmed: 29923024
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571