Endoscopic characterization of neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions in inflammatory bowel disease: systematic review in the era of advanced endoscopic imaging.
IBD
Kudo
chromoendoscopy
classifications
high definition
surveillance
Journal
Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology
ISSN: 1756-283X
Titre abrégé: Therap Adv Gastroenterol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101478893
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
14
05
2023
accepted:
03
10
2023
medline:
13
11
2023
pubmed:
13
11
2023
entrez:
13
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Current guidelines strongly recommend the use of validated classifications to support optical diagnosis of lesions with advanced endoscopic imaging in the lower gastrointestinal tract. However, the optimal strategy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is still a matter of debate. To analyze the accuracy of endoscopic classifications or single predictors for Systematic review. Medline and PubMed were used to extract all studies which focused on lesion characterization of neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions in IBD. The diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic classifications and single endoscopic predictors for lesion characterization were analyzed according to type of patients, lesions, and technology used. When available, the rates of true and false positives or negatives for neoplasia were pooled and the sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated. We included 35 studies (2789 patients; 5925 lesions - 1149 neoplastic). Advanced endoscopic imaging included dye-based chromoendoscopy, virtual chromoendoscopy (VCE), magnification and high-definition endoscopy, confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE), endocytoscopy, and autofluorescence imaging. The Kudo classification of pit patterns was most frequently used, with pooled SE 83%, SP 83%, and NPV 95%. The endoscopic criteria with the highest accuracy, with minimum SE ⩾ 90%, SP ⩾ 80%, and NPV ⩾ 90% were: the Kudo-IBD classification used with VCE (Fuji Intelligent Color Enhancement and i-SCAN); combined irregular surface and vascular patterns used with narrow band imaging; the Mainz classification used with CLE. Multiple clinical and technical factors were found to influence the accuracy of optical diagnosis in IBD. No single endoscopic factor has yet shown sufficient accuracy for lesion characterization in IBD surveillance. Conventional classifications developed in the non-IBD setting have lower accuracy in IBD. The use of new classifications adapted for IBD (Kudo-IBD), and new technologies based on
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Current guidelines strongly recommend the use of validated classifications to support optical diagnosis of lesions with advanced endoscopic imaging in the lower gastrointestinal tract. However, the optimal strategy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is still a matter of debate.
Objectives
UNASSIGNED
To analyze the accuracy of endoscopic classifications or single predictors for
Design
UNASSIGNED
Systematic review.
Data sources and methods
UNASSIGNED
Medline and PubMed were used to extract all studies which focused on lesion characterization of neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions in IBD. The diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic classifications and single endoscopic predictors for lesion characterization were analyzed according to type of patients, lesions, and technology used. When available, the rates of true and false positives or negatives for neoplasia were pooled and the sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated.
Results
UNASSIGNED
We included 35 studies (2789 patients; 5925 lesions - 1149 neoplastic). Advanced endoscopic imaging included dye-based chromoendoscopy, virtual chromoendoscopy (VCE), magnification and high-definition endoscopy, confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE), endocytoscopy, and autofluorescence imaging. The Kudo classification of pit patterns was most frequently used, with pooled SE 83%, SP 83%, and NPV 95%. The endoscopic criteria with the highest accuracy, with minimum SE ⩾ 90%, SP ⩾ 80%, and NPV ⩾ 90% were: the Kudo-IBD classification used with VCE (Fuji Intelligent Color Enhancement and i-SCAN); combined irregular surface and vascular patterns used with narrow band imaging; the Mainz classification used with CLE. Multiple clinical and technical factors were found to influence the accuracy of optical diagnosis in IBD.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
No single endoscopic factor has yet shown sufficient accuracy for lesion characterization in IBD surveillance. Conventional classifications developed in the non-IBD setting have lower accuracy in IBD. The use of new classifications adapted for IBD (Kudo-IBD), and new technologies based on
Identifiants
pubmed: 37954537
doi: 10.1177/17562848231208667
pii: 10.1177_17562848231208667
pmc: PMC10638882
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
17562848231208667Informations de copyright
© The Author(s), 2023.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Références
World J Gastroenterol. 2006 Mar 7;12(9):1416-20
pubmed: 16552812
Colorectal Dis. 2010 Oct;12(10 Online):e291-7
pubmed: 20041914
Gut. 2006 Oct;55(10):1432-5
pubmed: 16966701
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011 Aug;23(8):680-9
pubmed: 21602687
Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Dec;70(6):1182-99
pubmed: 19879563
Endosc Int Open. 2016 Nov;4(11):E1183-E1187
pubmed: 27853744
Endoscopy. 2019 Feb;51(2):133-141
pubmed: 30541154
Am J Gastroenterol. 2015 Jul;110(7):1022-34
pubmed: 25823771
Gastroenterology. 2013 Jun;144(7):1349-52, 1352.e1-6
pubmed: 23583483
Gastroenterology. 2012 Sep;143(3):599-607.e1
pubmed: 22609383
Gastroenterology. 2015 Mar;148(3):639-651.e28
pubmed: 25702852
World J Gastroenterol. 2022 Mar 14;28(10):1055-1066
pubmed: 35431498
Gastroenterology. 2007 Mar;132(3):874-82
pubmed: 17383417
Gastroenterology. 2004 Jan;126(1):376-8
pubmed: 14753220
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2015 Aug;50(8):1011-7
pubmed: 25794268
Gastroenterology. 2003 Apr;124(4):880-8
pubmed: 12671882
Gastroenterology. 1996 Jul;111(1):93-101
pubmed: 8698231
Dig Endosc. 2022 Jan;34(1):133-143
pubmed: 33641190
Gastroenterology. 1999 Dec;117(6):1295-300
pubmed: 10579970
Endoscopy. 2005 Dec;37(12):1186-92
pubmed: 16329015
BMC Gastroenterol. 2020 Jun 5;20(1):170
pubmed: 32503428
Endoscopy. 2011 Feb;43(2):108-15
pubmed: 21165822
J Clin Gastroenterol. 2019 Apr;53(4):269-276
pubmed: 29394176
Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 Dec;86(6):1100-1106.e1
pubmed: 28986266
World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Sep 16;4(9):414-20
pubmed: 23125900
Gastrointest Endosc. 2013 Oct;78(4):625-32
pubmed: 23910062
Endoscopy. 2022 Sep;54(9):904-915
pubmed: 35913069
Endosc Int Open. 2019 Jun;7(6):E743-E750
pubmed: 31157291
Dig Endosc. 2019 Apr;31 Suppl 1:36-42
pubmed: 30994234
Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Apr;87(4):1079-1084
pubmed: 29122603
Gastrointest Endosc. 2007 Nov;66(5):957-65
pubmed: 17826773
Gastroenterology. 2007 Sep;133(3):742-5
pubmed: 17854587
Colorectal Dis. 2013 Jan;15(1):e1-12
pubmed: 23006609
Gastroenterology. 2004 Sep;127(3):706-13
pubmed: 15362025
J Crohns Colitis. 2018 Nov 28;12(12):1438-1447
pubmed: 30202856
Am J Gastroenterol. 2015 Jan;110(1):180-7
pubmed: 25331346
World J Gastroenterol. 2011 Feb 7;17(5):677-80
pubmed: 21350720
Am J Gastroenterol. 2012 Mar;107(3):460-9
pubmed: 22233696
Endoscopy. 2020 Oct;52(10):899-923
pubmed: 32882737
J Crohns Colitis. 2017 Jun 1;11(6):649-670
pubmed: 28158501
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2014 Nov;20(11):2038-45
pubmed: 25185683
Endoscopy. 2004 Dec;36(12):1089-93
pubmed: 15578300
Oncol Rep. 2011 Jul;26(1):43-8
pubmed: 21573495
Dig Endosc. 2016 Jul;28(5):526-33
pubmed: 26927367
Endosc Int Open. 2020 Oct;8(10):E1414-E1422
pubmed: 33015345
Am J Gastroenterol. 2019 Mar;114(3):384-413
pubmed: 30840605
Endoscopy. 2016 Nov;48(11):1029-1045
pubmed: 27711949
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2011 May;26(5):667-72
pubmed: 21279369
Endosc Int Open. 2021 Apr;9(4):E552-E561
pubmed: 33860072
Endoscopy. 2006 Dec;38(12):1218-23
pubmed: 17163322
Gastrointest Endosc. 2023 Apr;97(4):790-798.e2
pubmed: 36402202
Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 Dec;80(6):919-27
pubmed: 25442091
Intest Res. 2022 Jul;20(3):281-290
pubmed: 35916019
Int J Oncol. 2016 Feb;48(2):551-8
pubmed: 26676295
Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Mar;69(3 Pt 2):750-6
pubmed: 19251021
J Clin Gastroenterol. 2019 Sep;53(8):607-615
pubmed: 30096061
Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014 Dec;28(11):589-94
pubmed: 25575106
Gastroenterology. 2004 Jan;126(1):374-6
pubmed: 14753219
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2013 Sep;19(10):2132-8
pubmed: 23899540
Gut. 2008 Aug;57(8):1083-9
pubmed: 18367559
Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Mar;89(3):565-575.e3
pubmed: 30326231
Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2015 Nov 19;6:e128
pubmed: 26583503
Gastrointest Endosc. 1996 Jul;44(1):8-14
pubmed: 8836710
Endoscopy. 2007 Mar;39(3):216-21
pubmed: 17385106
Endoscopy. 2022 Jan;54(1):88-99
pubmed: 34872120
Endoscopy. 2011 Oct;43(10):869-75
pubmed: 21837586
Am J Gastroenterol. 2018 Feb;113(2):225-234
pubmed: 29134964
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Mar;81(3):502.e1-502.e16
pubmed: 25597420
Endoscopy. 2011 Feb;43(2):116-22
pubmed: 21165821
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2014 Mar;20(3):508-13
pubmed: 24412994
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007 Oct;5(10):1235-41
pubmed: 17690019
Gut Liver. 2020 Sep 15;14(5):611-618
pubmed: 31842526
Gastrointest Endosc. 2007 Aug;66(2):310-6
pubmed: 17643705
Endoscopy. 2019 Dec;51(12):1155-1179
pubmed: 31711241
J Clin Pathol. 1994 Oct;47(10):880-5
pubmed: 7962600
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2021 Jul;56(7):820-828
pubmed: 34043920
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Nov;82(5):912-23
pubmed: 26071058
Gut. 2018 Jan;67(1):70-78
pubmed: 27612488
Dig Endosc. 2011 May;23 Suppl 1:112-5
pubmed: 21535215
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 May;3(5):305-316
pubmed: 29567006