Cargando…
Endoscopic Grading of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia Using Magnifying and Nonmagnifying Narrow-Band Imaging Endoscopy
Several endoscopic findings obtained by magnifying image-enhanced endoscopy (IEE) are reportedly correlated with gastric intestinal metaplasia (IM); however, the differences between magnifying and nonmagnifying IEE for the diagnosis of gastric IM remain unknown. This study included 100 consecutive p...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9776966/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36553019 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12123012 |
_version_ | 1784855988685242368 |
---|---|
author | Kawamura, Masashi Koike, Tomoyuki Ogata, Yohei Matsumoto, Ryotaro Yano, Kota Hiratsuka, Takashi Ohyama, Hideaki Sato, Isao Kayada, Kimiko Suzuki, Suguo Hiratsuka, Satsuki Watanabe, Yumiko |
author_facet | Kawamura, Masashi Koike, Tomoyuki Ogata, Yohei Matsumoto, Ryotaro Yano, Kota Hiratsuka, Takashi Ohyama, Hideaki Sato, Isao Kayada, Kimiko Suzuki, Suguo Hiratsuka, Satsuki Watanabe, Yumiko |
author_sort | Kawamura, Masashi |
collection | PubMed |
description | Several endoscopic findings obtained by magnifying image-enhanced endoscopy (IEE) are reportedly correlated with gastric intestinal metaplasia (IM); however, the differences between magnifying and nonmagnifying IEE for the diagnosis of gastric IM remain unknown. This study included 100 consecutive patients who underwent narrow-band imaging endoscopy. Four areas of the stomach were evaluated using nonmagnifying and magnifying IEE. Light-blue crest (LBC), white opaque substance (WOS), and endoscopic grading of the gastric IM (EGGIM) were assessed. The concordance rates between nonmagnifying and magnifying IEE were 80.5% for LBC and 93.3% for WOS. The strength of agreement between each observation technique showed good reproducibility, with a kappa value of 0.69 and 0.83 for LBC and WOS, respectively. The individual EGGIM score indicated a good correlation between nonmagnifying and magnifying IEE (concordance rate, 75%; kappa value, 0.67). The prevalence of a high EGGIM score in patients with and without gastric cancer (GC) showed a significant difference both with nonmagnifying IEE (odds ratio (OR), 3.3; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.2–9.0), and magnifying IEE (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.1–8.9). Nonmagnifying IEE has the potential to stratify the individual risk of GC, similar to magnifying IEE, warranting further investigation with histological assessment. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9776966 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-97769662022-12-23 Endoscopic Grading of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia Using Magnifying and Nonmagnifying Narrow-Band Imaging Endoscopy Kawamura, Masashi Koike, Tomoyuki Ogata, Yohei Matsumoto, Ryotaro Yano, Kota Hiratsuka, Takashi Ohyama, Hideaki Sato, Isao Kayada, Kimiko Suzuki, Suguo Hiratsuka, Satsuki Watanabe, Yumiko Diagnostics (Basel) Article Several endoscopic findings obtained by magnifying image-enhanced endoscopy (IEE) are reportedly correlated with gastric intestinal metaplasia (IM); however, the differences between magnifying and nonmagnifying IEE for the diagnosis of gastric IM remain unknown. This study included 100 consecutive patients who underwent narrow-band imaging endoscopy. Four areas of the stomach were evaluated using nonmagnifying and magnifying IEE. Light-blue crest (LBC), white opaque substance (WOS), and endoscopic grading of the gastric IM (EGGIM) were assessed. The concordance rates between nonmagnifying and magnifying IEE were 80.5% for LBC and 93.3% for WOS. The strength of agreement between each observation technique showed good reproducibility, with a kappa value of 0.69 and 0.83 for LBC and WOS, respectively. The individual EGGIM score indicated a good correlation between nonmagnifying and magnifying IEE (concordance rate, 75%; kappa value, 0.67). The prevalence of a high EGGIM score in patients with and without gastric cancer (GC) showed a significant difference both with nonmagnifying IEE (odds ratio (OR), 3.3; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.2–9.0), and magnifying IEE (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.1–8.9). Nonmagnifying IEE has the potential to stratify the individual risk of GC, similar to magnifying IEE, warranting further investigation with histological assessment. MDPI 2022-12-01 /pmc/articles/PMC9776966/ /pubmed/36553019 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12123012 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Kawamura, Masashi Koike, Tomoyuki Ogata, Yohei Matsumoto, Ryotaro Yano, Kota Hiratsuka, Takashi Ohyama, Hideaki Sato, Isao Kayada, Kimiko Suzuki, Suguo Hiratsuka, Satsuki Watanabe, Yumiko Endoscopic Grading of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia Using Magnifying and Nonmagnifying Narrow-Band Imaging Endoscopy |
title | Endoscopic Grading of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia Using Magnifying and Nonmagnifying Narrow-Band Imaging Endoscopy |
title_full | Endoscopic Grading of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia Using Magnifying and Nonmagnifying Narrow-Band Imaging Endoscopy |
title_fullStr | Endoscopic Grading of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia Using Magnifying and Nonmagnifying Narrow-Band Imaging Endoscopy |
title_full_unstemmed | Endoscopic Grading of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia Using Magnifying and Nonmagnifying Narrow-Band Imaging Endoscopy |
title_short | Endoscopic Grading of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia Using Magnifying and Nonmagnifying Narrow-Band Imaging Endoscopy |
title_sort | endoscopic grading of gastric intestinal metaplasia using magnifying and nonmagnifying narrow-band imaging endoscopy |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9776966/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36553019 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12123012 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kawamuramasashi endoscopicgradingofgastricintestinalmetaplasiausingmagnifyingandnonmagnifyingnarrowbandimagingendoscopy AT koiketomoyuki endoscopicgradingofgastricintestinalmetaplasiausingmagnifyingandnonmagnifyingnarrowbandimagingendoscopy AT ogatayohei endoscopicgradingofgastricintestinalmetaplasiausingmagnifyingandnonmagnifyingnarrowbandimagingendoscopy AT matsumotoryotaro endoscopicgradingofgastricintestinalmetaplasiausingmagnifyingandnonmagnifyingnarrowbandimagingendoscopy AT yanokota endoscopicgradingofgastricintestinalmetaplasiausingmagnifyingandnonmagnifyingnarrowbandimagingendoscopy AT hiratsukatakashi endoscopicgradingofgastricintestinalmetaplasiausingmagnifyingandnonmagnifyingnarrowbandimagingendoscopy AT ohyamahideaki endoscopicgradingofgastricintestinalmetaplasiausingmagnifyingandnonmagnifyingnarrowbandimagingendoscopy AT satoisao endoscopicgradingofgastricintestinalmetaplasiausingmagnifyingandnonmagnifyingnarrowbandimagingendoscopy AT kayadakimiko endoscopicgradingofgastricintestinalmetaplasiausingmagnifyingandnonmagnifyingnarrowbandimagingendoscopy AT suzukisuguo endoscopicgradingofgastricintestinalmetaplasiausingmagnifyingandnonmagnifyingnarrowbandimagingendoscopy AT hiratsukasatsuki endoscopicgradingofgastricintestinalmetaplasiausingmagnifyingandnonmagnifyingnarrowbandimagingendoscopy AT watanabeyumiko endoscopicgradingofgastricintestinalmetaplasiausingmagnifyingandnonmagnifyingnarrowbandimagingendoscopy |