Is it proper to use non-magnified narrow-band imaging for esophageal neoplasia screening? Japanese single-center, prospective study.

AIM

Most screening examinations in Japanese general hospitals are carried out by high-definition television-incompatible (non-HD) scopes and non-magnifying endoscopes. We evaluated the narrow-band imaging (NBI) real-time diagnostic yield of esophageal neoplasia in high-risk patients at a general hospital.

METHODS

In a single-center, prospective, non-randomized controlled trial, 117 consecutive screening patients with high risk for esophageal cancer received primary white-light imaging (WLI) followed by NBI and iodine-staining endoscopy (59 by HDTV-compatible [HD] endoscopy and 58 by non-HD endoscopy). The primary aim was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of non-magnified images in diagnosing esophageal neoplasia. The secondary aim was to compare HD endoscopy and non-HD endoscopy in terms of diagnostic performance.

RESULTS

Overall, the sensitivity of NBI for screening of esophageal neoplasia was superior to WLI, and equivalent to iodine staining (92% vs 42%; P < 0.05, 92% vs 100%; ns). The specificity of NBI was equivalent to WLI (89% vs 94%; ns). In HD, NBI sensitivity was equivalent to both iodine staining and WLI (100% vs 75%; ns). In non-HD, NBI sensitivity was equivalent to iodine staining, but WLI sensitivity was significantly inferior to NBI (88% vs 100%; ns, 25% vs 88%; P < 0.05). The NBI specificity was equivalent to WLI not only in HD but also in non-HD (90% vs 96%; ns, 88% vs 93%; ns).

CONCLUSION

In both HD and non-HD endoscopy, NBI is less likely than WLI to miss a lesion. Even with non-HD endoscopy, NBI is suitable for esophageal standard examinations in general hospitals.