Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
NIHR Nottingham Digestive Diseases Biomedical Research Unit, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Jan;83(1):57-67.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.07.023. Epub 2015 Sep 12.
Barrett's esophagus (BE) surveillance with random biopsies is time-consuming, invasive, and can lead to sampling error. Acetic acid chromoendoscopy (AAC) with targeted biopsies has been proposed as an effective alternative. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of AAC for the detection of early neoplasia (high-grade dysplasia [HGD] or early cancer [EC]) and specialized intestinal metaplasia (SIM) in patients with BE.
We performed a meta-analysis of all primary studies that compared AAC-based diagnoses (index test) with histopathology as the reference standard. The data were extracted on a per-patient, per-area, and per-procedure basis whenever available.
Thirteen prospective studies met the inclusion criteria. For the diagnosis of HGD/EC, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR+), and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) for all included studies (9 studies, 1379 patients) were 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-0.97), 0.96 (95% CI, 0.85-0.99), 25.0 (95% CI, 5.9-105.3), and 0.08 (95% CI, 0.04-0.18), respectively. Results were not significantly different when considering only studies with a per-patient analysis. For the characterization of SIM, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, LR+, and LR- for all the included studies (8 studies, 516 patients) were 0.96 (95% CI, 0.83-0.99), 0.69 (95% CI, 0.54-0.81), 3.0 (95% CI, 2.0-4.7), and 0.06 (95% CI, 0.01-0.26), respectively. No significant sources of heterogeneity were identified on subgroup analysis.
AAC has an overall high diagnostic accuracy for detecting HGD/EC in patients with BE. For SIM characterization, AAC sensitivity is very high but has poor specificity, suggesting that histological confirmation is necessary when AAC is positive.
巴雷特食管(BE)的随机活检监测既耗时又具有侵袭性,并且可能导致采样误差。已经提出了使用醋酸酸染色内镜(AAC)进行靶向活检作为有效的替代方法。本研究的目的是评估 AAC 检测 BE 患者早期肿瘤(高级别异型增生[HGD]或早期癌[EC])和特殊肠化生(SIM)的诊断准确性。
我们对所有比较 AAC 为基础的诊断(试验)与组织病理学作为参考标准的原始研究进行了荟萃分析。只要有可能,就根据每个患者、每个区域和每个程序提取数据。
符合纳入标准的有 13 项前瞻性研究。对于 HGD/EC 的诊断,所有纳入研究(9 项研究,1379 名患者)的合并敏感性、特异性、阳性似然比(LR+)和阴性似然比(LR-)为 0.92(95%置信区间[CI],0.83-0.97)、0.96(95%CI,0.85-0.99)、25.0(95%CI,5.9-105.3)和 0.08(95%CI,0.04-0.18)。仅考虑每个患者分析的研究时,结果没有显著差异。对于 SIM 的特征描述,所有纳入研究(8 项研究,516 名患者)的合并敏感性、特异性、LR+和 LR-为 0.96(95%CI,0.83-0.99)、0.69(95%CI,0.54-0.81)、3.0(95%CI,2.0-4.7)和 0.06(95%CI,0.01-0.26)。亚组分析未发现显著的异质性来源。
AAC 对检测 BE 患者的 HGD/EC 具有总体较高的诊断准确性。对于 SIM 特征描述,AAC 的敏感性非常高,但特异性较差,这表明当 AAC 阳性时需要进行组织学确认。