Department of Gastroenterology, Cancer Institute Hospital (Ringgold ID: 117105), 3-8-31 Ariake, Koto-ku, Tokyo, 135-8550, Japan.
Department of Clinical Trial Planning and Management, Cancer Institute Hospital (Ringgold ID: 117105), Tokyo, Japan.
Gastric Cancer. 2021 Mar;24(2):417-427. doi: 10.1007/s10120-020-01125-w. Epub 2020 Oct 3.
For diagnosing gastric cancer, differences in the diagnostic performance between endocytoscopy with narrow-band imaging and magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging have not been reported. We aimed to clarify these differences by analyzing diagnoses made by endoscopists in Japan.
This single-center retrospective cohort study used 106 cancerous and 106 non-cancerous images obtained via both modalities (total, 424 images) for diagnosis. Sixty-one endoscopists with varying experience levels from 45 institutions were included. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were evaluated to determine the diagnostic performance of each modality and compared using the Mann-Whitney U test.
Among all endoscopists, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were higher with endocytoscopy with narrow-band imaging than with magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging (percentage [95% confidence interval]: 78.8% [76.4-83.0%] versus 72.2% [69.3-73.6%], p < 0.0001; 82.1% [78.3-85.9%] versus 64.2% [60.4-69.8%], p < 0.0001; 88.7% [82.6-90.7%] versus 78.5% [75.4-85.1%], p = 0.0023; 79.0% [75.3-80.5%] versus 68.5% [66.4-71.6%], p < 0.0001, respectively). In the magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging-trained group, these values were also higher with endocytoscopy with narrow-band imaging than with magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging (p < 0.0001, p = 0.0001, p = 0.0143, and p < 0.0001, respectively). Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and negative predictive value were higher with endocytoscopy with narrow-band imaging than with magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging in the magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging-untrained group (p = 0.0041, p = 0.0049, and p = 0.0098, respectively).
Diagnostic performance was higher using endocytoscopy with narrow-band imaging than using magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging. Our results may help change the technique used to diagnose gastric cancer.
在诊断胃癌方面,内镜下窄带成像与放大内镜下窄带成像的诊断性能差异尚未见报道。我们旨在通过分析日本内镜医师的诊断结果来阐明这些差异。
本单中心回顾性队列研究使用了两种模式(共 424 张图像)获得的 106 张癌性和 106 张非癌性图像进行诊断。共纳入了来自 45 个机构的 61 名具有不同经验水平的内镜医师。使用 Mann-Whitney U 检验评估每种模式的诊断准确性、敏感度、特异度、阳性预测值和阴性预测值,以确定每种模式的诊断性能,并进行比较。
在所有内镜医师中,内镜下窄带成像的诊断准确性、敏感度、阳性预测值和阴性预测值均高于放大内镜下窄带成像(百分比[95%置信区间]:78.8%[76.4-83.0%] 与 72.2%[69.3-73.6%],p<0.0001;82.1%[78.3-85.9%] 与 64.2%[60.4-69.8%],p<0.0001;88.7%[82.6-90.7%] 与 78.5%[75.4-85.1%],p=0.0023;79.0%[75.3-80.5%] 与 68.5%[66.4-71.6%],p<0.0001)。在接受放大内镜下窄带成像培训的组中,内镜下窄带成像的这些值也高于放大内镜下窄带成像(p<0.0001,p=0.0001,p=0.0143,p<0.0001)。在未接受放大内镜下窄带成像培训的组中,内镜下窄带成像的诊断准确性、敏感度和阴性预测值均高于放大内镜下窄带成像(p=0.0041,p=0.0049,p=0.0098)。
内镜下窄带成像的诊断性能优于放大内镜下窄带成像。我们的结果可能有助于改变诊断胃癌的技术。