Advertisement

Feasibility of a simplified narrow-band imaging classification system for Barrett’s esophagus for novice endoscopists

  • Hiroto Furuhashi
  • Kenichi GodaEmail author
  • Yuichi Shimizu
  • Masayuki Kato
  • Masakazu Takahashi
  • Akira Dobashi
  • Koji Hirata
  • Ayane Oba
  • Taku Shigesawa
  • Masaki Inoue
  • Hiroaki Matsui
  • Chika Kinoshita
  • Yoshitaka Ando
  • Masahiro Ikegami
  • Tadakazu Shimoda
  • Mototsugu Kato
Original Article—Alimentary Tract
  • 82 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Narrow-band imaging (NBI) classifications for Barrett’s esophagus have been proposed for the detection of early esophageal adenocarcinoma. We developed a simplified classification system with demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility among experienced endoscopists, but the feasibility of this system among novice endoscopists was unclear.

Methods

In the present study, eight novice endoscopists with no experience of magnification endoscopy were asked to review 248 images of Barrett’s esophagus (72 dysplastic, 176 non-dysplastic) obtained using high-definition magnification endoscopy with NBI 6 weeks before (1st test), immediately after (2nd test), and 6 weeks after (3rd test) being taught the simplified classification system. The primary outcomes were differences in diagnostic accuracy for dysplasia among the three tests.

Results

The specificity and overall accuracy improved significantly in the 2nd vs. 1st test [97% vs. 80% (p < 0.001) and 94% vs. 82% (p < 0.001), respectively], but sensitivity was comparable (87% in both tests; p = 0.42). In the 3rd test, the sensitivity and overall accuracy decreased significantly compared with the 2nd test [82% vs. 87% (p < 0.001) and 93% vs. 94% (p < 0.05), respectively], but there was no significant difference in specificity (97% in both tests; p = 0.16). The kappa values for interobserver agreement for the mucosal pattern, vascular pattern, and predicted histology were substantial, and improved significantly in the 2nd vs. 1st test (0.78 vs. 0.59, 0.70 vs. 0.53, and 0.79 vs. 0.66, respectively; p < 0.001 for all).

Conclusions

The simplified NBI classification system may be appropriate for novice endoscopists to use in providing high accuracy and reproducibility.

Keywords

Barrett’s esophagus Esophageal adenocarcinoma Magnification endoscopy Narrow-band imaging Classification 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Professor Hisao Tajiri for the management and composition of this study and Dr. Shinichi Hirooka for advice on histopathological findings.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Akira Dobashi holds a patent on application No. US-62628024.

Supplementary material

535_2018_1537_MOESM1_ESM.docx (37 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 36 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Pohl H, Sirovich B, Welch HG. Esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence: are we reaching the peak? Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2010;19:1468–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    American Gastroenterological Association, Spechler SJ, Sharma P, et al. American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement on the management of Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology. 2011;140:1084–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eloubeidi MA, Mason AC, Desmond RA, et al. Temporal trends (1973–1997) in survival of patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma in the United States: a glimmer of hope? Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98:1627–33.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hur C, Miller M, Kong CY, et al. Trends in esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence and mortality. Cancer. 2013;119:1149–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vieth M, Ell C, Gossner L, et al. Histological analysis of endoscopic resection specimens from 326 patients with Barrett’s esophagus and early neoplasia. Endoscopy. 2004;36:776–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Abrams JA, Kapel RC, Lindberg GM, et al. Adherence to biopsy guidelines for Barrett’s Esophagus surveillance in the community setting in the United States. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;7:736–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goda K, Kato T, Tajiri H. Endoscopic diagnosis of early Barrett’s neoplasia: perspectives for advanced endoscopic technology. Dig Endosc. 2014;26:311–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Singh R, Anagnostopoulos GK, Yao K, et al. Narrow-band imaging with magnification in Barrett’s esophagus: validation of a simplified grading system of mucosal morphology patterns against histology. Endoscopy. 2008;40:457–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sharma P, Bansal A, Mathur S, et al. The utility of a novel narrow band imaging endoscopy system in patients with Barrett’s esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;64:167–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Anagnostopoulos GK, Yao K, Kaye P, et al. Novel endoscopic observation in Barrett’s oesophagus using high resolution magnification endoscopy and narrow band imaging. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007;26:501–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kara MA, Ennahachi M, Fockens P, et al. Detection and classification of the mucosal and vascular patterns (mucosal morphology) in Barrett’s esophagus by using narrow band imaging. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;64:155–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Singh M, Bansal A, Curvers WL, et al. Observer agreement in the assessment of narrow- band imaging system surface patterns in Barrett’s esophagus: a multicenter study. Endoscopy. 2011;43:745–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Alvarez Herrero L, Curvers WL, Bansal A, et al. Zooming in on Barrett oesophagus using narrow-band imaging: an international observer agreement study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;21:1068–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sharma P, Bergman JJ, Goda K, et al. Development and validation of a classification system to identify high-grade dysplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus using narrow-band imaging. Gastroenterology. 2016;150:591–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kato M, Goda K, Shimizu Y, et al. Image assessment of Barrett’s esophagus using the simplified narrow band imaging classification. J Gastroenterol. 2016;52:466–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Japan Esophageal Society. Japanese classification of esophageal cancer, 10th Edition: part I. Esophagus. 2009;14:1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Japan Esophageal Society. Japanese classification of esophageal cancer, 10th Edition: part II and III. Esophagus. 2009;14:37–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kaise M, Kato M, Urashima M, et al. Magnifying endoscopy combined with narrow-band imaging for differential diagnosis of superficial depressed gastric lesions. Endoscopy. 2009;41:310–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yao K, Anagnostopoulos GK, Ragunath K. Magnifying endoscopy for diagnosing and delineating early gastric cancer. Endoscopy. 2009;41:462–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sharma P, Dent J, Armstrong D, et al. The development and validation of an endoscopic grading system for Barrett’s Esophagus: the Prague C & M criteria. Gastroenterology. 2006;131:1392–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schlemper RJ, Riddell RH, Kato Y, et al. The Vienna classification of gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia. Gut. 2000;47:251–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cohen J. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull. 1968;70:213–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fleiss JL. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull. 1971;76:378–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Curvers WL, Ten Kate FJ, Krishnadath KK, et al. Low-grade dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus: overdiagnosed and underestimated. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:1523–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Skacel M, Petras RE, Grammlich TL, et al. The diagnosis of low-grade dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus and its implications for disease progression. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95:3383–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sharma P, Hawes RH, Bansal A, et al. Standard endoscopy with random biopsies versus narrow band imaging targeted biopsies in Barrett’s oesophagus: a prospective, international, randomised controlled trial. Gut. 2013;62:15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Goda K, Fujisaki J, Ishihara R, et al. Newly developed magnifying endoscopic classification of the Japan Esophageal Society to identify superficial Barrett’s esophagus-related neoplasms. Esophagus. 2018;15:153–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Gastroenterology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hiroto Furuhashi
    • 1
  • Kenichi Goda
    • 2
    Email author
  • Yuichi Shimizu
    • 3
  • Masayuki Kato
    • 4
  • Masakazu Takahashi
    • 5
  • Akira Dobashi
    • 1
  • Koji Hirata
    • 5
  • Ayane Oba
    • 5
  • Taku Shigesawa
    • 5
  • Masaki Inoue
    • 5
  • Hiroaki Matsui
    • 1
  • Chika Kinoshita
    • 6
  • Yoshitaka Ando
    • 6
  • Masahiro Ikegami
    • 7
  • Tadakazu Shimoda
    • 8
  • Mototsugu Kato
    • 9
  1. 1.Department of EndoscopyThe Jikei University School of MedicineTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Department of GastroenterologyDokkyo Medical UniversityMibuJapan
  3. 3.Division of EndoscopyHokkaido University HospitalSapporoJapan
  4. 4.Department of EndoscopyThe Jikei University Katsushika Medical CenterTokyoJapan
  5. 5.Department of Gastroenterology and HepatologyHokkaido University Graduate School of MedicineSapporoJapan
  6. 6.Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal MedicineThe Jikei University School of MedicineTokyoJapan
  7. 7.Department of PathologyThe Jikei University School of MedicineTokyoJapan
  8. 8.Division of PathologyShizuoka Cancer CenterShizuokaJapan
  9. 9.National Hospital Organization Hakodate HospitalHakodateJapan

Personalised recommendations