Optical enhancement with magnification versus white-light endoscopy for detecting gastric intestinal metaplasia and neoplasia: a randomized controlled trial
Meng Wan PhD , Guang-Chao Li MD , Ming-Jun Ma MD , Jing Liu PhD , Zhen Li MD , Xiu-Li Zuo MD, PhD , Yan-Qing Li MD, PhD
{"title":"Optical enhancement with magnification versus white-light endoscopy for detecting gastric intestinal metaplasia and neoplasia: a randomized controlled trial","authors":"Meng Wan PhD , Guang-Chao Li MD , Ming-Jun Ma MD , Jing Liu PhD , Zhen Li MD , Xiu-Li Zuo MD, PhD , Yan-Qing Li MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.gie.2025.02.015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and Aims</h3><div><span>The detection of gastric intestinal metaplasia<span> (GIM), gastric intraepithelial neoplasia (GIN), and early gastric cancer (EGC) using white-light endoscopy (WLE) is unsatisfactory. This study assessed the value of optical enhancement combined with </span></span>magnification endoscopy (ME-OE) versus WLE for detecting GIM, GIN, and EGC.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Patients at high risk for gastric cancer were randomly assigned to the ME-OE group or WLE group at a 1:1 ratio. Suspicious GIM, GIN, and EGC lesions underwent targeted biopsy sampling in both groups. The diagnostic yield, diagnostic efficacy, and agreement of suspicious lesions were compared between the 2 groups.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Two hundred eighty-five patients were finally analyzed. The per-patient diagnostic yields of GIM, GIN, and EGC were 36.6% in the ME-OE group and 23.8% in the WLE group (<em>P</em> = .018). The per-lesion diagnostic yield of GIM, GIN, and EGC in the ME-OE group was higher than that in the WLE group (66.7% vs 48.7%, <em>P</em> = .017). Sensitivity (82.8% vs 54.3%, <em>P</em> = .003), specificity (84.2% vs 81.4%, <em>P</em> = .738), positive predictive value (88.9% vs 70.4%, <em>P</em> = .038), negative predictive value (76.2% vs 68.6%, <em>P</em> = .419), and accuracy (83.3% vs 69.2%, <em>P</em> = .028) for GIM were compared between the 2 groups. The intraobserver agreements of experienced endoscopists were excellent for ME-OE (κ = 0.81 and κ = 0.83) and good for WLE (κ = 0.63 and κ = 0.62). The interobserver agreements of experienced endoscopists were good for both groups (κ = 0.75 and κ = 0.61, respectively).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>ME-OE showed better performance for detecting GIM than WLE in high-risk populations. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04411589.)</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12542,"journal":{"name":"Gastrointestinal endoscopy","volume":"102 3","pages":"Pages 337-344.e1"},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gastrointestinal endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016510725000859","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and Aims
The detection of gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM), gastric intraepithelial neoplasia (GIN), and early gastric cancer (EGC) using white-light endoscopy (WLE) is unsatisfactory. This study assessed the value of optical enhancement combined with magnification endoscopy (ME-OE) versus WLE for detecting GIM, GIN, and EGC.
Methods
Patients at high risk for gastric cancer were randomly assigned to the ME-OE group or WLE group at a 1:1 ratio. Suspicious GIM, GIN, and EGC lesions underwent targeted biopsy sampling in both groups. The diagnostic yield, diagnostic efficacy, and agreement of suspicious lesions were compared between the 2 groups.
Results
Two hundred eighty-five patients were finally analyzed. The per-patient diagnostic yields of GIM, GIN, and EGC were 36.6% in the ME-OE group and 23.8% in the WLE group (P = .018). The per-lesion diagnostic yield of GIM, GIN, and EGC in the ME-OE group was higher than that in the WLE group (66.7% vs 48.7%, P = .017). Sensitivity (82.8% vs 54.3%, P = .003), specificity (84.2% vs 81.4%, P = .738), positive predictive value (88.9% vs 70.4%, P = .038), negative predictive value (76.2% vs 68.6%, P = .419), and accuracy (83.3% vs 69.2%, P = .028) for GIM were compared between the 2 groups. The intraobserver agreements of experienced endoscopists were excellent for ME-OE (κ = 0.81 and κ = 0.83) and good for WLE (κ = 0.63 and κ = 0.62). The interobserver agreements of experienced endoscopists were good for both groups (κ = 0.75 and κ = 0.61, respectively).
Conclusions
ME-OE showed better performance for detecting GIM than WLE in high-risk populations. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04411589.)
背景与目的:白光内镜(WLE)对胃肠化生(GIM)、胃上皮内瘤变(GIN)和早期胃癌(EGC)的检测效果不理想。本研究评估了光学增强联合放大内窥镜(ME-OE)与WLE在检测GIM、GIN和EGC方面的价值。方法:将胃癌高危患者按1:1比例随机分为ME-OE组和WLE组。两组均对可疑的GIM、GIN和EGC病变进行了靶向活检。比较两组对可疑病变的诊断率、诊断效能及符合性。结果:共分析285例患者。ME-OE组和WLE组的每例GIM/GIN/EGC诊断率分别为36.6%和23.8% (P = 0.018)。ME-OE组的每病灶GIM/GIN/EGC诊断率高于WLE组(66.7% vs 48.7%, P = 0.017)。两组间比较GIM的敏感性(82.8% vs 54.3%, P = 0.003)、特异性(84.2% vs 81.4%, P = 0.738)、阳性预测值(88.9% vs 70.4%, P = 0.038)、阴性预测值(76.2% vs 68.6%, P = 0.419)、准确性(83.3% vs 69.2%, P = 0.028)。经验丰富的内窥镜医师对ME-OE (κ = 0.81, κ = 0.83)和WLE (κ = 0.63, κ = 0.62)的观察一致性较好。两组经验丰富的内窥镜医师的观察者间一致性较好,κ值分别为0.75和0.61。结论:ME-OE对高危人群GIM的检测效果优于WLE。
期刊介绍:
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy is a journal publishing original, peer-reviewed articles on endoscopic procedures for studying, diagnosing, and treating digestive diseases. It covers outcomes research, prospective studies, and controlled trials of new endoscopic instruments and treatment methods. The online features include full-text articles, video and audio clips, and MEDLINE links. The journal serves as an international forum for the latest developments in the specialty, offering challenging reports from authorities worldwide. It also publishes abstracts of significant articles from other clinical publications, accompanied by expert commentaries.