4.7 Review

Systematic Review on Optical Diagnosis of Early Gastrointestinal Neoplasia

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 10, Issue 13, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10132794

Keywords

endoscopy; neoplasia; magnification endoscopy; chromoendoscopy; invasion depth

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Endoscopic characterization of gastrointestinal neoplasias using image-enhanced and magnification endoscopy shows diagnostic accuracy over 90%, but further prospective clinical studies are needed for validation in various types of neoplasms.
Background: Meticulous endoscopic characterization of gastrointestinal neoplasias (GN) is crucial to the clinical outcome. Hereby the indication and type of resection (endoscopically, en-bloc or piece-meal, or surgical resection) are determined. By means of established image-enhanced (IEE) and magnification endoscopy (ME) GN can be characterized in terms of malignancy and invasion depth. In this context, the statistical evidence and accuracy of these diagnostic procedures should be elucidated. Here, we present a systematic review of the literature. Results: 21 Studies could be found which met the inclusion criteria. In clinical prospective trials and meta-analyses, the diagnostic accuracy of >90% for characterization of malignant neoplasms could be documented, if ME with IEE was used in squamous cell esophageal cancer, stomach, or colonic GN. Conclusions: Currently, by means of optical diagnosis, today's gastrointestinal endoscopy is capable of determining the histological subtype, exact lateral spread, and depth of invasion of a lesion. The prerequisites for this are an exact knowledge of the anatomical structures, the endoscopic classifications based on them, and a systematic learning process, which can be supported by training courses. More prospective clinical studies are required, especially in the field of Barrett's esophagus and duodenal neoplasia.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available