4.4 Article

Comparison of Narrow Band Imaging and Fujinon Intelligent Color Enhancement in Predicting Small Colorectal Polyp Histology

Journal

DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES
Volume 60, Issue 9, Pages 2777-2784

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-015-3661-5

Keywords

Colorectal neoplasms; Virtual colonoscopy; Narrow band imaging; Histology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There are limited data on the performance of narrow band imaging (NBI) and Fujinon intelligent color enhancement (FICE) for differentiating polyp histologies. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performances of NBI and FICE in differentiating neoplastic from non-neoplastic colorectal polyps < 10 mm during screening colonoscopy. A total of 955 average-risk adults undergoing screening colonoscopies were randomly allocated to NBI or FICE groups. Four board-certified staff endoscopists without prior experience using NBI or FICE participated. The main outcomes of this study were overall accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of FICE and NBI in identifying neoplastic polyps. There was no significant difference in the number of subjects with adenoma between the NBI (143/475, 30.1 %) and FICE groups (139/480, 29.0 %) (after excluding adenoma a parts per thousand yen1 cm) (P > 0.05). The overall accuracy of NBI was 81.0 %, compared with 81.4 % for FICE (P = 0.867). The overall sensitivity and specificity of NBI and FICE were 84.6 and 78.0 % (P = 0.054); 75.1 and 86.5 % (P = 0.009), respectively. For polyps measuring a parts per thousand currency sign5 mm, the accuracy was 79.4 % for NBI and 80.1 % for FICE (P = 0.835; sensitivity 81.9 vs. 74.5 %, P = 0.064; specificity 75.7 vs. 88.4 %, P = 0.006). The overall accuracy of NBI and FICE was similar for differentiating small polyp histologies during screening colonoscopy. However, better results should be achieved before using NBI or FICE as real-time optical biopsy of colorectal polyps in screening colonoscopy.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available