4.7 Article

The valley sign in small and diminutive adenomas: prevalence, interobserver agreement, and validation as an adenoma marker

期刊

GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
卷 85, 期 3, 页码 614-621

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.10.011

关键词

-

资金

  1. Olympus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aims: Classification schemes for differentiation of conventional colorectal adenomas from serrated lesions rely on patterns of blood vessels and pits. Morphologic features have not been validated as predictors of histology. The aim of this study was to describe the prevalence of the valley sign and validate it as a marker of conventional adenomas. Methods: Three experts judged the prevalence of the valley sign in 301 consecutive small adenomas. Medical students were taught to recognize the valley and were tested on their recognition of the valley sign. Consecutive diminutive polyps were video-recorded and used to validate the association of the valley sign with conventional adenomas. Results: The prevalence of the valley sign in 301 consecutive adenomas <10 mm in size, determined by 3 experts, ranged from 35% to 50%. Kappa values for agreement among the 3 experts were 0.557, 0.679, and 0.642. Ten medical students were taught to interpret the valley sign and recognized it with accuracy of 96% or higher in 50 selected photographs of diminutive polyps. Four medical students evaluated video-recordings of 170 consecutive diminutive polyps for the presence of the valley sign. Kappa values for the interpretation of the valley sign ranged from 0.52 to 0.68 among the students. The sensitivity of the valley sign for adenoma ranged from 40.2% to 54.9%, and specificity ranged from 90.2% to 91.7%. The valley sign was strongly associated with adenomas (P < .0001). Conclusions: The valley sign is insensitive but highly specific for conventional adenoma in diminutive polyps. It may enhance classification schemes for differentiation of adenomas from serrated lesions based on vessels and pits.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据