4.7 Article

Usefulness of Non-Magnifying Narrow-Band Imaging in Screening of Early Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Prospective Comparative Study Using Propensity Score Matching

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 109, 期 6, 页码 845-854

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2014.94

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: The usefulness of non-magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging (NBI; NM-NBI) in the screening of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (HGIN) remains unclear. Here, we aimed to compare NM-NBI and chromoendoscopy with iodine staining (CE-Iodine) in terms of the diagnostic performance, and to evaluate the usefulness of NM-NBI in detecting early esophageal SCC. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 202 consecutive patients (male/female = 180/22; median age, 67 years) with high-risk factors for esophageal SCC. All patients received endoscopic examination with NM-NBI and CE-Iodine to screen for early esophageal SCC or HGIN. We conducted the examinations sequentially, and calculated the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity through a per-lesion-based analysis. A propensity score matching analysis was performed to reduce the effects of selection bias, and we compared the respective outcomes according to NM-NBI and CE-Iodine after matching. RESULTS: The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of NM-NBI were 77.0, 88.3, and 75.2 %, respectively, and those for unstained areas by CE-Iodine were 68.0, 94.2, and 64.0, respectively. The accuracy and specificity of NM-NBI were superior to those of CE-Iodine (P = 0.03 and P = 0.01, respectively). However, the sensitivity did not significantly differ between NM-NBI and CE-Iodine (P = 0.67). The accuracy and specifi city of NM-NBI before matching were superior to those of CE-Iodine after matching (P = 0.04 and P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: NM-NBI was useful and reliable for the diagnosis of esophageal SCC and can be a promising screening strategy for early esophageal SCC.

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