4.7 Article

New approach to diagnosing ampullary tumors by magnifying endoscopy combined with a narrow-band imaging system

期刊

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 41, 期 5, 页码 483-490

出版社

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s00535-006-1800-7

关键词

ampullary tumor; magnifying endoscopy; narrow-band imaging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. A newly developed narrow-band imaging (NBI) system, which uses modified optical filters, can yield clear images of microvessels and surface structure in gastric and colonic diseases. In the present study, we investigated the ability of magnifying endoscopy with NBI (MENBI) to diagnose and differentiate between benign and malignant ampullary tumors. Methods. Fourteen patients, whose ampullas were noted to be significantly enlarged or protruding with conventional endoscopy, were enrolled in the study. Specimens, which were obtained by forceps biopsy, endoscopic papillectomy, and/or surgery, were retrieved for histopathological examination. The correlation between MENBI images and histopathological findings was investigated. MENBI findings were classified as I, oval-shaped villi; II, pinecone/leaf-shaped villi; or III, irregular/nonstructured. In addition, tortuous, dilated, and network-like vessels noted on the ampullary lesions with MENBI were defined as abnormal vessels. Results. In 6 of 14 patients, the ampullary changes were proven to be inflammatory in forceps biopsy specimens, without any evidence of malignancy after more than 1 year of follow-up. In five patients, ampullary lesions were treated by endoscopic papillectomy, and in three, by pancreatoduodenectomy. All adenomas and adenocarcinomas had type II and/or type III surface structures, and patients whose ampulla had a type I surface structure had only inflammatory or hyperplastic changes. In addition, abnormal vessels were seen only in adenocarcinomas and never in adenomas. Conclusions. MENBI has the ability and potential to predict histological characteristics of ampullary lesions.

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