4.7 Article

Experienced versus inexperienced confocal endoscopists in the diagnosis of gastric adenocarcinoma and intestinal metaplasia on confocal images

期刊

GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
卷 73, 期 6, 页码 1141-1147

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.01.068

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE) may be used to diagnose gastric cancer and intestinal metaplasia, but the impact of CLE experience on the accuracy of confocal diagnosis of gastric cancer and intestinal metaplasia is not clear. Objective: To establish the sensitivity, specificity, and intragroup interobserver agreement of CLE image interpretation by 3 experienced (group 1) and 3 inexperienced (group 2) CLE endoscopists for diagnosing gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) and adenocarcinoma. Design: Blinded review of CLE images for the diagnosis of gastric cancer or intestinal metaplasia. Setting: Tertiary care hospital. Patients: CLE images obtained ex vivo from gastrectomy specimens with proven gastric cancer and CLE images obtained in vivo from Chinese subjects older than 50 years of age by using matched biopsy specimens as reference standards. Main Outcome Measurements: Sensitivity, specificity, and intragroup interobserver agreement of CLE image interpretation. Results: Interpretation of in vivo images by group 1 was associated with higher sensitivity (95.2% vs 61.9%, P = .039) and higher specificity (93.3% vs 62.2%, P < .001) for GIM than interpretation by group, 2. The agreement between interpretation by group 1 and histology for GIM was higher than that for group 2 (K = 0.864 vs 0.217). The sensitivity (93.3% for group 1 vs 86.7% for group 2, P = 1.000) and specificity (87.7% for group 1 vs 80.7% for group 2, P = .344) of interpretation of ex vivo CLE images for the diagnosis of gastric adenocarcinoma was similar for groups 1 and 2. Limitations: Single-center study. Conclusions: Experience in CLE was,associated with greater accuracy in the diagnosis of intestinal metaplasia. (Gastrointest Endosc 201173:1141-7.)

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