Twenty-seven of these areas had HGD/EAC, of which only 14 were de

Twenty-seven of these areas had HGD/EAC, of which only 14 were detected by AFI, resulting in a sensitivity of 52% (14/27). Of the 93 areas with IM/LGD, 71 were normal on AFI, resulting in a specificity of 76% (71/93).

The overall accuracy of area-based analysis was marginally better than patient-based analysis at 71% (Fig. 4,Table 3). Of the 24 patients that were normal on AFI, 7 had HGD/EAC, 3 of whom were detected by irregular patterns on NBI (Fig. 3). Similarly, 84 areas seemed normal on AFI, of which 13 were HGD/EAC and 4 of them were detected by irregular patterns on NBI (Fig. 4). Under AFI imaging, 36 of a total of 120 areas appeared abnormal. When the 36 areas were further characterized with magnification NBI, 24 were found to have an abnormal mucosal pattern, of which 13 showed HGD/EAC and 11 showed IM/LGD on histology. Of the remaining 12 AFI abnormal areas that were found to have a normal pattern on NBI, only 1 area was found to have HGD/EAC (Fig. 4). In 84 areas that appeared normal on AFI, when further characterized by NBI, 17 were found to have irregular patterns, 4 of which were HGD/EAC. Thus, NBI was able to detect 4 additional areas that appeared normal

on AFI, increasing the cumulative sensitivity of tandem AFI/NBI on area-based analysis from 52% (14/27) to 67% (18/27). The accuracy of the 2 techniques used in tandem fashion and of AFI alone is shown in Table 2 (per-patient analysis) and in Table 3 (per-area analysis). Two of the 14 HGD/EAC patients (14.3%) were solely detected with AFI and SB431542 Chlormezanone magnification NBI, after a negative examination under HD-WLE and negative random biopsy specimens. One of these 2 patients was detected with AFI and further

characterized with magnification NBI; the other one was detected with magnification NBI only after a negative AFI inspection. Thus, 2 of the 14 patients would have been missed if AFI and magnification NBI were not used. Of the 120 areas, 36 AFI images (17 HGD/cancer and 19 nondysplastic BE) and 44 magnification NBI images (21 HGD/cancer and 23 nondysplastic BE) of different areas were included in the testing set. The median score for the image quality for all examiners was 3 (good). The mean κ values for interobserver agreement for the patterns were, with AFI, 0.48 (95% CI, 0.40-0.57) and with magnification NBI 0.50 (95% CI, 0.42-0.58), and for the prediction of histology were, with AFI, 0.48 (95% CI, 0.39-0.57) and with magnification NBI, 0.50 (95% CI, 0.42-0.57). This prospective tandem study revealed a very modest overall accuracy of AFI and magnification NBI to detect HGD/EAC. In this study, on patient-based analysis, AFI alone had a sensitivity, specificity, and NPV of 50%, 61%, and 71%, respectively, and the overall accuracy for the detection of HGD/EAC patients was 57%.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>