Detail
Článek
Článek online
FT
Medvik - BMČ
  • Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy vs Biopsies in the Assessment of Persistent or Recurrent Intestinal Metaplasia/Neoplasia after Endoscopic Treatment of Barrett's Esophagus related Neoplasia

J. Krajciova, M. Kollar, J. Maluskova, M. Janicko, Z. Vackova, J. Spicak, J. Martinek

. 2020 ; 29 (3) : 305-312. [pub] 20200909

Jazyk angličtina Země Rumunsko

Typ dokumentu srovnávací studie, časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc21026562

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients after endoscopic treatment of Barrett's esophagus (BE) related neoplasia (BORN) should enter endoscopic surveillance with biopsies to detect persistent or recurrent neoplasia or intestinal metaplasia (IM). Probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) serves as a virtual biopsy and could replace standard biopsies. However, the role of pCLE in patients after endoscopic treatment of BORN has not been systematically assessed. The aim of this study was to compare pCLE with biopsies in detecting persistent/recurrent IM/neoplasia. METHODS: A single center, prospective and pathologist-blinded study was performed. Patients after endoscopic treatment of BORN (endoscopic resection or dissection, radiofrequency ablation) underwent surveillance endoscopy with pCLE followed by biopsies. RESULTS: A total of 56 patients were enrolled: initial diagnoses were low-grade dysplasia (LGD) in 24 patients (43%), high-grade dysplasia (HGD) in 12 patients (21%) and early adenocarcinoma (EAC) in 20 patients (36%). Only one patient (2%) experienced recurrent neoplasia (LGD), which was diagnosed by pCLE only. Twenty patients (35.7%) experienced persistent/recurrent IM, diagnosed by both pCLE and biopsies in 17 patients (17/30, 85%) and by pCLE only in 3 pts (3/30, 15%). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values to diagnose recurrent/persistent IM did not differ significantly between pCLE and biopsies; diagnostic accuracy was 100% (95%CI 93.6-100) for pCLE and 94.6 (95%CI 85.1-98.9%) for biopsies, p=0.25. In patients with IM detected by both tested methods, pCLE detected significantly more goblet cells (median 43 per patient) than biopsies (median 12 per patient), p=0.01. CONCLUSION: pCLE is at least as effective as standard biopsies in the detection of persistent/recurrent IM after endoscopic treatment of BORN.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc21026562
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20231027095556.0
007      
ta
008      
211013s2020 rm f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.15403/jgld-2467 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)32919414
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a rm
100    1_
$a Krajciova, Jana $u Department of Hepatogastroenterology, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague; Institute of Physiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. . kraj@ikem.cz
245    10
$a Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy vs Biopsies in the Assessment of Persistent or Recurrent Intestinal Metaplasia/Neoplasia after Endoscopic Treatment of Barrett's Esophagus related Neoplasia / $c J. Krajciova, M. Kollar, J. Maluskova, M. Janicko, Z. Vackova, J. Spicak, J. Martinek
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients after endoscopic treatment of Barrett's esophagus (BE) related neoplasia (BORN) should enter endoscopic surveillance with biopsies to detect persistent or recurrent neoplasia or intestinal metaplasia (IM). Probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) serves as a virtual biopsy and could replace standard biopsies. However, the role of pCLE in patients after endoscopic treatment of BORN has not been systematically assessed. The aim of this study was to compare pCLE with biopsies in detecting persistent/recurrent IM/neoplasia. METHODS: A single center, prospective and pathologist-blinded study was performed. Patients after endoscopic treatment of BORN (endoscopic resection or dissection, radiofrequency ablation) underwent surveillance endoscopy with pCLE followed by biopsies. RESULTS: A total of 56 patients were enrolled: initial diagnoses were low-grade dysplasia (LGD) in 24 patients (43%), high-grade dysplasia (HGD) in 12 patients (21%) and early adenocarcinoma (EAC) in 20 patients (36%). Only one patient (2%) experienced recurrent neoplasia (LGD), which was diagnosed by pCLE only. Twenty patients (35.7%) experienced persistent/recurrent IM, diagnosed by both pCLE and biopsies in 17 patients (17/30, 85%) and by pCLE only in 3 pts (3/30, 15%). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values to diagnose recurrent/persistent IM did not differ significantly between pCLE and biopsies; diagnostic accuracy was 100% (95%CI 93.6-100) for pCLE and 94.6 (95%CI 85.1-98.9%) for biopsies, p=0.25. In patients with IM detected by both tested methods, pCLE detected significantly more goblet cells (median 43 per patient) than biopsies (median 12 per patient), p=0.01. CONCLUSION: pCLE is at least as effective as standard biopsies in the detection of persistent/recurrent IM after endoscopic treatment of BORN.
650    _2
$a dospělí $7 D000328
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    _2
$a senioři nad 80 let $7 D000369
650    _2
$a Barrettův syndrom $x patologie $x chirurgie $7 D001471
650    _2
$a biopsie $7 D001706
650    _2
$a nádory jícnu $x patologie $x chirurgie $7 D004938
650    12
$a ezofagektomie $x škodlivé účinky $7 D016629
650    12
$a ezofágoskopie $x škodlivé účinky $7 D004945
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    12
$a konfokální mikroskopie $7 D018613
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    _2
$a stupeň nádoru $7 D060787
650    12
$a lokální recidiva nádoru $7 D009364
650    _2
$a prediktivní hodnota testů $7 D011237
650    _2
$a prospektivní studie $7 D011446
650    12
$a radiofrekvenční ablace $7 D000078703
650    _2
$a reprodukovatelnost výsledků $7 D015203
650    _2
$a časové faktory $7 D013997
650    _2
$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
655    _2
$a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Kollar, Marek $u Department of Clinical and Transplant Pathology, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic. marek.kollar1@seznam.cz
700    1_
$a Maluskova, Jana $u Department of Clinical and Transplant Pathology, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic. jnma@ikem.cz
700    1_
$a Janicko, Martin $u 1st Department of Internal Medicine, P.J. Safarik University in Kosice, Faculty of Medicine and L. Pasteur University Hospital, Kosice, Slovakia. martin.janicko@gmail.com
700    1_
$a Vackova, Zuzana $u Department of Hepatogastroenterology, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague; Institute of Physiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. vacz@ikem.cz
700    1_
$a Spicak, Julius $u Department of Hepatogastroenterology, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic. jusp@ikem.cz
700    1_
$a Martinek, Jan $u Department of Hepatogastroenterology, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague; Institute of Physiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague; Faculty of Medicine, University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic. jan.martinek@volny.cz
773    0_
$w MED00180296 $t Journal of gastrointestinal and liver diseases $x 1842-1121 $g Roč. 29, č. 3 (2020), s. 305-312
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32919414 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20211013 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20231027095550 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1715327 $s 1147069
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2020 $b 29 $c 3 $d 305-312 $e 20200909 $i 1842-1121 $m Journal of gastrointestinal and liver diseases $n J Gastrointestin Liver Dis $x MED00180296
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20211013

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Pouze přihlášení uživatelé

Možnosti archivace