Search

Blue laser imaging (BLI) can provide useful information on colorectal laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) by visualizing the surface and vessel patterns in detail. The present research aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of BLI-combined JNET (Japan NBI Expert Team) classification for identifying LSTs. This retrospective, multicenter study included 172 LSTs consisted of 6 hyperplastic polyps/sessile serrated polyps, 94 low-grade dysplasias (LGD), 60 high-grade dysplasias (HGD), 6 superficial submucosal invasive (m-SMs) carcinomas, and 4 deep submucosal invasive carcinomas. The relationship between the JNET classification and the histologic findings of these lesions were then analyzed. For all LSTs, non-experts and experts had a 79.7% and 90.7% accuracy for Type 2A (P = 0.004), a sensitivity of 94.7% and 96.8% (P = 0.718), and a specificity of 61.5% and 83.3% (P = 0.002) for prediction of LGD, respectively. The results also demonstrated 80.8% and 91.3% accuracy for Type 2B (P = 0.005), a sensitivity of 65.2% and 83.3% (P = 0.017), and a specificity of 90.6% and 96.2% (P = 0.097) for predicting HGD or m-SMs. For LST-granular (LST-G) lesions, Type 2A in experts had higher specificity (65.6% vs. 83.6%, P = 0.022) and accuracy (81.8% vs. 91.2%, P = 0.022). Type 2B in experts only had higher accuracy (82.5% vs. 92.0%, P = 0.019). However, no significant differences were noted for any comparisons between non-experts and experts for LST-non-granular (LST-NG) lesions. BLI combined with JNET classification was an effective method for the precise prediction of pathological diagnosis in patients with LSTs. Diagnostic performance of JNET classification by experts was better than that by non-experts for all examined LST or LST-G lesions when delineating between Type 2A and 2B, but there was no difference for the identification of LST-NG lesions by these two groups.

OBJECTIVE Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is a standard instrument for detecting upper gastrointestinal lesions. However, the distal duodenum is often missed. This study aimed to clarify the diagnostic role of EGD in the distal duodenum. METHODS This retrospective study enrolled patients with distal duodenal lesions who underwent EGD between January 2004 and July 2016 at our center. The rate of missed diagnosis using EGD examination was calculated. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the factors associated with the missed diagnoses. RESULTS Sixty-three patients were included in the study. The overall diagnostic rate of distal duodenal lesions on EGD was 58.7%. After excluding the patients in whom the EGD did not reach the distal duodenum, this rate rose to 82.2%. In univariate analysis, intravenous sedation (26.8% vs 68.2%, odds ratio [OR] 0.171, P = 0.002), signs of lesions adjacent to the stomach (19.4% vs 62.5%, OR 0.099, P = 0.001), prior enteroscopy experience (15.0% vs 87.0%, OR 0.026, P < 0.001), and endoscopists with experiences of over 10 years (13.8% vs 64.7%, OR 0.087, P = 0.000) were associated with a decreased risk of missed diagnosis. In multivariate analysis, signs of lesions adjacent to the stomach (OR 0.167, P = 0.039) and prior enteroscopy experience (OR 0.035, P < 0.001) were significant independent protective factors. CONCLUSION EGD may be important in diagnosing distal duodenal lesions. Patients with gastric retention, blood in the stomach or erosion in the proximal duodenum may benefit from the deep insertion of EGD.

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is a standard instrument for detecting upper gastrointestinal lesions. However, the distal duodenum is often missed. This study aimed to clarify the diagnostic role of EGD in the distal duodenum.This retrospective study enrolled patients with distal duodenal lesions who underwent EGD between January 2004 and July 2016 at our center. The rate of missed diagnosis using EGD examination was calculated. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the factors associated with the missed diagnoses.Sixty-three patients were included in the study. The overall diagnostic rate of distal duodenal lesions on EGD was 58.7%. After excluding the patients in whom the EGD did not reach the distal duodenum, this rate rose to 82.2%. In univariate analysis, intravenous sedation (26.8% vs 68.2%, odds ratio [OR] 0.171, P = 0.002), signs of lesions adjacent to the stomach (19.4% vs 62.5%, OR 0.099, P = 0.001), prior enteroscopy experience (15.0% vs 87.0%, OR 0.026, P0.001), and endoscopists with experiences of over 10 years (13.8% vs 64.7%, OR 0.087, P = 0.000) were associated with a decreased risk of missed diagnosis. In multivariate analysis, signs of lesions adjacent to the stomach (OR 0.167, P = 0.039) and prior enteroscopy experience (OR 0.035, P0.001) were significant independent protective factors.EGD may be important in diagnosing distal duodenal lesions. Patients with gastric retention, blood in the stomach or erosion in the proximal duodenum may benefit from the deep insertion of EGD.