Endoscopy 2010; 42(6): 435-440
DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1244194
Original article

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy compared with standard four-quadrant biopsy for evaluation of neoplasia in Barrett’s esophagus

M.  Bajbouj1 , M.  Vieth2 , T.  Rösch3 , S.  Miehlke4 , V.  Becker1 , M.  Anders3 , H.  Pohl5 , A.  Madisch4 , T.  Schuster6 , R.  M.  Schmid1 , A.  Meining1
  • 1II Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Germany
  • 2Institut für Pathologie, Klinikum Bayreuth, Germany
  • 3Klinik für Interdisziplinäre Endoskopie, UKE Hamburg, Germany
  • 4Medizinische Klinik II, Technische Universität Dresden, Germany
  • 5VAMC White River Junction, Vermont, USA
  • 6Institut für medizinische Statistik und Epidemiologie, Technische Universität München, Germany
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 6 October 2009

accepted after revision 6 April 2010

Publication Date:
26 May 2010 (online)

Background and study aims: Surveillance of Barrett’s esophagus includes endoscopic inspection with biopsy of suspicious lesions followed by four-quadrant biopsy of the remaining mucosa. We assessed the ability of probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) to replace biopsy in the endoscopic evaluation of patients with Barrett’s esophagus in a prospective and controlled setting.

Patients and methods: A total of 68 patients who were referred for endoscopic assessment of Barrett’s esophagus were included across three centers. pCLE recordings were interpreted live during the examination as well as in a blinded manner at least 3 months after endoscopy. pCLE diagnosis of neoplasia based on pre-defined criteria was compared with histopathology from suspicious as well as four-quadrant biopsies.

Results: A total of 670 pairs of biopsies and pCLE video sequences were available for analysis, with neoplasia (high-grade dysplasia or cancer) being histologically diagnosed in 8.3 %. Specificity and negative predictive value of pCLE in excluding neoplasia was 0.97 (90 %CI 0.95 – 0.98) and 0.93 (0.91 – 0.95) for the blinded evaluation, and 0.95 (0.90 – 0.98) and 0.92 (0.90 – 0.94) for the on-site assessment. Positive predictive values (PPVs) and sensitivity were rather poor for both settings (46 %/28 % [blinded] and 18 %/12 % [on-site], respectively).

Conclusions: pCLE can be regarded as non-inferior to endoscopic biopsy in excluding neoplasia of Barrett’s esophagus mucosa. However, due to its low PPV and sensitivity, pCLE may currently not replace standard biopsy techniques for the diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus and associated neoplasia. Further technical development of pCLE and a better understanding of its role in relation to other imaging technologies are necessary.

References

  • 1 Sampliner R E. and the Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology . Updated practice guidelines on the diagnosis, surveillance, and therapy of Barrett’s esophagus.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;  97 1888-1895
  • 2 Weinstein W M, Ippoliti A F. The diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus: Goblets, goblets, goblets.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;  44 91-94
  • 3 Spechler S J, Goyal R K. Barrett’s esophagus.  N Engl J Med. 1986;  315 362-371
  • 4 Pohl H, Koch M, Khalifa A. et al . Evaluation of endocytoscopy in the surveillance of patients with Barrett’s esophagus.  Endoscopy. 2007;  39 492-496
  • 5 Meining A, Rösch T, Kiesslich R. et al . Inter- and intra-observer variability of magnification chromoendoscopy for detection of specialized intestinal metaplasia at the gastroesophageal junction.  Endoscopy. 2004;  36 55-59
  • 6 Kara M A, Peters F P, Rosmolen W D. et al . High-resolution endoscopy plus chromoendoscopy or narrow-band imaging in Barrett’s esophagus: a prospective randomized crossover study.  Endoscopy. 2005;  37 929-936
  • 7 Curvers W L, Singh R, Song L M. et al . Endoscopic tri-modal imaging for detection of early neoplasia in Barrett’s oesophagus: a multi-centre feasibility study using high-resolution endoscopy, autofluorescence imaging and narrow band imaging incorporated in one endoscopy system.  Gut. 2008;  57 167-172
  • 8 Sharma P, Bansal A, Mathur S. et al . The utility of a novel narrow band imaging endoscopy system in patients with Barrett’s esophagus.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;  64 167-175
  • 9 Sharma P, McQuaid K, Dent J. et al . A critical review of the diagnosis and management of Barrett’s esophagus: the AGA Chicago Workshop.  Gastroenterology. 2004;  127 310-330
  • 10 Hirota W K, Zuckerman M J, Adler D G. et al . ASGE guideline: the role of endoscopy in the surveillance of premalignant conditions of the upper GI tract.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;  63 570-580
  • 11 Drewitz D J, Sampliner R E, Garewal H S. The incidence of adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus: a prospective study of 170 patients followed for 4.8 years.  Am J Gastroenteol. 1999;  92 212-215
  • 12 Kiesslich R, Gossner L, Goetz M. et al . In vivo histology of Barrett’s esophagus and associated neoplasia by confocal laser endomicroscopy.  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;  4 979-987
  • 13 Meining A, Saur D, Bajbouj M. et al . In vivo histopathology for detection of gastrointestinal neoplasia with a portable, confocal miniprobe: an examiner blinded analysis.  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;  5 1261-1267
  • 14 Pohl H, Rösch T, Vieth M. et al . Miniprobe confocal laser microscopy for the detection of invisible neoplasia in patients with Barrett’s oesophagus.  Gut. 2008;  57 1648-1653
  • 15 Sharma P, Dent J, Armstrong D. et al . The development and validation of an endoscopic grading system for Barrett’s esophagus: the Prague C & M criteria.  Gastroenterology. 2006;  131 1392-1399
  • 16 Becker V, von Delius S, Bajbouj M. et al . Intravenous application of fluorescein for confocal laser scanning microscopy: evaluation of contrast dynamics and image quality with increasing injection-to-imaging time.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;  68 319-323
  • 17 Kara M A, Ennahachi M, Fockens P. et al . Detection and classification of the mucosal and vascular patterns (mucosal morphology) in Barrett’s esophagus by using narrow band imaging.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;  64 155-166
  • 18 Martinek J, Benes M, Brandtl P. et al . Low incidence of adenocarcinoma and high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia in patients with Barrett’s esophagus: a prospective cohort study.  Endoscopy. 2008;  40 711-716
  • 19 Meining A. On the way toward quantitative staining techniques?.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;  69 219-220
  • 20 Connor M J, Sharma P. Chromoendoscopy and magnification endoscopy in Barrett’s esophagus.  Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2003;  13 269-277
  • 21 Dunbar K B, Okolo 3rd P, Montgomery E, Canto M I. Confocal laser endomicroscopy in Barrett’s esophagus and endoscopically inapparent Barrett’s neoplasia: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled, crossover trial.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;  70 645-654
  • 22 Becker V, Vercauteren T, von Weyhern C H. et al . High-resolution miniprobe-based confocal microscopy in combination with video mosaicing (with video).  Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;  66 1001-1007

A. MeiningMD 

II Medizinische Klinik
Klinikum rechts der Isar

Ismaningerstr. 22
81675 München
Germany

Fax: +49-89-41404905

Email: alexander.meining@lrz.tum.de

    >