The number of areas that were falsely detected as abnormal by AFI

The number of areas that were falsely detected as abnormal by AFI was 24% (22/93), which increased to 38% (35/93) when AFI and magnification NBI were used in tandem fashion to inspect the BE mucosa. The interobserver agreements for both AFI and magnification NBI patterns and prediction of histology were moderate. To our knowledge, this is the first U.S.

study to evaluate the performance and interobserver agreement of AFI and magnification NBI for BE neoplasia. Studies done previously showed higher sensitivity and NPV of AFI. Curvers et al,4 in a prospective, multicenter trimodal study, reported that the sensitivity of AFI for HGD/EAC was 90%, with an NPV of 100%. The same group also reported a sensitivity of 100% for the detection of HGD.3 A possible explanation for the lower sensitivity and NPV for HGD/EAC in this study can be the lack of a Fulvestrant manufacturer standardized color scale for the AFI abnormal areas. Previously, studies reported suspicious click here BE areas on AFI as a blue-purple color,2 and 12 violet-purple color,4 and dark-purple color.5 In this study, only distinctly purple areas were included as abnormal areas under AFI. When the 2 techniques were used in tandem fashion, there was an increase

in the sensitivity (from 50% with AFI alone to 71%) and an NPV (from 71% with AFI alone to 76%). However, we are still far away from a sensitivity of 90% or higher and an NPV 98% or higher for the detection of HGD/EAC patients, thresholds established by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable Endoscopic Innovations to eliminate the need for random biopsies in BE patients. In this study, the false-positive rate of AFI was lower than that of previous reports.3 and 4 The reason could be attributed to the fact that we considered areas as AFI positives only if they were distinctly purple. However, the false-positive rate of the 2 techniques used in tandem fashion acetylcholine was higher than when AFI was used alone, for per-patient as well as per-area

analysis. This result is in contrast with the decrease in the false-positive rate after inspection of AFI-positive areas with magnification NBI,3, 4 and 5 and the reason for such a difference is that in our study, we additionally performed magnification NBI of the entire BE segment in a 4-quadrant fashion. These data suggest that a detailed examination with magnification NBI cannot replace histological sampling of suspicious areas in BE, confirming what was shown previously.13, 14 and 15 This study is the first to estimate the interobserver agreement on AFI for both patterns and prediction of histology. We found that AFI had moderate interobserver agreement in the detection of HGD/EAC, with a κ value of 0.48. The only previous study evaluating the interobserver agreement of AFI based on 3 different predictive factors for early neoplasia in BE also reported moderate interobserver agreement with κ values of these factors between 0.

Comments are closed.