Beyna, Torsten

ObjectivesAchalasia is an esophageal motility disorder that impairs quality of life and is often missed (20–50%) on endoscopy. A newly developed computer‐aided detection (CAD) software has shown high accuracy for achalasia diagnosis in preclinical settings. However, its benefit in a clinical setting remains unclear.MethodsBetween February and August 2023, 83 endoscopists from 27 centers assessed 50 randomized endoscopic videos (25 achalasia, 25 nonachalasia) without and with CAD. Endoscopists assessed videos without CAD, then with CAD after 2 months. The primary end‐point was improvement in sensitivity for nonexperienced endoscopists (no endoscopic experience of achalasia). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy with and without CAD were compared using the McNemar test.ResultsSensitivity for diagnosing achalasia increased significantly with CAD, rising from 74.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 72.2–76.0%) to 91.2% (95% CI 89.9–92.4%) for all readers, showing a difference of 17.1% (95% CI 15.1–19.0%). Specifically, sensitivity improved from 66.9% (95% CI 63.6–70.0%) to 91.9% (95% CI 89.9–93.6%) among nonexperienced endoscopists, resulting in a difference of 25.0% (95% CI 21.7–28.4%), and from 79.5% (95% CI 77.1–81.8%) to 90.8% (95% CI 89.0–92.3%) among experienced endoscopists (endoscopic experience of at least one achalasia case), with a difference of 11.3% (95% CI 8.9–13.6%). Accuracy and specificity improved significantly with CAD assistance, regardless of reader's experience.ConclusionCAD improves achalasia detection by 17%, confirming preclinical results. The benefit was higher for nonexperienced endoscopists. CAD assistance may lead to prompt and effective treatment, minimizing the risk of false‐negative diagnosis in clinical practice.Trial registrationThis study was registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trial Registry (https://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/) number: UMIN000053047.

Background Piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an acceptable technique for T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma, but en bloc R0 excision is advocated for T1b disease as it may offer a potential cure and mitigate recurrence. Thus, distinguishing between T1a and T1b disease is imperative under current treatment paradigms. We investigated whether expert Barrett’s endoscopists could make this distinction based on optical evaluation. Methods Endoscopic images of histologically confirmed high grade dysplasia (HGD), T1a, and T1b disease (20 sets for each) were compiled from consecutive patients at a single institution. Each set contained four images including an overview, a close-up in high definition white light, a near-focus magnification image, and a narrow-band image. Experts predicted the histology for each set. Results 19 experts from 8 countries (Australia, USA, Italy, Netherlands, Germany, Canada, Belgium, and Portugal) participated. The majority had been practicing for > 20 years, with a median (interquartile range) annual case volume of 50 (18–75) for Barrett’s EMR and 25 (10–45) for Barrett’s endoscopic submucosal dissection. Esophageal adenocarcinoma (T1a/b) could be distinguished from HGD with a pooled sensitivity of 89.1 % (95 %CI 84.7–93.4). T1b adenocarcinoma could be predicted with a pooled sensitivity of 43.8 % (95 %CI 29.9–57.7). Fleiss’ kappa was 0.421 (95 %CI 0.399–0.442; P < 0.001), indicating fair-to-moderate agreement. Conclusions Expert Barrett’s endoscopists could reliably differentiate T1a/T1b esophageal adenocarcinoma from HGD. Despite fair-to-moderate agreement for T staging, T1b disease could not be reliably distinguished from T1a disease. This may impact clinical decision making and selection of endoscopic techniques.