Citations 4

Can optical evaluation distinguish between T1a and T1b esophageal adenocarcinoma: an international expert interobserver agreement study

Endoscopy | August 21, 2024 | Volume: 57 | Issue: 03 | Pages: 200-207

10.1055/a-2399-1401 | PMID 39168143

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.
Consensus-based development of a causal attribution system for post-ERCP adverse events

Gut | July 11, 2022 | Volume: 71 | Issue: 10 | Pages: 1963-1966

10.1136/gutjnl-2022-328059 | PMID 35817552

Prophylactic Clipping For The Prevention Of Delayed Bleeding After Non-Pedunculated Colorectal Polyp Resection: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis

Endoscopy | March 31, 2021 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.1055/s-0041-1724468

Ethics in publication

Endoscopy | June 22, 2015 | Volume: 47 | Issue: 07 | Pages: 575-578

10.1055/s-0034-1392435 | PMID 26099116