Optical enhancement with magnification versus white-light endoscopy for detecting gastric intestinal metaplasia and neoplasia: a randomized controlled trial.
무작위 임상시험
1/5 보강
PICO 자동 추출 (휴리스틱, conf 3/4)
유사 논문P · Population 대상 환자/모집단
추출되지 않음
I · Intervention 중재 / 시술
Optical enhancement with magnification
C · Comparison 대조 / 비교
white
O · Outcome 결과 / 결론
[CONCLUSIONS] ME-OE showed better performance for detecting GIM than WLE in high-risk populations. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04411589.).
[BACKGROUND AND AIMS] The detection of gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM), gastric intraepithelial neoplasia (GIN), and early gastric cancer (EGC) using white-light endoscopy (WLE) is unsatisfactory.
- p-value P = .018
- p-value P = .017
- Sensitivity 82.8%
- Specificity 84.2%
APA
Wan M, Li GC, et al. (2025). Optical enhancement with magnification versus white-light endoscopy for detecting gastric intestinal metaplasia and neoplasia: a randomized controlled trial.. Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 102(3), 337-344.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2025.02.015
MLA
Wan M, et al.. "Optical enhancement with magnification versus white-light endoscopy for detecting gastric intestinal metaplasia and neoplasia: a randomized controlled trial.." Gastrointestinal endoscopy, vol. 102, no. 3, 2025, pp. 337-344.e1.
PMID
39956464 ↗
Abstract 한글 요약
[BACKGROUND AND AIMS] The detection of gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM), gastric intraepithelial neoplasia (GIN), and early gastric cancer (EGC) using white-light endoscopy (WLE) is unsatisfactory. This study assessed the value of optical enhancement combined with magnification endoscopy (ME-OE) versus WLE for detecting GIM, GIN, and EGC.
[METHODS] Patients at high risk for gastric cancer were randomly assigned to the ME-OE group or WLE group at a 1:1 ratio. Suspicious GIM, GIN, and EGC lesions underwent targeted biopsy sampling in both groups. The diagnostic yield, diagnostic efficacy, and agreement of suspicious lesions were compared between the 2 groups.
[RESULTS] Two hundred eighty-five patients were finally analyzed. The per-patient diagnostic yields of GIM, GIN, and EGC were 36.6% in the ME-OE group and 23.8% in the WLE group (P = .018). The per-lesion diagnostic yield of GIM, GIN, and EGC in the ME-OE group was higher than that in the WLE group (66.7% vs 48.7%, P = .017). Sensitivity (82.8% vs 54.3%, P = .003), specificity (84.2% vs 81.4%, P = .738), positive predictive value (88.9% vs 70.4%, P = .038), negative predictive value (76.2% vs 68.6%, P = .419), and accuracy (83.3% vs 69.2%, P = .028) for GIM were compared between the 2 groups. The intraobserver agreements of experienced endoscopists were excellent for ME-OE (κ = 0.81 and κ = 0.83) and good for WLE (κ = 0.63 and κ = 0.62). The interobserver agreements of experienced endoscopists were good for both groups (κ = 0.75 and κ = 0.61, respectively).
[CONCLUSIONS] ME-OE showed better performance for detecting GIM than WLE in high-risk populations. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04411589.).
[METHODS] Patients at high risk for gastric cancer were randomly assigned to the ME-OE group or WLE group at a 1:1 ratio. Suspicious GIM, GIN, and EGC lesions underwent targeted biopsy sampling in both groups. The diagnostic yield, diagnostic efficacy, and agreement of suspicious lesions were compared between the 2 groups.
[RESULTS] Two hundred eighty-five patients were finally analyzed. The per-patient diagnostic yields of GIM, GIN, and EGC were 36.6% in the ME-OE group and 23.8% in the WLE group (P = .018). The per-lesion diagnostic yield of GIM, GIN, and EGC in the ME-OE group was higher than that in the WLE group (66.7% vs 48.7%, P = .017). Sensitivity (82.8% vs 54.3%, P = .003), specificity (84.2% vs 81.4%, P = .738), positive predictive value (88.9% vs 70.4%, P = .038), negative predictive value (76.2% vs 68.6%, P = .419), and accuracy (83.3% vs 69.2%, P = .028) for GIM were compared between the 2 groups. The intraobserver agreements of experienced endoscopists were excellent for ME-OE (κ = 0.81 and κ = 0.83) and good for WLE (κ = 0.63 and κ = 0.62). The interobserver agreements of experienced endoscopists were good for both groups (κ = 0.75 and κ = 0.61, respectively).
[CONCLUSIONS] ME-OE showed better performance for detecting GIM than WLE in high-risk populations. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04411589.).
🏷️ 키워드 / MeSH 📖 같은 키워드 OA만
같은 제1저자의 인용 많은 논문 (5)
- Time-Anchored Risk After Glycemically Defined New-Onset Diabetes and Its Implications for Pancreatic Cancer Detection.
- Mechanisms of chemoresistance in diffuse large B‑cell lymphoma and novel therapeutic strategies (Review).
- A meta learning and task adaptive approach for drug target affinity prediction.
- Endodontic microsurgery utilizing an autonomous robotic system for the maxillary second molar: a case report.
- Rhein induces apoptosis of AGS and MGC803 cells by regulating the Ras/PI3K/AKT and p38/MAPK signaling pathway.
🏷️ 같은 키워드 · 무료전문 — 이 논문 MeSH/keyword 기반
- A Phase I Study of Hydroxychloroquine and Suba-Itraconazole in Men with Biochemical Relapse of Prostate Cancer (HITMAN-PC): Dose Escalation Results.
- Self-management of male urinary symptoms: qualitative findings from a primary care trial.
- Clinical and Liquid Biomarkers of 20-Year Prostate Cancer Risk in Men Aged 45 to 70 Years.
- Diagnostic accuracy of Ga-PSMA PET/CT versus multiparametric MRI for preoperative pelvic invasion in the patients with prostate cancer.
- Comprehensive analysis of androgen receptor splice variant target gene expression in prostate cancer.
- Clinical Presentation and Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Surgery for Thyroid Cancer.