Assessment of multi-modality evaluations of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding.

AIM: To determine the frequency of bleeding source detection in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) who underwent double balloon enteroscopy (DBE) after pre-procedure imaging [multiphase computed tomography enterography (MPCTE), video capsule endoscopy (VCE), or both] and assess the impact of imaging on DBE diagnostic yield. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using a prospectively maintained database of all adult patients presenting with OGIB who underwent DBE from September 1st, 2002 to June 30th, 2013 at a single tertiary center. RESULTS: Four hundred and ninety five patients (52% females; median age 68 years) underwent DBE for OGIB. AVCE and/or MPCTE performed within 1 year prior to DBE (in 441 patients) increased the diagnostic yield of DBE (67.1% with preceding imaging vs 59.5% without). Using DBE as the gold standard, VCE and MPCTE had a diagnostic yield of 72.7% and 32.5% respectively. There were no increased odds of finding a bleeding site at DBE compared to VCE (OR = 1.3, P = 0.150). There were increased odds of finding a bleeding site at DBE compared to MPCTE (OR = 5.9, P < 0.001). In inpatients with overt OGIB, diagnostic yield of DBE was not affected by preceding imaging. CONCLUSION: DBE is a safe and well-tolerated procedure for the diagnosis and treatment of OGIB, with a diagnostic yield that may be increased after obtaining a preceding VCE or MPCTE. However, inpatients with active ongoing bleeding may benefit from proceeding directly to antegrade DBE.

Assessment of the diagnostic performance and interobserver variability of endocytoscopy in Barrett's esophagus: a pilot ex-vivo study.

AIM: To investigate a classification of endocytoscopy (ECS) images in Barrett's esophagus (BE) and evaluate its diagnostic performance and interobserver variability. METHODS: ECS was applied to surveillance endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) specimens of BE ex-vivo. The mucosal surface of specimen was stained with 1% methylene blue and surveyed with a catheter-type endocytoscope. We selected still images that were most representative of the endoscopically suspect lesion and matched with the final histopathological diagnosis to accomplish accurate correlation. The diagnostic performance and inter-observer variability of the new classification scheme were assessed in a blinded fashion by physicians with expertise in both BE and ECS and inexperienced physicians with no prior exposure to ECS. RESULTS: Three staff physicians and 22 gastroenterology fellows classified eight randomly assigned unknown still ECS pictures (two images per each classification) into one of four histopathologic categories as follows: (1) BEC1-squamous epithelium; (2) BEC2-BE without dysplasia; (3) BEC3-BE with dysplasia; and (4) BEC4-esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in BE. Accuracy of diagnosis in staff physicians and clinical fellows were, respectively, 100% and 99.4% for BEC1, 95.8% and 83.0% for BEC2, 91.7% and 83.0% for BEC3, and 95.8% and 98.3% for BEC4. Interobserver agreement of the faculty physicians and fellows in classifying each category were 0.932 and 0.897, respectively. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to investigate classification system of ECS in BE. This ex-vivo pilot study demonstrated acceptable diagnostic accuracy and excellent interobserver agreement.

Significance of neoplastic involvement of margins obtained by endoscopic mucosal resection in Barrett's esophagus.

OBJECTIVES: Although EMR has been used for elimination of neoplasia in BE, the significance of positive carcinoma margins and depth of invasion on endoscopic resection pathology has not been assessed using a valid standard. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of tumor staging by EMR using esophagectomy as the standard. METHODS: Medical records of patients, who underwent endoscopic resection for esophageal carcinoma or high-grade dysplasia in BE followed by esophagectomy, were reviewed. Data were abstracted from a prospectively maintained EMR database. Endosonography and endoscopic resection were performed by a single experienced endoscopist. Two experienced GI pathologists interpreted all histological results. Standard statistical tests were used to compare continuous and categorical variables. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were included in the study. Three patients had mucosal carcinoma and 16 had submucosal carcinoma following endoscopic resection. Surgical pathology staging was consistent with preoperative EMR staging in all patients. No patient with negative mucosal resection margins had residual tumor at the resection site at esophagectomy. In patients with submucosal carcinoma, 8 had residual carcinoma at the EMR site at surgery and 5 patients had metastatic lymphadenopathy. CONCLUSIONS: Tumor staging using EMR pathology is accurate when compared with surgical pathology following esophagectomy. Negative margins on EMR pathology correlate with absence of residual disease at the EMR site at esophagectomy. Submucosal carcinoma on EMR specimens was associated with a high prevalence of residual disease at surgery (50%) and metastatic lymphadenopathy (31%).