An International Study on the Diagnostic Accuracy of the Japan Narrow-Band Imaging Expert Team Classification for Colorectal Polyps Observed with Blue Laser Imaging

Background: The Japan narrow-band imaging Expert Team (JNET) classification of colorectal polyps based on magnifying endoscopy is used in Japan, but not worldwide. The objective of this study was to clarify differences of diagnostic accuracy between JNET users in Japan and non-JNET users in other co...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Digestion 2020-05, Vol.101 (3), p.339-346
Hauptverfasser: Suzuki, Hiroto, Yamamura, Takeshi, Nakamura, Masanao, Hsu, Chen-Ming, Su, Ming-Yao, Chen, Tsung-Hsing, Chiu, Cheng-Tang, Hirooka, Yoshiki, Goto, Hidemi
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background: The Japan narrow-band imaging Expert Team (JNET) classification of colorectal polyps based on magnifying endoscopy is used in Japan, but not worldwide. The objective of this study was to clarify differences of diagnostic accuracy between JNET users in Japan and non-JNET users in other countries. Methods: A total of 185 colorectal tumors were assessed. Six endoscopists (3 each from Japan and Taiwan) participated in the study. The Japanese endoscopists normally used the JNET classification and the Taiwanese endoscopists normally used the narrow-band imaging International Colorectal Endoscopic classification for diagnosis of colorectal tumors. After receiving a lecture on the JNET classification, they all observed one blue laser imaging magnified image per lesion and performed diagnosis based on the JNET classification. Results: Diagnostic ability was equivalent for Type 1, Type 2A, and Type 2B. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value of Type 3 for deep submucosal invasive carcinoma was, respectively, 44.4, 98.3, 57.1, and 97.2% in Group J and 70.0, 94.7, 40.4, and 98.4% in Group T. The PPV for diagnosis of Type 3 with a high confidence was significantly higher in Group J than in Group T (81.8% [55.4–94.6] vs. 44.4% [33.6–50.9], p < 0.05). Conclusions: The PPV for Type 3 differed between the 2 groups, suggesting the need to become familiar with differentiation between Type 2B and Type 3.
ISSN:0012-2823
1421-9867
DOI:10.1159/000499856