Currently, the strategy for real-time endoscopic diagnosis of duodenal, including ampullary, adenoma is still unclear. In the era of high-definition and magnification endoscopy, using this modality for the detection and diagnosis of these neoplasms is very challenging for endoscopists. Over the past 10 years, many instruments have been developed to improve the detection rate of duodenal and ampullary polyps and to distinguish between adenoma and non-adenoma. The present review will focus on these novel methods and their usefulness in the diagnosis of ampullary and non-ampullary adenoma.
Background and study aims: Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is associated with an increased risk of development of periampullary and nonampullary adenoma. Either routine biopsy or endoscopic removal of the lesion is generally required to identify the presence of adenoma. Because the risk of tissue sampling from the ampulla is high and nonampullary polyps are sometimes numerous, resection of all the lesions is time-consuming. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic values of duodenal adenoma by dual focus NBI (dNBI) and probe-based confocal endomicroscopy (pCLE) in FAP patients.
Patients and methods: The authors conducted a diagnostic study in a single tertiary-care referral center. Surveillance esophagogastroduodenoscopy with dNBI and pCLE was performed on 26 patients with FAP for real-time adenoma diagnosis by two different endoscopists; one used dNBI and the other pCLE. Histology from the matched lesion was used as the gold standard.
Results: A total of 55 matched biopsies (25 ampullas, 30 nonampullas) were performed. The sensitivity, specificity, post predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of dNBI vs. pCLE from all duodenal lesions were 96.9 % vs. 93.8 %, 78.3 % vs. 81 %, 86.1 % vs. 88.2 %, 94.7 vs. 89.5 %, and 92.4 % vs. 88.6 %, respectively.
Conclusions: For surveillance of periampullary and nonampullary adenoma in patients with FAP, the real-time readings provided a high degree of diagnostic value when histology was used as the gold standard. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02162173).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.