利用窄带成像技术观察毛细血管形态在结直肠息肉样病变鉴别诊断中的价值

目的:探讨利用窄带成像技术(narrow bandimaging,NBI)观察毛细血管形态(capillarypatterns,CP)对结直肠息肉样病变鉴别诊断的价值.方法:75例患者接受NBI结肠镜检查共发现病变部位116处.根据Yoshiki的分型方法,将结直肠病变的CP分为6种:蜂窝状结构型、模糊结构型、网状结构型、密度增高型、不规则结构型、稀疏结构型.利用NBI下观察到的CP进行鉴别诊断,并与病理结果对照判定其敏感性、特异性及准确率.结果:在116例结直肠病变中增生性息肉毛细血管形态多表现为模糊结构型,而腺瘤性息肉的毛细血管形态表现为网状结构型和密度增高型,癌症的毛细血管形态多表现为不规则型和稀疏结构型.利用此分型方法鉴别肿瘤性病变和非肿瘤性病变的敏感性和特异性分别是94.6%和78.6%,准确性88.8%,阳性预测值(positive predictive value,PPV)88.6%,阴性预测值(negative predictivevalue,NPV)89.2%(P<0.01).同样,对于腺瘤性息肉和癌症的鉴别诊断的敏感性和特异性分别是100.0%和87.5%,准确性91.4%(P<0.01).将直径<10 mm的小息肉按毛细血管的有无进行鉴别诊断的敏感性和特异性分别是89.7%和80.5%,PPV81.4%,NPV89.2%,准确性85.0%(P<0.01).结论:NBI结肠镜观察结直肠病变CP对于鉴别肿瘤性病变与非肿瘤性病变,以及腺瘤性息肉与癌症具有可靠的诊断价值.对于直径<10 m m小息肉的肿瘤性及非肿瘤性的鉴别诊断方面NBI结肠镜也具有很好作用.     

窄带成像技术普通内镜诊断大肠肿瘤的价值

目的探讨窄带成像技术普通内镜（NBI）诊断大肠肿瘤的临床价值。方法 2012年6月至2012年8月行常规内镜和NBI普通内镜检查的患者225例,对发现的大肠新生性病变记录腺管开口形态,将NBI内镜诊断和病理组织学诊断结果进行对比分析,并比较NBI内镜与常规内镜在鉴别肿瘤性和非肿瘤性病变的敏感性、特异性和准确性。结果 NBI普通内镜对腺管开口类型的判断接近病理水平,鉴别病变是否为肿瘤的敏感性、特异性、准确率分别为93.6%,91.7%和93.0%,显著高于常规内镜（P〈0.01）。结论 NBI普通内镜能较准确判断病变的性质,为鉴别是否为肿瘤性病变的更有效的内镜方法。     

窄带成像放大内镜鉴别大肠肿瘤性与非肿瘤性病变的价值

目的 探讨窄带成像放大内镜（NBI—ME）鉴别大肠肿瘤性与非肿瘤性病变表面网状微血管结构改变的临床价值。方法选择常规内镜检出大肠肿瘤性、非肿瘤性病变144处（102例）,记录NBI—ME观察病变表面微血管结构（CP）形态和染色放大内镜观察病变黏膜表面腺管开口（pit）形态。分析pit周围CP形态变化,比较两者形态间的关系。所有病变经内镜或手术治疗后行组织病理学检查。结果常规内镜鉴别病变是否为肿瘤性的准确率75．7％、敏感性85．1％、特异性40．0％,明显低于NBI—ME和染色放大内镜（P〈0．005）,NBI—ME和染色放大内镜间则未见差异。CP分型与pit分型对照,CP—Ⅰ型、Ⅱ型、Ⅳ型、Ⅵa型分别与pitⅠ型、Ⅱ型、Ⅳ型、Ⅴ1型间一致性达100％。144处病变中,内镜治疗129处,手术治疗15处。组织病理学检查：非肿瘤性30处（增生性息肉17处、炎症性息肉13处）;肿瘤性114处（腺瘤95处、腺癌19处）。结论初步显示NBI—ME和染色放大内镜之间具有正相关性,两种检查方法互补可作为当前鉴别大肠病变是否为肿瘤性的重要手段。     

内镜窄带成像技术在结肠肿瘤诊断中的价值

目的 将内镜窄带成像技术（NBI）、色素内镜检查结果与病理学检查结果进行对比,探讨NBI在结肠肿瘤诊断中的价值。方法78例患者96个结肠病变进行NBI放大观察并与染色放大内镜观察和最终病理结果进行比较。结果普通肠镜发现息肉的敏感性为78．7％,切换NBI后,能清楚显示息肉性病变的形态和边界,发现息肉的敏感性99％。放大NBI肠镜对于Ⅱ型,Ⅲ1型,Ⅳ型,ⅤN型息肉腺管开口的图像与色素内镜图像有较好的相似性,NBI对于腺管开口的识别能力明显优于普通结肠镜,但是次于色素内镜。NBI对息肉表面血管形态进行分类对判断结肠是否有肿瘤的能力,其敏感性为100％,特异性为87．8％,同样明显优于普通结肠镜,而次于色素内镜。结论NBI肠镜及色素内镜均能提高发现结肠息肉的特异性、敏感性。色素内镜能清晰显示病变表面结构和腺管开口,使内镜下对于肿瘤与非肿瘤的鉴别诊断接近病理诊断。NBI放大肠镜能清晰显示息肉表面的毛细血管形态,较好地区分肿瘤与非肿瘤。NBI内镜切换简单快捷,便于全结肠观察,利于发现早期结肠肿瘤。     

黏膜表面形态特点对大肠息肉病理类型的预判价值

目的在高清非放大结肠镜下观察大肠息肉表面形态特点,与病理组织学诊断进行对照研究,评价息肉黏膜表面形态特点对大肠息肉病理类型的预判能力。方法对142例结直肠息肉患者330枚息肉样病变进行高清结肠镜检查并观察黏膜腺管开口形态,采用窄波带成像技术(narrow band imaging,NBI)观察黏膜表面血管形态(capillary pattern,CP),与息肉病理结果对照判定其敏感性、特异性及准确率。结果高清非放大结肠镜下联合黏膜腺管开口形态及黏膜表面血管形态判定息肉表面形态特点对鉴别肿瘤性与非肿瘤性病变的敏感性为88.2%,特异性为83.6%,阳性预测值为95.5%,阴性预测值为64.4%,准确度为87.3%,阳性相似比为5.4,阴性相似比为0.1。结论高清非放大结肠镜下贴近观察结合NBI显像观察息肉表面形态对于鉴别大肠息肉是否为肿瘤性有重要价值,与病理诊断有较好的符合率,有助于决定进一步治疗及随访方案。     

内镜醋酸染色结合窄带成像对大肠肿瘤性和非肿瘤性病变的鉴别诊断价值

目的 评价醋酸染色结合普通窄带成像(NBI)内镜观察对大肠新生性病变的病理组织学的预测能力.方法 105例接受结肠镜检查的患者,诊断大肠新生性病变148个,分别用普通白光、单一NBI及醋酸染色结合NBI的方法观察,根据腺管形态分型、微血管形态分型、黏膜白化时间预测病变为肿瘤性或非肿瘤性,并与病理结果对照判断其敏感度、特异度和准确率.结果 醋酸染色结合NBI对大肠肿瘤性病变诊断的总符合率为91.2％ (135/148),明显高于普通白光内镜的79.1％(117/148) (x2=8.649,P=0.003),高于单一NBI的86.5％(128/148),但醋酸染色结合NBI与单一NBI比较差异无统计学意义(x2=1.671,P=0.196).醋酸染色结合NBI的腺管形态分型、微血管形态分型、黏膜白化时间鉴别肿瘤性和非肿瘤性病变的敏感度分别是90.6％、94.1％、88.2％,特异度分别是90.5％、85.7％、92.1％,准确率分别是90.5％、90.5％、89.9％.结论 醋酸染色结合NBI对鉴别大肠肿瘤性或非肿瘤性病变具有可靠的诊断价值,可以初步判断病变的病理类型,对治疗方法的选择及疗效和预后的判断有指导意义.     

窄带成像技术在大肠肿瘤性病变与非肿瘤性病变的鉴别诊断中的价值

目的探讨窄带成像技术(narrow band imaging,NBI)在大肠肿瘤性病变与非肿瘤性病变的鉴别诊断中的价值。方法收集2010年1月-2013年10月在梧州红十字会医院内镜室进行结肠镜检查的患者98例,通过普通肠镜、NBI检查结果与病理学检查结果进行对比分析,鉴别诊断大肠肿瘤性病变与非肿瘤性病变。结果 98例患者中共发现136个病变。普通内镜诊断肿瘤性病变的敏感性、特异性及准确性分别为75.5%、78.6%及76.5%;NBI诊断肿瘤性病变的敏感性、特异性及准确性分别为95.7%、95.2%及95.6%,后者明显高于前者,差异有统计学意义(P0.01)。病变轮廓、pit及CP显示清晰度比较,NBI明显优于普通内镜,差异均有统计学意义(P0.01)。结论相对于普通内镜,NBI内镜能更清晰地显示病变的轮廓、腺管开口的分型及微血管的形态,在大肠肿瘤性病变与非肿瘤性病变的鉴别诊断中有重要价值。     

高清不放大窄带成像内镜对大肠隆起性病变的鉴别诊断作用

目的评价窄带成像技术(NBI)普通内镜在大肠隆起样病变诊断中价值。方法应用NBI普通内镜观察了80例患者共103个大肠隆起样病变的表面腺管开口形态。根据工藤进英腺管开口形态分型法,将NBI内镜诊断结果与病理检查结果进行比较。结果普通肠镜发现隆起样病变的敏感性为80.0%(80/103),切换NBI后,能清楚显示隆起样病变的形态和边界,发现隆起样病变的敏感性为100%(103/103);NBI普通内镜观察隆起样病变腺管开口,根据工藤进英腺管开口形态分型法进行诊断,其中腺管开口呈Ⅱ型18例,Ⅲ(L)型54例,Ⅳ型15例,Ⅴ型16例。NBI普通内镜对于大肠隆起性病变肿瘤及非肿瘤性的鉴别诊断的敏感性、特异性分别为95.3%(81/85)、83.3%(15/18)、NBI普通内镜对于大肠隆起性病变肿瘤及非肿瘤性的鉴别诊断的符合率为93.2%(96/103),与文献报道的NBI放大内镜的94.1%无统计学差异(P0.05)。结论应用NBI普通内镜,也可以通过观察腺管开口形态,比较准确地鉴别诊断大肠肿瘤与非肿瘤病变。     

窄带成像技术普通内镜与放大内镜对大肠肿瘤诊断价值的对比研究

目的 探讨窄带成像技术（NBI）模式下普通内镜和放大内镜对大肠肿瘤性与非肿瘤性病变的鉴别诊断价值.方法 选择2008年9月至2010年2月间内镜中心行NBI内镜检查发现的大肠新生性病变的患者,对发现的大肠新生性病变进行黏膜表面细微腺管开口形态分型及微血管形态分型,综合工藤进英腺管开口形态分型法与佐野宁微血管形态分型法进行诊断,将NBI内镜诊断结果与病理诊断结果进行对比分析.100例患者符合条件纳入研究,其中行NBI普通内镜64例,行NBI放大内镜36例.结果 排除不符合诊断标准的7例病例（NBI普通内镜5例,NBI放大内镜2例）,NBI内镜对大肠肿瘤性与非肿瘤性病变诊断的总符合率为91.4%（85/93）,其中NBI普通内镜为89.8%（53/59）,NBI放大内镜为94.1%（32/34）,均明显高于文献报道传统内镜的79.1%（P均＜0.05）,但NBI普通内镜与NBI放大内镜间比较差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）.结论 与NBI放大内镜相似,NBI普通内镜也可比较准确地鉴别大肠肿瘤性与非肿瘤性病变.     

内镜窄带成像与染色技术诊断大肠肿瘤的对比研究

目的通过窄带成像技术（NBI）和染色放大方法对大肠新生性病变进行观察，比较这两种技术对大肠肿瘤及非肿瘤性病变的鉴别诊断精度差异。方法2006年6月至9月间，共302例年龄在加至80岁之间的患者进行了NBI肠镜检查，其中98例入选。内镜插入至回盲部，退镜时分别采用常规模式、NBI模式观察，发现病变后，分别用NBI模式及染色放大方法进行血管分型及腺管开口分型，然后行病理检查进行评价比较。结果在98例患者发现新生性病变147个，其中常规内镜下发现的病变有90．5％（133／147），采用NBI发现病变有98．6％（145／147），差异有统计学意义（P〈0．01），漏诊的主要为平坦型病变。NBI观察对肿瘤性或非肿瘤的判断符合率为91．8％，染色内镜为82．3％（P〈0.01）。结论NBI技术观察黏膜表面变化，判断肿瘤或非肿瘤病变的符合率比普通内镜和染色内镜高，敏感性强；操作转换简单易行，尤其有利于平坦型病变的发现及诊断。     

Comparative study of conventional colonoscopy, chromoendoscopy, and narrow-band imaging systems in differential diagnosis of neoplastic and nonneoplastic colonic polyps

AIM: To identify the feasibility of the narrow-band imaging (NBI) method compared with that of conventional colonoscopy and chromoendoscopy for distinguishing neoplastic and nonneoplastic colonic polyps. METHOD: This study enrolled consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy using a conventional colonoscope between January and February 2006 at Chang-Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Medical Center, Taiwan. These 78 patients had 110 colorectal polyps. During the procedure, conventional colonoscopy first detected lesions, and then the NBI system was used to examine the capillary networks. Thereafter indigo carmine (0.2%) was sprayed directly on the mucosa surface prior to evaluating the crypts using a conventional colonoscope. The pit patterns were characterized using the classification system proposed by Kudo. Finally, a polypectomy or biopsy was performed for histological diagnosis. RESULTS: Of the 110 colorectal polyps, 65 were adenomas, 40 were hyperplastic polyps, and five were adenocarcinomas. The NBI system and pit patterns for all lesions were analyzed. For differential diagnosis of neoplastic (adenoma and adenocarcinoma) and nonneoplastic (hyperplastic) polyps, the sensitivity of the conventional colonoscope for detecting neoplastic polyps was 82.9%, specificity was 80.0% and diagnostic accuracy was 81.8%, significantly lower than those achieved with the NBI system (sensitivity 95.7%, specificity 87.5%, accuracy 92.7%) and chromoendoscopy (sensitivity 95.7%, specificity 87.5%, accuracy 92.7%). Therefore, no significant difference existed between the NBI system and chromoendoscopy during differential diagnosis of neoplastic and nonneoplastic polyps. CONCLUSION: The NBI system identified morphological details that correlate well with polyp histology by chromoendoscopy.     

窄带成像技术对大肠增生性病变的诊断价值研究

目的探讨窄带光谱成像技术（NBI）对大肠增生性病变的诊断价值。方法在白光及NBI模式下分别对大肠可疑病灶进行观察、诊断,以活检病理学检查结果作为金标准,对比NBI与传统肠镜诊断大肠炎性增生、腺瘤、早癌及进展期肿瘤的敏感性及特异性。采用NBI模式结合放大内镜观察各种大肠增生性病灶的腺管开口分型及病灶表面微血管形态并进行评分,总结NBI下大肠各种增生性病灶的内镜下特点。结果（1）传统肠镜及NBI技术检查280例患者共发现368处病灶,NBI诊断大肠炎性增生、腺瘤及早癌的敏感性及特异性明显高于传统肠镜。（2）NBI下大肠炎性增生的腺管开口多为Ⅰ、Ⅱ型,腺瘤多为Ⅱ、Ⅲ型（共占94．2％）,早癌的腺管开口可为Ⅲ（18．8％）、Ⅳ（56．3％）和Ⅴ型（25．0％）,进展期肿瘤多为Ⅴ型开口（94．0％）。（3）NBI下大肠炎性增生、腺瘤、早癌及进展期恶性肿瘤的微血管形态学平均评分分别为1．35±0．72、3．86±1．07、6．52±2．59和11．42±3．59,评分在6．5分以上病灶高度提示为恶性病灶。结论NBI在鉴别诊断大肠增生性病灶的敏感性及特异性明显高于传统肠镜,NBI结合放大内镜对病灶腺管开口分型及微血管形态的观察能帮助预测病灶的病理性质。     

A prospective comparative study of narrow-band imaging, chromoendoscopy, and conventional colonoscopy in the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia

BACKGROUND: Discrimination between neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions is crucial in colorectal cancer screening. Application of narrow-band imaging (NBI) in colonoscopy visualises mucosal vascular networks in neoplastic lesions and may improve diagnostic accuracy. AIM: To compare the diagnostic efficacy of NBI in differentiating neoplastic from non-neoplastic colorectal lesions with diagnostic efficacies of standard modalities, conventional colonoscopy, and chromoendoscopy. METHODS: In this prospective study, 180 colorectal lesions from 133 patients were observed with conventional colonoscopy, and under low-magnification and high-magnification NBI and chromoendoscopy. Lesions were resected for histopathological analysis. Endoscopic images were stored electronically and randomly allocated to two readers for evaluation. Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of each endoscopic modality were assessed by reference to histopathology. RESULTS: NBI and chromoendoscopy scored better under high magnification than under low magnification in comparison with conventional colonoscopy. The diagnostic accuracy of NBI with low or high magnification was significantly higher than that of conventional colonoscopy (low magnification: p = 0.0434 for reader 1 and p = 0.004 for reader 2; high magnification: p<0.001 for both readers) and was comparable to that of chromoendoscopy. CONCLUSION: Both low-magnification and high-magnification NBI were capable of distinguishing neoplastic from non-neoplastic colorectal lesions; the diagnostic accuracy of NBI was better than that of conventional colonoscopy and equivalent to that of chromoendoscopy. The role of NBI in screening colonoscopy needs further evaluation.     

DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY OF PIT PATTERN AND VASCULAR PATTERN ANALYSES IN COLORECTAL LESIONS

Background: The aim of this prospective study is to compare the usefulness of magnifying narrow band imaging (NBI) and magnifying chromoendoscopy in the diagnosis of colorectal lesions. Methods: The subjects were 1185 patients who underwent a complete colonoscopic examination and endoscopic or surgical treatment, from January 2006 to February 2008. A total of 1473 lesions were evaluated (53 hyperplastic polyps, 1317 adenomas, 103 submucosally invasive cancers). The digital images with NBI or chromoendoscopy were recorded and diagnosed independently from each other by two endoscopists who were blinded to the final pathological diagnosis. Results: We could differentiate between neoplastic and non‐neoplastic lesions with sensitivity of 88.9%, specificity of 98.5% and accuracy of 98.2% according to the vascular pattern. By recognizing an irregular or sparse pattern with NBI, massively invasive submucosal cancer could be diagnosed with the sensitivity and specificity of 94.9% and 76.0%. Using chromoendoscopy, we could differentiate between neoplastic and non‐neoplastic lesions with sensitivity of 86.8% and specificity of 99.2%. We were able to differentiate between massively invasive cancers and slightly invasive cancers using the pit patterns with sensitivity of 89.7% and specificity of 88.0%. The specificity was superior to that of NBI colonoscopy. Conclusion: Both NBI and chromoendoscopy can be useful for distinguishing between neoplastic and non‐neoplastic lesions. In the diagnosis of submucosal cancer, pit pattern diagnosis was slightly superior to vascular pattern diagnosis. It is desirable to perform chromoendoscopy in addition to NBI for distinguishing between slightly and massively invasive submucosal cancer lesions and determining the treatment.     

Efficacy of high magnification chromoscopic colonoscopy for the diagnosis of neoplasia in flat and depressed lesions of the colorectum: a prospective analysis

BACKGROUND: High magnification chromoscopic colonoscopy (HMCC) permits the in vivo examination of the colorectal pit pattern, which has a high correlation with stereomicroscopic appearances of resected specimens. This new technology may provide an "optical biopsy" which can be used to aid diagnostic precision and guide therapeutic strategies. Conflicting data exist concerning the accuracy of this technique when discriminating neoplastic from non-neoplastic lesions, particularly when flat and depressed. AIM: To prospectively examine the efficacy of HMCC for the diagnosis of neoplasia in flat and depressed colorectal lesions using standardised morphological, pit pattern, and histopathological criteria. Clinical recommendations for the use of HMCC are made. METHODS: Total colonoscopy was performed on 1850 patients by a single endoscopist from January 2001 to July 2003 using the C240Z magnifying colonoscope. Identified lesions were classed according to the Japanese Research Society guidelines, and pit pattern according to Kudos modified criteria. Pit pattern appearances were then compared with histopathology. RESULTS: A total of 1008 flat lesions were identified. The sensitivity and specificity of HMCC in distinguishing non-neoplastic from neoplastic lesions were 98% and 92%, respectively. However, when using HMCC to differentiate neoplastic/non-invasive from neoplastic/invasive lesions, sensitivity was poor (50%) with a specificity of 98%. Diagnostic accuracy was not influenced by size or morphological classification of lesions. CONCLUSION: HMCC has a high overall accuracy at discriminating neoplastic from non-neoplastic lesions but is not 100% accurate. HMCC is a useful diagnostic tool in vivo but presently is not a replacement for histology. Requirements for further education and training in these techniques need to be addressed.