Digestive Diseases and Sciences

, Volume 57, Issue 12, pp 3299–3302 | Cite as

Interpretation of Probe-Based Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy of Indeterminate Biliary Strictures: Is There Any Interobserver Agreement?

  • Jayant P. Talreja
  • Amrita Sethi
  • Priya A. Jamidar
  • Satish K. Singh
  • Richard S. Kwon
  • Uzma D. Siddiqui
  • Mandeep Sawhney
  • Mihir R. Bakhru
  • Monica Gaidhane
  • Pam Kline
  • Bryan G. Sauer
  • Michel KahalehEmail author
Original Article



Probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) has enabled in vivo histopathology by obtaining high resolution images of the mucosal layers of the gastrointestinal tract. For indeterminate bile duct strictures, biopsy, cytologic brushing and needle aspiration have low levels of diagnostic accuracy.


The objective of this multi-center pilot study was to assess the interobserver agreement in interpretation of pCLE imaging.


Twenty-five de-identified pCLE video clips of indeterminate biliary strictures were sent to 6 observers at 5 institutions. Miami Classification was used to standardize image interpretation. Seven variables were assessed for interobserver agreement using the Fleiss kappa statistic which included: presence of thick (>20 μm) or thin (<20 μm) dark or white bands, dark clumps, epithelium including glandular structures, interstitial fluorescein leakage, ease of interpretation, and final diagnosis. Based on operator experience, observers were categorized into 3 categories of experience (Category 1: 0–10; Category 2: 11–20; Category 3: >21 cases).


Upon stratification, Category 1 interobserver agreement ranged from “Poor” to “Fair” (κ = 0.277, κ = −0.079, κ = −0.025, κ = −0.066, κ = 0.128, κ = 0.088), and for the final diagnosis variable, the agreement was slight (κ = 0.033). Category 2 and 3 interobserver agreement ranged from “Poor” to “Fair” (κ = 0.211, κ = 0.181, κ = 0.347, κ = 0.238, κ = −0.050, κ = 0.092), and for the final diagnosis variable, the agreement was slight (κ = 0.195).


The overall interobserver agreement for pCLE image interpretation in indeterminate biliary strictures ranges from poor to fair. Interpretation criteria as well as training require further standardization toward improving inter-rater reliability.


Probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy pCLE Biliary stricture Interobserver Diagnostic accuracy 


  1. 1.
    De Bellis M, et al. Tissue sampling at ERCP in suspected malignant biliary strictures (part 1). Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;56:552–561.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gaidhane M, Kahaleh M. Single-operator cholangioscopy in biliary disorders: going beyond visualization. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74:815–816.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Meining A, et al. Detection of cholangiocarcinoma in vivo using miniprobe-based confocal fluorescence microscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;6:1057–1060.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rosch T, et al. A prospective comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of ERCP, MRCP, CT, and EUS in biliary strictures. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;55:870–876.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Loeser CS, et al. Confocal endomicroscopic examination of malignant biliary strictures and histologic correlation with lymphatics. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2011;45:246–252.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Palma GD. Confocal laser endomicroscopy in the “in vivo” histological diagnosis of the gastrointestinal tract. World J Gastroenterol. 2009;15:5770–5775.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Meining A et al. Direct visualization of indeterminate pancreaticobiliary strictures with probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy: a multicenter experience. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74:961–968. Epub. 07/29/2011.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Parsi MA. Peroral cholangioscopy in the new millennium. World J Gastroenterol. 2011;17:1–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fogel EL, et al. Effectiveness of a new long cytology brush in the evaluation of malignant biliary obstruction: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;63:71–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moreno Luna LE. Advanced cytologic techniques for the detection of malignant pancreatobiliary strictures. Gastroenterology. 2006;131:1064–1072.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fritcher EG, et al. A multivariable model using advanced cytologic methods for the evaluation of indeterminate pancreatobiliary strictures. Gastroenterology. 2009;136:2180–2186.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    de Bellis M, et al. Tissue sampling at ERCP in suspected malignant biliary strictures (part 2). Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;56:720–730.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Draganov PV et al. Prospective evaluation of the clinical utility of ERCP-guided cholangiopancreatoscopy with a new direct visualization system. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:971–979. Epub 03/17/2011.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Othman MO, Wallace MB. Confocal laser endomicroscopy: is it prime time? J Clin Gastroenterol. 2011;45:205–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wallace MB et al. Preliminary accuracy and interobserver agreement for the detection of intraepithelial neoplasia in Barrett’s esophagus with probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72:19–24. Epub 04/08/2010.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Buchner AM, et al. The learning curve of in vivo probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy for prediction of colorectal neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:556–560.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    De Palma GD, et al. In vivo characterization of DALM in ulcerative colitis with high-resolution probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy. World J Gastroenterol. 2011;17:677–680.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Giovannini M et al. Results of a phase I-II study on intraductal confocal microscopy (IDCM) in patients with common bile duct (CBD) stenosis. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:2247–2253. Epub 03/18/2011.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jayant P. Talreja
    • 1
  • Amrita Sethi
    • 2
  • Priya A. Jamidar
    • 3
  • Satish K. Singh
    • 4
  • Richard S. Kwon
    • 5
  • Uzma D. Siddiqui
    • 3
  • Mandeep Sawhney
    • 6
  • Mihir R. Bakhru
    • 1
  • Monica Gaidhane
    • 7
  • Pam Kline
    • 7
  • Bryan G. Sauer
    • 1
  • Michel Kahaleh
    • 7
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Digestive HealthUniversity of VirginiaCharlottesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of GastroenterologyColumbia University Medical CenterNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of GastroenterologyYale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  4. 4.Department of GastroenterologyBoston University School of MedicineBostonUSA
  5. 5.Department of GastroenterologyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  6. 6.Department of GastroenterologyBIDMCBostonUSA
  7. 7.Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of MedicineWeill Cornell Medical CollegeNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations