Advertisement

Augmented Endoscopy in Barrett’s Esophagus: Zoom Endoscopy, Traditional and Virtual Chromoendoscopy

  • Giuseppe GalloroEmail author
  • Raffaele Manta
  • Nico Pagano
  • Teresa Russo
  • Donato Alessandro Telesca
  • Andrea Parodi
  • Cesare Formisano
Chapter

Abstract

Barrett’s Esophagus diagnosis is a combination between an endoscopic suspect and a histological confirmation of endoscopic biopsies showing intestinal metaplasia. Current guidelines codify biopsies protocols but none of these guarantees the recognition of intestinal metaplasia areas: sampling error is an-in-ambush pitfall and misdiagnosis is a concrete possibility.

To improve intestinal metaplasia detection, several techniques have been proposed and some of these show, indeed, very good results, better than white-light endoscopy exploration.

In this chapter, we will analyze the role and the results of traditional chromoendoscopy, zoom/magnifying endoscopy, and computed virtual chromoendoscopy in the advanced study of Barrett’s Esophagus.

Keywords

Augmented endoscopy Barrett’s esophagus Chromoendoscopy Diagnosis Dysplasia Magnification NBI Virtual chromoendoscopy Zoom endoscopy 

References

  1. 1.
    Mannath J, Ragunath K. Era of Barrett’s surveillance: does equipment matter? World J Gastroenterol. 2010;16:4640–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shaheen NJ, Falk GW, Iyer PG, et al. ACG clinical guideline: diagnosis and management of Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111:30–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sharma P, Falk GW, Weston AP, et al. Dysplasia and cancer in a large multicenter cohort of patients with Barrett’s oesophagus. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;4:566–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Verna C, Feyles E, Lorenzi L, et al. I-SCAN targeted versus random biopsies in Barrett’s oesophagus. Dig Liver Dis. 2014;46:131–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nogales O, Caballero-Marcos A, Clemente-Sánchez A, et al. Usefulness of non-magnifying narrow band imaging in EVIS EXERA III video systems and high-definition endoscopes to diagnose dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus using the Barrett International NBI Group (BING) classification. Dig Dis Sci. 2017;62:2840–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pohl J, Pech O, May A, et al. Incidence of macroscopically occult neoplasias in Barrett’s esophagus: are random biopsies dispensable in the era of advanced endoscopic imaging? Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:2350–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Trivedi PJ, Braden B. Indications, stains and techniques in chromoendoscopy. QJM. 2013;106(2):117–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Olliver JR, Wild CP, Sahay P, et al. Chromoendoscopy with methylene blue and associated DNA damage in Barrett’s oesophagus. Lancet. 2003;362:373–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ngamruengphong S, Sharma VK, Das A. Diagnostic yield of methylene blue chromoendoscopy for detecting specialized intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69:1021–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sharma P, Weston AP, Topalovski M, et al. Magnification chromoendoscopy for the detection of intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia in Barrett’s oesophagus. Gut. 2003;52:24–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guelrud M, Herrera I, Essenfeld H, et al. Enhanced magnification endoscopy: a new technique to identify specialized intestinal metaplasia in Barrett’s esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;53:559–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Endo T, Awakawa T, Takahashi H, et al. Classification of Barrett’s epithelium by magnifying endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;55(6):641–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Davies J, Burke D, Olliver JR, et al. Methylene blue but not indigo carmine causes DNA damage to colonocytes in vitro and in vivo at concentrations used in clinical chromoendoscopy. Gut. 2007;56:155–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Longcroft-Wheaton G, Duku M, Mead R, et al. Acetic acid spray is an effective tool for the endoscopic detection of neoplasia in patients with Barrett’s esophagus. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8:843–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pech O, Petrone MC, Manner H, et al. One-step chromoendoscopy and structure enhancement using balsamic vinegar for screening of Barrett’s esophagus. Acta Gastroenterol Belg. 2008;71:243–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bhandari P, Kandaswamy P, Cowlishaw D, et al. Acetic acid-enhanced chromoendoscopy is more cost-effective than protocol-guided biopsies in a high-risk Barrett’s population. Dis Esophagus. 2012;25:386–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bruno MJ. Magnification endoscopy, high resolution endoscopy, and chromoscopy; towards a better optical diagnosis. Gut. 2003;52(Suppl 4):iv7–11.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kwon RS, Adler DG, Chand B, et al. High-resolution and high-magnification endoscopes. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69:399–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Galloro G. High technology imaging in digestive endoscopy. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;4(2):22–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Galloro G, Ruggiero S, Russo T, et al. Recent advances to improve the endoscopic detection and differentiation of early colorectal neoplasia. Color Dis. 2015;17(Suppl 1):25–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Galloro G, Magno L, Diamantis G, et al. Multiple primary malignancies: role of advanced endoscopy to identify sincronous and metacronous digestive tumours. In: Renda A, editor. Multiple primary malignancies. Milan: Springer; 2008. p. 221–30.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Galloro G, Magno L, Ruggiero S, et al. Contribution of new technologies to endoscopic imaging. In: Trecca A, editor. Ileoscopy: technique, diagnosis, and clinical applications. Milan: Springer; 2012. p. 21–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Guelrud M, Herrera I, Essenfeld H, et al. Enhanced magnification endoscopy: a new technique to identify specialized intestinal metaplasia in Barrett’s esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;56(6):559–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    East JE, Vleugels JL, Roelandt P, et al. Advanced endoscopic imaging: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) technology review. Endoscopy. 2016;48(11):1029–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Curvers WL, van Vilsteren FG, Baak LC, et al. Endoscopic trimodal imaging versus standard video endoscopy for detection of early Barrett’s neoplasia: a multicentre, randomised cross- over study in general practice. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:195–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sharma P, Bansal A, Mathur S, et al. The utility of a novel narrow band imaging endoscopy system in patients with Barrett’s esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;64:167–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kara MA, Ennahachi M, Fockens P, et al. Detection and classification of the mucosal and vascular patterns (mucosal morphology) in Barrett’s esophagus by using narrow band imaging. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;64:155–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Singh R, Anagnostopoulos GK, Yao K, et al. Narrow-band imaging with magnification in Barrett’s esophagus: validation of a simplified grading system of mucosal morphology patterns against histology. Endoscopy. 2008;40:457–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sharma P, Bergman JJ, Goda K, et al. Development and validation of a classification system to identify high-grade dysplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus using narrow-band imaging. Gastroenterology. 2016;150:591–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Singh R, Shahzad MA, Tam W, et al. Preliminary feasibility study using a novel narrow-band imaging system with dual focus magnification capability in Barrett’s esophagus: is the time ripe to abandon random biopsies? Dig Endosc. 2013;25(Suppl 2):151–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kato M, Goda K, Shimizu Y, et al. Image assessment of Barrett’s esophagus using the simplified narrow band imaging classification. J Gastroenterol. 2017;52:466–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Matsuhashi N, Sakai E, Ohata K, et al. Surveillance of patients with long-segment Barrett’s esophagus: a multicenter prospective cohort study in Japan. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;32:409–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giuseppe Galloro
    • 1
    Email author
  • Raffaele Manta
    • 2
  • Nico Pagano
    • 3
  • Teresa Russo
    • 1
  • Donato Alessandro Telesca
    • 1
  • Andrea Parodi
    • 4
  • Cesare Formisano
    • 5
  1. 1.Surgical Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Department of Clinical Medicine and SurgeryUniversity of Naples Federico II—School of MedicineNaplesItaly
  2. 2.Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, NOCSAE Hospital of ModenaModenaItaly
  3. 3.Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC)University Alma Mater Bologna, Italy—School of MedicineBolognaItaly
  4. 4.Gastroenterology Unit, Galliera HospitalGenoaItaly
  5. 5.Department of Clinical Medicine and SurgerySurgical Colo-Proctology Unit, University Federico II—School of MedicineNaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations