Observer agreement in the assessment of narrowband imaging system surface patterns in Barrett’s esophagus: a multicenter study

Background and study aims: The clinical utility of narrow-band imaging (NBI) for Barrett’s esophagus is limited by the multiplicity of classification schemes. We evaluated the interobserver agreement and accuracy of a new consensus-driven simplified binary classification of NBI surface patterns.

Patients and methods: NBI images from macroscopically normal areas in patients with Barrett’s esophagus were retrieved from endoscopy databases and were randomized for review by seven endoscopists (three experts, four nonexperts). A simplified binary classification of NBI mucosal and vascular patterns was used: (1) regular pattern (nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus); (2) irregular pattern (dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus). Agreement in relation to surface patterns and predicted histology (dysplasia vs. no dysplasia) was calculated using κ statistics.

Results: A total of 252 NBI images from 75 patients with Barrett’s esophagus were assessed: 93 showed intestinal metaplasia, 91 low-grade dysplasia, and 68 high-grade dysplasia/esophageal adenocarcinoma. The median score for image quality was 4 (very good). Interobserver agreement for mucosal and vascular patterns and dysplasia prediction was fair: κ = 0.40 (95%CI: 0.37–0.42), 0.36 (95%CI: 0.33–0.38), and 0.39 (95%CI: 0.36–0.41) respectively, with comparable results for experts and nonexperts. Intraobserver agreement was substantially better among experts than among nonexperts, with mucosal κ = 0.63 vs. 0.49, vascular κ = 0.58 vs. 0.43, and predicted histology κ = 0.68 vs. 0.54 (all P < 0.005). Mean sensitivity and specificity of NBI surface patterns for predicting dysplasia were 47% (95%CI: 44%–55%) and 72% (95%CI: 69%–76%) respectively.

Conclusions: Using a consensus-driven simplified classification of NBI surface patterns for Barrett’s esophagus, the interobserver agreement was fair with suboptimal sensitivity and specificity. Significant improvements in NBI interpretation are needed prior to the routine use of NBI surface patterns for the assessment of Barrett’s esophagus.

Results of this study were presented in part at DDW 2008

• References

• 1 Sharma P. Barrett’s esophagus. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 2548-2556
• 2 Menke-Pluymers MB, Hop WC, Dees J et al. Risk factors for the development of an adenocarcinoma in columnar-lined (Barrett) esophagus. The Rotterdam Esophageal Tumor Study Group. Cancer 1993; 72: 1155-1158
• 3 Solaymani-Dodaran M, Logan RF, West J et al. Risk of oesophageal cancer in Barrett’s oesophagus and gastro-oesophageal reflux. Gut 2004; 53: 1070-1074
• 4 Spechler SJ. Clinical practice. Barrett’s esophagus. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 836-842
• 5 Eloubeidi MA, Mason AC, Desmond RA et al. Temporal trends (1973–1997) in survival of patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma in the United States: a glimmer of hope?. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 1627-1633
• 6 Enzinger PC, Mayer RJ. Esophageal cancer. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 2241-2252
• 7 Wang KK, Sampliner RE. Updated guidelines 2008 for the diagnosis, surveillance and therapy of Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 788-797
• 8 Levine DS, Blount PL, Rudolph RE et al. Safety of a systematic endoscopic biopsy protocol in patients with Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95: 1152-1157
• 9 Sharma P, McQuaid K, Dent J et al. A critical review of the diagnosis and management of Barrett’s esophagus: the AGA Chicago Workshop. Gastroenterology 2004; 127: 310-330
• 10 Cameron AJ, Carpenter HA. Barrett’s esophagus, high-grade dysplasia, and early adenocarcinoma: a pathological study. Am J Gastroenterol 1997; 92: 586-591
• 11 Gono K, Obi T, Yamaguchi M et al. Appearance of enhanced tissue features in narrow-band endoscopic imaging. J Biomed Opt 2004; 9: 568-577
• 12 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: 167-175
• 13 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: 155-166
• 14 Hamamoto Y, Endo T, Nosho K et al. Usefulness of narrow-band imaging endoscopy for diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus. J Gastroenterol 2004; 39: 14-20
• 15 Goda K, Tajiri H, Ikegami M et al. Usefulness of magnifying endoscopy with narrow band imaging for the detection of specialized intestinal metaplasia in columnar-lined esophagus and Barrett’s adenocarcinoma. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 36-46
• 16 Anagnostopoulos GK, Yao K, Kaye P et al. Novel endoscopic observation in Barrett’s oesophagus using high resolution magnification endoscopy and narrow band imaging. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2007; 26: 501-507
• 17 Herrero LA, Curvers WL, Bansal A et al. Zooming in on Barrett oesophagus using narrow-band imaging: an international observer agreement study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 21: 1068-1075
• 18 Kuznetsov K, Lambert R, Rey JF. Narrow-band imaging: potential and limitations. Endoscopy 2006; 38: 76-81
• 19 Tharavej C, Hagen JA, Peters JH et al. Predictive factors of coexisting cancer in Barrett’s high-grade dysplasia. Surg Endosc 2006; 20: 439-443
• 20 Schlemper RJ, Riddell RH, Kato Y et al. The Vienna classification of gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia. Br Med J 2000; 47: 251
• 21 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: 457-463