4.6 Review

A meta-analysis of confocal laser endomicroscopy for the detection of neoplasia in patients with Barrett's esophagus

Journal

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Volume 31, Issue 6, Pages 1102-1110

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jgh.13267

Keywords

Barrett's esophagus; confocal laser endomicroscopy; meta-analysis; neoplasia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Aims:Barrett's esophagus (BE) is considered the most important risk factor for development of esophageal adenocarcinoma. Confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE) is a recently developed technique used to diagnose neoplasia in BE. This meta-analysis was performed to assess the accuracy of CLE for diagnosis of neoplasia in BE. Methods:We searched EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to identify relevant studies for all articles published up to June 27, 2015 in English. The quality of included studies was assessed using QUADAS-2. Per-patient and per-lesion pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Results:In total, 14 studies were included in the final analysis, covering 789 patients with 4047 lesions. Seven studies were included in the per-patient analysis. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 89% (95% CI: 0.82-0.94) and 83% (95% CI: 0.78-0.86), respectively. Ten studies were included in the per-lesion analysis. Compared with the PP analysis, the corresponding pooled sensitivity declined to 77% (95% CI: 0.73-0.81) and specificity increased to 89% (95% CI: 0.87-0.90). Subgroup analysis showed that probe-based CLE (pCLE) was superior to endoscope-based CLE (eCLE) in pooled specificity [91.4% (95% CI: 89.7-92.9) vs 86.1% (95% CI: 84.3-87.8)] and AUC for the sROC (0.885 vs 0.762). Conclusion:Confocal laser endomicroscopy is a valid method to accurately differentiate neoplasms from non-neoplasms in BE. It can be applied to BE surveillance and early diagnosis of esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available