You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Endoscopy
Review
The use of optical imaging techniques in the gastrointestinal tract
  1. Sabina Beg1,
  2. Ana Wilson2,
  3. Krish Ragunath1
    1. 1NIHR Biomedical Research Unit in Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and The University of Nottingham, Queens Medical Centre Campus, Nottingham, UK
    2. 2Department of Gastroenterology, Wolfson Unit for Endoscopy, St Mark's hospital, London, UK
    1. Correspondence to Professor Krish Ragunath, Department of Gastroenterology, Digestive Diseases Unit, Nottingham University Hospital, QMC Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK; k.ragunath{at}nottingham.ac.uk

    Abstract

    With significant advances in the management of gastrointestinal disease there has been a move from diagnosing advanced pathology, to detecting early lesions that are potentially amenable to curative endoscopic treatment. This has required an improvement in diagnostics, with a focus on identifying and characterising subtle mucosal changes. There is great interest in the use of optical technologies to predict histology and enable the formulation of a real-time in vivo diagnosis, a so-called ‘optical biopsy’. The aim of this review is to explore the evidence for the use of the current commercially available imaging techniques in the gastrointestinal tract.

    • BARRETT'S OESOPHAGUS
    • COLONIC ADENOMAS
    • ENDOSCOPY
    • GASTRIC NEOPLASIA
    • GASTROINTESINAL ENDOSCOPY

    This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

    https://doi.org/10.1136/flgastro-2015-100563

    Statistics from Altmetric.com

      Request Permissions

      If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

      Introduction

      The purpose of gastrointestinal endoscopy, which has evolved towards identifying early pathology and precursor lesions, has necessitated an improvement in technology. This has resulted in an array of new imaging systems, not all of which are widely available, as in most cases a significant financial investment in equipment needs to be made. As yet there is no single imaging modality that is applicable in all clinical scenarios, therefore an understanding of all of these techniques is required.

      Currently available technology

      High definition white light endoscopy

      The standard of white light endoscopy (WLE) has improved dramatically through the years. WLE uses the full spectrum of visible white light to form a true to life representation of the mucosa. More recently the introduction of video chip technology has revolutionised the quality of image achievable, allowing for resolutions of over one million pixels. High Definition (HD) endoscopes use light from a xenon lamp, with the light reflected by the mucosa and detected by a HD charge coupled device located at the tip of the scope. Images can be enhanced further when combined with optical zoom lenses, which are capable of magnifying images by up to 150 times.1–4

      Narrow band imaging

      Narrow band imaging (NBI, Olympus, Japan) is probably the most widely available of the optical imaging techniques, incorporated into current generation Olympus video endoscopy systems. By using electronically activated filters it is possible to limit the wavelength spectrum of visible blue light to 415 nm and green light to 540 nm, while removing red light completely.5 These wavelengths coincide with the optimal frequency absorbed by haemoglobin, accentuating surface microvasculature and thereby providing enhanced delineation of the mucosal architecture. As angiogenesis is one of the first features of neoplasia, lesions appear darker than the background mucosa (figures 1 and 2). NBI is activated by simply pressing a button on the endoscope, allowing for rapid alternation between NBI and WLE images.5–7

      Figure 1
      Figure 1

      Colonic polyp under white light endoscopy inspection.

      Figure 2
      Figure 2

      Colonic polyp under narrow band imaging inspection, with clearer demarcation and characterisation of pit pattern compared with white light endoscopy.

      Blue laser light imaging

      Blue laser light imaging also known as Lasero (Fujinon, Japan) combines two lasers, one with a restricted wavelength spectrum of 415 nm, which highlights mucosal abnormalities using the same principles as NBI. The second laser provides fluorescent white light, enabling improved illumination of the mucosal surface, allowing for brighter images than achieved with traditional NBI. While this technology has been commercially available since 2012, data on its use is still emerging, with most studies having taken place in the Far East.

      Fujinon intelligent chromoendoscopy

      Fujinon intelligent chromoendoscopy (FICE, Fujinon, Japan) is a virtual chromoendoscopic technique, which, by using postprocessing algorithms, is able to digitally convert HD WLE images into colour images composed of various wavelength combinations (figures 3 and 4). The ten available presets can be customised from the many possible permutations, with an appropriate setting chosen on the basis of lesion characteristics.8

      Figure 3
      Figure 3

      High grade dysplasia with white light endoscopy. Courtesy Dr Adolfo Parra Blanco.

      Figure 4
      Figure 4

      High grade dysplasia with Fujinon intelligent chromoendoscopy (FICE) enhancement. Courtesy Dr Adolfo Parra Blanco.

      I-Scan

      I-Scan (Pentax Medical, Japan) similarly detects white light reflected by the gastrointestinal mucosa, converting this using postprocessing software to enhance lesion characteristics. I-Scan has three different modes; surface enhancement, contrast enhancement and tone enhancement modes. By augmenting light contrast, suppressing visible red light and enhancing blue light, it is possible in the various modes to provide topographical information and enhance mucosal vasculature9 (figures 5 and 6).

      Figure 5
      Figure 5

      A subtle oesophageal lesion at 5 o'clock position, seen in white light endoscopy and proven to represent high grade dysplasia on biopsy. Courtesy Dr Adolfo Parra Blanco.

      Figure 6
      Figure 6

      Enhanced visualisation of region of high grade dysplasia seen in figure 5, using I-Scan.

      Autofluorescence imaging

      Autofluorescence imaging (AFI) takes advantage of the differential presence of naturally occurring endogenous fluorophores within the gastrointestinal mucosa. When exposed to short wavelengths, fluorophores become excited and emit a longer wavelength of fluorescent light, with normal and abnormal tissues having different emission spectra.10 The placement of a rotating filter at the endoscope light source limits the excitation wavelength to blue light (390–470 nm) in order to induce autofluorescence and restricts green light (540–560 nm) for taking reflection images. A barrier filter placed at the AFI charge coupled device selectively detects fluorescent light of 500–630 nm thus eliminating the blue excitation. This results in an image composed of a mixture of green and mauve hues, which represent areas of normal and dysplastic mucosa, respectively (figure 7).10 ,11

      Figure 7
      Figure 7

      Lesion within Barrett's oesophagus identified by autofluorescence imaging.

      Confocal laser endomicroscopy

      Confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE) works by focusing blue laser light through a single lens onto a specific target. The reflected light is filtered through a pinhole, thereby reducing light scatter, creating highly detailed images from a thin focal plane.12 ,13 This is available as a miniature scanner integrated onto the endoscope tip or separately as a probe-based accessory fed through the working channel of a standard endoscope. Administration of an intravenous fluorescent contrast agent is necessary in order to achieve delineation of the subsurface architecture.12 ,13 CLE offers image detail comparable to histopathological sections (figures 8 and 9).

      Figure 8
      Figure 8

      Probe based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) image of adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s oesophagus, demonstrating a pleomorphic irregular glandular structure.

      Figure 9
      Figure 9

      pCLE image of intestinal metaplasia with dark mucin-laden goblet cells.

      Evidence for advanced imaging within the gastrointestinal tract

      Imaging in the oesophagus

      Barrett's oesophagus has long been recognised as a precursor for oesophageal adenocarcinoma, with population studies suggesting an annual risk of progression of 0.33%.14 ,15 This has taken on greater significance in the advent of endoscopic treatments, such as radiofrequency ablation and endoscopic mucosal resection, which offer us the opportunity treat early lesions with improved patient outcomes.14 The standard of care is currently the Seattle protocol, with quadrantic biopsies taken at 2 cm intervals within the Barrett's segment. This technique is prone to sampling error, which could lead to inappropriate follow-up intervals.14

      Several studies have pointed towards the benefits of using NBI to inspect Barrett's epithelium, a prospective trial in which patients were randomised to either WLE or NBI demonstrated comparable dysplasia detection rates, with nearly half the number of biopsies required.16 A meta-analysis demonstrated sensitivity and specificity of 96% and 94%, respectively, for the detection of high-grade dysplasia.17 Additional advantages of NBI include its availability outside of tertiary referral centres, as well as good interobserver agreement aided by the existence of NBI classification systems.18

      AFI has shown initial promising results in increasing dysplasia detection but unfortunately is associated with a high false positive rate, which can be as high as 80%.11 ,14 To address this limitation, AFI tends not to be used in isolation, but rather is incorporated with NBI and HD WLE to create endoscopic trimodal imaging (ETMI). There have been positive outcomes when using ETMI to assess margins prior to endoscopic mucosal resection, with a small case series using this modality to achieve complete histological clearance in 87.5% of patients.19 A large randomised cross-over trial examining the impact of ETMI performed by general gastroenterologists with no specific expertise in Barrett's imaging in an intermediate risk group showed no significant improvement in dysplasia detection rates.20 Due to a combination of equipment cost, training requirements and lack of validation in low-risk populations, the use of AFI is currently limited to expert endoscopists in high-risk patients.11 ,14 ,20

      Of the trials performed with CLE there is considerable heterogeneity in the technical aspects of its use, with variability in operator experience, use of a cap to reduce artefact, the type of CLE device, as well as the criteria used to make a diagnosis of neoplasia. Bearing in mind these limitations, a meta-analysis found the sensitivity of CLE in the detection of neoplasia to be 89%, with fewer biopsies required compared with WLE assessment.21 The operator requires training in CLE image acquisition and interpretation. CLE requires an additional capital investment in equipment and accessories that limits its widespread use.

      At present there is insufficient evidence for the use of optical imaging techniques in preference of quadrantic biopsies for routine Barrett's surveillance.14 However, these have proven useful in high-risk patients, in whom quadrantic biopsies have detected the presence of dysplasia and in the context of treatment planning, where accurate delineation of lesion margins prior to resection is paramount.11 ,14 ,19

      Imaging in the stomach

      While gastric cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death worldwide, geographical variability, with a relatively low incidence in the West means algorithms for diagnosis and surveillance are not well established.22–24 Early gastric lesions tend to be subtle and can be easily missed with standard WLE, especially if coupled with a low index of suspicion. Vigilance for precursor conditions such as gastric atrophy, intestinal metaplasia (IM) and colonisation with Helicobacter pylori is required when patients attend endoscopy for alternate indications.25–27 At present, where atrophy is suspected it is recommended that biopsies are taken as per the Sydney protocol, with non-targeted biopsies within the antrum, incisura and fundus.27 ,28

      HD WLE allows for the detection of IM and dysplasia with a sensitivity of 76% and 97%, respectively,29 while the use of magnification NBI has been shown to be accurate in differentiating between malignant and normal mucosa with a sensitivity of 97%.30 Further, changes on a cellular level, such as the presence of light blue crests that are indicative of IM can be visualised.31 A degree of experience in pathology recognition is required, with lower sensitivities for detection of IM by non-experts.31 While promising, it is noted that the majority of studies have taken place in Japan, where there is a greater incidence of gastric cancer and greater experience in lesion recognition. Further, NBI is often used in combination with high magnification endoscopes, which are not routinely available in daily clinical practice.31 It is uncertain whether such promising results are transferable to a low-risk population, with validation studies required.

      The data on postprocessing methodologies is more limited, with the majority of the evidence based on postprocedural review of images. FICE has been shown to accurately delineate lesion margins as well as predict histological classification better than WLE alone. When used for assessment prior to endoscopic mucosal dissection FICE helps to achieve clear resection margins.32–35 Evidence for the use of I-Scan is still preliminary.

      Studies on the use of CLE have demonstrated very promising results, in particular with a randomised controlled trial demonstrating far superior detection of IM with CLE of 65.7% compared with 15.7% with WLE. When combined with NBI there is 82% accuracy in histological classification of early gastric neoplasia; again, experience with this technology is required, with higher accuracies associated with expertise.36 ,37

      Imaging in the colon

      Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains the second leading cause of cancer mortality in the UK, with over 41 000 cases diagnosed annually and culminating in 16 187 deaths.38 ,39 The cumulative lifetime risk of CRC is in the order of 6%, however there is evidence that screening colonoscopy reduces incidence and mortality from CRC.40 Most sporadic CRCs develop from adenomas via the well described genetic adenoma-carcinoma sequence.41 Removal of adenomas at colonoscopy by polypectomy disrupts this progression. Countries that have embraced screening programmes have demonstrated significant reductions in the incidence of CRCs, with studies suggesting up to an 80% reduction in the subsequent development CRC in participants.41

      Adenoma detection

      Despite its benefits in the prevention of CRC, colonoscopy is limited by polyp miss rates of up to 26%.42 ,43 Consequently, the adenoma detection rate (ADR) is considered to be a highly discriminant indicator of colonoscopy quality. Although many factors may contribute to the polyp miss rate, it is thought that some of the lesions that are missed, particularly in the right colon, are flat and relatively subtle and therefore any improvement in the optics may make them easier to detect.43

      Disappointingly, studies evaluating the use of HD WLE have shown only a modest improvement in ADR. A meta-analysis of five studies, comprising 4422 patients demonstrated a 3.5% (95% CI 0.9% to 6.1%) improvement in ADR as compared with standard WLE.44 There have been multiple large studies investigating the benefit of NBI, with some conflicting results. Two large meta-analyses have concluded that the use of NBI confers no additional benefit, with no difference in ADR with NBI compared with WLE.45 ,46 Some disadvantages of NBI in screening include the dark endoscopic image that results from poor illumination of the capacious colonic lumen, an effect that is compounded if combined with suboptimal bowel preparation. Even when NBI is limited to the right side of the colon, where it arguably should have greatest benefit, it failed to show an improved ADR in a multicentre Japanese study where 782 tandem WLE and NBI examinations of the right colon were performed.47 This is further supported by two trials where NBI was compared with WLE in a population at high risk for adenomas, with patients having either a positive faecal occult blood test or a history of previous polyps.48 ,49 There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients with adenomas, nor in the total number of adenomas identified. One explanation for the lack of additional benefit of NBI may be an improved skill at picking up polyps using WLE once trained in NBI use. The phenomenon of a ‘learning effect’ was seen in one study comparing WLE and NBI, where there was an initial greater ADR with NBI, which diminished as the study progressed as endoscopists became more adept at detecting these polyps with WLE.50 There is no convincing evidence for increased ADRs associated with the use of AFI, CLE, I-Scan or FICE.

      Polyp characterisation

      Diminutive polyps (<5 mm) rarely harbour advanced histology and it has therefore been suggested that such polyps need not necessarily be sent for histopathological assessment, but should rather be diagnosed at the time of colonoscopy based on polyp characteristics.51 ,52 This has the benefit of being able to determine an appropriate interval for further surveillance at the time of the procedure as well as potential cost savings in terms of histopathology and further follow-up.53 While this approach has yet to be validated by larger studies, it has been endorsed by the American and European Societies of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy for adequately experienced endoscopists.54 ,55

      WLE alone is not good enough for accurate optical diagnosis and chromoendoscopy although comparable to histopathology in terms of accuracy, is cumbersome and has a long learning curve. Use of NBI for optical diagnosis has been widely examined and has proven accurate when performed by experts.51 ,56 A meta-analysis on the use of NBI for polyp characterisation, which included 28 studies with 6280 polyps, showed good concordance between endoscopic features and histopathological diagnosis.57 There was 91% accuracy for diagnosing neoplastic polyps, which when coupled with high confidence predictions resulted in an increased diagnostic accuracy. Somewhat disappointingly, several community based studies assessing optical diagnosis using NBI produced results significantly worse than those by experts, indicating that this technology is not quite ready for routine clinical practice.58 ,59

      The use of FICE and I-Scan are comparable to the use of NBI, although fewer studies in these modalities mean with greater variability in diagnostic specificity and sensitivities. FICE has a sensitivity ranging from 73·9% to 100%, similar to I-Scan, which has a sensitivity ranging from 54·5% to 94·6%.60 ,61

      Results from the trials studying the use of AFI are somewhat mixed. Where there is good differentiation between the green and purple areas on imaging, there is good correlation with histology. Unfortunately colour differentiation is often poor, creating ambiguity as to the significance of the imaged polyp and leading to a low specificity.62

      CLE has proven to be highly sensitive (95%) and specific (94%) among 11 pooled trials and is the most promising of the imaging technologies. It is however worth noting the heterogeneity in the small number of trials conducted, with some basing results on postprocedure analysis of CLE images.62–65

      Dysplasia detection in inflammatory bowel disease

      The detection of preneoplastic lesions is especially important than in the context of underlying inflammatory bowel disease, where the incidence of CRC can be as high as 18% after 30 years of disease.66 Due to lesion subtlety the previous strategy for dysplasia detection was to survey the colon with non-targeted, segmental biopsies at 10 cm intervals. This biopsy protocol is not particularly efficacious with a yield of 0–0.2% per biopsy, with at least 33 biopsies required to achieve 90% certainty of detecting dysplasia if this is indeed present.67

      Dye-based chromoendoscopy with methylene blue can increase dysplasia detection rates threefold to fourfold.68 ,69 Optical imaging aims to obviate the need for this cumbersome technique, with the greatest body of experience in NBI. To date NBI has been shown to be comparable to HD WLE combined with chromoendoscopy, rather than superior. Of the seven studies performed using NBI, most have had modest numbers of patients, consequently with small number of cases of dysplasia detected. Meaningful conclusions are difficult to draw. The largest of these studies was a multicentre trial, where 112 patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) were randomised to WLE or NBI that showed comparable dysplasia detection rates (9%), which was superior to segmental biopsies (0.04%).70 It is worth considering that studies of optical imaging usually use WLE as the standard for comparison, despite many guidelines suggesting WLE with dye-based chromoendoscopy as the gold standard surveillance technique.71

      It is not yet clear whether AFI has a role in dysplasia detection in UC. A review of images taken with WLE and AFI showed a good correlation between AFI enhanced images and histologically confirmed mucosal inflammation.72 A study where tandem WLE and AFI endoscopies were performed in patients with UC demonstrated that AFI detected additional areas of dysplasia compared with WLE and demonstrated a polyp miss rate of 50% when using WLE compared with 0% with AFI.73 It is however noteworthy that in this study all patients had entirely quiescent disease, as differentiation between dysplasia and inflammation is often difficult with AFI. As in other areas of the gastrointestinal tract, AFI is associated with a high false positive rate.

      To date CLE has demonstrated an impressive 97% accuracy in differentiating between dysplasia-associated lesions or masses and adenoma-like masses and is more sensitive in detecting dysplasia than WLE with dye-based chromoendoscopy. The time-consuming nature of this imaging technique means that it is unlikely to be pragmatic for standard surveillance.74–76

      Emerging technologies

      There are several imaging modalities that are currently being assessed, which are likely to play an important role in the future of in vivo diagnosis. Instead of enhancing mucosal abnormalities, these predominantly focus on early molecular change.

      Optical coherence tomography

      Optical coherence tomography (OCT) uses the same principles as B-mode ultrasonography to enable cellular imaging. Instead of using sound waves, near-infrared light is directed at the target tissue, with the differential light scatter detected and interpreted to create a cross-sectional image. Using light rather than sound creates images 10 times more detailed, with a scanning depth of up to 2 mm below the mucosal surface. OCT is available as a reusable probe, fed through the working channel of an endoscope.77 ,78

      Variations of OCT, using different platforms, are likely to make this technology more accessible. Optical frequency domain imaging uses similar principles, with a rotating scanner to enable rapid acquisition of images within a large surface area.79 More recently, optical frequency domain imaging technology has been integrated within a tethered capsule, which can be swallowed by the patient, with images taken as this is drawn back through the oesophagus. An average of four passes, taking a total of 6 min, results in complete visualisation, without the need for traditional endoscopy.80 Meanwhile, volumetric laser endomicroscopy involves the inflation of a balloon within the oesophageal lumen. A scanning probe is pulled through the centre of this balloon, rotating 360° as it does so, thereby mapping the entire mucosa in contact with the balloon within 90 s.81

      Spectroscopy

      By interpreting the light scatter in response to projected light, it is possible to estimate the density of cellular components, by using spectroscopy. Early neoplastic change, such as increasing nucleus size and reduced cellular plasma can be detected. Spectroscopy encompasses a range of techniques broadly categorised into elastic and non-elastic, based on the retention of wavelength of the reflected light in the former, and the alteration of reflected wavelength in the latter.82 This probe -based imaging technology allows for submucosal visualisation without the need for contrast agents. These are, however, narrow field techniques, allowing for interrogation of a single point at a time and are therefore time-consuming.82

      Molecular imaging

      The field of molecular imaging offers the opportunity of identifying abnormal tissue by means of the differential expression molecules in health and disease. The use of glycans as a molecular target has been described in Barrett's oesophagus, with fluorescently labelled lectins used to highlight dysplastic tissue with high specificity.83

      Conclusion

      In selected situations advanced imaging techniques have been proven to be useful for optical diagnosis of gastrointestinal pathology. To date most of these methodologies have been used in the context of clinical trials or within tertiary hospitals with selected populations. Further studies are required to assess the utility of optical imaging in daily clinical practice. These techniques however, represent progress in terms of diagnostic capability as well as a paradigm shift in the role of endoscopy in patient management. Optical imaging is undoubtedly a useful addition in the armamentarium for the diagnosis of treatable early gastrointestinal pathology.

      Acknowledgments

      With thanks to Dr Adolfo Parra-Blanco for contribution of images.

      References

      1. ↵
        1. Knyrim K,
        2. Seidlitz H,
        3. Vakil N, et al
        . Perspectives in “electronic endoscopy”. Past, present and future of fibers and CCDs in medical endoscopes. Endoscopy 1990;22(Suppl 1):2–8. doi:10.1055/s-2007-1012877
        OpenUrlPubMed
      2. ↵
        1. Bruno MJ
        . Magnification endoscopy, high resolution endoscopy, and chromoscopy: towards a better optical diagnosis. Gut 2003;52(Suppl 4):iv7–11. doi:10.1136/gut.52.suppl_4.iv7
        OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      3. ↵
        1. Goetz M,
        2. Kiesslich R
        . Advanced imaging of the gastrointestinal tract: research vs. clinical tools? Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2009;25:412–21. doi:10.1097/MOG.0b013e32832d62c1
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      4. ↵
        1. Kwon RS,
        2. Adler DG,
        3. Chand B, et al
        . High-resolution and high-magnification endoscopes. Gastrointest Endosc 2009;69:399–407. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2008.12.049
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      5. ↵
        1. Song LM,
        2. Adler DG,
        3. Conway JD, et al
        . Narrow band imaging and multiband imaging. Gastrointest Endosc 2008;67:581–9. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2008.01.013
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      6. ↵
        1. Kuznetsov K,
        2. Lambert R,
        3. Rey JF
        . Narrow-band imaging: potential and limitations. Endoscopy 2006;38:76–81. doi:10.1055/s-2005-921114
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      7. ↵
        1. Gono K,
        2. Obi T,
        3. Yamaguchi M, et al
        . Appearance of enhanced tissue features in narrow-band endoscopic imaging. J Biomed Opt 2004;9:568–77. doi:10.1117/1.1695563
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      8. ↵
        1. Fedeli P,
        2. Gasbarrini A,
        3. Cammarota G
        . Spectral endoscopic imaging: the multiband system for enhancing the endoscopic surface visualization. J Clin Gastroenterol 2011;45:6–15. doi:10.1097/MCG.0b013e3181eed5f4
        OpenUrlPubMed
      9. ↵
        1. Kodashima S,
        2. Fujishiro M
        . Novel image-enhanced endo- scopy with i-scan technology. World J Gastroenterol 2010;16:1043–9. doi:10.3748/wjg.v16.i9.1043
        OpenUrlPubMed
      10. ↵
        1. Haringsma J,
        2. Tytgat GN
        . Fluorescence and autofluorescence. Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 1999;13:1–10. doi:10.1053/bega.1999.0003
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      11. ↵
        1. Singh R,
        2. Mei SC,
        3. Sethi S
        . Advanced endoscopic imaging in Barrett's oesophagus: a review on current practice. World J Gastroenterol 2011;17:4271–6. doi:10.3748/wjg.v17.i38.4271
        OpenUrlPubMed
      12. ↵
        1. Wang TD
        . Confocal microscopy from the bench to the bedside. Gastrointest Endosc 2005;62:696–7. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2005.06.002
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      13. ↵
        1. Kantsevoy SV,
        2. Adler DG,
        3. Conway JD, et al
        . Confocal laser endomicroscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2009;70:197–200. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2009.04.002
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      14. ↵
        1. Fitzgerald RC,
        2. di Pietro M,
        3. Ragunath K, et al
        . British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the diagnosis and management of Barrett's oesophagus. Gut 2014;63:7–42. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2013-305372
        OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      15. ↵
        1. Desai TK,
        2. Krishnan K,
        3. Samala N, et al
        . The incidence of oesophageal adenocarcinoma in non-dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus: a meta-analysis. Gut 2012;61:970–6. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2011-300730
        OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      16. ↵
        1. Wolfsen HC,
        2. Crook JE,
        3. Krishna M, et al
        . Prospective, controlled tandem endoscopy study of narrow band imaging for dysplasia detection in Barrett's Esophagus. Gastroenterology 2008;135:24–31. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2008.03.019
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      17. ↵
        1. Mannath J,
        2. Subramanian V,
        3. Hawkey CJ, et al
        . Narrow band imaging for characterization of high grade dysplasia and specialized intestinal metaplasia in Barrett's esophagus: a meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2010;42:351–9. doi:10.1055/s-0029-1243949
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      18. ↵
        1. Silva FB,
        2. Dinis-Ribeiro M,
        3. Vieth M, et al
        . Endoscopic assessment and grading of Barrett's esophagus using magnification endoscopy and narrow-band imaging: accuracy and interobserver agreement of different classification systems. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;73:7–14. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2010.09.023
        OpenUrlPubMed
      19. ↵
        1. Thomas T,
        2. Singh R,
        3. Ragunath K
        . Trimodal imaging-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection of early Barrett's neoplasia. Surg Endosc 2009;23:1609–13. doi:10.1007/s00464-009-0429-z
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      20. ↵
        1. Curvers WL,
        2. van Vilsteren FG,
        3. Baak LC, et al
        . Endoscopic trimodal imaging versus standard video endoscopy for detection of early Barrett's neoplasia: a multicenter, randomized, crossover study in general practice. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;73:195–203. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2010.10.014
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      21. ↵
        1. Wu J,
        2. Pan YM,
        3. Wang TT, et al
        . Confocal laser endomicroscopy for detection of neoplasia in Barrett's esophagus: a meta-analysis. Dis Esophagus 2014;27:248–54. doi:10.1111/dote.12085
        OpenUrlPubMed
      22. ↵
        International Agency for Research on Cancer. GLOBOCAN 2012: estimated cancer incidence, mortality, and prevalence worldwide in 2012. http://globocan. iarc.fr (accessed Dec 2014).
      23. ↵
        1. Ferlay J,
        2. Shin HR,
        3. Bray F, et al
        . Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer 2010;127:2893–917. doi:10.1002/ijc.25516
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      24. ↵
        1. Frye JW,
        2. Sauer BG,
        3. Gomez JM, et al
        . Gastroenterologists lack consensus regarding if, how, and when to screen or survey for premalignant gastric lesions: results of a pilot survey. Am J Gastroenterol 2012;107(Suppl 1s):S43–4.
        OpenUrl
      25. ↵
        1. Correa P
        . A human model of gastric carcinogenesis. Cancer Res 1988;48:3554–60.
        OpenUrlFREE Full Text
      26. ↵
        1. Leung WK,
        2. Sung JJ
        . Review article: intestinal metaplasia and gastric carcinogenesis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2002;16:1209–16. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2036.2002.01300.x
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      27. ↵
        1. Gomez JM,
        2. Wang AY
        . Gastric intestinal metaplasia and early gastric cancer in the west: a changing paradigm. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y) 2014;10:369–78.
        OpenUrlPubMed
      28. ↵
        1. Dixon MF,
        2. Genta RM,
        3. Yardley JH, et al
        . Classification and grading of gastritis. The updated Sydney System. Am J Surg Pathol 1996;20:1161–81. doi:10.1097/00000478-199610000-00001
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      29. ↵
        1. Dinis-Ribeiro M,
        2. da Costa-Pereira A,
        3. Lopes C, et al
        . Magnification chromoendoscopy for the diagnosis of gastric intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia. Gastrointest Endosc 2003;57:498–504. doi:10.1067/mge.2003.145
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      30. ↵
        1. Li HY,
        2. Dai J,
        3. Xue HB, et al
        . Application of magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging in diagnosing gastric lesions: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;76:1124–32. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2012.08.015
        OpenUrlPubMed
      31. ↵
        1. Kikuste I,
        2. Marques-Pereira R,
        3. Monteiro-Soares M, et al
        . Systematic review of the diagnosis of gastric premalignant conditions and neoplasia with high-resolution endoscopic technologies. Scand J Gastroenterol 2013;48:1108–17. doi:10.3109/00365521.2013.825315
        OpenUrlPubMed
      32. ↵
        1. Osawa H,
        2. Yamamoto H,
        3. Miura Y, et al
        . Diagnosis of extent of early gastric cancer using flexible spectral imaging color enhancement. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2012;4:356–61. doi:10.4253/wjge.v4.i8.356
        OpenUrlPubMed
      33. ↵
        1. Dohi O,
        2. Yagi N,
        3. Wada T, et al
        . Recognition of endoscopic diagnosis in differentiated-type early gastric cancer by flexible spectral imaging color enhancement with indigo carmine. Digestion 2012;86:161–70. doi:10.1159/000339878
        OpenUrlPubMed
      34. ↵
        1. Jung SW,
        2. Lim KS,
        3. Lim JU, et al
        . Flexible spectral imaging color enhancement (FICE) is useful to discriminate among non-neoplastic lesion, adenoma, and cancer of stomach. Dig Dis Sci 2011;56:2879–86. doi:10.1007/s10620-011-1831-7
        OpenUrlPubMed
      35. ↵
        1. Osawa H,
        2. Yamamoto H
        . Present and future status of flexible spectral imaging color enhancement and blue laser imaging technology. Dig Endosc 2014;26(Suppl 1):105–15. doi:10.1111/den.12205
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      36. ↵
        1. Wang SF,
        2. Yang YS,
        3. Wei LX, et al
        . Diagnosis of gastric intraepithelial neoplasia by narrow-band imaging and confocal laser. World J Gastroenterol 2012;18:4771–80. doi:10.3748/wjg.v18.i34.4771
        OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
      37. ↵
        1. Lim LG,
        2. Yeoh KG,
        3. Salto-Tellez M, et al
        . Experienced versus inexperienced confocal endoscopists in the diagnosis of gastric adenocarcinoma and intestinal metaplasia on confocal images. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;73:1141–7. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2011.01.068
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      38. ↵
        1. Jemal A,
        2. Bray F,
        3. Center MM, et al
        . Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2011;61:69–90. doi:10.3322/caac.20107
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      39. ↵
      40. ↵
        1. Winawer SJ,
        2. Zauber AG,
        3. Ho MN, et al
        . Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1977–81. doi:10.1056/NEJM199312303292701
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      41. ↵
        1. Vogelstein B,
        2. Fearon ER,
        3. Hamilton SR, et al
        . Genetic alterations during colorectal-tumor development. N Engl J Med 1988;319:525–32. doi:10.1056/NEJM198809013190901
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      42. ↵
        1. Van Rijn JC,
        2. Reitsma JB,
        3. Stoker J, et al
        . Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:343–50. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00390.x
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      43. ↵
        1. Leufkens AM,
        2. van Oijen MG,
        3. Vleggaar FP, et al
        . Factors influencing the miss rate of polyps in a back-to-back colonoscopy study. Endoscopy 2012;44:470–5. doi:10.1055/s-0031-1291666
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      44. ↵
        1. Subramanian V,
        2. Mannath J,
        3. Hawkey CJ, et al
        . High definition colonoscopy vs. standard video endoscopy for the detection of colonic polyps: a meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2011;43:499–505. doi:10.1055/s-0030-1256207
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      45. ↵
        1. Nagorni A,
        2. Bjelakovic G,
        3. Petrovic B
        . Narrow band imaging versus conventional white light colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;1:CD008361. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008361.pub2
        OpenUrlPubMed
      46. ↵
        1. Dinesen L,
        2. Chua TJ,
        3. Kaffes AJ
        . Meta-analysis of narrow-band imaging versus conventional colonoscopy for adenoma detection. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:604–11. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2011.10.017
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      47. ↵
        1. Ikematsu H,
        2. Saito Y,
        3. Tanaka S, et al
        . The impact of narrow band imaging for colon polyp detection: a multicenter randomized controlled trial by tandem colonoscopy. J Gastroenterol 2012;47:1099–107. doi:10.1007/s00535-012-0575-2
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      48. ↵
        1. East JE,
        2. Ignjatovic A,
        3. Suzuki N, et al
        . A randomized, controlled trial of narrow-band imaging vs high-definition white light for adenoma detection in patients at high risk of adenomas. Colorectal Dis 2012;14:e771–8. doi:10.1111/codi.12014
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      49. ↵
        1. Senore C,
        2. Reggio D,
        3. Musso A, et al
        . Narrow band imaging vs. high definition colonoscopy for detection of colorectal adenomas in patients with positive faecal occult blood test: a randomised trial. Dig Liver Dis 2014;46:803–7. doi:10.1016/j.dld.2014.05.007
        OpenUrlPubMed
      50. ↵
        1. Adler A,
        2. Pohl H,
        3. Papanikolaou IS, et al
        . A prospective randomised study on narrow-band imaging versus conventional colonoscopy for adenoma detection: does narrow-band imaging induce a learning effect? Gut 2008;57:59–64. doi:10.1136/gut.2007.123539
        OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      51. ↵
        1. Ignjatovic A,
        2. East JE,
        3. Suzuki N, et al
        . Optical diagnosis of small colorectal polyps at routine colonoscopy (Detect InSpect ChAracterise Resect and Discard; DISCARD trial): a prospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2009;10:1171–8. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70329-8
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      52. ↵
        1. East JE,
        2. Saunders BP
        . Narrow band imaging at colonoscopy: seeing through a glass darkly or the light of a new dawn? Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008;2:1–4. doi:10.1586/17474124.2.1.1
        OpenUrlPubMed
      53. ↵
        1. Hassan C,
        2. Pickhardt PJ,
        3. Rex DK
        . A resect and discard strategy would improve cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010;8:865–9, 869.e1–3. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2010.05.018
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      54. ↵
        1. Kamiński MF,
        2. Hassan C,
        3. Bisschops R, et al
        . Advanced imaging for detection and differentiation of colorectal neoplasia: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2014;46:435–49. doi:10.1055/s-0034-1365348
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      55. ↵
        1. Rizk MK,
        2. Sawhney MS,
        3. Cohen J, et al
        . Quality indicators common to all GI endoscopic procedures. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;81:3–16. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2014.07.055
        OpenUrlPubMed
      56. ↵
        1. Rex DK
        . Narrow-band imaging without optical magnification for histologic analysis of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 2009;136:1174–81. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2008.12.009
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      57. ↵
        1. McGill SK,
        2. Evangelou E,
        3. Ioannidis J, et al
        . Narrow band imaging (NBI) to differentiate neoplastic and non-neoplastic colorectal polyps in real-time: a meta- analysis of diagnostic operating characteristics. Gut 2013;62:1704–13. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2012-303965
        OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      58. ↵
        1. Kuiper T,
        2. Marsman WA,
        3. Jansen JM, et al
        . Accuracy for optical diagnosis of small colorectal polyps in nonacademic settings. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;10:1016–20. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2012.05.004
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      59. ↵
        1. Ladabaum U,
        2. Fioritto A,
        3. Mitani A, et al
        . Real-time optical biopsy of colon polyps with narrow band imaging in community practice does not yet meet key thresholds for clinical decisions. Gastroenterology 2013; 144:81–91. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2012.09.054
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      60. ↵
        1. Lopez-Ceron M,
        2. Sanabria E,
        3. Pellise M
        . Colonic polyps: is it useful to characterize them with advanced endoscopy? World J Gastroenterol 2014;20:8449–57. doi:10.3748/wjg.v20.i26.8449
        OpenUrlPubMed
      61. ↵
        1. Wanders LK,
        2. East JE,
        3. Uitentuis SE, et al
        . Diagnostic performance of narrowed spectrum endoscopy, autofluorescence imaging, and confocal laser endomicroscopy for optical diagnosis of colonic polyps: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 2013;14:1337–47. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70509-6
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      62. ↵
        1. Ignjatovic A,
        2. East JE,
        3. Guenther T, et al
        . What is the most reliable imaging modality for small colonic polyp characterization? Study of white-light, autofluorescence, and narrow-band imaging. Endoscopy 2011;43:94–9. doi:10.1055/s-0030-1256074
        OpenUrlPubMed
      63. ↵
        1. Sharma P,
        2. Wani S
        . Advances in esophageal imaging: practical applications for clinicians. Rev Gastroenterol Disord 2006;6(Suppl 1):S12–18.
        OpenUrlPubMed
      64. ↵
        1. Kiesslich R,
        2. Burg J,
        3. Vieth M, et al
        . Confocal laser endoscopy for diagnosing intraepithelial neoplasias and colorectal cancer in vivo. Gastroenterology 2004;127:706–13. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2004.06.050
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      65. ↵
        1. Sharma P,
        2. Gupta N,
        3. Kuipers EJ, et al
        . Advanced imaging in colonoscopy and its impact on quality. Gastrointest Endosc 2014;79:28–36. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2013.08.020
        OpenUrlPubMed
      66. ↵
        1. Eaden JA,
        2. Abrams KR,
        3. Mayberry JF
        . The risk of colorectal cancer in ulcerative colitis: a meta-analysis. Gut 2001;48:526–35. doi:10.1136/gut.48.4.526
        OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      67. ↵
        1. van den Broek F,
        2. Stokkers PC,
        3. Reitsma JB, et al
        . Random biopsies taken during colonoscopy surveillance of patients with longstanding ulcerative colitis; low yields and absence of clinical consequences. Am J Gastroenterol 2011;93:1–8.
        OpenUrl
      68. ↵
        1. Rutter MD,
        2. Saunders BP,
        3. Schofield G, et al
        . Pancolonic indigo carmine dye spraying for the detection of dysplasia in ulcerative colitis. Gut 2004;53:256–60. doi:10.1136/gut.2003.016386
        OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      69. ↵
        1. Kiesslich R,
        2. Goetz M,
        3. Lammersdorf K, et al
        . Chromoscopy-guided endomicroscopy increases the diagnostic yield of intraepithelial neoplasia in ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology 2007;132:874–82. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2007.01.048
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      70. ↵
        1. Ignjatovic A,
        2. East JE,
        3. Subramanian V, et al
        . Narrow band imaging for detection of dysplasia in colitis: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2012;107:885–90. doi:10.1038/ajg.2012.67
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      71. ↵
        1. Kornbluth A,
        2. Sachar DB
        . Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. Ulcerative colitis practice guidelines in adults: American College Of Gastroenterology, Practice Parameters Committee. Am J Gastroenterol 2010;105:501–23. doi:10.1038/ajg.2009.727
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      72. ↵
        1. Osada T,
        2. Arakawa A,
        3. Sakamoto N, et al
        . Autofluorescence imaging endoscopy for identification and assessment of inflammatory ulcerative colitis. World J Gastroenterol 2011;17:5110–16. doi:10.3748/wjg.v17.i46.5110
        OpenUrlPubMed
      73. ↵
        1. Van den Broek FJ,
        2. Fockens P,
        3. van Eeden S, et al
        . Endoscopic tri-modal imaging for surveillance in ulcerative colitis: randomised comparison of high-resolution endoscopy and autofluorescence imaging for neoplasia detection; and evaluation of narrow-band imaging for classification of lesions. Gut 2008;57:1083–9. doi:10.1136/gut.2007.144097
        OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      74. ↵
        1. Buda A,
        2. Lamboglia F,
        3. Hatem G, et al
        . Evolving endoscopic technologies for the detection of dysplasia in inflammatory bowel diseases. Ann Ital Chir 2011;82:29–35.
        OpenUrlPubMed
      75. ↵
        1. De Palma GD,
        2. Rispo A
        . Confocal laser endomicroscopy in inflammatory bowel diseases: dream or reality? World J Gastroenterol 2013;19:5593–7. doi:10.3748/wjg.v19.i34.5593
        OpenUrlPubMed
      76. ↵
        1. Neumann H,
        2. Vieth M,
        3. Atreya R, et al
        . Prospective evaluation of the learning curve of confocal laser endomicroscopy in patients with IBD. Histol Histopathol 2011;26:867–72.
        OpenUrlPubMed
      77. ↵
        1. Kirtane TS,
        2. Wagh MS
        . Endoscopic Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT): advances in gastrointestinal imaging. Gastroenterol Res Pract Published Online First: 26 Feb 2014. doi: 10.1155/2014/376367. doi:10.1155/2014/376367
      78. ↵
        ASGE Technology Committee. Enhanced imaging in the GI tract: spectroscopy and optical coherence tomography. Gastrointest Endosc 2013;78:568–73. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2013.07.024
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      79. ↵
        1. Suter MJ,
        2. Vakoc BJ,
        3. Yachimski PS, et al
        . Comprehensive microscopy of the esophagus in human patients with optical frequency domain imaging. Gastrointest Endosc 2008;68:745–53. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2008.05.014
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      80. ↵
        1. Gora MJ,
        2. Sauk JS,
        3. Carruth RW, et al
        . Tethered capsule endomicroscopy enables less invasive imaging of gastrointestinal tract microstructure. Nat Med 2013;19:238–40. doi:10.1038/nm.3052
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      81. ↵
        1. Suter MJ,
        2. Gora MJ,
        3. Lauwers GY, et al
        . Esophageal-guided biopsy with volumetric laser endomicroscopy and laser cautery marking: a pilot clinical study. Gastrointest Endosc 2014;79:886–96. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2013.11.016
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      82. ↵
        1. Roy HK,
        2. Backman V
        . Spectroscopic Applications in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;10:1335–41. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2012.10.002
        OpenUrlPubMed
      83. ↵
        1. Bird-Lieberman EL,
        2. Neves AA,
        3. Lao-Sirieix P, et al
        . Molecular imaging using fluorescent lectins permits rapid endoscopic identification of dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus. Nat Med 2012;18:315–21. doi:10.1038/nm.2616
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed

      Footnotes

      • Correction notice This article has been corrected since it published Online First. An Open Access licence has been added.

      • Collaborators Dr Adolfo Parra Blanco, Nottingham University hospital.

      • Contributors SB: primary author. AW: review and editorial of manuscript. KR: review and editorial of manuscript.

      • Competing interests AW: Olympus, Orion. KR has received consultancy, speaker honoraria, unrestricted research and educational grants from Olympus Keymed; research support from Mauna Kea, France; research grant and speaker honoraria from Pentax UK.

      • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.