Additive effect of evaluating microsurface and microvascular patterns using magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging in gastric cancer: a post-hoc analysis of a single-center observational study.

backgroundNo studies have compared the performance of microvascular and microsurface patterns alone with their combination in patients undergoing magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging for diagnosing gastric cancer. This study aimed to clarify the differences in diagnostic performance among these methods.

methodsThirty-three participating endoscopists who had received specialized training in magnifying endoscopy evaluated the microvascular and microsurface patterns of images of 106 cancerous and 106 non-cancerous lesions. If classified as "irregular," the lesion was diagnosed as gastric cancer. To evaluate diagnostic performance, we compared the diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of these methods.

resultsPerformance-related items did not differ significantly between microvascular and microsurface patterns. However, the diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity were significantly higher when using a combination of these methods than when using microvascular (82.1% [76.4-86.7] vs. 76.4% [70.3-81.6] and 69.8% [60.5-77.8] vs. 63.2% [53.7-71.8]; P < 0.001 and P = 0.008, respectively) or microsurface (82.1% [76.4-86.7] vs. 73.6% [67.3-79.1] and 69.8% [60.5-77.8] vs. 52.8% [43.4‒62.1]; both, P < 0.001) patterns alone. The additive effect on diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity was 5.7‒8.6% and 6.6‒17.0%, respectively.

conclusionsWe demonstrate the superiority of the combination of microvascular and microsurface patterns over microvascular or microsurface patterns alone for diagnosing gastric cancer. Our data support the use of the former method in clinical practice. Although a major limitation of this study was its retrospective, single-center design, our findings may help to improve the diagnosis of gastric cancer.