Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether the Japan Narrow-Band Imaging Expert Team (JNET) classification and pit pattern classification are applicable for diagnosing neoplastic lesions in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). AIM: To clarify the diagnostic performance of these classifications for neoplastic lesions in patients with UC. METHODS: This study was conducted as a single-center, retrospective case-control study. Twenty-one lesions in 19 patients with UC-associated neoplasms (UCAN) and 23 lesions in 22 UC patients with sporadic neoplasms (SN), evaluated by magnifying image-enhanced endoscopy, were retrospectively and separately assessed by six endoscopists (three experts, three non-experts), using the JNET and pit pattern classifications. The results were compared with the pathological diagnoses to evaluate the diagnostic performance. Inter- and intra-observer agreements were calculated. RESULTS: In this study, JNET type 2A and pit pattern type III/IV were used as indicators of low-grade dysplasia, JNET type 2B and pit pattern type V(I) low irregularity were used as indicators of high-grade dysplasia to shallow submucosal invasive carcinoma, JNET type 3 and pit pattern type V(I) high irregularity/V(N) were used as indicators of deep submucosal invasive carcinoma. In the UCAN group, JNET type 2A and pit pattern type III/IV had a low positive predictive value (PPV; 50.0% and 40.0%, respectively); however, they had a high negative predictive value (NPV; 94.7% and 100%, respectively). Conversely, in the SN group, JNET type 2A and pit pattern type III/IV had a high PPV (100% for both) but a low NPV (63.6% and 77.8%, respectively). In both groups, JNET type 3 and pit pattern type V(I)-high irregularity/V(N) showed high specificity. The inter-observer agreement of JNET classification and pit pattern classification for UCAN among experts were 0.401 and 0.364, in the same manner for SN, 0.666 and 0.597, respectively. The intra-observer agreements of JNET classification and pit pattern classification for UCAN among experts were 0.387, 0.454, for SN, 0.803 and 0.567, respectively. CONCLUSION: The accuracy of endoscopic diagnosis using both classifications was lower for UCAN than for SN. Endoscopic diagnosis of UCAN tended to be underestimated compared with the pathological results.