Current Clinical Applications of Magnifying Endoscopy with Narrow Band Imaging in the Stomach

Table 1

Results of selected studies of differential diagnosis between gastric cancer and benign lesions using ME-NBI.

Author	Year	Morphology	Study methods	ME-NBI criteria	Patients (𝑛)	Results
Kaise et al. [18]	2009	Depressed	Blinded review of images	Diagnostic triad: disappearance of MS, MV dilation, and MV heterogeneity	100	Sensitivity and specificity: ME-NBI with the triad (69%, 85%), WLE (71%, 65%), and ME-NBI general (72%, 80%)
Kato et al. [19]	2010	Depressed, or flat	Prospective, comparative	Diagnostic triad: disappearance of MS, MV dilation, and MV heterogeneity	111	ME-NBI > WLE; ME-NBI: sensitivity (92.9%), specificity (94.7%)
Ezoe et al. [20]	2010	Depressed, or flat	Prospective comparative,; real-time diagnosis	Irregular MV with a demarcation line	53	ME-NBI > ME-WLI; ME-NBI: sensitivity (70%), specificity (89%)
Ezoe et al. [21]	2011	Depressed	Multicenter randomized and controlled, real-time diagnosis	Irregular MV with a demarcation line	353*	ME-NBI + C-WLI > ME-NBI > C-WLI; ME-NBI + C-WLI: sensitivity (95.0%), specificity (96.8%), and accuracy (96.6%)
Nonaka et al. [15]	2011	Elevated	Prospective, multicenter	Type I: clear MS, unclear MV; type II: clear MS, clear MV; type III: clear MS, abnormal MV; type IV: slightly obscured MS, abnormal MV; type V: markedly obscured MS, abnormal MV	93	Types I-II: 79% as adenoma; type III–V: 93% as well-differentiated adenocarcinoma
Miwa et al. [17]	2012	Depressed, and elevated	Retrospective, comparative; blinded review of images	Irregular MV and/or irregular MS with a demarcation line	135	Elevated lesions: ME-NBI > WLI (sensitivity, 82.4 versus 70.6%; specificity, 97.3 versus 54.7%); depressed lesions: sensitivity, ME-NBI > WLI (95.5 versus 68.2%); specificity, ME-NBI = WLI (100 versus 100%, 𝑃>0.99)

ME-NBI: magnifying endoscopy with narrow band imaging; WLI: white light imaging; C-WLI: conventional WLI; MV: microvascular; MS: microsurface.
*Patients for final analysis.