Comparison of Small Bowel Lesions Using Capsule Endoscopy in Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn's Disease: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Capsule endoscopy (CE) has allowed the characterization of small bowel lesions. However, small bowel lesions in ulcerative colitis (UC) have not been elucidated and no studies have compared between UC and Crohn's disease (CD). AIM: The objective of this study was to investigate the small bowel lesions in UC, and to characterize UC lesions by comparison with CD. METHODS: Subjects comprised 54 UC patients and 39 CD patients who underwent CE. We retrospectively investigated characteristics of small bowel lesions in UC. We also compared endoscopic findings and degree of inflammation between UC and CD. RESULTS: The incidence of small bowel lesions in UC was 27.8%. The group with small bowel lesions exhibited higher endoscopic activity in the colon than without small bowel lesions (p = 0.002). Comparing small bowel lesions between UC and CD, significantly more ulcerative lesions, notched appearance, longitudinal tendency of lesions, and cobblestone appearance were seen in CD. The Lewis score was significantly higher in CD than UC in the second and third tertiles (205 ± 379 vs. 73 ± 223, p = 0.01; 358 ± 449 vs. 105 ± 333, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Small bowel lesions in UC were linked to colonic activity. UC and CD differ in terms of the morphology and distribution of small bowel lesions.

Diagnostic performance of conventional endoscopy in the identification of submucosal invasion by early gastric cancer: the "non-extension sign" as a simple diagnostic marker.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The ability to differentiate between mucosal (M) or microinvasive submucosal (SM1: depth of less than 500 µm) and invasive submucosal (SM2: depth of 500 µm or more) cancer is paramount when choosing the method of treatment for early gastric cancer (EGC). The "non-extension sign" relates to a localized increase in thickness and rigidity due to massive submucosal invasion by a cancer. The present study sought to assess the ability of conventional endoscopy (CE) to correctly identify SM2 cancer using only the non-extension sign. METHODS: This is a retrospective study based on a prospectively collected database. EGCs had been diagnosed according to invasion depth as M-SM1 or SM2. In terms of the endoscopic diagnostic criterion, lesions positive for the non-extension sign were classified as SM2 cancers, while those negative for the non-extension sign were classified as M-SM1 cancers. Histopathological findings were used as the gold standard. RESULTS: We examined a total of 863 lesions from 704 patients, comprising 104 true-positive, 733 true-negative, 9 false-positive, and 17 false-negative lesions. This yielded a sensitivity of 92.0 % (95 % confidence interval (CI), 87.0-97.0 %), a specificity of 97.7 % (95 % CI, 96.7-98.8 %), a positive predictive value of 85.9 % (95 % CI, 79.7-92.1 %), a negative predictive value of 98.8 % (95 % CI, 98.0-99.6 %), and a diagnostic accuracy of 96.9 % (95 % CI, 95.8-98.1 %). CONCLUSION: The non-extension sign may be useful for accurately determining the suitability of minimally invasive endoscopic treatment. Nevertheless, considering the limitations of retrospective analysis, a further prospective study is warranted to confirm the diagnostic reliability of the non-extension sign.