Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 6, 2026

Diagnosis of Neoplasia in Barrett’s Esophagus using Vital-dye Enhanced Fluorescence Imaging
Published on: May 11, 2014
Magnifying endoscopy for the diagnosis of specialized intestinal metaplasia in short-segment Barrett's esophagus
Nam Seok Ham1, Jae Young Jang, Sung Woo Ryu
1Nam Seok Ham, Jae Young Jang, Sung Woo Ryu, Ji Hye Kim, Eui Ju Park, Woong Cheul Lee, Kwang Yeun Shim, Soung Won Jeong, Hyun Gun Kim, Tae Hee Lee, Sung Ran Jeon, Jun Hyung Cho, Joo Young Cho, Institution for Digestive Research, Digestive Disease Center, Department of Internal Medicine, Soonchunhyang University Hospital, Seoul 140-743, South Korea.
Aim:
To determine whether magnified observation of short-segment Barrett's esophagus (BE) is useful for the detection of specialized intestinal metaplasia (SIM).
Methods:
Thirty patients with suspected short-segment BE underwent magnifying endoscopy up to × 80. The magnified images were analyzed with respect to their pit-patterns, which were simultaneously classified into five epithelial types [I (small round), II (straight), III (long oval), IV (tubular), V (villous)] by Endo's classification. Then, a 0.5% solution of methylene blue (MB) was sprayed over columnar mucosa. The patterns of the magnified image and MB staining were analyzed. Biopsies were obtained from the regions previously observed by magnifying endoscopy and MB chromoendoscopy.
Results:
Three of five patients with a type V (villous) epithelial pattern had SIM, whereas 21 patients with a non-type V epithelial patterns did not have SIM. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of pit-patterns in detecting SIM were 100%, 91.3%, 92.3%, 60% and 100%, respectively (P = 0.004). Three of the 12 patients with positive MB staining had SIM, whereas 14 patients with negative MB staining did not have SIM. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of MB staining in detecting SIM were 100%, 60.9%, 65.4%, 25% and 100%, respectively (P = 0.085). The specificity and accuracy of pit-pattern evaluation were significantly superior compared with MB staining for detecting SIM by comparison with the exact McNemar's test (P = 0.0391).
Conclusion:
The magnified observation of a short-segment BE according to the mucosal pattern and its classification can be predictive of SIM.
Related Concept Videos
Barrett Esophagus-I: Introduction
This constant acid exposure transforms the esophagus's pink mucosal lining (stratified squamous epithelium) into a type of lining more...
Barrett Esophagus-II: Clinical Manifestations and Management
To diagnose Barrett's esophagus, healthcare providers often recommend an endoscopy for those showing symptoms of acid reflux. The procedure...
Endoscopic Procedures I: Esophagogastroduodenoscopy
During an EGD, the endoscope can be used to:
Endoscopic Procedures III: Video Capsule Endoscopy
Peptic Ulcer Disease III: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Few clinical manifestations differentiate gastric ulcers from duodenal ulcers. Distinctions in the location, timing, and pain relief are crucial for healthcare providers in differentiating between gastric and duodenal ulcers during clinical assessments.
Endoscopic Procedures IV: Sigmoidoscopy and Laproscopy
Sigmoidoscopy
Sigmoidoscopy is a diagnostic procedure that uses a flexible sigmoidoscope equipped with a light source and camera to examine the rectum and sigmoid colon. The procedure involves inserting the tube through the anus...

