Chromoendoscopy of gastric adenoma using an acetic acid indigocarmine mixture

Table 1 Data from the clinical characteristics of 54 cases n (%)

Characteristics	Adenoma (n = 31)	Adenocarcinoma(n = 23)	P value
Age (mean ± SD), yr	71 ± 6.8	71 ± 7.4	0.850
Gender (male/female)	15/16	18/5	0.047
Tumor size (mm, mean ± SD)	12 ± 5.5	19 ± 11	0.019
Location
Upper third of the stomach	1 (3.2)	3 (13)	0.330
Middle third of the stomach	13 (42)	7 (30)
Lower third of the stomach	17 (54.8)	13 (57)
Macroscopic type
0-I	1 (3.2)	1 (4.3)	0.840
0-IIa	25 (80.7)	17 (74)
0-IIc	5 (16.1)	5 (21.7)

Table 2 Data from the diagnostic ability of white light endoscopy and acetic acid indigocarmine mixture-chromoendoscopy

Parameters	Sensitivity	Specificity	Accuracy
Tumor size (≥ 2 cm)	47.8%a	77.4%	64.8%
Surface color in WLE (normochronic or reddish)	56.5%a	74.2%	66.7%
Macroscopic appearance (depressed)	21.7%b	83.9%	57.4%
Reddish change in AIM-CE	87.0%	67.7%	75.9%

^aP < 0.05,

^bP < 0.01 vs Reddish change in AIM-CE using McNemar’s test. WLE: White light endoscopy; AIM: Acetic acid indigocarmine mixture; CE: Chromoendoscopy.

Table 3 Data from the logistic regression analysis of factors contributing to diagnosis of early gastric cancer

Parameters	Subgroup	Univariate OR(95%CI)	Multivariate OR(95%CI)
Tumor size	< 2 cm	1.0	1.0
	≥ 2 cm	3.1 (0.99-11)	1.1 (0.25-5.0)
Surface color in WLE	Whitish	1.0	1.0
	Normochromic or reddish	3.74 (1.2-12)a	1.8 (0.44-7.2)
Macroscopic appearance	Flat or elevated	1.0	-
	Depressed	1.4 (0.35-5.9)	-
Reddish change in AIM-CE	No	1.0	1.0
	Yes	14 (3.8-70)b	11 (2.3-66)b

^aP < 0.05,

^bP < 0.01 vs Reddish change. OR: Odds ratio; WLE: White light endoscopy; AIM: Acetic acid indigocarmine mixture; CE: Chromoendoscopy.