SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • confocal laser microscopy;
  • endoscopy;
  • pathology

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Technical aspects of CLE
  5. Clinical applications of CLE
  6. Preclinical experiments
  7. Limitations of CLE
  8. Conclusion
  9. Conflict of Interests
  10. References

Confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE) is an emerging diagnostic procedure that enables in vivo pathological evaluation during ongoing endoscopy. There are two types of CLE: endoscope-based CLE (eCLE), which is integrated in the tip of the endoscope, and probe-based CLE (pCLE), which goes through the accessory channel of the endoscope. Clinical data of CLE have been reported mainly in gastrointestinal (GI) diseases including Barrett's esophagus, gastric neoplasms, and colon polyps, but, recently, a smaller pCLE, which goes through a catheter or a fine-needle aspiration needle, was developed and clinical data in the diagnosis of biliary stricture or pancreatic cysts have beenincreasingly reported. The future application of this novel technique expands beyond the pathological diagnosis to functional or molecular imaging. Despite these promising data, the generalizability of the procedure should be confirmed especially in Japan and other Asian countries, where the current diagnostic yield for GI luminal diseases is high. Given the high cost of CLE devices, cost–benefit analysis should also be considered.


Introduction

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Technical aspects of CLE
  5. Clinical applications of CLE
  6. Preclinical experiments
  7. Limitations of CLE
  8. Conclusion
  9. Conflict of Interests
  10. References

Since the introduction of endoscopy into gastroenterology, numerous innovations have steadily advanced the diagnostic or therapeutic yield of endoscopy. The advancement of new technology allows more detailed and precise imaging such as magnifying endoscopy, chromoendoscopy, and virtual chromoendoscopy (i.e. narrow band imaging [NBI]). The precise diagnosis of gastrointestinal (GI) diseases using these advanced imaging modalities is widely accepted in Japan and other Asian countries but endoscopists in Western countries are not fully familiar with these diagnostic criteria,[1] especially for gastric lesions. This is because of the low prevalence of gastric cancer in Western countries. Thus, the final diagnosis of GI diseases still depends on the pathological diagnosis obtained by biopsies. In biliopancreatic diseases, however, obtaining a pathological specimen via endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is still difficult.[2, 3] In addition, in ERCP, taking biopsies has additional costs and contains a risk of complications such as bleeding, perforation, and pancreatitis.

Confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE), first introduced into the endoscopic field in 2004,[4] is a novel endoscopic procedure that allows microscopy during ongoing endoscopy. The procedure enables real-time, in vivo histological assessment, known as ‘virtual biopsy’ as the idea of the procedure is to carry out pathological evaluation on the spot, without taking biopsies. The field of CLE has been expanding from GI luminal diseases to biliopancreatic diseases, and the procedure is now applied to various specialties including pulmonology,[5] urology,[6] and gynecology.[7] Organs of interest for CLE started from luminal structures (esophagus, stomach and colon), then expanded to ductal structures (bile duct and pancreatic duct) and has now extended to parenchymal structures such as the liver. In vivo molecular or functional imaging using this new technology is now reported in animal studies.

In the present review, we will overview the current status of CLE and its potential role in the future.

Technical aspects of CLE

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Technical aspects of CLE
  5. Clinical applications of CLE
  6. Preclinical experiments
  7. Limitations of CLE
  8. Conclusion
  9. Conflict of Interests
  10. References

Conventional endoscopy uses white light and lenses to magnify an image. Endocytoscopy is endoscopy with extremely high magnification that enables another in vivo microscopy system of the GI tract,[8-10] whereas CLE uses a totally different system. To obtain a confocal image, a low-power laser, which is focused on a specific layer in the tissue, emanates fluorescent light and is focused through a pinhole. Then, the fluorescent light is detected by a photo-detector and is transformed into an electrical image by a computer system. Finally, a gray-scale image is created, representing one specific plane.

There are two currently available CLE systems (Table 1): endoscope-based CLE (eCLE) and probe-based CLE (pCLE). In eCLE, CLE is integrated in the tip of the endoscope, whereas, in pCLE, a CLE probe goes through the accessory channel of a conventional endoscope. The image-acquisition rate is higher in pCLE, whereas eCLE has higher resolution and a larger field of view (FOV). The imaging depth is adjustable in eCLE, but fixed in pCLE. As pCLE goes through a videoscope equipped with NBI or magnification, as opposed to the rigid integrated scope without NBI or high definition in eCLE, pCLE enables a single-session seamless procedure from diagnosis to treatment without scope exchange and is preferred when subsequent therapeutic endoscopic intervention such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD)[11] is planned. Disadvantages of pCLE are its small region of interest which necessitates stability of the probe attached to the mucosa. However, given the variety of probes, there are various clinical indications for pCLE, from GI tract to pancreatobiliary diseases through ERCP catheters or endoscopic ultrasonography fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) needles.

Table 1. Comparison of pCLE and eCLE
 Clinical implicationpCLEeCLE
  1. CLE, confocal laser endomicroscopy; eCLE, endoscope-based CLE; FOV, field of view; pCLE, probe-based CLE; ROI, region of interest.

EndoscopeNecessity of exchanging the endoscope during the procedureProbe through a conventional endoscopeCLE integrated to a dedicated scope
Endoscopic viewEase of recognizing ROI on endoscopic viewAvailableNot available (scope tip pushed against the mucosa)
Frame rateApplication to functional imagingHighLow
ResolutionImage qualityLowHigh
FOVSize of ROISmallLarge
DepthAbility to change the imaging planeFixedAdjustable
Probe sizeApplication to various indicationsVariousFixed (CLE integrated to the scope)

In eCLE, a videoscope integrated with a miniaturized scanner (Pentax EC-3870CIFK; Pentax, Tokyo, Japan, Fig. 1) is used for CLE. Confocal image is collected at a rate of 0.7 to 1.2 s/frame with imaging depth adjustable from the surface to 250 μm. FOV is 475 × 475 μm with a lateral resolution of 0.7 μm.

figure

Figure 1. Endoscope-based confocal laser endomicroscopy.

Download figure to PowerPoint

In pCLE, flexible confocal laser probes (Cellvizio; Mauna Kea Technology, Paris, France, Fig. 2) are used for CLE. The probe is advanced through an accessory channel of a conventional endoscope. There are several types of probes for pCLE (Table 2): GastroFlex and GastroFlex ultra-high definition (UHD) for upper GI, ColoFlex and ColoFlex UHD for lower GI, and CholangioFlex for ERCP. The image rate is 0.08 s/frame with a fixed imaging depth for each probe type (60 μm for GastroFlex UHD). FOV is 240 × 240 μm with a lateral resolution of 1 μm in GastroFlex UHD. To overcome the small FOV of pCLE which makes the CLE image unstable, a transparent cap can be attached on the tip of the scope to stabilize the lesion of interest when pCLE is carried out using an upper or a lower endoscope. The major advantage of pCLE is visualization of the tip of the probe on the endoscopy image. Comparison of the endoscopy image and the CLE image during pCLE imaging enables accurate assessment of the lesion of interest, or even of the margin of the lesion.

figure

Figure 2. Probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Table 2. Characteristics of various pCLE probes
 GastroFlex UHD ColoFlex UHDCholangioFlexAQ-Flex 19
  1. AQ-Flex 19, CholangioFlex, ColoFlex, GastroFlex, Mauna Kea Technology, Paris, France.

  2. BE, Barrett's esophagus; ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; EUS-FNA, endoscopic ultrasonography fine-needle aspiration; pCLE, probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy.

ProcedureUpper endoscopy or colonoscopyERCPEUS-FNA
Major indicationsBE, gastric neoplasms, colorectal polypsIndeterminate biliary or pancreatic stricturesPancreatic cystic lesions
Compatible channel2.8 mm1.2 mm19-gauge FNA needle
Probe length (m)344
Field of view (μm)240 320325
Confocal depth (μm)55–6540–7040–70
Resolution (μm)13.53.5

As confocal imaging is obtained by fluorescence of the tissue, a fluorescent contrast is necessary for both eCLE and pCLE. Intravenous fluorescein and topical acriflavine are the most widely used contrast agents for CLE.[12] Fluorescein has been widely used for angiography for the retina and its safety is established. Approximately 5–10 cc of 10% fluorescein is injected for CLE, and CLE imaging is available within a few seconds. Fluorescein stains vessels and gives good tissue structure, but the nuclei are not stained and appear as dark spots. In contrast, topical application of 0.2% acriflavine stains the nuclei of the mucosa. The side-effects of fluorescein include bright yellow-colored urine for a few days. Other severe adverse side-effects are extremely rare. For acriflavine, which stains nuclei, theoretically, there is concern about damage to DNA. Therefore, i.v. fluorescein is preferred as a contrast agent for CLE.

A learning curve does exist in diagnosis using CLE, as is the case with every diagnostic tool. A few studies have looked into the learning curve of CLE,[13, 14] but, in general, the learning curve is short. Inter- or intra-observer agreement[14, 15] was also reported as good. Interpretation of CLE imaging should be done in connection with pathological specimen if possible and in consultation with pathologists.

Clinical applications of CLE

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Technical aspects of CLE
  5. Clinical applications of CLE
  6. Preclinical experiments
  7. Limitations of CLE
  8. Conclusion
  9. Conflict of Interests
  10. References

CLE in the esophagus

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a disease where clinical trials have most established the yield of CLE.[16] The diagnosis of BE is based on columnar cells and dark ‘goblet’ cells (Fig. 3), suggestive of the presence of intestinal metaplasia. In the presence of dysplasia, CLE shows irregular capillaries and dark irregular epithelial structures.

figure

Figure 3. Confocal laser endomicroscopy image of Barrett's esophagus. Dark spots (arrow) indicate the presence of goblet cells.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Surveillance and treatment are the two major roles of endoscopy in BE.[17] In the surveillance of BE, four-quadrant biopsies are routinely taken according to the Seattle protocol,[18] but this is time-consuming and may cause fibrosis and interfere with future endoscopic treatment such as EMR or ESD. A multicenter randomized controlled trial[19] showed that sensitivity of the diagnosis of high-grade dysplasia or early cancer increased by adding NBI and pCLE: 34.2% by high-definition white-light endoscopy alone (HD-WLE), 45.0% by HD-WLE or NBI and 75.8% by HD-WLE, NBI or pCLE. As the current ASGE guidelines[17] recommend radiofrequency ablation (RFA) treatment for high-grade dysplasia, accurate diagnosis of high-grade dysplasia by CLE enables endoscopic treatment on the spot without waiting for biopsy results.

Two major roles of CLE in the management of BE; that is, detection and decision on the spot, have been confirmed as shown above. Diagnosis of residual lesions after endoscopic treatment of BE is another potential role of CLE, but a multicenter study comparing HD-WLE and HD-WLE with pCLE[20] failed to demonstrate significant differences for the detection of a residual lesion after endoscopic treatment, probably as a result of an underpowered sample size and the unexpectedly higher rate of residual lesions. Among 119 patients who had undergone ablation of BE, decision to re-treat was made based on WLE vs WLE + pCLE. The percentage of patients who had optimal treatment (not overtreated or not undertreated) was only 26% for WLE and 27% for WLE + pCLE. This result again illustrates the difficulty in diagnosing neoplastic change in the background of inflammation (BE per se and ablation). Given the high sensitivity in the diagnosis of a residual lesion after EMR of colon polyps,[21] further investigation with a more sophisticated study design is warranted to evaluate the role of CLE after endoscopic treatment of BE.

Other possibilities of CLE in non-neoplastic conditions are reported in non-erosive reflux disease (NERD)[22] or eosinophilic esophagitis,[23] but these are only preliminary results and the clinical impact of CLE in these conditions are to be determined in a large-scale prospective trial. Targeted biopsies using CLE findings can increase the pathological diagnostic yield in these diseases with diffuse but possibly patchy distribution.

CLE in the colon

There are two entities where CLE has shown its utility in the colon similar to the esophagus: neoplasm and inflammation. In the differential diagnosis of neoplastic vs hyperplastic polyps in the colon,[24] sensitivity of CLE was 91% compared with 77% in virtual chromoendoscopy, whereas specificity was comparable (76% vs 71%). In addition, in the diagnosis of small (<10 mm) colon polyps,[25] pCLE had higher sensitivity than NBI (86% vs 64%, P = 0.008), although specificity of pCLE was lower (78% vs 92%, P = 0.027). From the results of this study, CLE can be used to discard the biopsy specimens of small polyps when CLE or other endoscopic findings are diagnostic for hyperplastic polyps. This ‘resect and discard’ strategy ultimately reduces medical costs, rather than sending the entire specimen to pathological diagnosis, without increasing the risk of colorectal cancer.[26] In addition to the primary diagnosis of colon polyps, the usefulness of CLE was reported in an evaluation of residual tumor after endoscopic treatment of colon polyps.[21] Sensitivity and specificity of CLE were 97% and 77%, compared with 72% and 77% by endoscopy alone, respectively. This study showed that additional endoscopic intervention can be carried out in a single session without waiting for biopsy results when a residual tumor is diagnosed based on CLE. The clinical impact of this application is large because additional biopsies after endoscopic treatment cause further fibrosis at the site of prior endoscopic treatment and make subsequent endoscopic treatment difficult.

The other area where CLE has been investigated is inflammatory disease. The diagnosis of dysplasia or colitic cancer in the background of chronic inflammatory bowel disease is difficult. An initial report demonstrated a high yield of CLE in the diagnosis of intraepithelial neoplasm in ulcerative colitis.[27] However, a subsequent study failed to show an additional yield of CLE.[28] It is likely that these study results can be affected by the degree of inflammation because even a conventional pathological diagnosis is sometimes difficult in the background of severe inflammation. Therefore, a large-scale study with more detailed data should be collected to draw a conclusion.

In addition to the diagnosis of neoplastic change in the background of inflammatory bowel disease, CLE was reported to be potentially useful in predicting relapse of inflammatory bowel disease.[29] This study suggested that local barrier defects indicated by fluorescein efflux through the epithelium can be a predictive marker for relapse. This finding is one of the representatives of functional CLE, which is the advantage of an in vivo diagnostic procedure. Lymphocytic colitis, which sometimes shows patchy distribution, can be diagnosed in vivo at the time of ongoing endoscopy using CLE,[30] and targeted biopsies from the affected area detected by CLE can increase the diagnostic yield of histopathology, compared with random biopsies.

CLE in the stomach

As a result of the low prevalence of gastric cancer in Western countries, there is less evidence in this area compared with the esophagus or colon, but increasing data have been reported, mainly from Asia, where gastric cancer is more prevalent. Gastric cancer often arises from atrophic gastritis caused by Helicobacter pylori infection. In the presence of gastritis, CLE often detects gastric intestinal metaplasia (IM)[31] as seen in BE (Fig. 4). Goblet cells are characteristic of IM on CLE.[32] Sensitivity and specificity of gastric IM were both >90% by the interpretation of experienced endoscopists[32] or in combination with virtual chromoendoscopy.[33] Kiesslich et al.[34] reported that even H. pylori could be detected on CLE. Irregular capillaries and dark irregular, or disorganized, epithelial structures (Fig. 5) are characteristic of dysplasia or cancer, with a sensitivity of 88.9%, a specificity of 99.3% and an accuracy of 98.8% for gastric superficial cancer or high-grade dysplastic lesions.[35] However, the clinical impact of CLE in the management of gastric dysplasia or cancer should be further investigated given the accuracy of the current diagnostic modalities such as NBI with magnification.

figure

Figure 4. Confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE) image of intestinal metaplasia in the stomach. Goblet cells similar to Barrett's esophagus are seen on CLE.

Download figure to PowerPoint

figure

Figure 5. Confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE) image of dysplasia in the stomach. CLE shows dark and irregular epithelium.

Download figure to PowerPoint

CLE in the pancreas or biliary tree

Despite the advancement of imaging modalities, the accurate diagnosis of pancreatobiliary diseases without masses is still a problem. In patients with a mass in the pancreatobiliary regions, EUS-FNA is one of the standard diagnostic procedures with high accuracy.[36] However, in patients without masses, the current diagnostic procedure is ERCP. The diagnosis via ERC is based on fluoroscopy and, recently, endoscopy using a video cholangioscope,[37] but the pathological diagnosis via ERCP is limited by the small specimen. Therefore, a novel device has been long awaited for the diagnosis of the indeterminate pancreatobiliary stricture.

A smaller probe (CholangioFlex; Mauna Kea) which goes through an ERCP catheter enables pCLE during ERCP. Although resolution is limited (3.5 μm) compared with those used in the esophagus or colon (1.0 μm), several studies have been conducted to establish the standard criteria for malignancy. CLE findings suggestive of malignancy[38] were epithelial structures, white bands, thick dark bands (>40 μm) or dark clumps. In a large prospective multicenter trial of pCLE during ERCP for pancreatobiliary stricture, pCLE provided a sensitivity of 98%, a specificity of 67% and an accuracy of 81%, compared with a sensitivity of 45%, a specificity of 100% and an accuracy of 75% in pathological examination at index ERCP. Accuracy of the combination of ERCP and pCLE increased up to 90%, compared with 73% by ERCP with tissue acquisition alone (P < 0.001).[39] Although encouraging data were reported, the criteria are somewhat obscure as a result of the lower resolution. Moreover, indeterminate biliary stricture often occurs in the presence of inflammation such as primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), which makes the pathological interpretation difficult. Only a small study has been reported regarding the utility of pCLE in the dominant stricture in PSC patients. In 20 dominant strictures, sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) were 100%, respectively, but specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) were 66.1% and 22.2%, respectively. Meanwhile, tissue sampling by ERCP showed sensitivity of 0%, specificity of 94.4%, PPV of 0% and NPV of 89.5%.[40] Therefore, more data are necessary to confirm the utility of CLE in the diagnosis of biliary stricture, and improvement of the device is also essential to increase the diagnostic yield.

Another topic of CLE in this field is the diagnosis of pancreatic cysts.[41] Cyst fluid analysis in combination with cytology is routinely done to differentiate mucinous vs non-mucinous cysts,[42] but these diagnostic procedures are far from satisfactory. Cyst fluid carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) cannot differentiate malignant from benign lesions and cytology is not sensitive due to scant cellularity. Another problem is the heterogeneity of the cyst wall within a pancreatic cyst. As seen in surgical specimens of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN), even in the presence of dysplasia or cancer, most of the cyst wall is covered by non-dysplastic epithelium. Therefore, multiple sampling, either invasive or non-invasive, is essential for the accurate diagnosis of pancreatic cysts.

A newly developed small CLE, which can be inserted through a 19-gauge EUS-FNA needle, enables needle-based CLE (nCLE; AQ-Flex19; Mauna Kea) under EUS guidance. The first report of nCLE in a porcine model[43] showed possibilities of this in vivo histology procedure in various abdominal organs such as pancreas, lymph node, spleen and liver. Subsequent human clinical trials were focused on the evaluation of the pancreas. The first pilot study[44] which included 16 cysts and two masses showed the feasibility of nCLE through a 19-gauge EUS-FNA needle.

For further evaluation of nCLE for pancreatic cysts, a multinational prospective study (INSPECT trial) was conducted.[45] In the first step, the investigators tried to define nCLE findings in correlation with pathological findings. ‘Papillary projection’ (Fig. 6) or ‘dark ring’ on nCLE was thought to be correlated with villous structures in IPMN. In the second step, the diagnostic yield based on these findings was evaluated. They found that epithelial structures such as papillary projections were 100% specific to mucinous cysts, but its sensitivity was only 57.9%. To increase the diagnostic yield further, we conducted a single-center study, called DETECT study, at University of California, Irvine Medical Center, which evaluated ‘dual through-the-needle imaging’.[46] In this study, prior to nCLE, we carried out cystoscopy through the needle, using a small fiberoptic probe (Spyglass; Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA). The procedure of this dual through-the-needle imaging was feasible. In this study, in vivo imaging from multiple areas within a cyst was carried out via fan-like movement of the needle and probe. As a result, both specificity of cystoscopy and nCLE to diagnose mucinous cysts was 100% and sensitivity was 88% with cystoscopy and 75% with nCLE.

figure

Figure 6. Confocal laser endomicroscopy image of a pancreatic cyst. Papillary projection is characteristic of intraductal mucinous papillary neoplasms.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Although nCLE provides novel in vivo imaging inside pancreatic cysts, some hurdles are still to be overcome to bring this into clinical practice. Image quality, such as resolution, is not high enough because of the small size of the probe. In addition, malignant or dysplastic pancreatic cysts cannot be diagnosed based on the current criteria. Lack of pathological diagnosis as the gold standard is also a problem with those studies evaluating the diagnostic yield of pancreatic cysts. Another clinical implication of nCLE for pancreatic cysts is risk stratification of IPMN, which will be possible if subtypes of IPMN (gastric, intestinal, pancreatobiliary or oncocytic)[47] can be diagnosed on nCLE as reported in phenotypes of gastric cancer.[48, 49] Therefore, large-scale prospective studies should be done in patients who will undergo surgical resection to confirm the standard criteria of nCLE for pancreatic cysts. However, differentiation of subtypes or malignant potential of IPMN is impossible so far. The current literature of nCLE for pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCN) showed only its utility to differentiate mucinous vs non-mucinous cysts, which does not surpass the conventional EUS-FNA procedure by much. As a result of the limited impact by nCLE on patient management, a recent study by Napoleon et al.[50] focused on the diagnosis of serous cystadenoma, a benign pancreatic cyst, rather than on the diagnosis of malignant or potentially malignant pancreatic cysts. Thus, it is still to be elucidated whether nCLE can change the current diagnostic algorithm of PCN.

Preclinical experiments

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Technical aspects of CLE
  5. Clinical applications of CLE
  6. Preclinical experiments
  7. Limitations of CLE
  8. Conclusion
  9. Conflict of Interests
  10. References

As CLE is considered an in vivo pathological diagnostic procedure, it is natural that research has been focused on advanced pathological diagnosis such as immunohistological staining. There have already been some reports[51-53] using antibody-tagged contrast that have shown the feasibility of in vivo immunohistological staining. This can be useful in the diagnosis of specific diseases such as gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST), lymphoma and autoimmune pancreatitis, or in the determination of treatment strategy such as K-ras in colorectal cancer and Ki-67 in neuroendocrine tumor. Although safety of antibody-tagged contrast should be confirmed, this new methodology will help the development of individualized cancer treatment in the near future.

Moreover, the advantage of in vivo pathology over conventional pathology lies in functional imaging. Sumiyama et al.[54, 55] published a beautiful image of enteric neuronal networks via application of CLE under the mucosal layer. This can be applicable to the diagnosis of functional and motility disorders of the GI lumen. Currently, endoscopic full-thickness biopsy is necessary in the diagnosis of motor-neuron abnormalities, but CLE can be a less invasive diagnostic modality and multiple in vivo samplings can reduce the possibility of sampling errors.

Limitations of CLE

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Technical aspects of CLE
  5. Clinical applications of CLE
  6. Preclinical experiments
  7. Limitations of CLE
  8. Conclusion
  9. Conflict of Interests
  10. References

Despite promising data reported in many studies, there still remain internal and external limitations to the uses of CLE. First, the costs of pCLE devices are not negligible. Each pCLE probe has limitations on the number of clinical uses. Therefore, the pCLE procedure must have a clinical impact to compensate its costs; otherwise, this device can only be used for academic purposes as ‘an expensive toy’. Second, although a short learning curve and good interobserver agreement are reported, the current literature is based on experiences in a limited number of centers specialized for CLE procedures. Generalizability of the reportedly high diagnostic yield of CLE should be validated further by many endoscopists. In addition, the diagnostic yield of GI luminal diseases using magnifying endoscopy and virtual chromoendoscopy, such as NBI, are very high and widely distributed in Japan and other Asian countries. Therefore, the incremental diagnostic yield of pCLE should be confirmed given the high cost of this procedure, or a novel diagnostic role in GI luminal diseases should be evaluated (i.e. functional evaluation or in vivo immunohistochemical evaluation as discussed above). Currently, unmet clinical needs lie in the pancreatobiliary diseases, where pathological diagnoses are difficult, rather than in GI diseases. However, clinical trials in this area are almost always limited by lack of the ‘gold standard’ of pathological diagnosis, especially in patients who are considered to have non-malignant diseases and will not undergo surgical resection. Therefore, the correlation of CLE findings with ‘true’ pathological findings needs to be confirmed.

Conclusion

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Technical aspects of CLE
  5. Clinical applications of CLE
  6. Preclinical experiments
  7. Limitations of CLE
  8. Conclusion
  9. Conflict of Interests
  10. References

In summary, CLE enables in vivo histological evaluation during ongoing endoscopy. Three current roles of CLE in GI diseases are detection, decision (on the spot), and confirmation (of the treatment response), but this novel technology is expanding its clinical implications to functional or molecular imaging. Although technical issues such as a small FOV or limited imaging depth are to be solved, CLE will have many clinical implications, especially in the pancreatobiliary area, where the current procedure for pathological diagnosis is unsatisfactory. We should think outside the box for the potential role of CLE, such as functional neuronal imaging, as CLE goes beyond conventional endoscopic imaging.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Technical aspects of CLE
  5. Clinical applications of CLE
  6. Preclinical experiments
  7. Limitations of CLE
  8. Conclusion
  9. Conflict of Interests
  10. References
  • 1
    Singh R, Nordeen N, Chen Yi Mei SL, Kaffes A, Tam W, Saito Y. West meets East: Preliminary results of narrow band imaging with optical magnification in the diagnosis of colorectal lesions: A multicenter Australian study using the modified Sano's classification. Dig. Endosc. 2011; 23: 126130.
  • 2
    Pugliese V, Conio M, Nicolo G, Saccomanno S, Gatteschi B. Endoscopic retrograde forceps biopsy and brush cytology of biliary strictures: A prospective study. Gastrointest. Endosc. 1995; 42: 520526.
  • 3
    Yagioka H, Hirano K, Isayama H et al. Clinical significance of bile cytology via an endoscopic nasobiliary drainage tube for pathological diagnosis of malignant biliary strictures. J. Hepatobiliary Pancreat. Sci. 2011; 18: 211215.
  • 4
    Kiesslich R, Burg J, Vieth M et al. Confocal laser endoscopy for diagnosing intraepithelial neoplasias and colorectal cancer in vivo. Gastroenterology 2004; 127: 706713.
  • 5
    Fuchs FS, Zirlik S, Hildner K et al. Fluorescein-aided confocal laser endomicroscopy of the lung. Respiration 2011; 81: 3238.
  • 6
    Wiesner C, Jager W, Salzer A et al. Confocal laser endomicroscopy for the diagnosis of urothelial bladder neoplasia: A technology of the future? BJU Int. 2011; 107: 399403.
  • 7
    Tan J, Quinn MA, Pyman JM, Delaney PM, McLaren WJ. Detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in vivo using confocal endomicroscopy. BJOG 2009; 116: 16631670.
  • 8
    Sasajima K, Kudo SE, Inoue H et al. Real-time in vivo virtual histology of colorectal lesions when using the endocytoscopy system. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2006; 63: 10101017.
  • 9
    Kodashima S, Fujishiro M, Takubo K et al. Ex-vivo study of high-magnification chromoendoscopy in the gastrointestinal tract to determine the optimal staining conditions for endocytoscopy. Endoscopy 2006; 38: 11151121.
  • 10
    Fujishiro M, Kodashima S, Takubo K, Kakushima N, Omata M. Detailed comparison between endocytoscopy and horizontal histology of an esophageal intraepithelial squamous cell carcinoma. Dis. Esophagus 2008; 21: 181185.
  • 11
    Gotoda T, Jung H-Y. Endoscopic resection (endoscopic mucosal resection/endoscopic submucosal dissection) for early gastric cancer. Dig. Endosc. 2013; 25: 5563.
  • 12
    Polglase AL, McLaren WJ, Skinner SA, Kiesslich R, Neurath MF, Delaney PM. A fluorescence confocal endomicroscope for in vivo microscopy of the upper- and the lower-GI tract. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2005; 62: 686695.
  • 13
    Buchner AM, Gomez V, Heckman MG et al. The learning curve of in vivo probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy for prediction of colorectal neoplasia. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2011; 73: 556560.
  • 14
    Kuiper T, Kiesslich R, Ponsioen C, Fockens P, Dekker E. The learning curve, accuracy, and interobserver agreement of endoscope-based confocal laser endomicroscopy for the differentiation of colorectal lesions. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2012; 75: 12111217.
  • 15
    Wallace MB, Sharma P, Lightdale C et al. Preliminary accuracy and interobserver agreement for the detection of intraepithelial neoplasia in Barrett's esophagus with probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2010; 72: 1924.
  • 16
    Wallace M, Lauwers GY, Chen Y et al. Miami classification for probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 882891.
  • 17
    ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, Evans JA, Early DS et al. The role of endoscopy in Barrett's esophagus and other premalignant conditions of the esophagus. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2012; 76: 10871094.
  • 18
    Levine DS, Haggitt RC, Blount PL, Rabinovitch PS, Rusch VW, Reid BJ. An endoscopic biopsy protocol can differentiate high-grade dysplasia from early adenocarcinoma in Barrett's esophagus. Gastroenterology 1993; 105: 4050.
  • 19
    Sharma P, Meining AR, Coron E et al. Real-time increased detection of neoplastic tissue in Barrett's esophagus with probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy: Final results of an international multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2011; 74: 465472.
  • 20
    Wallace MB, Crook JE, Saunders M et al. Multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of confocal laser endomicroscopy assessment of residual metaplasia after mucosal ablation or resection of GI neoplasia in Barrett's esophagus. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2012; 76: 539547 e1.
  • 21
    Shahid MW, Buchner AM, Coron E et al. Diagnostic accuracy of probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy in detecting residual colorectal neoplasia after EMR: A prospective study. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2012; 75: 525533.
  • 22
    Chu CL, Zhen YB, Lv GP et al. Microalterations of esophagus in patients with non-erosive reflux disease: in-vivo diagnosis by confocal laser endomicroscopy and its relationship with gastroesophageal reflux. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2012; 107: 864874.
  • 23
    Neumann H, Vieth M, Atreya R, Mudter J, Neurath MF. First description of eosinophilic esophagitis using confocal laser endomicroscopy (with video). Endoscopy 2011; 43 (Suppl 2 UCTN): E66.
  • 24
    Buchner AM, Shahid MW, Heckman MG et al. Comparison of probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy with virtual chromoendoscopy for classification of colon polyps. Gastroenterology 2010; 138: 834842.
  • 25
    Shahid MW, Buchner AM, Heckman MG et al. Diagnostic accuracy of probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy and narrow band imaging for small colorectal polyps: A feasibility study. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2012; 107: 231239.
  • 26
    Ignjatovic A, East JE, Suzuki N, Vance M, Guenther T, Saunders BP. Optical diagnosis of small colorectal polyps at routine colonoscopy (Detect InSpect ChAracterise Resect and Discard; DISCARD trial): A prospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2009; 10: 11711178.
  • 27
    Kiesslich R, Goetz M, Lammersdorf K et al. Chromoscopy-guided endomicroscopy increases the diagnostic yield of intraepithelial neoplasia in ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology 2007; 132: 874882.
  • 28
    Hlavaty T, Huorka M, Koller T et al. Colorectal cancer screening in patients with ulcerative and Crohn's colitis with use of colonoscopy, chromoendoscopy and confocal endomicroscopy. Eur. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2011; 23: 680689.
  • 29
    Kiesslich R, Duckworth CA, Moussata D et al. Local barrier dysfunction identified by confocal laser endomicroscopy predicts relapse in inflammatory bowel disease. Gut 2012; 61: 11461153.
  • 30
    Neumann H, Grauer M, Vieth M, Neurath MF. In vivo diagnosis of lymphocytic colitis by confocal laser endomicroscopy. Gut 2013; 62: 333334.
  • 31
    Samarasena J, Dhillon R, Nakai Y, Iwashita T, Chang KJ. In vivo diagnosis of gastric intestinal metaplasia using probe-based confocal laser-induced endomicroscopy (pCLE). Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2012; 107: S62.
  • 32
    Lim LG, Yeoh KG, Salto-Tellez M et al. Experienced versus inexperienced confocal endoscopists in the diagnosis of gastric adenocarcinoma and intestinal metaplasia on confocal images. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2011; 73: 11411147.
  • 33
    Pittayanon R, Rerknimitr R, Wisedopas N et al. Flexible spectral imaging color enhancement plus probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy for gastric intestinal metaplasia detection. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2013; 28: 10041009.
  • 34
    Kiesslich R, Goetz M, Burg J et al. Diagnosing Helicobacter pylori in vivo by confocal laser endoscopy. Gastroenterology 2005; 128: 21192123.
  • 35
    Li WB, Zuo XL, Li CQ et al. Diagnostic value of confocal laser endomicroscopy for gastric superficial cancerous lesions. Gut 2011; 60: 299306.
  • 36
    Itoi T, Sofuni A, Itokawa F, Irisawa A, Khor CJ, Rerknimitr R. Current status of diagnostic endoscopic ultrasonography in the evaluation of pancreatic mass lesions. Dig. Endosc. 2011; 23 (Suppl 1): 1721.
  • 37
    Itoi T, Moon JH, Waxman I. Current status of direct peroral cholangioscopy. Dig. Endosc. 2011; 23 (Suppl 1): 154157.
  • 38
    Meining A, Shah RJ, Slivka A et al. Classification of probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy findings in pancreaticobiliary strictures. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 251257.
  • 39
    Meining A, Chen YK, Pleskow D et al. Direct visualization of indeterminate pancreaticobiliary strictures with probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy: A multicenter experience. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2011; 74: 961968.
  • 40
    Heif M, Yen RD, Shah RJ. ERCP with probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy for the evaluation of dominant biliary stenoses in primary sclerosing cholangitis patients. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2013; 58: 20682074.
  • 41
    Okabe Y, Kaji R, Ishida Y, Tsuruta O, Sata M. The management of the pancreatic cystic neoplasm: The role of the EUS in Japan. Dig. Endosc. 2011; 23 (Suppl 1): 3942.
  • 42
    Brugge WR, Lewandrowski K, Lee-Lewandrowski E et al. Diagnosis of pancreatic cystic neoplasms: A report of the cooperative pancreatic cyst study. Gastroenterology 2004; 126: 13301336.
  • 43
    Becker V, Wallace MB, Fockens P et al. Needle-based confocal endomicroscopy for in vivo histology of intra-abdominal organs: First results in a porcine model (with videos). Gastrointest. Endosc. 2010; 71: 12601266.
  • 44
    Konda VJ, Aslanian HR, Wallace MB, Siddiqui UD, Hart J, Waxman I. First assessment of needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy during EUS-FNA procedures of the pancreas (with videos). Gastrointest. Endosc. 2011; 74: 10491060.
  • 45
    Konda VJ, Meining A, Jamil LH et al. An International, Multi-center Trial on needle-based Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy (nCLE): Results from the In vivo CLE Study in the Pancreas with Endosonography of Cystic Tumors (INSPECT). Gastroenterology 2012; 142: S620.
  • 46
    Nakai Y, Iwashita T, Park DH, Samarasena JB, Lee JG, Chang KJ. Diagnosis of Pancreatic Cysts: Endoscopic Ultrasound, Through-the-needle confocal laser-induced Endomicroscopy and Cystoscopy Trial (DETECT study). Gastrointest. Endosc. 2012; 75: A145.
  • 47
    Furukawa T, Hatori T, Fujita I et al. Prognostic relevance of morphological types of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas. Gut 2011; 60: 509516.
  • 48
    Kitabatake S, Niwa Y, Miyahara R et al. Confocal endomicroscopy for the diagnosis of gastric cancer in vivo. Endoscopy 2006; 38: 11101114.
  • 49
    Banno K, Niwa Y, Miyahara R et al. Confocal endomicroscopy for phenotypic diagnosis of gastric cancer. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2010; 25: 712718.
  • 50
    Napoleon B, Pujol B, Lemaistre A-I et al. Tu1226 in vivo characterization of pancreatic serous cystadenomas by Needle-Based Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy (nCLE). Intra and Inter Observer Agreement – Contact Study. Gastroenterology 2013; 144: S797.
  • 51
    Goetz M, Ziebart A, Foersch S et al. In vivo molecular imaging of colorectal cancer with confocal endomicroscopy by targeting epidermal growth factor receptor. Gastroenterology 2010; 138: 435446.
  • 52
    Nakai Y, Shinoura S, Ahluwalia A, Tarnawski AS, Chang KJ. Molecular imaging of epidermal growth factor-receptor and survivin in vivo in porcine esophageal and gastric mucosae using probe-based confocal laser-induced endomicroscopy: Proof of concept. J. Physiol. Pharmacol. 2012; 63: 303307.
  • 53
    Nakai Y, Shinoura S, Ahluwalia A, Tarnawski AS, Chang KJ. In vivo visualization of epidermal growth factor receptor and survivin expression in porcine pancreas using endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle imaging with confocal laser-induced endomicroscopy. J. Physiol. Pharmacol. 2012; 63: 577580.
  • 54
    Sumiyama K, Kiesslich R, Ohya TR, Goetz M, Tajiri H. In vivo imaging of enteric neuronal networks in humans using confocal laser endomicroscopy. Gastroenterology 2012; 143: 11521153.
  • 55
    Ohya TR, Sumiyama K, Takahashi-Fujigasaki J, Dobashi A, Saito S, Tajiri H. In vivo histologic imaging of the muscularis propria and myenteric neurons with probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy in porcine models (with videos). Gastrointest. Endosc. 2012; 75: 405410.