Validation of Fujinon intelligent chromoendoscopy with high definition endoscopes in colonoscopy

Table 1 Spectral specification of each FICE filter estimation set with assignments to the color channels

	Blue (B) channel	Green (G) channel	Red (R) channel
0	500	445	415
1	500	470	420
2	550	500	470
3	540	490	420
4	520	500	405
5	500	480	420
6	580	520	460
7	520	450	400
8	540	415	415
9	550	500	400

FICE: Fujinon intelligent chromoendoscopy.

Table 2 Individual scores for mucosal and vascular patterns with conventional imaging, indigo carmine, and FICE with each of the 10 filters

Type of endoscopy	Endoscopist 1				Endoscopist 2
	Mucosal pattern	Vascular pattern	Sum score	n	Mucosal pattern	Vascular pattern	Sum score	n
Without FICE
Conv	12	35	44	38	21	40	61	38
Indigo	59	-	59	20	59	-	59	20
FICE
0	6	20	26	38	8	23	31	38
1	8	32	40	38	15	33	48	38
2	13	42	55	38	20	50	70	38
3	14	43	57	38	17	48	65	38
4	15	45	60	38	25	49	74	38
5	11	32	43	38	19	38	57	38
6	11	38	49	37	19	52	71	37
7	10	28	38	38	14	34	48	38
8	11	30	41	38	15	30	45	38
9	14	44	58	38	18	48	66	38

Table 3 Accuracy of prediction of histopathological diagnosis among the five endoscopists with the different techniques applied n (%)

Endoscopists	1 (n = 19)	2 (n = 19)	3 (n = 19)	4 (n = 19)	5 (n = 19)	Global (n = 95)
Conv	9 (47.4)	13 (68.4)	12 (63.1)	10 (52.6)	10 (52.6)	54 (56.8)
Conv-M	12 (63.1)	12 (63.1)	14 (73.7)	6 (31.6)	9 (47.4)	53 (55.8)
FICE	10 (52.6)	11 (57.9)	12 (63.1)	13 (68.4)	10 (52.6)	56 (58.9)
FICE-M	15 (78.9)	14 (73.7)	15 (78.9)	11 (57.9)	12 (63.1)	67 (70.5)
Indigo	15 (78.9)	15 (78.9)	15 (78.9)	10 (52.6)	12 (63.1)	67 (70.5)
Indigo-M	17 (89.4)	16 (84.2)	15 (78.9)	13 (68.4)	12 (63.1)	73 (76.8)
Mean percentage	77.9	85.3	87.3	66.3	68.4

Conv: Conventional; Conv-M: Conventional + magnification; FICE-M: FICE + magnification; Indigo-M: Indigo + magnification.

Table 4 Evaluation of image quality of FICE-4 as compared to conventional WLE in the presence of remaining liquid or solid fecal content

Endoscopists	Quality				Fecal content
	FICE better (%)	FICE equal (%)	FICE worse (%)	P1	FICE better (%)	FICE equal (%)	FICE worse (%)	P1
1	87.5	12.5	0		87.5	12.5	0
2	93.8	6.2	0		100	0	0
3	28.6	71.4	0		57.1	42.9	0
4	87.5	12.5	0		100	0	0
5	87.5	12.5	0	< 0.001	93.8	6.2	0
Global mean	77.0			< 0.001	87.7			< 0.001

¹P values are comparing the observed proportion of better with respect to 50%; WLE: White light endoscopy.

Table 5 Comparison of the observation quality of the margins and surfaces of the polyps with FICE vs conventional WLE

Endoscopists	Margin				Surface
	FICE better (%)	FICE equal (%)	FICE worse (%)	P1	FICE better (%)	FICE equal (%)	FICE worse (%)	P1
1	73.3	26.7	0		73.3	26.7	0
2	75.0	25.0	0		43.8	56.3	0
3	13.3	80.0	6.7		68.8	25.0	6.2
4	68.8	25.0	6.2		31.3	68.8	0
5	81.3	18.8	0		87.5	12.5	0
Global mean	62.3			0.02	60.9			0.013

¹P values are comparing the observed proportion of better with respect to 50%.

Table 6 Comparison of the observation quality of the margins and surfaces of the polyps with FICE vs IC

Endoscopists	Margin				Surface
	FICE better (%)	FICE equal (%)	FICE worse (%)	P1	FICE better (%)	FICE equal (%)	FICE worse (%)	P1
1	0	20.0	80.0		6.7	13.3	80.0
2	0	50	50.0		0	25.0	75.0
3	0	31.3	68.8		0	25.0	75.0
4	50.0	25.0	25.0		0	68.8	31.3
5	0	50.0	50.0		0	18.8	81.3
Global mean		35.3		< 0.001		30.2		< 0.001

¹P values are comparing the observed proportion of equal with respect to 50%. IC: Indigo carmine.

Table 7 Comparison of the observation quality of the polyps with FICE-6 + IC vs IC

Endoscopists	Quality
	FICE-6 + IC better (%)	FICE-6 + IC equal (%)	FICE-6 + IC worse (%)	P1
1	53.8	46.2	0
2	61.5	30.8	7.7
3	30.8	69.2	0
4	30.8	69.2	0
5	69.2	30.8	0
Global mean	49.2			0.37

¹P values are comparing the observed proportion of better with respect to 50%.