Risk factors associated with diagnostic discrepancy of gastric indefinite neoplasia: Who need en bloc resection?

Management of epithelial precancerous conditions and early neoplasia of the stomach (MAPS III): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), European Helicobacter and Microbiota Study Group (EHMSG) and European Society of Pathology (ESP) Guideline update 2025

At a population level, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), the European Helicobacter and Microbiota Study Group (EHMSG), and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) suggest endoscopic screening for gastric cancer (and precancerous conditions) in high-risk regions (age-standardized rate [ASR] > 20 per 100 000 person-years) every 2 to 3 years or, if cost-effectiveness has been proven, in intermediate risk regions (ASR 10-20 per 100 000 person-years) every 5 years, but not in low-risk regions (ASR < 10).ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend that irrespective of country of origin, individual gastric risk assessment and stratification of precancerous conditions is recommended for first-time gastroscopy. ESGE/EHMSG/ESP suggest that gastric cancer screening or surveillance in asymptomatic individuals over 80 should be discontinued or not started, and that patients' comorbidities should be considered when treatment of superficial lesions is planned.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend that a high quality endoscopy including the use of virtual chromoendoscopy (VCE), after proper training, is performed for screening, diagnosis, and staging of precancerous conditions (atrophy and intestinal metaplasia) and lesions (dysplasia or cancer), as well as after endoscopic therapy. VCE should be used to guide the sampling site for biopsies in the case of suspected neoplastic lesions as well as to guide biopsies for diagnosis and staging of gastric precancerous conditions, with random biopsies to be taken in the absence of endoscopically suspected changes. When there is a suspected early gastric neoplastic lesion, it should be properly described (location, size, Paris classification, vascular and mucosal pattern), photodocumented, and two targeted biopsies taken.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP do not recommend routine performance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or positron emission tomography (PET)-CT prior to endoscopic resection unless there are signs of deep submucosal invasion or if the lesion is not considered suitable for endoscopic resection.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for differentiated gastric lesions clinically staged as dysplastic (low grade and high grade) or as intramucosal carcinoma (of any size if not ulcerated or ≤ 30 mm if ulcerated), with EMR being an alternative for Paris 0-IIa lesions of size ≤ 10 mm with low likelihood of malignancy.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP suggest that a decision about ESD can be considered for malignant lesions clinically staged as having minimal submucosal invasion if differentiated and ≤ 30 mm; or for malignant lesions clinically staged as intramucosal, undifferentiated and ≤ 20 mm; and in both cases with no ulcerative findings.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommends patient management based on the following histological risk after endoscopic resection: Curative/very low-risk resection (lymph node metastasis [LNM] risk < 0.5 %-1 %): en bloc R0 resection; dysplastic/pT1a, differentiated lesion, no lymphovascular invasion, independent of size if no ulceration and ≤ 30 mm if ulcerated. No further staging procedure or treatment is recommended.Curative/low-risk resection (LNM risk < 3 %): en bloc R0 resection; lesion with no lymphovascular invasion and: a) pT1b, invasion ≤ 500 µm, differentiated, size ≤ 30 mm; or b) pT1a, undifferentiated, size ≤ 20 mm and no ulceration. Staging should be completed, and further treatment is generally not necessary, but a multidisciplinary discussion is required. Local-risk resection (very low risk of LNM but increased risk of local persistence/recurrence): Piecemeal resection or tumor-positive horizontal margin of a lesion otherwise meeting curative/very low-risk criteria (or meeting low-risk criteria provided that there is no submucosal invasive tumor at the resection margin in the case of piecemeal resection or tumor-positive horizontal margin for pT1b lesions [invasion ≤ 500 µm; well-differentiated; size ≤ 30 mm, and VM0]). Endoscopic surveillance/re-treatment is recommended rather than other additional treatment. High-risk resection (noncurative): Any lesion with any of the following: (a) a positive vertical margin (if carcinoma) or lymphovascular invasion or deep submucosal invasion (> 500 µm from the muscularis mucosae); (b) poorly differentiated lesions if ulceration or size > 20 mm; (c) pT1b differentiated lesions with submucosal invasion ≤ 500 µm with size > 30 mm; or (d) intramucosal ulcerative lesion with size > 30 mm. Complete staging and strong consideration for additional treatments (surgery) in multidisciplinary discussion.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP suggest the use of validated endoscopic classifications of atrophy (e. g. Kimura-Takemoto) or intestinal metaplasia (e. g. endoscopic grading of gastric intestinal metaplasia [EGGIM]) to endoscopically stage precancerous conditions and stratify the risk for gastric cancer.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend that biopsies should be taken from at least two topographic sites (2 biopsies from the antrum/incisura and 2 from the corpus, guided by VCE) in two separate, clearly labeled vials. Additional biopsy from the incisura is optional.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend that patients with extensive endoscopic changes (Kimura C3 + or EGGIM 5 +) or advanced histological stages of atrophic gastritis (severe atrophic changes or intestinal metaplasia, or changes in both antrum and corpus, operative link on gastritis assessment/operative link on gastric intestinal metaplasia [OLGA/OLGIM] III/IV) should be followed up with high quality endoscopy every 3 years, irrespective of the individual's country of origin.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend that no surveillance is proposed for patients with mild to moderate atrophy or intestinal metaplasia restricted to the antrum, in the absence of endoscopic signs of extensive lesions or other risk factors (family history, incomplete intestinal metaplasia, persistent H. pylori infection). This group constitutes most individuals found in clinical practice.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend H. pylori eradication for patients with precancerous conditions and after endoscopic or surgical therapy.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend that patients should be advised to stop smoking and low-dose daily aspirin use may be considered for the prevention of gastric cancer in selected individuals with high risk for cardiovascular events.

ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Gastric Premalignant Conditions

Gastric premalignant conditions (GPMC) are common and include atrophic gastritis, gastric intestinal metaplasia, dysplasia, and certain gastric epithelial polyps. GPMC have an increased risk of progression to gastric adenocarcinoma. Gastric cancer (GC) in the United States represents an important cancer disparity because incidence rates are 2- to 13-fold greater in non-White individuals, particularly early-generation immigrants from regions of high GC incidence. The US 5-year survival rate for GC is 36%, which falls short of global standards and is driven by the fact that only a small percentage of GC in the US is diagnosed in the early, curable stage. This document represents the first iteration of American College of Gastroenterology guidelines on this topic and encompasses endoscopic surveillance for high-risk patients with GPMC, the performance of high-quality endoscopy and image-enhanced endoscopy for diagnosis and surveillance, GPMC histology criteria and reporting, endoscopic treatment of dysplasia, the role of Helicobacter pylori eradication, general risk reduction measures, and the management of autoimmune gastritis and gastric epithelial polyps. There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on upper endoscopic screening for GC/GPMC detection in US populations deemed high-risk for GC. Surveillance endoscopy is recommended for individuals at high risk for GPMC progression, as defined by endoscopic, histologic, and demographic factors, typically every 3 years, but an individualized interval may be warranted. H. pylori testing, treatment, and eradication confirmation are recommended in all individuals with GPMC. Extensive high-quality data from US populations regarding GPMC management are lacking, but continue to accrue, and the quality of evidence for the recommendations presented herein should be interpreted with this dynamic context in mind. The GPMC research and education agendas are broad and include high-quality prospective studies evaluating opportunistic endoscopic screening for GC/GPMC, refined delineation of what constitutes "high-risk" populations, development of novel biomarkers, alignment of best practices, implementation of training programs for improved GPMC/GC detection, and evaluation of the impact of these interventions on GC incidence and mortality in the US.

Re-evaluation of the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection in the treatment of early gastric cancer based on additional gastrectomy results

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) plays a pivotal role in treating early gastric cancer (EGC). Some patients require additional gastrectomy because of non-curative ESD. This study aimed to analyze the clinical factors associated with non-curative ESD and to re-evaluate the role of ESD according to its indication criteria. Altogether, 134 patients who had undergone additional gastrectomy with lymphadenectomy for non-curative ESD based on the pathological results of ESD specimens were included. Their data including pre-ESD diagnosis, reasons for requesting additional gastrectomy, and surgical outcomes were analyzed retrospectively. Of the 134 patients with EGC in the final pathology of ESD specimens, 56 underwent staging ESD for a diagnostic approach, of whom 28 were diagnosed with atypical glands and 28 with high-grade dysplasia (HGD) prior to ESD. The remaining 78 patients of the 134 were identified to have EGC and received ESD for therapy. Based on the pathological results of ESD specimens, additional gastrectomy was commissioned with non-curative ESD because of one or more causes such as deep submucosal invasion, lymphatic invasion, positive vertical margin, undifferentiated histology, positive lateral margin, and venous invasion. Regarding surgical specimens, 13 patients had lymph node metastasis (LNM) and 9 had local residual tumor; one of them had both LNM and a local residual tumor. In patients with atypical glands, 4 had LNM and 3 had a local residual tumor; one of them had both LNM and a local residual tumor, and then died of multiple organ metastasis. In patients with HGD, 4 had LNM and 1 had a local residual tumor. Additionally, 4 patients who were absolutely indicated for ESD had LNM, of whom 2 had atypical glands, and the other 2 had HGD. Similarly, in 6 patients with a local residual tumor absolutely indicated for ESD, 2 had atypical glands and 1 had HGD. Positive vertical margin, lymphatic invasion, and deep submucosal invasion were identified as independent risk factors for LNM. ESD may play diagnostic and therapeutic roles in determining the optimal treatment of EGC when the diagnosis is equivocal or insufficient in endoscopic assessments for gastric cancer screening.

Chinese integrated guideline on the management of gastric precancerous conditions and lesions

The standardized diagnosis and management of gastric precancerous conditions and lesions are important to prevent gastric cancer. This guideline, created by 5 traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine associations, based on the current morbidity and diagnosis and treatment of gastric precancerous conditions and lesions, provides specific key points and strategies for diagnosis and treatment in the following five aspects: definition and epidemiology, diagnosis and stage, surveillance, treatment and efficacy evaluation. It is hoped that these aspects, assessed by integrating Western medicine and traditional Chinese medicine and involving multidisciplinary participation, will play a guiding role in clinical diagnosis and treatment and achieve effective secondary prevention of gastric cancer.

Chronic gastritis and functional dyspepsia. Unity and struggle of two opposites

The review article describes the epidemiology, clinical picture, pathogenesis, approaches to the diagnosis and treatment of chronic gastritis and functional dyspepsia. Chronic gastritis is an unreasonably common diagnosis in our clinical practice, which is diagnosed in patients with disturbing dyspeptic complaints. According to the agreement documents, chronic gastritis is primarily a morphological concept. Chronic gastritis has no pathognomonic clinical signs and should be diagnosed during the histological examination of the gastric mucosa. Functional dyspepsia is a diagnosis that reflects the presence of a certain symptom complex (pain  or burning sensation in  the  epigastrium, a  feeling of  fullness or early satiety) in  the  absence of  diseases that could explain the symptoms. Secondary dyspepsia is diagnosed in patients with organic diseases of the upper gastrointestinal tract, metabolic or systemic diseases that cause dyspeptic syndrome. In the process of examining a patient with disturbing dyspeptic complaints, it is advisable for the doctor to use the diagnosis “unspecified dyspepsia” – a preliminary diagnosis before laboratory and instrumental examination aimed at identifying the cause of the dyspeptic syndrome. Dyspepsia associated with H. pylori is diagnosed in patients with H. pylori infection. The diagnosis is revised over time and is competent if complaints have been relieved within 6 months after effective H. pylori eradication.

The main drugs for the treatment of patients with dyspeptic complaints are proton pump inhibitors and prokinetics. Omeprazole with domperidone sustained release (SR) in a fixed dose combination is characterized by optimal efficacy and a good safety profile in patients with both functional and secondary dyspepsia and ensures a high level of treatment adherence.

Risk stratification of patients with gastric lesions indefinite for dysplasia

BACKGROUND/AIMS

There are no definite guidelines for the management of gastric lesions diagnosed as indefinite for dysplasia (IND) by endoscopic forceps biopsy (EFB). Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of gastric IND and predictive factors for gastric neoplasm.

METHODS

This study included 457 patients with a first diagnosis of gastric IND by EFB between January 2005 and December 2013. Patient characteristics and endoscopic and pathological data were reviewed and compared.

RESULTS

Of the 457 gastric IND patients, 128 (28%) were diagnosed with invasive carcinoma, 21 (4.6%) with high-grade dysplasia, 31 (6.8%) with low-grade dysplasia, and 277 (60.6%) as negative for dysplasia. Of lesions observed, 180 (39.4%) showed upgraded histology. Multivariate analysis revealed that surface erythema (odds ratio [OR], 2.804; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.741 to 4.516), spontaneous bleeding (OR, 2.618; 95% CI, 1.298 to 5.279), lesion size ≥ 1 cm (OR, 5.762; 95% CI, 3.459 to 9.597), and depressed morphology (OR, 2.183; 95% CI, 1.155 to 4.124) were significant risk factors for high-grade dysplasia or adenocarcinoma. The ORs associated with 2 and ≥ 3 risk factors were 7.131 and 34.86, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Precautions should be taken in the management of gastric IND patients, especially when risk factors, including surface erythema, spontaneous bleeding, lesion size ≥ 1 cm, and depressed morphology are present. Considering the combined effect of the presence of multiple risk factors on the incidence of high-grade dysplasia or adenocarcinoma, endoscopic resection should be recommended if a gastric IND patient has at two or more of these factors.

Gastric cancer screening in low incidence populations: Position statement of AEG, SEED and SEAP

This positioning document, sponsored by the Asociación Española de Gastroenterología, the Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva and the Sociedad Española de Anatomía Patológica, aims to establish recommendations for the screening of gastric cancer (GC) in low incidence populations, such as the Spanish. To establish the quality of the evidence and the levels of recommendation, we used the methodology based on the GRADE system (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). We obtained a consensus among experts using a Delphi method. The document evaluates screening in the general population, individuals with relatives with GC and subjects with GC precursor lesions (GCPL). The goal of the interventions should be to reduce GC related mortality. We recommend the use of the OLGIM classification and determine the intestinal metaplasia (IM) subtype in the evaluation of GCPL. We do not recommend to establish endoscopic mass screening for GC or Helicobacter pylori. However, the document strongly recommends to treat H.pylori if the infection is detected, and the investigation and treatment in individuals with a family history of GC or with GCPL. Instead, we recommend against the use of serological tests to detect GCPL. Endoscopic screening is suggested only in individuals that meet familial GC criteria. As for individuals with GCPL, endoscopic surveillance is only suggested in extensive IM associated with additional risk factors (incomplete IM and/or a family history of GC), after resection of dysplastic lesions or in patients with dysplasia without visible lesion after a high quality gastroscopy with chromoendoscopy.

Endoscopic acanthosis nigricans appearance: A novel specific marker for diagnosis of low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia

BACKGROUND AND AIM

At present, there is no recognized diagnostic criteria for gastric low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (LGIN). The purpose of this study was to determine whether an "endoscopic acanthosis nigricans appearance (EANA)" could be a useful endoscopic marker for distinguishing LGIN lesions from peripheral non-neoplastic tissues.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on 638 cases of suspected superficial lesions with endoscopic images from white light endoscopy and magnifying endoscopy combined with narrow band imaging. According to the pathological results of accurate biopsies, those lesions were divided into three groups: a control group, an LGIN group, and an early gastric cancer (EGC) group.

RESULTS

According to the presence of EANAs, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for differentiating between the LGIN and control groups were 24.8%, 97.3%, 78.3%, and 76.6%, respectively. The sensitivity (84.1%) and negative predictive value (92.4%) were significantly improved by combining EANA with types IV-VI pit pattern. The intervening part and mean gray value of glands, representing microsurface features and microvascular variation, were significantly larger or higher in EANA lesions than in the surrounding non-neoplastic mucosa. LGIN with EANA was more likely to be present in lesions of type 0-IIa. In addition, the prevalence of EANAs in EGC was 16.7%.

CONCLUSION

An EANA could be used as an auxiliary indicator for a diagnosis of LGIN in suspected lesions. It could also play a potential assistive role in the diagnosis of EGC lesions.

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the diagnosis and management of patients at risk of gastric adenocarcinoma

Gastric adenocarcinoma carries a poor prognosis, in part due to the late stage of diagnosis. Risk factors include Helicobacter pylori infection, family history of gastric cancer-in particular, hereditary diffuse gastric cancer and pernicious anaemia. The stages in the progression to cancer include chronic gastritis, gastric atrophy (GA), gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) and dysplasia. The key to early detection of cancer and improved survival is to non-invasively identify those at risk before endoscopy. However, although biomarkers may help in the detection of patients with chronic atrophic gastritis, there is insufficient evidence to support their use for population screening. High-quality endoscopy with full mucosal visualisation is an important part of improving early detection. Image-enhanced endoscopy combined with biopsy sampling for histopathology is the best approach to detect and accurately risk-stratify GA and GIM. Biopsies following the Sydney protocol from the antrum, incisura, lesser and greater curvature allow both diagnostic confirmation and risk stratification for progression to cancer. Ideally biopsies should be directed to areas of GA or GIM visualised by high-quality endoscopy. There is insufficient evidence to support screening in a low-risk population (undergoing routine diagnostic oesophagogastroduodenoscopy) such as the UK, but endoscopic surveillance every 3 years should be offered to patients with extensive GA or GIM. Endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection of visible gastric dysplasia and early cancer has been shown to be efficacious with a high success rate and low rate of recurrence, providing that specific quality criteria are met.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric indefinite for neoplasia: which lesions should be resected?

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

The management plan for gastric indefinite for neoplasia is undetermined, and endoscopic forceps biopsy might be inconclusive in ascertaining whether a resection is required. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for gastric indefinite for neoplasia and to identify the factors highly predictive of true neoplasia.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted in a single, tertiary, referral hospital between November 2008 and December 2015. A total of 109 gastric indefinite for neoplasia lesions from endoscopic forceps biopsy that were resected by ESD were included in the study. The clinical outcomes and endoscopic factors for prediction of true neoplasia were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 99 patients (90.8%) were diagnosed with definite neoplasia after ESD and were classified as category 3 (n = 42), category 4 (n = 50), and category 5 (n = 7) according to the revised Vienna classification. The mean age of the patients was 65.8 ± 9.8 years. The mean lesion size was 10.7 ± 6.1 mm. The patient population predominantly consisted of male patients (70.6%). The en bloc and complete endoscopic resection rates were 98.2% and 94.5%, respectively. Factors associated with true neoplastic lesions were male sex (odds ratio [OR] 8.596, p = 0.008) and lesion size ≥ 5 mm (OR 11.355, p = 0.003). Factors associated with category 4-5 were male sex (OR 3.165, p = 0.021) and erosive change (OR 2.841, p = 0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic resection for indefinite for neoplasia with larger lesions size and erosive changes, especially in males, should be considered when possible.

Clinical Implication and Risk Factors for Malignancy of Atypical Gastric Gland during Forceps Biopsy

Background/Aims

Although forceps biopsy is performed for suspicious gastric tumors during endoscopy, it is difficult to determine treatment strategies for atypical gastric glands due to uncertainty of the diagnosis. The aim of this study was to investigate clinical implications and risk factors for predicting malignancy in atypical gastric glands during forceps biopsy.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed medical records of 252 patients with a diagnosis of atypical gastric gland during forceps biopsy. Predictors of malignancy were analyzed using initial endoscopic findings and clinical data.

Results

The final diagnosis for 252 consecutive patients was gastric cancer in 189 (75%), adenoma in 26 (10.3%), and gastritis in 37 (14.7%). In the multivariate analysis, lesion sizes of more than 10 mm (odds ratio [OR], 3.021; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.480 to 6.165; p=0.002), depressed morphology (OR, 3.181; 95% CI, 1.579 to 6.406, p=0.001), and surface nodularity (OR, 3.432; 95% CI, 1.667 to 7.064, p=0.001) were significant risk factors for malignancy.

Conclusions

Further evaluation and treatment should be considered for atypical gastric gland during forceps biopsy if there is a large-sized (>10 mm) lesion, depressed morphology, or surface nodularity.

Endoscopic Indication of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Early Gastric Cancer Is Not Compatible with Pathologic Criteria in Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND

The inappropriate selection of patients with early gastric cancer (EGC) for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) may lead to additional surgery because of a non-curative resection. This study was performed to assess the accuracy of clinical decisions in ESD for EGC.

METHODS

A total of 607 cases of EGC treated by ESD were prospectively enrolled from January 2011 to June 2014 at a single academic hospital. The 607 EGCs were divided into three groups (overestimated, same-estimated, and underestimated) based on pre-procedure endoscopic findings (indication) and pathological diagnosis after ESD (criteria). We evaluated the discrepancy rates between pre-procedure indication and pathological criteria, and then analyzed the pre-procedure factors that could influence the occurrence of the discrepancies.

RESULTS

The absolute, expanded, and beyond the expanded indication has its accuracy on curability criteria in 87%, 77.6%, and 55.6% of cases, respectively. The ratio of overall indication-criteria discrepancies was 250/607 (41.2%). The curability was significantly lower in the underestimated group compared to the overestimated and same-estimated groups (41.6% vs. 94.6%, 94.4%, p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis examining the predictive factors for discrepancies in the 598 EGCs with absolute/expanded indications, the endoscopic size ≥ 20 mm [odds ratio (OR) 2.493, confidence interval (CI) 1.546-4.022, p < 0.001], presence of ulcers (OR 1.712, CI 1.070-2.738, p = 0.025), patient age < 60 years (OR 1.689, CI 1.044-2.733, p = 0.033), and undifferentiated type EGC on forceps biopsy (OR 5.397, CI 2.027-14.369, p = 0.001) were all associated with discrepancies.

CONCLUSIONS

Indication judged by pre-procedural endoscopy is not sufficiently accurate to be used as a good measurement for post-procedural criteria.

Characteristics of overlooked synchronous gastric epithelial neoplasia after endoscopic submucosal dissection

Since endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been accepted as the treatment of choice for early gastric cancer (EGC) without risk of lymph node metastasis, synchronous gastric epithelial neoplasia is no longer rare in the clinical practice. Knowledge about the characteristics associated with synchronous gastric epithelial neoplasia is of great importance to prevent delayed diagnosis.Between November 2008 and December 2014, a retrospective study was conducted in a single tertiary referral hospital. Consecutive patients who underwent ESD due to EGC or high-grade dysplasia were analyzed to evaluate the incidence of synchronous gastric epithelial neoplasia and the factors associated with synchronous and overlooked synchronous lesions.A total of 488 patients were analyzed in this study. Synchronous lesions were found in 59 patients (12.1%) during the mean 37.7 months of follow-up. Among 77 synchronous lesions, 25 lesions (32.4%) were overlooked at the time of initial ESD. Age of ≥ 65 years, moderate to severe endoscopic atrophic gastritis, and elevated morphology of primary lesions were associated with synchronous gastric epithelial neoplasia. An important factor associated with overlooked lesions is the non-elevated morphology of lesions.Careful endoscopic examination of the whole stomach is necessary in patients who are older and who have moderate to severe atrophic gastritis and elevated morphology of lesions to prevent delayed diagnosis of synchronous gastric epithelial neoplasia, especially non-elevated lesions.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric neoplasms using a snare tip

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) enables the complete removal of gastric lesions regardless of tumor size. ESD is typically performed using one of several available electrocautery knives and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is performed using a diathermic snare. We aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes and complications in patients in whom a snare tip was used for ESD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated the medical records of 30 patients who underwent removal of a gastric lesion using a snare tip by ESD or hybrid ESD (ESD with snaring). For hybrid ESD, snaring was performed after an adequate submucosal dissection. The clinical outcomes according to the endoscopic procedure performed were evaluated.

RESULTS

ESD was performed in 12 patients and hybrid ESD was performed in 26 patients. Overall en-bloc and complete resection rates were both 97.4%. There was one case where piece-meal resection was performed in the hybrid ESD group. There were no procedure related complications such as perforation or bleeding. The mean specimen size was 2.8 ± 0.6 cm in the ESD group and 2.3 ± 0.5 cm in the hybrid ESD group (p = .031). The mean procedure time did not differ between the two methods (12.8 min in ESD and 9.7 min in hybrid ESD, p = .060).

CONCLUSIONS

The snare tip can be used as an electrocautery knife to incise the mucosa and dissect the submucosa during removal of a gastric lesion.