Analysis of endoscopic features for histologic discrepancies between biopsy and endoscopic submucosal dissection in gastric neoplasms: 10-year results

Clinical features of gastric adenoma detected within 3 years after negative screening endoscopy in Korea

Background

Early detection and management of gastric adenoma are important for preventing gastric cancer. The present study aimed to evaluate the predictors of missed gastric adenoma on screening endoscopy in Korea and identify the risk factors associated with interval precancerous gastric lesions.

Methods

All cases of gastric adenomas diagnosed via screening endoscopy between 2007 and 2019 were reviewed. Among them, those who had undergone endoscopy within 3 years were included in the present study. Missed gastric adenoma was defined as gastric adenoma diagnosed within 3 years after negative screening endoscopy.

Results

In total, 295 cases of gastric adenoma were identified. Of these, 95 (32.2%) were missed gastric adenoma cases (mean age, 60.6 years; average interval between final and index endoscopies, 12.6 months); the remaining 200 (67.8%) were newly detected adenoma cases. Univariate analysis revealed that male sex, endoscopist experience, observation time, and presence of gastric intestinal metaplasia (pathologically proven) were associated with missed gastric adenoma. Multivariate analysis revealed that gastric intestinal metaplasia (odds ratio [OR], 2.736; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.320-5.667; P = 0.007) and shorter observation time of the index screening endoscopy (B, -0.011; OR, 0.990; 95% CI, 0.986-0.993; P < 0.001) were independent risk factors for missed gastric adenoma. The optimal cut-off for the observation time for detecting gastric adenoma was 3.53 minutes (area under curve, 0.738; 95% CI, 0.677-0.799; P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Gastric intestinal metaplasia is an indication of missed gastric adenoma. Therefore, careful inspection of gastric mucosa with gastric intestinal metaplasia and proper observation time can lower the possibility of missing the gastric adenoma during screening.

The usefulness of image-enhanced endoscopy to distinguish gastric carcinoma in tumors initially diagnosed as adenomas by endoscopic biopsy: A retrospective study

Superficial epithelial gastric neoplasms can be divided into adenomas and early carcinomas. Histological diagnosis by endoscopic forceps biopsy is crucial for the diagnosis and management of gastric neoplasms. It is difficult to distinguish features of gastric neoplasms in small biopsy specimens; hence, gastric carcinomas can be underdiagnosed as adenomas. Recent developments in image-enhanced endoscopy have improved the ability to differentiate between carcinomatous and non-carcinomatous lesions. To investigate the prevalence of gastric carcinoma in lesions initially diagnosed as adenomas by forceps biopsy and assess the usefulness of image-enhanced endoscopy in distinguishing carcinomas. A total of 142 lesions of gastric adenomas, diagnosed by biopsy and resected endoscopically between January 2010 and May 2020, were retrospectively evaluated. Images were captured by white-light endoscopy (WLE), magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging (M-NBI), and magnifying endoscopy with acetic acid and narrow-band imaging (M-AANBI); they were analyzed and compared with histopathological results. The diagnostic performance of M-AANBI was compared with that of M-NBI. Of the 142 lesions, 58 (40.8%) were pathologically diagnosed as adenocarcinomas. On WLE images, a depressed macroscopic type and size ≥20 mm were significant predictors of carcinoma (P < .001); however, they displayed low sensitivities (32.8% and 41.4%, respectively). M-AANBI displayed significantly higher sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for distinguishing carcinomas than M-NBI (94.8% vs 74.1%, 81.0% vs 72.6%, and 86.6% vs 73.2%, P < .05). In conclusion, carcinoma was prevalent in 40.8% of gastric lesions initially diagnosed as adenomas by forceps biopsy. M-AANBI may be more useful than M-NBI and WLE in distinguishing gastric carcinomas from adenomas.

Histopathologic Diagnosis Discrepancies Between Preoperative Endoscopic Forceps Biopsies and Specimens Resected by Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in Superficial Gastric Neoplasms

BACKGROUND

The standard of practice when a superficial lesion was identified during upper GI endoscopy is to take an endoscopic forceps biopsy (EFB) of the lesion. The histopathologic findings then will determine the management plan. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) enables en-bloc resection for early neoplasms of the gastrointestinal tract and provides an adequate specimen that permits a more reliable histopathologic assessment. The objective of this study was to determine the rate of histopathologic discrepancy between EFB and specimens resected by ESD, and to identify the predisposing risk factors for this discordance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective study, enrolling patients with superficial gastric neoplasms that underwent EFB followed by ESD. We divided cases to concordant or discordant group according to the histopathologic diagnosis of EFB and ESD specimens. We also analyzed the features that may have influenced the occurrence of histopathologic discordance and the association between discordant samples of adenocarcinoma and neoplastic invasion to deeper layers.

RESULTS

A total of 115 gastric ESD procedures were performed with 84 patients meeting the inclusion criteria. Histopathologic discordance between EFB and ESD specimens were observed in 35.8% of cases (30/84 lesions). The univariant-bivariant analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that histologic discordance was closely related to the size of the lesions ( P =0.028).

CONCLUSION

Histopathologic discrepancy between EFB and ESD specimens may occur in approximately one-third of cases, particularly for lesions over 20 mm, which may lead to crucial delays in gastric cancer precise diagnosis and treatment.

Clinical characteristics and risk factors for upgraded pathology in patients with gastric intraepithelial neoplasia after endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The pathological results of endoscopic forceps biopsy (EFB) are frequently inconsistent with those after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in patients with gastric intraepithelial neoplasia (GIN). The aim of this study was to explore the risk factors for upgraded pathology after ESD in the Wannan region of Anhui Province, in order to guide the best clinical treatment of GIN.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed at the First Affiliated Hospital of Wannan Medical College. Univariate analysis and multivariate analysis were used to investigate the independent risk factors for pathology upgrade between EFB and ESD.

RESULTS

In total, 215 patients who were initially diagnosed with GIN from EFB and subsequently received treatment with ESD were eventually selected for analysis. Age >60 years, a lesion located in upper 2/3 of the stomach, a lesion size of >2 cm, a lesion surface with redness and nodules and a lesion with irregular or absent microglands were significantly associated with the upgraded group after ESD. Multivariate analysis suggested that a lesion size of >2 cm (odds ratio [OR], 1.499; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.222-1.909; P=0.026), a lesion surface with redness (OR, 1.508; 95%CI, 1.260-1.993; P=0.048) and nodules (OR, 1.390; 95%CI, 1.195-1.778; P=0.008) were independent predictors for the upgraded group.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with suspected GIN by EFB, a lesion size of >2 cm, a lesion surface with redness and nodules should be taken into account before deciding on the ESD.

Endoscopic or Follow-up Treatment for Gastric Indeterminate Tumors Is the Preferred Method of Management

Background

Endoscopic forceps biopsy (EFB) lacks precision in diagnosing indeterminate tumors. When the presence of early gastric cancer (EGC) is macroscopically suspected, but biopsy pathology fails to give a diagnosis of neoplasia, it causes problems in clinical management. The purpose of this study was to discuss the outcome of gastric indeterminate tumors and the clinical factors associated with predicting EGC.

Methods

The medical records of 209 patients diagnosed with gastric indeterminate neoplasia by biopsy forceps were retrospectively studied. Initial endoscopic findings were analyzed and predictors of EGC were evaluated.

Results

The final pathological diagnosis in 209 patients included adenocarcinoma (n = 7), high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (n = 11), low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (n = 21), and non-neoplastic lesion (n = 170). Multivariate analysis showed that older age (OR = 1.78; 95% CI = 1.17–2.71; p = 0.008), patients undergoing narrow band imaging (NBI) (OR = 3.40; 95% CI = 1.37–8.43; p = 0.008), and surface erosion (OR = 3.53; 95% CI = 1.41–8.84; p = 0.007) were associated with the upgraded group, and were significantly associated with risk. Univariate logistic regression analysis showed that among patients with NBI, the presence of demarcation line (DL) (OR = 24.00; 95% CI = 4.99–115.36; p < 0.0001), microvascular (MV) pattern irregularity (OR = 9.129; 95% CI = 2.36–35.34; p = 0.001), and the presence of white opaque substance (WOS) (OR = 10.77; 95% CI = 1.14–101.72; p = 0.038) were significant risk factors.

Conclusions

For gastric indeterminate tumors, older patient age, lesion surface with erosion, clear DL visible under NBI observation, presence of WOS, and irregular MV pattern are suggestive of the high possibility of neoplasia and need to be focused on and may benefit more from endoscopic resection treatment as opposed to simple endoscopic follow-up.

Endoscopic diagnosis of early gastric cancer

Background: Among the types of gastric cancer, the proportion of early gastric cancer has shown a steady increase because the national screening programs have been conducted in Korea. Accordingly, the paradigm shift of the treatment procedure from surgical gastrectomy to endoscopic resection for selected early gastric cancer has accelerated recently. For successful treatment of early gastric cancer, early detection is essential to accurately predict the histological type, depth of invasion, and horizontal margins of the tumor.Current Concepts: The diagnosis of early gastric cancer and selection of treatment procedures comprises the following steps: (1) presence diagnosis, (2) qualitative diagnosis, and (3) quantitative diagnosis. Presently, early gastric cancer diagnosis is based on the endoscopic detection of a demarcated lesion and irregularity of the mucosal surface or color pattern. If a lesion is diagnosed as early gastric cancer, qualitative and quantitative diagnostic processes should be conducted. Qualitative diagnosis predicts the histological type (differentiated vs. undifferentiated), whereas quantitative diagnosis predicts the invasion depth and horizontal margins of the lesion. The diagnostic processes are based on the macroscopic morphology and color of the lesion, while sometimes using chromoendoscopy, image-enhanced endoscopy, and magnifying endoscopy.Discussion and Conclusion: If gastric cancer is detected at an early stage, most cases can be treated only by endoscopic resection. Therefore, endoscopists should have systematic knowledge regarding the findings of early gastric cancer for timely detection and appropriate selection of the treatment procedure.

Discrepancy Between Forceps Biopsy and Resection in Colorectal Polyps: A 1686 Paired Screening-Therapeutic Colonoscopic Finding

Purpose

To identify pathology discrepancy between forceps biopsies and polypectomy specimens in colorectal polyps, as well as the reliability of biopsy-based treatment strategy.

Methods

All endoscopic polypectomy cases with forceps biopsies performed within 6 months were included in the study. The biopsies were compared with polypectomy specimens in terms of concordance of histological diagnosis. A logistic regression model was used to investigate the independent predictors of upgrade in histological diagnosis compared with concordance in histological diagnosis.

Results

A total of 1686 paired screening-therapeutic colonoscopies and 1739 paired biopsy-polypectomy specimens were enrolled in the study. The grade of dysplasia in 84.5% of biopsy specimens were concordant to polypectomy specimens, but this proportion decreased to 75.4% when the specimens were classified using tubular or villousness structure. 10.1% and 5.4% of biopsy specimens were upgraded and downgraded in assessing grade of dysplasia, respectively, while 14.3% and 10.3% of biopsy specimens were upgraded and downgraded in assessing tubular or villousness structure, respectively. In subgroup analysis stratified by size of polyps, 9.0% and 10.6% of biopsies obtained from polyps smaller than 10 mm were upgraded in assessing dysplasia and tubular or villousness structure, respectively. This proportion increased to 10.7% and 21.3%, respectively, in biopsies obtained from polyps larger than 10 mm. Larger size of polyps and pedunculated polyps were associated with a higher incidence of upgrade in histological diagnosis. Nearly 25% of biopsy specimens with high-grade dysplasia were identified as adenocarcinoma in polypectomy specimens.

Conclusion

The concordance between biopsy and polypectomy specimens is not adequate. The biopsy-based treatment strategy is not reliable and should not be considered as an indicator for further treatment, particularly in large or pedunculated polyps.

Risk factor-based optimal endoscopic surveillance intervals after endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric adenoma

To date, there exists no established endoscopic surveillance interval strategy after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for gastric adenoma. In this study, we suggest a risk factor-based statistical model for optimal surveillance intervals for gastric adenoma after ESD with curative resection. A cox proportional hazard model was applied to identify risk factors for recurrence after ESD. Patients (n = 698) were categorized into groups based on the identified risk factors. The cumulative density of recurrence over time was computed using a cubic splined baseline hazard function, and the customized surveillance interval was modeled for each risk group. The overall cumulative incidence of recurrence was 7.3% (n = 51). Risk factors associated with recurrence were male (hazard ratio [HR], 2.60, P = 0.030), protruded scar (HR, 3.18, P < 0.001), and age ≥ 59 years (HR, 1.05, P < 0.001). The surveillance interval for each group was developed by using the recurrence limit for the generated risk groups. According to the developed schedule, high-risk patients would have a maximum of seven surveillance visits for 5 years, whereas low-risk patients would have biennial surveillance for cancer screening. We proposed a simple and promising strategy for determining a better endoscopic surveillance interval by parameterizing diverse and group-specific recurrence risk factors into a well-known survival model.

Systematic Endoscopic Approach to Early Gastric Cancer in Clinical Practice

Early gastric cancers (EGCs) are defined as gastric cancers confined to the mucosa or submucosa, regardless of regional lymph node metastasis. The proportion of EGCs has been increasing due to the increase in screening endoscopy for gastric cancers; therefore, the paradigm shift from surgical resection to endoscopic resection as a treatment modality for selected EGCs is accelerating. For successful endoscopic resection of EGCs, it is important to detect EGCs at an early stage and to accurately predict the histological type, depth of invasion, and horizontal margins of the tumor. The diagnostic process of EGCs can be divided into three steps: presence diagnosis, qualitative diagnosis, and quantitative diagnosis. The presence diagnosis of EGCs is mainly based on two endoscopic findings: a well-demarcated lesion and irregularity in the color/surface pattern. Qualitative diagnosis refers to the prediction of histological type, which is mainly possible based on the macroscopic shape and color of the lesion. Quantitative diagnosis of EGCs consists of predicting the depth of invasion by detailed examination of the macroscopic morphology and determining horizontal margins using chromoendoscopy. Although advanced diagnostic modalities, such as endosonography or magnifying endoscopy, are helpful for the qualitative and quantitative diagnosis of EGCs, these modalities are not available in most hospitals. Therefore, it is still very important to evaluate EGCs systematically during conventional endoscopy for successful endoscopic treatment.

Differentiating gastric cancer and gastric lymphoma using texture analysis (TA) of positron emission tomography (PET)

Background:

Texture analysis (TA) can quantify intra-tumor heterogeneity using standard medical images. The present study aimed to assess the application of positron emission tomography (PET) TA in the differential diagnosis of gastric cancer and gastric lymphoma.

Methods:

The pre-treatment PET images of 79 patients (45 gastric cancer, 34 gastric lymphoma) between January 2013 and February 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Standard uptake values (SUVs), first-order texture features, and second-order texture features of the grey-level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) were analyzed. The differences in features among different groups were analyzed by the two-way Mann-Whitney test, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to estimate the diagnostic efficacy.

Results:

Inertia_GLCM was significantly lower in gastric cancer than that in gastric lymphoma (4975.61 vs. 11,425.30, z = −3.238, P = 0.001), and it was found to be the most discriminating texture feature in differentiating gastric lymphoma and gastric cancer. The area under the curve (AUC) of inertia_GLCM was higher than the AUCs of SUVmax and SUVmean (0.714 vs. 0.649 and 0.666, respectively). SUVmax and SUVmean were significantly lower in low-grade gastric lymphoma than those in high grade gastric lymphoma (3.30 vs. 11.80, 2.40 vs. 7.50, z = −2.792 and −3.007, P = 0.005 and 0.003, respectively). SUVs and first-order grey-level intensity features were not significantly different between low-grade gastric lymphoma and gastric cancer. Entropy_GLCM12 was significantly lower in low-grade gastric lymphoma than that in gastric cancer (6.95 vs. 9.14, z = −2.542, P = 0.011) and had an AUC of 0.770 in the ROC analysis of differentiating low-grade gastric lymphoma and gastric cancer.

Conclusions:

Inertia_GLCM and entropy_GLCM were the most discriminating features in differentiating gastric lymphoma from gastric cancer and low-grade gastric lymphoma from gastric cancer, respectively. PET TA can improve the differential diagnosis of gastric neoplasms, especially in tumors with similar degrees of fluorodeoxyglucose uptake.

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.