Understanding the diagnostic yield of current endoscopic biopsy for gastric neoplasm: A prospective single-center analysis based on tumor characteristics stratified by biopsy number and site

Role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition for the diagnosis of gastric wall thickening: a retrospective study with meta-analysis

Background

Tissue acquisition from a thickened gastric wall using biopsy forceps may not always lead to diagnosis, given the submucosal location of the pathology. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition (TA) may serve as a minimally invasive diagnostic tool in such cases. Hence, we aimed to assess the diagnostic outcome and safety of EUS-TA from thickened gastric walls.

Methods

Data from patients with gastric wall thickening undergoing EUS-TA at 5 tertiary care centers from August 2020 to August 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. These data were pooled with studies obtained from a comprehensive search of Medline, Embase and Scopus from January 2000 to November 2022 and a meta-analysis was performed. Pooled event rates were calculated using an inverse variance model.

Results

The search strategy yielded 13 studies that were combined with data from 30 patients from our centers; a total of 399 patients were included in the analysis. The pooled rate of sample adequacy was 94.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 90.0-98.2), while the pooled rate of diagnostic accuracy was 91.3% (95%CI 87.0-95.5). The pooled sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing malignant lesions with EUS-TA from gastric wall thickening were 94.8% (95%CI 91.3-97.2) and 100% (95%CI 93.6-100), respectively. There were no reported adverse events in any of the studies.

Conclusions

EUS-TA offers a safe and accurate diagnostic modality for the etiological diagnosis of thickened gastric walls. Further research is required to identify the needle type and optimal technique for improving outcomes.

A Prediction Model Based on the Risk Factors Associated with Pathological Upgrading in Patients with Early-Stage Gastric Neoplasms Diagnosed by Endoscopic Forceps Biopsy

Background/Aims

The discrepancies between the diagnosis of preoperative endoscopic forceps biopsy (EFB) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in patients with early gastric neoplasm (EGN) exist objectively. Among them, pathological upgrading directly influences the accuracy and appropriateness of clinical decisions. The aims of this study were to investigate the risk factors for the discrepancies, with a particular focus on pathological upgrading and to establish a prediction model for estimating the risk of pathological upgrading after EFB.

Methods

We retrospectively collected the records of 978 patients who underwent ESD from December 1, 2017 to July 31, 2021 and who had a final histopathology determination of EGN. A nomogram to predict the risk of pathological upgrading was constructed after analyzing subgroup differences among the 901 lesions enrolled.

Results

The ratio of pathological upgrading was 510 of 953 (53.5%). Clinical, laboratorial and endoscopic characteristics were analyzed using univariable and binary multivariable logistic regression analyses. A nomogram was constructed by including age, history of chronic atrophic gastritis, symptoms of digestive system, blood high density lipoprotein concentration, macroscopic type, pathological diagnosis of EFB, uneven surface, remarkable redness, and lesion size. The C-statistics were 0.804 (95% confidence interval, 0.774 to 0.834) and 0.748 (95% confidence interval, 0.664 to 0.832) in the training and validation set, respectively. We also built an online webserver based on the proposed nomogram for convenient clinical use.

Conclusions

The clinical value of identifying the preoperative diagnosis of EGN lesions is limited when using EFB separately. We have developed a nomogram that can predict the probability of pathological upgrading with good calibration and discrimination value.

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.

Histological Diagnostic Yield and Clinical Significance of the First Biopsy in Device-Assisted Enteroscopy in Patients with Small Bowel Diseases: A KASID Multicenter Study

Device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE) enables the direct visualization of small bowel lesions with histological diagnosis; however, few studies have described the diagnostic performance of enteroscopic biopsy. We investigated the diagnostic performance of enteroscopic biopsy. We used a nationwide multicenter enteroscopy database to identify patients who underwent DAE with biopsy for small bowel diseases. The patients were classified into the tumor and non-tumor groups according to the final diagnosis. They were also divided into diagnostic and non-diagnostic groups based on the enteroscopic biopsy results. The clinical significance of the first biopsy and histological diagnostic yield of DAE were analyzed. Among the 112 procedures investigated, 32 (28.9%) were diagnosed with tumors, and 80 (71.7%) were diagnosed with non-tumor diseases. The overall histological diagnostic yield of DAE was 43.7%. The histological diagnostic yield was significantly higher in the tumor than in the non-tumor group (81.2% vs. 28.8%, p < 0.001). The mean number of biopsies was significantly higher in the diagnostic than in the non-diagnostic group (5.6 ± 3.3 vs. 3.7 ± 2.1, p = 0.001). In the diagnostic group, 87.7% of the cases were histologically confirmed at the first biopsy. Therefore, the first biopsy should be performed carefully.

ANALYSIS OF EXPRESSION OF MIRNA AND MRNA IN THE CELLULAR MATERIAL OF THE STOMACH LINING OBTAINED BY ESOPHAGOGASTRODUODENOSCOPY IN ORDER TO DETECT DYSPLASIA AND STOMACH CANCER

miRNA and mRNA are highly specific molecular markers, with their own unique expression profile for each type of tissue. They can become a valuable tool in clinical practice in addition to routine esophagogastroduodenoscopy.Purpose. To study the prospects of using a classifier based on miRNA and mRNA profiling in cytological samples for detecting dysplasia and stomach cancer, as well as to compare the obtained data with the results of profiling of 7 miRNAs used for the analysis of both histological and cytological material.Materials and methods. The study included 221 cytological preparations: 108 samples of adenocarcinoma, 27 samples of dysplasia, 86 samples of normal mucosa. The expression level of miRNA-145-5p, -150-5p, -21,-20a, -31-5p, -34a-5p, -375, -125b, -196b, -106b and mRNA of the following genes: TERT, CDKN2A, CKS2, FN1, was determined using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. Quantitative comparison of two independent samples for was performed using the Mann-Whitney test. The samples were stratified into different groups using the C5.0 algorithm.Results: when examining cytological samples in cases of miRNA-125b, 145, -196b, -21, -375 and TERT, СKS2, FN1 mRNA, there was achieved a high level of significance of differences in the cancer/norm group; miRNA-375 and FN1 mRNA in the cancer/dysplasia group and miRNA-145, -196b, -20a, and СKS2, TERT mRNA in the norm/dysplasia groups. When comparing the results for the 7 miRNAs that were used to analyze both histological and cytological material, several differences was noted.Conclusion. The practical use of miRNA and mRNA expression (in cytological material data mining technology does not allow differentiating dysplasia and cancer but can help in identifying "high-risk patients" who should repeat esophagogastroduodenoscopy with multifocal forceps biopsy, with mandatory molecular genetic research.

Endoscopic characteristics in predicting prognosis of biopsy-diagnosed gastric low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic biopsy can underestimate gastric malignancies as low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (LGIN). Definitively diagnosed LGIN would progress. This study aimed to evaluate predictive factors to identify malignancies misdiagnosed as LGIN by biopsy and LGIN at high risk of progression.

METHODS

The clinical records of patients diagnosed with gastric LGIN by endoscopic biopsy who underwent at least two endoscopies during the first year of follow-up between 2007 and 2017 were retrospectively collected. Three endoscopists reviewed photographs of the initial endoscopy, described lesion characteristics, and made endoscopic diagnoses. Logistic regression was used to analyze predictors to identify malignancies underestimated as LGIN. A receiver operating characteristic curve was used to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of these predictors. Patient clinical outcomes of follow-up >1 year were collected. Kaplan-Meier estimates with log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to analyze predictors of progression.

RESULTS

Overall, 48 of 182 (26.4%) patients were proven to have malignancies. A single lesion, a large lesion size, and marked intestinal metaplasia (IM) were independent predictors of initially misdiagnosed malignancies. The area under the curve of these predictors was 0.871, with a sensitivity of 68.7% and specificity of 92.5%. Twelve of 98 patients (12.2%) progressed during the 33-month median follow-up period. A whitish appearance, irregular margins, marked IM, and histological diagnosis of LGIN more than twice within the first year were predictors for progression.

CONCLUSIONS

Lesions diagnosed as LGIN by biopsy with marked IM and other predictors above should be prudently treated for high potential to be malignancies or progress. Endoscopic follow-up with repeated biopsies within the first year is recommended.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy in patients with unexplained diffuse gastrointestinal wall thickening

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is recommended after non-diagnostic biopsy in gastrointestinal wall thickening, although the performance of currently available FNB needles in this setting is unknown. We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy and safety of EUS-FNB and to evaluate the "T" wall staging in malignant pathology. Patients and methods  This was a single center retrospective study that included all consecutive patients undergoing EUS-FNB for diffuse gastrointestinal wall thickening with at least one previous negative conventional endoscopic biopsy between January 2016 and November 2019. EUS-FNB was performed using linear-array echoendoscopes with slow-pull/fanning technique. Tissue acquisition was done with 19- or 22-gauge biopsy needles. Samples were included in formalin without rapid on-site evaluation and submitted for histopathological processing. The final diagnosis was based on conclusive histology or absence of evidence of disease progression after follow-up at least 6 months. Results  Twenty-nine patients (21 men), with a median age of 68 (IQR: 56-77), were included. EUS-FNB was technically feasible and the sample quality was adequate for full histological assessment in all patients (100 %). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and overall accuracy for diagnosis of malignancy were 95.5 %, 100 %, 100 %, 83.3 %, and 96.3 %, respectively. In patients with malignant disease, the samples obtained allowed detection of signs of deep layer infiltration ("histological staging") in 17 of 21 cases (81 %). No adverse events were noted. Conclusions  The EUS-FNB technique demonstrated excellent diagnostic performance and safety in the study of unexplained diffuse gastrointestinal wall thickening. Histological staging was obtained in a high percentage of samples.

Beyond the Guidelines: The Grey Zones of the Management of Gastric Cancer. Consensus Statements from the Gastric Cancer Italian Network (GAIN)

BACKGROUND

Management of gastric and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma remains challenging, because of the heterogeneity in tumor biology within the upper gastrointestinal tract. Daily clinical practice is full of grey areas regarding the complexity of diagnostic, staging, and therapeutic procedures. The aim of this paper is to provide a guide for clinicians facing challenging situations in routine practice, taking a multidisciplinary consensus approach based on available literature.

METHODS

The GAIN (GAstric cancer Italian Network) group was established with the aims of reviewing literature evidence, discussing key issues in prevention, diagnosis, and management of gastric and GEJ adenocarcinoma, and offering a summary of statements. A Delphi consensus method was used to obtain opinions from the expert panel of specialists.

RESULTS

Forty-nine clinical questions were identified in six areas of interest: role of multidisciplinary team; risk factors; diagnosis; management of early gastric cancer and multimodal approach to localized gastric cancer; treatment of elderly patients with locally advanced resectable disease; and treatment of locally advanced and metastatic cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

The statements presented may guide clinicians in practical management of this disease.

Role of Her-2 in Gastrointestinal Tumours beyond Gastric Cancer: A Tool for Precision Medicine

Gastrointestinal (GI) tumors account for a quarter of all the cancer burden and a third of the global cancer-related mortality. Among them, some cancers retain a dismal prognosis; therefore, newer and innovative therapies are urgently needed in priority disease areas of high-unmet medical need. In this context, HER2 could be a relevant prognostic and predictive biomarker acting as a target for specific drugs. However, if the role of HER2 has been object of investigation for several years in gastric cancer, it is not well established in other GI malignancies. The aim of this narrative review was to portray the current landscape of the potential role of HER2 as a predictive biomarker for GI tumors beyond gastric cancer. In colon cancer, the benefit from anti-HER2 therapies is less clear than in gastric neoplasms for the lack of controlled studies. Pancreatic, biliary tract adenocarcinomas and hepatocarcinoma may derive a less clear clinical benefit by using anti-HER2 agents in HER2 positive tumors. Overall, the results are promising and seem to suggest that the integration of multiple modalities of therapies can optimize the cancer care. However, further prospective trials are needed to validate the use of personalized targeted therapies in this field.

Survival outcomes and rate of missed upper gastrointestinal cancers at routine endoscopy: a single centre retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Data on the long-term survival outcome of patients with missed upper gastrointestinal cancers (MUGC) is lacking. Retrospective studies have found no difference in 1- and 2-year survival among patients with missed gastric and oesophageal cancers; we thus aimed to assess 3-year survival of patients with MUGC at oesophagogastroduodenoscopy.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study conducted at a single tertiary endoscopy centre. All oesophagogastroduodenoscopies performed between January 2007 and December 2015 were included in the study. The endoscopy database was cross-matched with the Slovenian Cancer Registry database. Missed cancers were defined as those diagnosed within 36 months after a negative oesophagogastroduodenoscopy.

RESULTS

During the study period, 29 617 oesophagogastroduodenoscopies were performed. In total, 422 upper gastrointestinal cancers were diagnosed and the rate of missed gastric cancers was 7.3% (95% CI, 4.9-10.6%) (26/354), and 4.4% (95% CI, 0.9-12.4%) for oesophageal cancers (3/68). Three-year survival of patients with MUGC was shorter than that of those with non-MUGC, being 12% (95% CI, 1-25%) vs. 31% (95% CI, 26-36%) (P = 0.043) for gastric and 0 vs. 9% (95% CI, 1-17%) (P = 0.121) for oesophageal cancer.

CONCLUSION

Missed gastric cancer during oesophagogastroduodenoscopy may be associated with shorter 3-year survival compared to patients whose gastric cancer was diagnosed at index oesophagogastroduodenoscopy.

Consensus statement of the Hellenic and Cypriot Gastric Cancer Study Group on the diagnosis, staging and management of gastric cancer

Gastric Cancer epidemics have changed over recent decades, declining in incidence, shifting from distal to proximal location, transforming from intestinal to diffuse histology. Novel chemotherapeutic agents combined with modern surgical operations hardly changed overall disease related survival. This may be attributed to a substantial inherent geographical variation of disease genetics, but also to a failure to standardize and implement treatment protocols in clinical practice. To overcome these drawbacks in Greece and Cyprus, a Gastric Cancer Study Group under the auspices of the Hellenic Society of Medical Oncology (HeSMO) and Gastrointestinal Cancer Study Group (GIC-SG) merged their efforts to produce a consensus considering ethnic parameters of healthcare system and the international proposals as well. Utilizing structured meetings of experts, a consensus was reached. To achieve further consensus, statements were subjected to the Delphi methodology by invited multidisciplinary national and international experts. Sentences were considered of high or low consensus if they were voted by ≥ 80%, or < 80%, respectively; those obtaining a low consensus level after both voting rounds were rejected. Forty-five statements were developed and voted by 71 experts. The median rate of abstention per statement was 9.9% (range: 0-53.5%). At the end of the process, one statement was rejected, another revised, and all the remaining achieved a high consensus. Forty-four recommendations covering all aspects of the management of gastric cancer and concise treatment algorithms are proposed by the Hellenic and Cypriot Gastric Cancer Study Group. The importance of centralization, care by a multidisciplinary team, adherence to guidelines, and individualization are emphasized.

Prospective comparative study of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle biopsy and unroofing biopsy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Adequate tissue acquisition is important in making treatment decisions for patients with upper gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors (SETs). This study aimed to compare the outcomes of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) with those of the unroofing biopsy technique.

METHODS

This study was a single-center, prospective comparative study conducted at Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine. A total of 39 patients with SETs ≥15 mm were enrolled between January 2016 and August 2017.

RESULTS

Of the 39 patients, 28 underwent biopsy with both techniques (4 underwent only unroofing and 7 underwent only EUS-FNB). Histological diagnosis was made with EUS-FNB in 64.3% and unroofing biopsy in 78.6% (p = 0.344), and immunohistochemical diagnosis was made with EUS-FNB in 46.4% and unroofing biopsy in 67.9% (p = 0.180). In the subgroup analysis (28 patients), there was no significant difference in diagnostic yield between the 2 methods The mean procedural time with EUS-FNB was shorter than that with unroofing biopsy (p < 0.001). The larger SET (≥ 20 mm) (p = 0.035) and satisfaction of procedure (p = 0.019) were positively associated with successful histological diagnosis by EUS-FNB.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in the histological diagnostic yield for SETs between the EUS-FNB and unroofing biopsy techniques (CinicalTrials.gov. identifier NCT02646241).

The 4th St. Gallen EORTC Gastrointestinal Cancer Conference: Controversial issues in the multimodal primary treatment of gastric, junctional and oesophageal adenocarcinoma

Multimodal primary treatment of localised adenocarcinoma of the stomach, the oesophagus and the oesophagogastric junction (AEG) was reviewed by a multidisciplinary expert panel in a moderated consensus session. Here, we report the key points of the discussion and the resulting recommendations. The exact definition of the tumour location and extent by white light endoscopy in conjunction with computed tomography scans is the backbone for any treatment decision. Their value is limited with respect to the infiltration depth, lymph node involvement and peritoneal involvement. Additional endoscopic ultrasound was recommended mainly for tumours of the lower oesophagogastric junction (i.e. AEG type II and III according to Siewert) and in early cancers before endoscopic resection. Laparoscopy to diagnose peritoneal involvement was thought to be necessary before the start of neoadjuvant treatment in all gastric cancers and in AEG type II and III. In general, perioperative multimodal treatment was suggested for all locally advanced oesophageal tumours and for gastric cancers with a clinical stage above T1N0. There was consensus that the combination of fluorouracil, folinic acid, oxaliplatin and docetaxel is now a new standard chemotherapy (CTx) regimen for fit patients. In contrast, the optimal choice of perioperative CTx versus neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (neoRCTx), especially for AEG, was identified as an open question. Expert treatment recommendations depend on the tumour location, biology, the risk of incomplete (R1) resection, response to treatment, local or systemic recurrence risks, the predicted perioperative morbidity and patients' comorbidities. In summary, any treatment decision requires an interdisciplinary discussion in a comprehensive multidisciplinary setting.

Erratum: Understanding the diagnostic yield of current endoscopic biopsy for gastric neoplasm: A prospective single-center analysis based on tumor characteristics stratified by biopsy number and site: Erratum

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000004196.].