Phenotypic variations of gastric neoplasms in familial adenomatous polyposis are associated with endoscopic status of atrophic gastritis

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.

Classification of fundic gland polyps for predicting gastric neoplasms in Helicobacter pylori-negative patients with familial adenomatous polyposis

BACKGROUND

In familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) patients, fundic gland polyps (FGPs) have been considered a risk factor for gastric neoplasms. We speculated that FGPs in FAP patients spread directionally from the greater to the lesser curvature of the gastric body and investigated the relationship between the distribution of FGPs and gastric neoplasm development.

METHODS

We extracted 195 FAP patients from two institutions and reviewed their medical records. Gastric polyposis was classified based on the FGP distribution (P0, no FGPs; P1, localized in the fundus or greater curvature of the gastric body; P2, spreading to the anterior or posterior wall; P3, involving the proximal half of the lesser curvature; and P4, spreading from P3 to the anal side of the lesser curvature).

RESULTS

The 195 eligible patients were divided into the neoplasm group (n = 54, 28%) and the non-neoplasm group (n = 141, 72%). Overall, 24% of the patients were Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori)-positive. In the FGP distribution, the rate of patients with gastric neoplasm tended to increase significantly with each step towards an increasingly wide distribution from P0 to P4 in H. pylori-negative patients, but not in H. pylori-positive ones. In addition, in H. pylori-negative patients, the likelihood of neoplasm increased consistently from P0 to P4, with the highest odds ratio (95% confidence interval) at P4 of 14.1 (2.5-154.4). Furthermore, multivariate analysis showed P4 and Spigelman stage ≥III were significantly associated with gastric neoplasm development.

CONCLUSION

FGP distribution was correlated with gastric neoplasm development in FAP patients.

Proton pump inhibitors are not associated with fundic gland polyps - a systematic review that takes into consideration all known confounders

Sporadic fundic gland polyps (FGPs) progress, albeit rarely, to dysplasia and cancer. Two meta-analyses, including 8 and 11 studies, concluded that proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) were associated with FGPs. Intervention is considered unnecessary when FGPs have a background of PPIs use. Both meta-analyses, however, disregarded known confounders: age, sex, endoscopy indications, study design (prospective or retrospective), duration of PPI use, and H. pylori infection. Confounders are known to invalidate meta-analyses. We followed PRIXMA guidelines and searched the literature for studies on FGPs in PPI-users and PPI-nonusers. In the 22 studies searched, we compared FGPs in PPI-users (n = 6534) and PPI-nonusers (n = 41 115). Heterogeneity was significant (Cochran Q = 277.8, P < 0.0001; I2 = 92.8%), annulling meta-analysis performed by blanket tallying. To offset the above confounders, we matched PPI-users and PPI-nonusers by (a) age and sex (n = 4300 and 29 307, respectively) and (b) their propensity scores derived from the confounders (n = 2950 and 4729, respectively). After both matching, FGPs were not significantly different between PPI-users and PPI-nonusers [odds ratio (OR) = 1.1, P = 0.3078; OR = 0.9, P = 0.3258, respectively]. Furthermore, FGP frequency did not correlate with increasing duration of PPI use (Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients = 0.1162, 0.0386, P < 0.6064, 0.8646, respectively); it was not significantly different between any of the duration periods of observation, namely, <10, 10-20, 20-40, >40 months, nor was it significantly different between PPI-users and PPI-nonusers within each duration period (P > 0.05). We conclude that PPIs are not associated with FGPs, implying that a background history of PPI use is not a justification for nonintervention in the management of FGPs.

Risk of gastric adenoma and adenocarcinoma in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis in Japan: a nationwide multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) have an increased risk of developing gastric neoplasms. However, the clinical course of FAP with these gastric lesions has not yet been fully clarified. The present study aimed to clarify the changes in the incidence risk of developing gastric adenoma or gastric cancer during the lifespan of patients with FAP.

METHODS

Four hundred forty-three patients with data regarding gastric adenoma and gastric cancer retrospectively registered in a nationwide Japanese multicenter study were enrolled. The cumulative incidences and hazard rates (HRs) of gastric neoplasms were evaluated.

RESULTS

The cumulative incidence rates in 50-year-old patients with FAP were 22.8% for gastric adenoma and 7.6% for gastric cancer, respectively. No significant association was found between gastric neoplasms and the colonic phenotype. The peak age for the HR of gastric adenoma was 65 years, with the highest HR (0.043). Regarding the incidence of gastric cancer, the HR increased moderately up to the age of 40 years, but the increase accelerated from the age of 50 years (HR = 0.0067).

CONCLUSION

Careful surveillance of the upper gastrointestinal tract in elderly patients with FAP, such as shortening the interval of follow-up according to age, may be helpful for early diagnosis of gastric cancer.

Endoscopic findings of gastric neoplasms in familial adenomatous polyposis are associated with the phenotypic variations and grades of dysplasia

Patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) are at increased risk of developing gastric neoplasms. However, endoscopic findings have not been sufficiently investigated. We investigated the phenotypic expression of gastric adenoma (low-grade dysplasia) and gastric cancer (high-grade dysplasia or carcinoma) in patients with FAP and clarified their relationships to endoscopic findings. Of 29 patients with FAP who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy between 2005 and 2020, 11 (38%) had histologically confirmed gastric neoplasms, including 23 lesions of gastric adenoma and 9 lesions of gastric cancer. The gastric neoplasms were classified into 3 phenotypes (gastric, mixed, or intestinal type) according to the immunostaining results and evaluated for location (U or M region: upper or middle third of the stomach or L region: lower third of the stomach), color (same as the background mucosa, whitish, or reddish), macroscopic type (elevated, flat, or depressed), background mucosal atrophy (present or absent), fundic gland polyps in the surrounding mucosa (present or absent), and morphologic changes in tumor size. Elevated whitish gastric adenomas were further subdivided by macroscopic type (flat elevated, protruded, or elevated with a central depression) and color (milky- or pinkish-white). The gastric adenomas included gastric (11/23, 48%), mixed (4/23, 17%), and intestinal (8/23, 35%) phenotypes. In contrast, no lesions of gastric cancers showed a gastric phenotype (0/9, 0%), while 5 (56%) and 4 (44%) lesions were intestinal and mixed phenotypes, respectively. Gastric cancers were significantly more likely than gastric adenomas to present as reddish depressed lesions with gastric atrophy. All gastric-type adenomas occurred in non-atrophic mucosa, in mucosa with fundic gland polyps in the periphery, in the U or M region, and as flat elevated or protruded lesions with a milky-white color. Half of the lesions increased in size. Meanwhile, the typical endoscopic features of intestinal-type adenomas included occurrence in the L region and elevated pinkish-white lesions with central depression. None of the intestinal-type adenomas increased in size during the observation period. We believe that these endoscopic features will be useful for the prompt diagnosis and appropriate management of gastric neoplasms in patients with FAP.

Endoscopic Findings and Treatment of Gastric Neoplasms in Familial Adenomatous Polyposis

PURPOSE

Gastric neoplasia is a common manifestation of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). This study aimed to elucidate the clinical characteristics, endoscopic features including fundic gland polyposis (FGPsis), and treatment outcomes of gastric neoplasms (GNs) in patients with FAP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 35 patients diagnosed with FAP, including nine patients from four pedigrees who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), were investigated regarding patient characteristics, GN morphology, and treatment outcomes.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients (60.0%) had 38 GNs; 33 (86.8%) and 5 (13.2%) were histologically diagnosed with adenocarcinoma and adenoma, respectively. There were no specific patient characteristics related to GNs. Nodule-type GNs were more prevalent in patients with FGP than without (52.2% vs. 0.0%, P=0.002) in the upper body of the stomach. Conversely, depressed-type GNs were fewer in patients with FGPsis than in those without (13.0% vs. 73.3%, P<0.001). Slightly elevated-type GNs were observed in both groups (34.8% vs. 20.0%, P=0.538). Even within pedigrees, the background gastric mucosa and types of GNs varied. In total, 24 GNs were treated with endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and eight with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). EMR was selected for GNs with FGPsis because of the technical difficulty of ESD, resulting in a lower en bloc resection rate (62.5% vs. 100%, P=0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study indicates the necessity of routine EGD surveillance in patients diagnosed with FAP. Notably, the morphology and location of GNs differed between patients with and without FGPsis. Endoscopic treatment and outcomes require more attention in cases of FGPsis.

Pathological Diversity of Gastric Cancer from the Viewpoint of Background Condition

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection and chronic atrophic gastritis is decreasing in Japan, which has led to a decline in the incidence of gastric cancer. However, there are various subtypes of gastric cancer that arise from the background mucosa without H. pylori infection, and their histological characteristics are distinct from those of gastric cancer with chronic atrophic gastritis.

SUMMARY

In this review, after a brief overview of conventional gastric carcinoma with H. pylori infection, including its molecular classification, histological characteristics of gastric cancer after eradicating H. pylori are described. The clinicopathological characteristics of gastric cancer independent of H. pylori infection are then explained. Autoimmune gastritis (type A gastritis) increases the risk of gastric adenocarcinoma and neuroendocrine tumors. Gastric carcinoma without H. pylori infection has various histological subtypes, including fundic gland-type adenocarcinoma (oxyntic gland adenoma), foveolar-type adenocarcinoma/adenoma, signet ring cell carcinoma, and adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction. In addition, some familial gastric cancer syndromes, including hereditary diffuse gastric cancer, familial adenomatous polyposis, and gastric adenocarcinoma and proximal polyposis of the stomach, are also discussed. Key Messages: Although the incidence of gastric cancer will decrease in the near future, the diversity of gastric cancer pathology will be enhanced because H. pylori-negative gastric cancer will have a significant impact on the clinical practice guidelines for gastric cancer. Gastroenterologists and pathologists should be aware of the morphological diversity of H. pylori-negative gastric cancer, and attention should be paid to the status of the background gastric mucosa while examining gastric cancer.

Gastric neoplasms in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis: endoscopic and clinicopathologic features

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Gastric neoplasms in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) occur at a high rate and can cause death. The endoscopic findings of gastric neoplasms in these patients are characteristic but not well recognized. To identify the relevant characteristics to enable early detection, we retrospectively investigated endoscopic findings of gastric neoplasms in patients with FAP and then compared the clinical, histopathologic, and genetic features among subgroups.

METHODS

Of 234 patients with 171 pedigrees at 2 institutes, 56 cases (24%, 133 gastric neoplasms) with 44 pedigrees were examined. Immunostaining was performed for histopathologic evaluation by 1 blinded pathologist. According to the endoscopic findings, gastric neoplasms were divided into 4 types based on location (L: antrum and pylorus, UM: the rest of the stomach) and color (W: white, T: translucent, R: reddish) and their clinicopathologic features examined.

RESULTS

Of the cases, 93% could be classified into a single type. Among histologic phenotypes, high-grade dysplasia was present in 26% (type L), 41% (type UM-W), 0% (type UM-T), and 22% (type UM-R). The immunologic phenotype comprised the gastric type in 69% (93% in Type UM) and the intestinal phenotype, including the mixed type, in 31% (61% in type L). Moreover, 96% of patients had concurrent duodenal neoplasms. Adenomatous polyposis coli gene status was identified in 93% of patients; the pathogenic variant was detected in 98% but did not influence any endoscopic features.

CONCLUSIONS

Gastric neoplasms in patients with FAP were stratified into 4 types according to their endoscopic findings. The endoscopic phenotype was related to the histopathologic phenotype but not to germline variants.

Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR) guidelines 2020 for the Clinical Practice of Hereditary Colorectal Cancer

Hereditary colorectal cancer (HCRC) accounts for < 5% of all colorectal cancer cases. Some of the unique characteristics commonly encountered in HCRC cases include early age of onset, synchronous/metachronous cancer occurrence, and multiple cancers in other organs. These characteristics necessitate different management approaches, including diagnosis, treatment or surveillance, from sporadic colorectal cancer management. There are two representative HCRC, named familial adenomatous polyposis and Lynch syndrome. Other than these two HCRC syndromes, related disorders have also been reported. Several guidelines for hereditary disorders have already been published worldwide. In Japan, the first guideline for HCRC was prepared by the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR), published in 2012 and revised in 2016. This revised version of the guideline was immediately translated into English and published in 2017. Since then, several new findings and novel disease concepts related to HCRC have been discovered. The currently diagnosed HCRC rate in daily clinical practice is relatively low; however, this is predicted to increase in the era of cancer genomic medicine, with the advancement of cancer multi-gene panel testing or whole genome testing, among others. Under these circumstances, the JSCCR guidelines 2020 for HCRC were prepared by consensus among members of the JSCCR HCRC Guideline Committee, based on a careful review of the evidence retrieved from literature searches, and considering the medical health insurance system and actual clinical practice settings in Japan. Herein, we present the English version of the JSCCR guidelines 2020 for HCRC.