The Diagnostic Value of Alarm Features for Identifying Types and Stages of Upper Gastrointestinal Malignancies

Effect of esophageal cancer screening on mortality among patients with oral cancer and second primary esophageal cancer in Taiwan

OBJECTIVE

Oral and esophageal cancer are the fourth and fifth leading causes of cancer deaths among men in Taiwan. Despite a good prognosis for oral cavity cancer patients, survival is worse for those who develop second primary esophageal cancer. There remains no consensus regarding early prevention of potential second primary esophageal cancer in patients with oral cavity cancer. Our study aimed to compare 5-year mortality between endoscopically screened and non-screened patients with oral cavity cancer and second primary esophageal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study identified patients with incident oral cavity cancer and second primary esophageal cancer during 2004 and 2013 using the Taiwan Cancer Registry and National Health Insurance Research Database. We compared 5-year mortality from the second primary esophageal cancer diagnosis date between screened and non-screened groups of patients with oral cavity cancer and second primary esophageal cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 217 screened and 305 non-screened oral cavity cancer patients with second primary esophageal cancer were studied. Endoscopic screening significantly improved early detection of second primary esophageal cancer (adjusted odds ratio: 0.34, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.23-0.49) and reduced all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.80; 95 % CI: 0.66-0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

Oral cavity cancer patients with second primary esophageal cancer may have worse overall survival than those without. Early detection of second primary esophageal cancer is a crucial mediator between endoscopic screening and mortality. Endoscopic screening after the diagnosis of incident oral cavity cancer significantly increased early detection and reduced all-cause mortality.

Dyspepsia with alarm symptoms in patients aged less than 60 years: Is upper gastrointestinal endoscopy justified in Indian scenario?

BACKGROUND

Newer American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) and Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) guidelines do not suggest endoscopy to investigate alarm features for dyspepsia patients under the age of 60 to exclude upper gastrointestinal (GI) neoplasia. The validity of this recommendation has not been evaluated in our population. So, this study was conducted to assess the utility of upper GI endoscopy to investigate alarm features in dyspepsia patients less than 60 years of age to exclude upper GI neoplasia.

METHODS

This prospective observational study evaluated consecutive patients of dyspepsia between 18 and 60 years of age, with at least one or more of the alarm symptoms (unintentional weight loss; loss of appetite; GI bleeding; anemia; recurrent or persistent vomiting; dysphagia with predominant epigastric pain; and family history of upper GI cancer) with upper GI endoscopy to exclude any organic lesion and malignancy.

RESULTS

Of total 294 patients evaluated with endoscopy, 34.7% (n=102) had normal endoscopy (functional dyspepsia [FD]) while 65.3% (n=192) had abnormal endoscopic findings (organic dyspepsia [OD]). Of 192 patients with OD, 146 patients (49.6% of the total study population) had benign abnormality (benign OD) while 46 patients (15.6% of the total study population) had malignancy of the upper GI tract (malignant OD).

CONCLUSION

The investigation of alarm features in dyspepsia patients less than 60 years of age with upper GI endoscopy leads to detection of organic lesion (65.3%) including malignancy (15.6%) in a significant percentage of patients.

Seroreactivity against Helicobacter pylori VacA,50kDa and 30kDa along with alarm features may improve the diagnostic approach to uninvestigated dyspepsia: A pilot study

Background/Aim. Alarm features (AF) are of limited utility in predicting endoscopic findings, and the majority of patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia will have no organic pathology identified at upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. In our previous study, we highlighted seroreactivity against Helicobacter pylori (HP) antigens VacA, 50 kDa, and 30 kDa as biomarkers for gastric cancer, peptic ulcers, and functional dyspepsia. We designed and conducted this pi-lot study in order to compare the diagnostic utility of seroreactivity against HP VacA, 50 kDa, and 30 kDa with AF and investigate the possibility and adequacy of its synchronous application. Method. A careful history and physical examination with special attention to AF, esophagogastroduodenoscopy with biopsy, abdominal ultra-sound or computer tomography, complete blood count (CBC) and blood biochemistry, a Western Blot IgG against HP antigens VacA, 50 kDa, and 30 kDa, were per-formed in 123 patients with dyspepsia: 31 with gastric cancer, 31 with duodenal ulcer, 31 with gastric ulcer, and 30 with gastritis and functional dyspepsia. AF vs various combinations of seroreactivity against HP VacA, 50 kDa, and 30 kDa in patients with functional dyspepsia and others were analyzed in this study. Synchronous and alternative seroreactivity against VacA, 50 kDa, and 30 kDa, along with/without AF in patients with functional dyspepsia and other groups of patients were also analyzed. Results. VacA and 50 kDa seropositivity or AF had excellent case-findings clinical utility index for investigating dyspepsia. The absence of AF and seroreactivity against VacA either with: 50 kDa or 30 kDa seropositivity or 50 kDa and 30 kDa seropositivity had an excellent screening clinical utility index for investigating dyspepsia. Conclusion. Se-roreactivity against HP antigens VacA, 50 kDa, and 30 kDa might improve our approach to patients in investigating dyspepsia if used along with AF.

Comparison of oesophageal and gastric cancer in the evaluation of urgent endoscopy referral criteria

BACKGROUND

The objective of the study is to identify differences in epidemiology and clinical presentation between oesophageal and gastric cancer and to evaluate the sensitivity of the Australian urgent endoscopy referral guidelines.

METHODS

Design; Observational cohort study from February 2013 to October 2018.

SETTING

A single tertiary specialist oesophago-gastric cancer centre: Flinders Medical Centre, South Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with oesophageal and gastric cancer that had surgery with curative intent 61.9% oesophageal cancer, 38.1% gastric cancer.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Differences between oesophageal and gastric cancer in terms of demographical variables, first presenting symptoms and sensitivity of the Australian urgent endoscopy referral guidelines.

RESULTS

Oesophageal cancer presented at a median age of 64.4 years old, with a male: female ratio of 6:1, and dysphagia as the first presenting symptom in 61%. Gastric cancer presented at a median age of 69.5, with a 2:1 male: female ratio and predominantly non-specific symptoms-blood loss (36%), weight loss, nausea, and anorexia (21%) and epigastric pain (13%). The Australia urgent endoscopy referral guidelines had 76% sensitivity for oesophageal cancer detection compared with a 33% sensitivity for gastric cancer in this cohort. Delays from symptom onset to referral occurred for most patients with timeframes over four times the recommended 2-week timeframe.

CONCLUSION

There should be a separate urgent referral guideline for oesophageal and gastric cancer. These should include dysphagia for oesophageal cancer and blood loss (anaemia, haematemesis, melaena) for gastric cancer. Delays from symptom onset to referral indicate the need for further education of the public and general practitioners on symptoms warranting urgent referral.

Predictive value of alarm symptoms in patients with Rome IV dyspepsia: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

No studies have evaluated the predictive value of alarm symptoms for organic dyspepsia and organic upper gastrointestinal (GI) diseases based on Rome IV criteria in the Chinese population.

AIM

To evaluate the predictive value of alarm symptoms for dyspeptic patients based on Rome IV criteria.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study of dyspepsia patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria at two academic urban tertiary-care centers from March 2018 to January 2019. Basic demographic data, dyspeptic information, alarm symptoms, lifestyle, examination results, family history and outpatient cost information were collected. Dyspepsia patients with normal findings on upper GI endoscopy, epigastric ultrasound and laboratory examination and without Helicobacter pylori-associated dyspepsia were classified as functional dyspepsia.

RESULTS

A total of 381 patients were enrolled in the study, including 266 functional dyspepsia patients and 115 organic dyspepsia patients. There were 24 patients with organic upper GI disease among patients with organic dyspepsia. We found that based on the Rome IV criteria, alarm symptoms were of limited value in differentiating organic dyspepsia and organic upper GI diseases from functional dyspepsia. Age (odds ratio (OR) = 1.056, P = 0.012), smoking (OR = 4.714, P = 0.006) and anemia (OR = 88.270, P < 0.001) were independent predictors for organic upper GI diseases. For the comparison of epigastric pain syndrome, postprandial distress syndrome and epigastric pain syndrome combined with postprandial distress syndrome, the results showed that there were statistically significant differences in anorexia (P = 0.021) and previous visits (P = 0.012). The ClinicalTrials.gov number is NCT 03479528.

CONCLUSION

Most alarm symptoms had poor predictive value for organic dyspepsia and organic upper GI diseases based on Rome IV criteria. Gastroscopic screening should not be based solely on alarm symptoms.

Viennese risk prediction score for Advanced Gastroesophageal carcinoma based on Alarm Symptoms (VAGAS score): characterisation of alarm symptoms in advanced gastro-oesophageal cancer and its correlation with outcome

INTRODUCTION

The prognostic value of symptoms at disease presentation of advanced gastro-oesophageal cancer is unknown. Thus, the aim of this study was to characterise these symptoms and correlate them with the outcome, so new prognostic markers can be defined.

METHODS

We analysed clinical data including symptoms, therapies and survival of patients with stage IV gastro-oesophageal cancer treated between 2002 and 2018 at the Vienna General Hospital, Austria. Initial symptoms as well as stenosis in endoscopy and HER2 positivity were evaluated in a cross-validation model to ascertain the impact of each variable on patient survival.

RESULTS

In total, 258 patients were evaluated. Five factors (stenosis in endoscopy, weight loss, HER2 positivity, dyspepsia, ulcer or active bleeding) have proven to be statistically relevant prognostic factors and were given a count of +1 and -1, if applicable. The resulting score ranges between -3 and +2. The survival probability for 180 days with a score of -3/-2, -1, 0, +1 and +2 is 90%, 80%, 73%, 72% and 42%, whereas for 2 years, it is 30%, 30%, 8%, 7% and 3%, respectively. The median overall survival of a score of -3/-2, -1, 0, +1 and +2 was 579 (95% CI 274 to not measurable), 481 (95% CI 358 to 637), 297 (95% CI 240 to 346), 284 (95% CI 205 to 371), 146 (95% CI 120 to 229) days, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The data from this retrospective study indicate that the Viennese risk prediction score for Advanced Gastroesophageal carcinoma based on Alarm Symptoms score provides independent prognostic information that may support clinical decision making at diagnosis of advanced gastro-oesophageal cancer. Our findings should be evaluated in prospective studies.

Use of alarm features in predicting significant endoscopic findings in Nigerian patients with dyspepsia

Introduction

Dyspepsia is prevalent in the community. Guidelines recommend early endoscopy in dyspeptic patients who are older than 55 years, or have alarm features. There is a lack of data on endoscopy in patients with alarm features in Nigeria.

Methods

A retrospective study of the endoscopic findings in adults with dyspepsia and alarm features, between August 1^st 2017 and July 31^st 2018 in Lagos, Nigeria. Data were analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences, version 23.0. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the alarm features were calculated.

Results

One hundred and fifty-nine gastroscopies were performed during this period, mean age was 47.8 (±14.4) years, 49.1% were male. Dyspepsia was the commonest indication for endoscopy (80.5%), 60.2% of the dyspeptics had at least one alarm feature. The most frequent dyspeptic symptom was epigastric pain/burning sensation (75%), while the commonest alarm features were recent onset dyspepsia in a patient over 45 years (79%) and unexplained weight loss (28.6%). Endoscopy was normal in 26%. The most frequent significant endoscopic findings were gastritis (49%) and gastric ulcer (17%) and they were not associated with alarm features. Upper gastrointestinal bleeding, persistent vomiting and odynophagia were specific for significant endoscopic findings. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the alarm features were 65%, 49%, 71% and 41% respectively.

Conclusion

Patients with dyspepsia and upper gastrointestinal bleeding, persistent vomiting or odynophagia, should be referred for prompt upper GI endoscopy.

A Simple Pre-endoscopy Score for Predicting Risk of Malignancy in Patients with Dyspepsia: A 5-Year Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

The guidelines for performing endoscopy in dyspeptic patients based on clinical parameters alone have shown variable performance, and there is a need for better prediction tools.

AIM

We aimed to prospectively develop and validate a simple clinical-cum-laboratory test-based scoring model to identify dyspeptic patients with high risk of upper gastrointestinal malignancy (UGIM).

METHODS

Adult patients with dyspeptic symptoms were prospectively recruited over 5 years. Clinical details including alarm features were recorded, and blood tests for hemoglobin and albumin were done before endoscopy. The presence of UGIM was the primary outcome. Risk factors for UGIM were assessed, and based on the OR of significant factors, a predictive scoring model was constructed. ROC curve was plotted to identify optimal cutoff score. The model was validated using bootstrapping technique.

RESULTS

The study included 2324 patients (41.9 ± 12.8 years; 33.4% females). UGIM was noted in 6.8% patients. The final model had following five positive predictors for UGIM-age > 40 years (OR 3.3, score 1); albumin ≤ 3.5 g% (OR 3.4, score 1); Hb ≤ 11 g% (OR 3.3, score 1); alarm features (OR 5.98, score 2); recent onset of symptoms (OR 8.7, score 3). ROC curve had an impressive AUC of 0.9 (0.88-0.93), and a score of 2 had 92.5% sensitivity in predicting UGIM. Validation by bootstrapping showed zero bias, which further strengthened our model.

CONCLUSION

This simple clinical-cum-laboratory test-based model performed very well in identifying dyspeptic patients at risk of UGIM. This can serve as a useful decision-making tool for referral for endoscopy.