Download PDF
Endoscopy 2010; 42(8): 620-626
DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1255524
Original article

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Histologic diagnosis based on forceps biopsy is not adequate for determining endoscopic treatment of gastric adenomatous lesions

Y.  J.  Kim1 , J.  C.  Park2 , J.-H.  Kim2 , S.  K.  Shin2 , S.  K.  Lee2 , Y.  C.  Lee2 , J.  B.  Chung2
  • 1Department of Internal Medicine, Myongji Hospital Kwandong University College of Medicine, Koyang, Korea
  • 2Department of Internal Medicine and Institute of Gastroenterology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 16 July 2009

accepted after revision 20 April 2010

Publication Date:
09 July 2010 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

See also:

Commentaire de travail de Y. J. Kim et al., pp. 620Endoscopy 2010; 42(08): 994-994
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1306702

Background and study aims: Controversy persists around the treatment of gastric low-grade dysplasia (LGD). The aim of this study was to investigate possible indications for the endoscopic resection of gastric LGD through analysis of the histologic discrepancies between specimens of gastric LGD obtained by forceps biopsy and by endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), and of their clinicopathologic characteristics.

Patients and methods: The study involved 293 gastric LGD that were histologically proven on the basis of forceps biopsy in Severance Hospital between January 2004 and December 2007. Twenty cases were regularly followed up, and the remaining 273 were resected by EMR. We performed univariate and multivariate analyses of clinical and endoscopic characteristics including lesion size, number of biopsy fragments, and endoscopic appearance, in order to analyze the factors affecting histologic discrepancies.

Results: Of the 273 lesions resected by EMR, 207 (75.8 %) showed concordant histology, whereas for 51 (18.7 %) the histology was upgraded after endoscopic resection. Lesion size, absence of whitish discoloration, and the presence of spontaneous bleeding were found by univariate analysis to be statistically significant factors predicting an upgraded histology after EMR (P = 0.026, P < 0.001, and P = 0.025, respectively). Multivariate analysis also showed absence of whitish discoloration to be a statistically significant factor influencing histologic discrepancies (P = 0.001, odds ratio 5.29, 95 % confidence interval 1.95 – 14.37). Perforation and bleeding rates associated with EMR for LGD were 0.7 % and 6.2 %, respectively. Twenty patients who did not undergo EMR were followed up for a mean of 22 months, and 3 were revealed to have adenocarcinoma and 1 high-grade dysplasia on the latest histologic exam.

Conclusions: We should consider endoscopic resection for gastric LGD that are 2 cm or more in size and do not have whitish discoloration.

References

  • 1 Lauwers G Y, Srivastava A. Gastric preneoplastic lesions and epithelial dysplasia.  Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2007;  36 813-829, vi
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Misdraji J, Lauwers G Y. Gastric epithelial dysplasia.  Semin Diagn Pathol. 2002;  19 20-30
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Serck-Hanssen A. Precancerous lesions of the stomach.  Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl. 1979;  54 104
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Farinati F, Rugge M, Di Mario F. et al . Early and advanced gastric cancer in the follow-up of moderate and severe gastric dysplasia patients. A prospective study.  Endoscopy. 1993;  25 261
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Camilleri J, Potet F, Amat C, Molas G. Gastric mucosal dysplasia: preliminary results of a prospective study of patients followed for periods of up to six years. In: Ming SC, ed. Precursors of gastric cancer. New York; Praeger 1984: 83-92
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bearzi I, Brancorsini D, Santinelli A. et al . Gastric dysplasia: a ten-year follow-up study.  Pathol Res Pract. 1994;  190 61
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Lansdown M, Quirke P, Dixon M F. et al . High grade dysplasia of the gastric mucosa: a marker for gastric carcinoma.  Gut. 1990;  31 977-983
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Di Gregorio C, Morandi P, Fante R, De Gaetani C. Gastric dysplasia. A follow-up study.  Am J Gastroenterol. 1993;  88 1714-1719
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Rugge M, Farinati F, Di Mario F. et al . Gastric epithelial dysplasia: a prospective multicenter follow-up study from the Interdisciplinary Group on Gastric Epithelial Dysplasia.  Hum Pathol. 1991;  22 1002-1008
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Saraga E P, Gardiol D, Costa J. Gastric dysplasia. A histological follow-up study.  Am J Surg Pathol. 1987;  11 788-796
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Fertitta A M, Comin U, Terruzzi V. et al . Clinical significance of gastric dysplasia: a multicenter follow-up study. Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Pathology Study Group.  Endoscopy. 1993;  25 265-268
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kokkola A, Haapiainen R, Laxen F. et al . Risk of gastric carcinoma in patients with mucosal dysplasia associated with atrophic gastritis: a follow up study.  J Clin Pathol. 1996;  49 979-984
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Yamada H, Ikegami M, Shimoda T. et al . Long-term follow-up study of gastric adenoma/dysplasia.  Endoscopy. 2004;  36 390-396
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Rugge M, Cassaro M, DiMario F. et al . The long term outcome of gastric non-invasive neoplasia.  Gut. 2003;  52 1111-1116
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Hirota W K, Zuckerman M J, Adler D G. et al . ASGE guideline: the role of endoscopy in the surveillance of premalignant conditions of the upper GI tract.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;  63 570-580
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Dixon M F. Gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia: Vienna revisited.  Gut. 2002;  51 130-131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Goldstein N S, Lewin K J. Gastric epithelial dysplasia and adenoma: historical review and histological criteria for grading.  Hum Pathol. 1997;  28 127-133
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hull M J, Mino-Kenudson M, Nishioka N S. et al . Endoscopic mucosal resection: an improved diagnostic procedure for early gastroesophageal epithelial neoplasms.  Am J Surg Pathol. 2006;  30 114-118
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kim W, Park C, Kim Y. et al . A standardized pathology report for gastric cancer.  Korean J Pathol. 2005;  39 106-113
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kim H, Jin S, Jang J. et al . Grading system for gastric epithelial proliferative diseases: standardized guidelines proposed by Korean study group for pathology of digestive diseases.  Korean J Pathol. 1997;  31 389-400
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Schlemper R J, Itabashi M, Kato Y. et al . Differences in diagnostic criteria for gastric carcinoma between Japanese and western pathologists.  Lancet. 1997;  349 1725-1729
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Schlemper R J, Riddell R H, Kato Y. et al . The Vienna classification of gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia.  Gut. 2000;  47 251-255
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Park D I, Rhee P L, Kim J E. et al . Risk factors suggesting malignant transformation of gastric adenoma: univariate and multivariate analysis.  Endoscopy. 2001;  33 501-506
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Jung M K, Jeon S W, Park S Y. et al . Endoscopic characteristics of gastric adenomas suggesting carcinomatous transformation.  Surg Endosc. 2008;  22 2705-2711
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Kim E S, Jeon S W, Park S Y. et al . Where has the tumor gone? The characteristics of cases of negative pathologic diagnosis after endoscopic mucosal resection.  Endoscopy. 2009;  41 739-745
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar

Y. C. LeeMD 

Department of Internal Medicine
Yonsei University College of Medicine

134 Shinchon-Dong
Seodaemun-Ku
Seoul
Korea 120–752

Fax: +82–2-393–6884

Email: leeyc@yuhs.ac

      >