Search

Background: Random biopsies are recommended to identify individuals at risk of gastric adenocarcinoma. Cumulative evidence suggests that narrow-band imaging (NBI) can be used to grade gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM). We aimed to externally validate a classification of endoscopic grading of gastric intestinal metaplasia (EGGIM).Methods: Consecutive patients in two centers were submitted to high resolution white-light gastroscopy followed by NBI to estimate EGGIM - a score (0 - 10) resulting from the sum of endoscopic assessments of GIM, scored as 0, 1, or 2 for no GIM, ≤ 30 %, or > 30 % of the mucosa, respectively, in five areas (lesser and greater curvature of both antrum and corpus, and incisura). If GIM was endoscopically suspected, targeted biopsies were performed; if GIM was not noticeable, random biopsies were performed according to the Sydney system to estimate the operative link on gastric intestinal metaplasia (OLGIM; the gold standard).Results: 250 patients (62 % female; median age 55 years) were included. GIM was staged as OLGIM 0, I, II, III, IV in 136 (54 %), 15 (6 %), 52 (21 %), 34 (14 %), and 13 (5 %) patients, respectively. All patients with GIM except three were identifiable with targeted biopsies. For the diagnosis of OLGIM III/IV, the area under the ROC curve was 0.96 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.93 - 0.98) and by using the cutoff > 4, sensitivity, specificity, and positive likelihood ratio were 89 %, 95 %, and 16.5, respectively; results were similar (91 %, 95 %, and 18.1) when excluding patients with foveolar hyperplasia.Conclusions: For the first time, an endoscopic approach was externally validated to determine the risk of gastric cancer without the need for biopsies. This can be used to simplify and individualize the management of patients with gastric precancerous conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are no prospective studies comparing endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and gastrectomy, especially evaluating patient-reported outcomes. Our aim was to compare the safety and impact on quality of life (QoL) of ESD and gastrectomy in patients with early gastric neoplasia.Methods: This prospective study included consecutive patients presenting with early gastric neoplasia in a tertiary center from January 2015 to August 2016. Data collection included curative resection, adverse events (AEs), and patient-reported outcomes (questionnaires: EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC STO-22, EQ-5D-5 L, and Assessment of Survivor Concerns) before and after interventions (after 1 month, 3 - 6 months, and 1 year).Results: 254 patients with early lesions were included: 153 managed by ESD and 101 by gastrectomy, the former being significantly older and with less advanced lesions. Mean procedural time and length of stay were significantly higher in the surgery group (164 vs. 72 minutes and 16.3 vs. 3.5 days; P < 0.001). Complete resection was higher in the surgical group (99 % vs. 90 %; P = 0.02); ESD was curative in 79 % of patients. Severe AEs and surgical re-intervention were significantly more frequent in the gastrectomy group (21.8 % vs. 7.8 % and 11 % vs. 1 %, respectively). Endoscopic treatment was associated with a positive impact on global health-related QoL at 1 year (net difference + 9.9; P = 0.006), role function and symptom scales (fatigue, pain, appetite, eating restrictions, dysphagia, and body image). Concerns about recurrence did not differ between the groups.Conclusions: In patients with early gastric neoplasia, ESD is safer and is associated with a positive impact on health-related QoL when compared with gastrectomy, without increasing fear of recurrence and new lesions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

En bloc resection through endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) using an IT Knife 2 was therefore planned ([1]) as conventional polypectomy techniques would have been associated with a high probability of piecemeal/incomplete resection. Histology of the resected specimen confirmed an R0 resection of a 50-mm adenomatous lesion with extensive dysplasia (both low and high grade) and focal areas of intramucosal carcinoma (Fig. [Extracted from the article]