Discrepancy between endoscopic forceps biopsy and endoscopic resection in gastric epithelial neoplasia
详细信息 查看全文
- 作者：Hyun Lim (1)
Hwoon-Yong Jung (1)
Young Soo Park (2)
Hee Kyong Na (1)
Ji Yong Ahn (1)
Ji Young Choi (1)
Jeong Hoon Lee (1)
Mi-Young Kim (1)
Kwi-Sook Choi (1)
Do Hoon Kim (1)
Kee Don Choi (1)
Ho June Song (1)
Gin Hyug Lee (1)
Jin-Ho Kim (1) - 关键词：Endoscopic forceps biopsy ; Endoscopic resection ; Gastric epithelial neoplasia
- 刊名：Surgical Endoscopy
- 出版年：2014
- 出版时间：April 2014
- 年：2014
- 卷：28
- 期：4
- 页码：1256-1262
- 全文大小：663 KB
- 参考文献：1. Rugge M, Farinati F, Di Mario F, Baffa R, Valiante F, Cardin F (1991) Gastric epithelial dysplasia: a prospective multicenter follow-up study from the interdisciplinary group on gastric epithelial dysplasia. Hum Pathol 22:1002-008 CrossRef
2. Di Gregorio C, Morandi P, Fante R, De Gaetani C (1993) Gastric dysplasia. A follow-up study. Am J Gastroenterol 88:1714-719
3. Rugge M, Farinati F, Baffa R, Sonego F, Di Mario F, Leandro G, Valiante F (1994) Gastric epithelial dysplasia in the natural history of gastric cancer: a multicenter prospective follow-up study. Interdisciplinary group on gastric epithelial dysplasia. Gastroenterology 107:1288-296 CrossRef
4. Park SY, Jeon SW, Jung MK, Cho CM, Tak WY, Kweon YO, Kim SK, Choi YH (2008) Long-term follow-up study of gastric intraepithelial neoplasias: progression from low-grade dysplasia to invasive carcinoma. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 20:966-70 CrossRef
5. Farinati F, Rugge M, Di Mario F, Valiante F, Baffa R (1993) Early and advanced gastric cancer in the follow-up of moderate and severe gastric dysplasia patients. A prospective study. I.G.G.E.D.–interdisciplinary group on gastric epithelial dysplasia. Endoscopy 25:261-64 CrossRef
6. Muehldorfer SM, Stolte M, Martus P, Hahn EG, Ell C (2002) Diagnostic accuracy of forceps biopsy versus polypectomy for gastric polyps: a prospective multicentre study. Gut 50:465-70 CrossRef
7. Stolte M (1995) Clinical consequences of the endoscopic diagnosis of gastric polyps. Endoscopy 27:32-7 discussion 59-0 CrossRef
8. Szaloki T, Toth V, Nemeth I, Tiszlavicz L, Lonovics J, Czako L (2008) Endoscopic mucosal resection: not only therapeutic, but a diagnostic procedure for sessile gastric polyps. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 23:551-55 CrossRef
9. Hansson LE, Lindgren A, Nyren O (1996) Can endoscopic biopsy specimens be used for reliable Laurén classification of gastric cancer? Scand J Gastroenterol 31:711-15 CrossRef
10. Lee CK, Chung IK, Lee SH, Kim SP, Lee TH, Kim HS, Park SH, Kim SJ, Lee JH, Cho HD, Oh MH (2010) Is endoscopic forceps biopsy enough for a definitive diagnosis of gastric epithelial neoplasia? J Gastroenterol Hepatol 25:1507-513 CrossRef
11. Participants in the Paris Workgroup (2003) The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc 58:S3–S43
12. Schlemper RJ, Riddell RH, Kato Y, Borchard F, Cooper HS, Dawsey SM, Dixon MF, Fenoglio-Preiser CM, Flejou JF, Geboes K, Hattori T, Hirota T, Itabashi M, Iwafuchi M, Iwashita A, Kim YI, Kirchner T, Klimpfinger M, Koike M, Lauwers GY, Lewin KJ, Oberhuber G, Offner F, Price AB, Rubio CA, Shimizu M, Shimoda T, Sipponen P, Solcia E, Stolte M, Watanabe H, Yamabe H (2000) The Vienna classification of gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia. Gut 47:251-55 CrossRef
13. Yoon WJ, Lee DH, Jung YJ, Jeong JB, Kim JW, Kim BG, Lee KL, Lee KH, Park YS, Hwang JH, Kim N, Lee JK, Jung HC, Yoon YB, Song IS (2006) Histologic characteristics of gastric polyps in Korea: emphasis on discrepancy between endoscopic forceps biopsy and endoscopic mucosal resection specimen. World J Gastroenterol 12:4029-032
14. Sung HY, Cheung DY, Cho SH, Kim JI, Park SH, Han JY, Park GS, Kim JK, Chung IS (2009) Polyps in the gastrointestinal tract: discrepancy between endoscopic forceps biopsies and resected specimens. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 21:190-95 CrossRef
15. Jung MK, Jeon SW, Park SY, Cho CM, Tak WY, Kweon YO, Kim SK, Choi YH, Bae HI (2008) Endoscopic characteristics of gastric adenomas suggesting carcinomatous transformation. Surg Endosc 22:2705-711 CrossRef
16. Oka S, Tanaka S, Kaneko I, Mouri R, Hirata M, Kawamura T, Yoshihara M, Chayama K (2006) Advantage of endoscopic submucosal dissection compared with EMR for early gastric cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 64:877-83 CrossRef
17. Imagawa A, Okada H, Kawahara Y, Takenaka R, Kato J, Kawamoto H, Fujiki S, Takata R, Yoshino T, Shiratori Y (2006) Endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: results and degrees of technical difficulty as well as success. Endoscopy 38:987-90 CrossRef
18. Chung IK, Lee JH, Lee SH, Kim SJ, Cho JY, Cho WY, Hwangbo Y, Keum BR, Park JJ, Chun HJ, Kim HJ, Kim JJ, Ji SR, Seol SY (2009) Therapeutic outcomes in 1000 cases of endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric neoplasms: Korean ESD Study Group multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 69:1228-235 CrossRef
19. Ahn JY, Jung HY, Choi KD, Choi JY, Kim MY, Lee JH, Choi KS, Kim DH, Song HJ, Lee GH, Kim JH, Park YS (2011) Endoscopic and oncologic outcomes after endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer: 1370 cases of absolute and extended indications. Gastrointest Endosc 74:485-93 CrossRef
20. Choi KS, Jung HY, Choi KD, Lee GH, Song HJ, Kim DH, Lee JH, Kim MY, Kim BS, Oh ST, Yook JH, Jang SJ, Yun SC, Kim SO, Kim JH (2011) EMR versus gastrectomy for intramucosal gastric cancer: comparison of long-term outcomes. Gastrointest Endosc 73:942-48 CrossRef
21. Kamiya T, Morishita T, Asakura H, Miura S, Munakata Y, Tsuchiya M (1982) Long-term follow-up study on gastric adenoma and its relation to gastric protruded carcinoma. Cancer 50:2496-503 CrossRef
22. Saraga EP, Gardiol D, Costa J (1987) Gastric dysplasia. A histological follow-up study. Am J Surg Pathol 11:788-96 CrossRef
23. Bearzi I, Brancorsini D, Santinelli A, Rezai B, Mannello B, Ranaldi R (1994) Gastric dysplasia: a ten-year follow-up study. Pathol Res Pract 190:61-8 CrossRef
24. Park DI, Rhee PL, Kim JE, Hyun JG, Kim YH, Son HJ, Kim JJ, Paik SW, Rhee JC, Choi KW, Oh YL (2001) Risk factors suggesting malignant transformation of gastric adenoma: univariate and multivariate analysis. Endoscopy 33:501-06 CrossRef
25. Kim JH, Kim SH, Park WH, Jang JS, Bang JS, Yang SH, Byun JH, Kim YJ (2012) Predictable factors of histologic discrepancy of gastric cancer between the endoscopic forceps biopsy and endoscopic treatment specimen. Korean J Gastroenterol 59:354-59 CrossRef
26. Won CS, Cho MY, Kim HS, Kim HJ, Suk KT, Kim MY, Kim JW, Baik SK, Kwon SO (2011) Upgrade of lesions initially diagnosed as low-grade gastric dysplasia upon forceps biopsy following endoscopic resection. Gut Liver 5:187-93 CrossRef - 作者单位：Hyun Lim (1)
Hwoon-Yong Jung (1)
Young Soo Park (2)
Hee Kyong Na (1)
Ji Yong Ahn (1)
Ji Young Choi (1)
Jeong Hoon Lee (1)
Mi-Young Kim (1)
Kwi-Sook Choi (1)
Do Hoon Kim (1)
Kee Don Choi (1)
Ho June Song (1)
Gin Hyug Lee (1)
Jin-Ho Kim (1)
1. Department of Gastroenterology, Asan Digestive Disease Research Institute, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, No. 388-1 Pungnap-2 dong, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 138-736, South Korea
2. Department of Pathology, Asan Digestive Disease Research Institute, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, No. 388-1 Pungnap-2 dong, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 138-736, South Korea - ISSN：1432-2218
文摘
Background Endoscopic forceps biopsy (EFB) is a major diagnostic procedure for gastric epithelial neoplasia (GEN). However, discrepancy between the result of EFB and endoscopic resection (ER) is not uncommon. Thus, there is controversy over whether specimens obtained by EFB are optimal for diagnosis of GEN. We investigated the discrepancy between EFB and ER in the diagnosis of GEN. Methods A total of 1,850 GEN cases were histologically diagnosed with EFB, including 954 low-grade dysplasias (LGDs), 315 high-grade dysplasias (HGDs), and 581 carcinomas. Following diagnosis with EFB, all patients were treated with ER. We retrospectively reviewed the pathologic findings and patient characteristics and analyzed predictors for the discrepancy between the two procedures (largest diameter, number of biopsy fragments, number of biopsy fragments/largest diameter, location, macroscopic type, color, surface unevenness, and erosion). Results The overall discrepancy rate between EFB and ER was 31.7?% (587/1,850). Among the discordant group, 440 (23.9?%) cases showed a higher grade of disease after ER; 229 of the 954 LGDs (24.0?%) were diagnosed as HGD or carcinoma, 166 of the 315 HGDs (52.7?%) as carcinoma, and 45 of the 581 differentiated carcinomas (7.7?%) as undifferentiated carcinoma. In the LGD group with EFB, the largest diameter (?.8?cm; P?<?0.001), surface unevenness (P?=?0.014), and depressed macroscopic type (P?<?0.001) were factors associated with discrepancy. In the carcinoma group with EFB, flat macroscopic type (P?=?0.043) was the only significant factor. In the HGD group with EFB, there were no significant factors for discrepancy. Conclusions EFB can be insufficient for diagnosing GENs, and ER can be considered not only as treatment but also as a diagnostic modality in GEN. It is especially pertinent to all cases of HGD regardless of their endoscopic features and to cases of LGDs with the largest lesion diameter ?.8?cm, surface unevenness, or a depressed macroscopic type.