Literature DB >> 21954413

Transnasal and standard transoral endoscopies in the screening of gastric mucosal neoplasias.

Hiroya Nakata1, Shotaro Enomoto, Takao Maekita, Izumi Inoue, Kazuki Ueda, Hisanobu Deguchi, Naoki Shingaki, Kosaku Moribata, Yoshimasa Maeda, Yoshiyuki Mori, Mikitaka Iguchi, Hideyuki Tamai, Nobutake Yamamichi, Mitsuhiro Fujishiro, Jun Kato, Masao Ichinose.   

Abstract

AIM: To compare the diagnostic performances of transnasal and standard transoral esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in gastric cancer screening of asymptomatic healthy subjects.
METHODS: Between January 2006 and March 2010, a total of 3324 subjects underwent examination of the upper gastrointestinal tract by EGD for cancer screening, with 1382 subjects (41.6%) screened by transnasal EGD and the remaining 1942 subjects (58.4%) by standard transoral EGD. Clinical profiles of the screened subjects, detection rates of gastric neoplasia and histopathology of the detected neoplasias were compared between groups according to the stage of Helicobacter pylori(H. pylori)-related chronic gastritis.
RESULTS: Clinical profiles of subjects did not differ significantly between the two EGD groups, except that there were significantly more men in the transnasal EGD group. During the study period, 55 cases of gastric mucosal neoplasias were detected. Of these, 23 cases were detected by transnasal EGD and 32 cases by standard transoral EGD. The detection rate for gastric mucosal neoplasia in the transnasal EGD group was thus 1.66%, compared to 1.65% in the standard transoral EGD group, with no significant difference between the two groups. Detection rates using the two endoscopies were likewise comparable, regardless of H. pylori infection. However, detection rates when screening subjects without extensive chronic atrophic gastritis (CAG) were significantly higher with standard transoral EGD (0.70%) than with transnasal EGD (0.12%, P < 0.05). In particular, standard transoral EGD was far better for detecting neoplasia in subjects with H. pylori-related non-atrophic gastritis, with a detection rate of 3.11% compared to 0.53% using transnasal EGD (P < 0.05). In the screening of subjects with extensive CAG, no significant differences in detection of neoplasia were evident between the two endoscopies, although the mean size of detected cancers was significantly smaller and the percentage of early cancers was significantly higher with standard transoral EGD.
CONCLUSION: These results strongly suggest that the diagnostic performance of transnasal endoscopy is suboptimal for cancer screening, particularly in subjects with H. pylori-related non-atrophic gastritis.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Atrophic gastritis; Cancer screening; Gastric adenoma; Gastric cancer; Helicobacter pylori; Transnasal endoscopy

Year:  2011        PMID: 21954413      PMCID: PMC3180621          DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v3.i8.162

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc


  27 in total

1.  Patients' attitudes and apprehensions about endoscopy: how to calm troubled waters.

Authors:  L J Brandt
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 10.864

2.  Unsedated transnasal endoscopy accurately detects Barrett's metaplasia and dysplasia.

Authors:  Kia Saeian; David M Staff; Sotirios Vasilopoulos; William F Townsend; Urias A Almagro; Richard A Komorowski; Hongyung Choi; Reza Shaker
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 9.427

3.  Evaluation of a mass screening program for stomach cancer with a case-control study design.

Authors:  A Oshima; N Hirata; T Ubukata; K Umeda; I Fujimoto
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  1986-12-15       Impact factor: 7.396

4.  Unsedated small-caliber esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) versus conventional EGD: a comparative study.

Authors:  D Sorbi; C J Gostout; J Henry; K D Lindor
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 22.682

5.  Histogenesis of intestinal and diffuse types of gastric carcinoma.

Authors:  P Laurén
Journal:  Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl       Date:  1991

6.  A randomized trial of peroral versus transnasal unsedated endoscopy using an ultrathin videoendoscope.

Authors:  A Zaman; M Hahn; R Hapke; K Knigge; M B Fennerty; R M Katon
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 9.427

Review 7.  Complications of diagnostic gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Authors:  R Hart; M Classen
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 10.093

8.  Comparison of the effects on cardiopulmonary function of ultrathin transnasal versus normal diameter transoral esophagogastroduodenoscopy in Japan.

Authors:  Takashi Kawai; Ikuko Miyazaki; Kenji Yagi; Mikinori Kataoka; Kohei Kawakami; Tetsuya Yamagishi; Atsushi Sofuni; Takao Itoi; Fuminori Moriyasu; Yoshiaki Osaka; Yuu Takagi; Tatsuya Aoki
Journal:  Hepatogastroenterology       Date:  2007 Apr-May

Review 9.  Human gastric carcinogenesis: a multistep and multifactorial process--First American Cancer Society Award Lecture on Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention.

Authors:  P Correa
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  1992-12-15       Impact factor: 12.701

10.  Unsedated transnasal endoscopy: a new technique for accurately detecting and grading esophageal varices in cirrhotic patients.

Authors:  Kia Saeian; David Staff; Joshua Knox; David Binion; William Townsend; Kulwinder Dua; Reza Shaker
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 10.864

View more
  4 in total

1.  Evaluation of preferable insertion routes for esophagogastroduodenoscopy using ultrathin endoscopes.

Authors:  Satoshi Ono; Keiko Niimi; Mitsuhiro Fujishiro; Yu Takahashi; Yoshiki Sakaguchi; Chiemi Nakayama; Chihiro Minatsuki; Rie Matsuda; Itsuko Hirayama-Asada; Yosuke Tsuji; Satoshi Mochizuki; Shinya Kodashima; Nobutake Yamamichi; Atsuko Ozeki; Lumine Matsumoto; Yumiko Ohike; Tsutomu Yamazaki; Kazuhiko Koike
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-05-07       Impact factor: 5.742

2.  Diagnostic utility of small-caliber and conventional endoscopes for gastric cancer and analysis of endoscopic false-negative gastric cancers.

Authors:  Hiromi Kataoka; Kiyoshi Mizuno; Noriyuki Hayashi; Mamoru Tanaka; Hirotaka Nishiwaki; Masahide Ebi; Tsutomu Mizoshita; Yoshinori Mori; Eiji Kubota; Satoshi Tanida; Takeshi Kamiya; Takashi Joh
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2013-09-16

Review 3.  Proposal of minimum elements for screening and diagnosis of gastric cancer by an international Delphi consensus.

Authors:  Naomi Kakushima; Mitsuhiro Fujishiro; Shannon Melissa Chan; George Adel Cortas; Mario Dinis-Ribeiro; Robinson Gonzalez; Shinya Kodashima; Sun-Young Lee; Enqiang Linghu; Katsuhiro Mabe; Wensheng Pan; Adolfo Parra-Blanco; Mathieu Pioche; Antonio Rollan; Kazuki Sumiyama; Miguel Tanimoto
Journal:  DEN open       Date:  2022-02-24

4.  Diagnostic ability of linked color imaging in ultraslim endoscopy to identify neoplastic lesions in the upper gastrointestinal tract.

Authors:  Ken Haruma; Mototsugu Kato; Kenro Kawada; Takahisa Murao; Shoko Ono; Mitsuhiko Suehiro; Shinichiro Hori; Fumisato Sasaki; Tomoyuki Koike; Shinji Kitamura; Osamu Dohi; Hiromitsu Kanzaki; Nobuaki Yagi; Keiichi Hashiguchi; Shiro Oka; Kazuhiro Katada; Ryo Shimoda; Kazuhiro Mizukami; Toshihisa Takeuchi; Shinichi Katsuki; Momoko Tsuda; Yuji Naito; Tatsuyuki Kawano; Keita Mori; Hideki Ishikawa
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2022-01-14
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.