OBJECTIVE: Unlike surgery, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) removes gastric epithelial neoplasms within a tight margin, leaving most normal tissue around the neoplasm intact, thus resulting in a high risk for missed synchronous gastric epithelial neoplasms (mSGENs). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the characteristics and risk factors of mSGENs (mSGENs) compared to simultaneously identified SGENs (siSGENs) in patients who underwent ESD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors have retrospectively examined 312 SGENs from 275 patients treated with ESD at three hospitals in Korea between January 2004 and May 2011. The incidence and clinicopathological features of SGENs, mSGENs, and siSGENs were investigated. Any second epithelial neoplasm found within 1 year of the first ESD procedure was defined as an mSGEN and any neoplasm detected simultaneously with the first neoplasm was defined as a siSGEN. RESULTS: The overall incidence of ESD patients with SGENs was 9.1% (275 of 3018 patients). Of the SGENs, 45.2% were siSGENs and 54.8% were mSGENs. Independent risk factors for mSGENs were adenoma as the first gastric lesion (Exp (B) = 2.154, 95% CI: 1.282-3.262) and duration of endoscopic examination before the first ESD (Exp (B) = 1.074, 95% CI: 1.001-1.141). The results suggest that 33% of mSGENs could have been identified during the endoscopic examination prior to ESD. CONCLUSION: Additional effort needs to be expended in identifying siSGENs, particularly prior to ESD for less serious adenomas. This should include sufficient time for endoscopic examination, prior to ESD, to ensure a thorough examination for siSGENs.
OBJECTIVE: Unlike surgery, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) removes gastric epithelial neoplasms within a tight margin, leaving most normal tissue around the neoplasm intact, thus resulting in a high risk for missed synchronous gastric epithelial neoplasms (mSGENs). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the characteristics and risk factors of mSGENs (mSGENs) compared to simultaneously identified SGENs (siSGENs) in patients who underwent ESD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors have retrospectively examined 312 SGENs from 275 patients treated with ESD at three hospitals in Korea between January 2004 and May 2011. The incidence and clinicopathological features of SGENs, mSGENs, and siSGENs were investigated. Any second epithelial neoplasm found within 1 year of the first ESD procedure was defined as an mSGEN and any neoplasm detected simultaneously with the first neoplasm was defined as a siSGEN. RESULTS: The overall incidence of ESD patients with SGENs was 9.1% (275 of 3018 patients). Of the SGENs, 45.2% were siSGENs and 54.8% were mSGENs. Independent risk factors for mSGENs were adenoma as the first gastric lesion (Exp (B) = 2.154, 95% CI: 1.282-3.262) and duration of endoscopic examination before the first ESD (Exp (B) = 1.074, 95% CI: 1.001-1.141). The results suggest that 33% of mSGENs could have been identified during the endoscopic examination prior to ESD. CONCLUSION: Additional effort needs to be expended in identifying siSGENs, particularly prior to ESD for less serious adenomas. This should include sufficient time for endoscopic examination, prior to ESD, to ensure a thorough examination for siSGENs.