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 (≥1.8 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 ≥1.8 cm, surface unevenness, or a depressed macroscopic type.
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 (≥1.8 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 ≥1.8 cm, surface unevenness, or a depressed macroscopic type.
Authors: Won Jae Yoon; Dong Ho Lee; Yong Jin Jung; Ji Bong Jeong; Ji Won Kim; Byeong Gwan Kim; Kook Lae Lee; Kwang Hyuck Lee; Young Soo Park; Jin-Hyeok Hwang; Jin-Wook Kim; Nayoung Kim; Jun Kyu Lee; Hyun Chae Jung; Yong Bum Yoon; In Sung Song Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-07-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: A Imagawa; H Okada; Y Kawahara; R Takenaka; J Kato; H Kawamoto; S Fujiki; R Takata; T Yoshino; Y Shiratori Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Ji Ho Kim; Sung Hoon Kim; Won Hyeong Park; Ji Sun Jang; Jei So Bang; Soo Hyun Yang; Jong Hoon Byun; Yoon Jung Kim Journal: Korean J Gastroenterol Date: 2012-05
Authors: R J Schlemper; R H Riddell; Y Kato; F Borchard; H S Cooper; S M Dawsey; M F Dixon; C M Fenoglio-Preiser; J F Fléjou; K Geboes; T Hattori; T Hirota; M Itabashi; M Iwafuchi; A Iwashita; Y I Kim; T Kirchner; M Klimpfinger; M Koike; G Y Lauwers; K J Lewin; G Oberhuber; F Offner; A B Price; C A Rubio; M Shimizu; T Shimoda; P Sipponen; E Solcia; M Stolte; H Watanabe; H Yamabe Journal: Gut Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Chan Sik Won; Mee Yon Cho; Hyun Soo Kim; Hye Jeong Kim; Ki Tae Suk; Moon Young Kim; Jae Woo Kim; Soon Koo Baik; Sang Ok Kwon Journal: Gut Liver Date: 2011-06-23 Impact factor: 4.519
Authors: Qiang Zhang; Zhou Yang Lian; Zhen Yu Chen; Zhen Wang; Chu di Chen; Sheng Li An; Wei Gong; Fa Chao Zhi; Si de Liu Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 1.889