BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Larger biopsy specimens or increasing the number of biopsies may improve the diagnostic accuracy of gastric epithelial neoplasia (GEN). The aims of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracies between conventional and jumbo forceps biopsy of GEN before endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and to confirm that increasing the number of biopsies is useful for the diagnosis of GEN. RESULTS: The concordance rate between EFB and ESD specimens was not significantly different between the two groups [83.1 % (54/65) in JG vs. 79.1 % (53/67) in CG]. On multivariate analyses, two or four EFBs significantly increased the cumulating concordance rate [coefficients; twice: 5.1 (P = 0.01), four times: 5.9 (P = 0.02)]. But, the concordance rate was decreased in high grade dysplasia (coefficient -40.32, P = 0.006). PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred and sixty GENs from 148 patients were randomized into two groups and finally 67 GENs in 61 patients and 65 GENs in 63 patients were allocated to the conventional group (CG) or jumbo group (JG), respectively. Four endoscopic forceps biopsy (EFB) specimens were obtained from each lesion with conventional (6.8 mm) forceps or jumbo (8 mm) forceps. The histological concordance rate between 4 EFB specimens and ESD specimens was investigated in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Before ESD, the diagnostic accuracy of GENs was significantly increased not by the use of jumbo forceps biopsy but by increasing the number of biopsies.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Larger biopsy specimens or increasing the number of biopsies may improve the diagnostic accuracy of gastric epithelial neoplasia (GEN). The aims of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracies between conventional and jumbo forceps biopsy of GEN before endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and to confirm that increasing the number of biopsies is useful for the diagnosis of GEN. RESULTS: The concordance rate between EFB and ESD specimens was not significantly different between the two groups [83.1 % (54/65) in JG vs. 79.1 % (53/67) in CG]. On multivariate analyses, two or four EFBs significantly increased the cumulating concordance rate [coefficients; twice: 5.1 (P = 0.01), four times: 5.9 (P = 0.02)]. But, the concordance rate was decreased in high grade dysplasia (coefficient -40.32, P = 0.006). PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred and sixty GENs from 148 patients were randomized into two groups and finally 67 GENs in 61 patients and 65 GENs in 63 patients were allocated to the conventional group (CG) or jumbo group (JG), respectively. Four endoscopic forceps biopsy (EFB) specimens were obtained from each lesion with conventional (6.8 mm) forceps or jumbo (8 mm) forceps. The histological concordance rate between 4 EFB specimens and ESD specimens was investigated in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Before ESD, the diagnostic accuracy of GENs was significantly increased not by the use of jumbo forceps biopsy but by increasing the number of biopsies.
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: 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: B Joseph Elmunzer; Peter D R Higgins; Yong M Kwon; Christopher Golembeski; Joel K Greenson; Sheryl J Korsnes; Grace H Elta Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2007-12-26 Impact factor: 9.427
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: Matthew Banks; David Graham; Marnix Jansen; Takuji Gotoda; Sergio Coda; Massimiliano di Pietro; Noriya Uedo; Pradeep Bhandari; D Mark Pritchard; Ernst J Kuipers; Manuel Rodriguez-Justo; Marco R Novelli; Krish Ragunath; Neil Shepherd; Mario Dinis-Ribeiro Journal: Gut Date: 2019-07-05 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Won Gun Kwack; Won Jin Ho; Jae Hak Kim; Jin Ho Lee; Eo Jin Kim; Hyoun Woo Kang; Jun Kyu Lee Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 1.889
Authors: Mi Jung Kwon; Ho Suk Kang; Hyeon Tae Kim; Jin Woo Choo; Bo Hyun Lee; Sung Eun Hong; Kun Ha Park; Dong Min Jung; Hyun Lim; Jae Seung Soh; Sung Hoon Moon; Jong Hyeok Kim; Hye-Rim Park; Soo Kee Min; Jin Won Seo; Ji-Young Choe Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2019-01-28 Impact factor: 5.742