Literature DB >> 25117772

Longer examination time improves detection of gastric cancer during diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Jun Liang Teh1, Jin Rong Tan2, Linus Jian Fa Lau2, Nakul Saxena3, Agus Salim4, Amy Tay1, Asim Shabbir1, Sydney Chung5, Mikael Hartman6, Jimmy Bok-Yan So7.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: It is not clear how the duration of upper endoscopy affects the detection of cancer or premalignant lesions that increase the risk for gastric cancer. We investigated whether the length of time spent performing esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) affects the detection of important pathologic features of the stomach.
METHODS: We collected data from 837 symptomatic patients, during a 3-month period in 2010, who underwent a first diagnostic EGD at a tertiary university hospital in Singapore. Endoscopists were classified as fast or slow based on the mean amount of time it took them to perform a normal EGD examination. We used logistic regression to compare between groups the numbers of intestinal metaplasias, gastric atrophies, dysplasias, and cancers detected, using histologic analysis of biopsy samples collected during endoscopy as the standard.
RESULTS: Of 224 normal endoscopies, the mean duration was 6.6 minutes (range, 2-32 min). When we used 7 minutes as the cut-off time, 8 endoscopists were considered to have short mean examination times (mean duration, 5.5 ± 2.1 min; referred to as fast endoscopists), and 8 endoscopists were considered to have long mean examination times (mean duration, 8.6 ± 4.2 min; referred to as slow endoscopists). Eleven cancers and 81 lesions considered to pose risks for cancer were detected in 86 patients; 1.3% were determined to be cancer, 1.0% were determined to be dysplasia, and 8.7% were determined to be intestinal metaplasia and/or gastric atrophy. Slow endoscopists were twice as likely to detect high-risk lesions as fast endoscopists (odds ratio, 2.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.52-4.12), regardless of whether they were endoscopy staff or trainees. The slow endoscopists also detected 3-fold more neoplastic lesions (cancer or dysplasia; odds ratio, 3.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-10.38).
CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopists with mean EGD examination times longer than 7 minutes identified a greater number of high-risk gastric lesions than faster endoscopists. Examination time may be a useful indicator of quality assessment for upper endoscopy. Studies are required to test these findings in different populations.
Copyright © 2015 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Early Detection; Endoscopic; Stomach Cancer; Tumor

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25117772     DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2014.07.059

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol        ISSN: 1542-3565            Impact factor:   11.382


  46 in total

Review 1.  Performance measures for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: A European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy quality improvement initiative.

Authors:  Raf Bisschops; Miguel Areia; Emmanuel Coron; Daniela Dobru; Bernd Kaskas; Roman Kuvaev; Oliver Pech; Krish Ragunath; Bas Weusten; Pietro Familiari; Dirk Domagk; Roland Valori; Michal F Kaminski; Cristiano Spada; Michael Bretthauer; Cathy Bennett; Carlo Senore; Mário Dinis-Ribeiro; Matthew D Rutter
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2016-08-21       Impact factor: 4.623

2.  Editorial on quality standards in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a position statement of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (AUGIS).

Authors:  Philip Wai Yan Chiu
Journal:  Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2018-02-28

3.  The impact of pre-resection endoscopic examination time on the rate of synchronous gastric neoplasms missed during endoscopic treatment.

Authors:  Han Hee Lee; Jae Myung Park; Chul-Hyun Lim; Jin Su Kim; Yu Kyung Cho; Myung-Gyu Choi
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-03-07       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Improving quality in endoscopy: are we nearly there yet?

Authors:  Andy Veitch; Matt Rutter
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-02-13

5.  Quality standards and performance measures: steps to high quality diagnostic endoscopy.

Authors:  Yu Kyung Cho
Journal:  Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2018-01-28

Review 6.  Update on the Diagnosis and Management of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia in the USA.

Authors:  Judy A Trieu; Mohammad Bilal; Hamzeh Saraireh; Andrew Y Wang
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 3.199

7.  Rate of missed oesophageal cancer at routine endoscopy and survival outcomes: A multicentric cohort study.

Authors:  Enrique Rodríguez de Santiago; Nerea Hernanz; Héctor Miguel Marcos-Prieto; Miguel Ángel De-Jorge-Turrión; Eva Barreiro-Alonso; Carlos Rodríguez-Escaja; Andrea Jiménez-Jurado; María Sierra-Morales; Isabel Pérez-Valle; Nadja Machado-Volpato; María García-Prada; Laura Núñez-Gómez; Andrés Castaño-García; Ana García García de Paredes; Beatriz Peñas; Enrique Vázquez-Sequeiros; Agustín Albillos
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2018-10-31       Impact factor: 4.623

8.  British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the diagnosis and management of patients at risk of gastric adenocarcinoma.

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

Review 9.  Optimizing early upper gastrointestinal cancer detection at endoscopy.

Authors:  Andrew M Veitch; Noriya Uedo; Kenshi Yao; James E East
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2015-08-11       Impact factor: 46.802

Review 10.  Helicobacter pylori associated gastric intestinal metaplasia: Treatment and surveillance.

Authors:  Kevin Sze-Hang Liu; Irene Oi-Ling Wong; Wai K Leung
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-01-21       Impact factor: 5.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.