Jun Hee Lee1, Yang Won Min1, Jun Haeng Lee2, Eun Ran Kim1, Hyuk Lee1, Byung-Hoon Min1, Jae J Kim1, Kee-Taek Jang3, Kyoung-Mee Kim3, Cheol Keun Park3. 1. Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 135-710, Korea. 2. Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 135-710, Korea. stomachlee@gmail.com. 3. Department of Pathology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: There are often discrepancies between the pretreatment evaluation of gastric neoplasms by endoscopy with biopsy and the final diagnosis of resected specimen in terms of pathology and depth of invasion. We evaluated the spectrum of discrepancies between pretreatment and posttreatment diagnosis which may deliver significant differences on clinical practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 2041 patients with gastric dysplasia or cancer who underwent curative endoscopic resections or surgeries in 2012 were enrolled. Patients were classified into five different diagnostic groups: low-grade dysplasia (LGD), high-grade dysplasia (HGD), absolute indication early gastric cancer (AI-EGC), beyond absolute indication early gastric cancer (BAI-EGC), and advanced gastric cancer (AGC). The choice of initial treatment and final pathologic diagnosis was analyzed. RESULTS: The study patients belonged to the following pretreatment diagnostic groups: LGDs in 162, HGDs in 164, AI-EGCs in 396, BAI-EGCs in 824, and AGCs in 495 cases. Posttreatment diagnostic groups were LGDs in 140, HGDs in 121, AI-EGCs in 322, BAI-EGCs in 947, AGCs in 505, and no residual tumor in 6 cases. In general, 6.9 % (141/2041) of cases were downgraded and 15.9 % (324/2041) were upgraded. Thirty-four percent of pretreatment HGDs (56/164) were changed to cancers after endoscopic resection. Thirty-three percent of pretreatment AI-EGCs (131/396) were regrouped as posttreatment BAI-EGCs. The additional surgery rate in each pretreatment group was 0.6 % in LGD, 4.3 % in HGD, 15.7 % in AI-EGC, 23.6 % in BAI-EGC among the patients with initial endoscopic resection (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Twenty-three percent of gastric neoplasms changed in their final diagnostic group after endoscopic resection or surgery. This discrepancy should be considered when the initial treatment strategy is being selected.
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: There are often discrepancies between the pretreatment evaluation of gastric neoplasms by endoscopy with biopsy and the final diagnosis of resected specimen in terms of pathology and depth of invasion. We evaluated the spectrum of discrepancies between pretreatment and posttreatment diagnosis which may deliver significant differences on clinical practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 2041 patients with gastric dysplasia or cancer who underwent curative endoscopic resections or surgeries in 2012 were enrolled. Patients were classified into five different diagnostic groups: low-grade dysplasia (LGD), high-grade dysplasia (HGD), absolute indication early gastric cancer (AI-EGC), beyond absolute indication early gastric cancer (BAI-EGC), and advanced gastric cancer (AGC). The choice of initial treatment and final pathologic diagnosis was analyzed. RESULTS: The study patients belonged to the following pretreatment diagnostic groups: LGDs in 162, HGDs in 164, AI-EGCs in 396, BAI-EGCs in 824, and AGCs in 495 cases. Posttreatment diagnostic groups were LGDs in 140, HGDs in 121, AI-EGCs in 322, BAI-EGCs in 947, AGCs in 505, and no residual tumor in 6 cases. In general, 6.9 % (141/2041) of cases were downgraded and 15.9 % (324/2041) were upgraded. Thirty-four percent of pretreatment HGDs (56/164) were changed to cancers after endoscopic resection. Thirty-three percent of pretreatment AI-EGCs (131/396) were regrouped as posttreatment BAI-EGCs. The additional surgery rate in each pretreatment group was 0.6 % in LGD, 4.3 % in HGD, 15.7 % in AI-EGC, 23.6 % in BAI-EGC among the patients with initial endoscopic resection (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Twenty-three percent of gastric neoplasms changed in their final diagnostic group after endoscopic resection or surgery. This discrepancy should be considered when the initial treatment strategy is being selected.
Authors: Kyu-Won Jung; Young-Joo Won; Hyun-Joo Kong; Chang-Mo Oh; Duk Hyoung Lee; Jin Soo Lee Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2014-04-22 Impact factor: 4.679
Authors: Ji Yong Ahn; Hwoon-Yong Jung; Kee Don Choi; Ji Young Choi; Mi-Young Kim; Jeong Hoon Lee; Kwi-Sook Choi; Do Hoon Kim; Ho June Song; Gin Hyug Lee; Jin-Ho Kim; Young Soo Park Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2011-07-13 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Byung-Hoon Min; Ki Joo Kang; Jun Haeng Lee; Eun Ran Kim; Yang Won Min; Poong-Lyul Rhee; Jae J Kim; Jong Chul Rhee; Kyoung-Mee Kim Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2014-08-09 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Keun Young Shin; Seong Woo Jeon; Kwang Bum Cho; Kyung Sik Park; Eun Soo Kim; Chang Keun Park; Yun Jin Chung; Joong Goo Kwon; Jin Tae Jung; Eun Young Kim; Kyeong Ok Kim; Byung Ik Jang; Si Hyung Lee; Jeong Bae Park; Chang Hun Yang Journal: Gut Liver Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 4.519
Authors: Hee Kyong Na; Charles J Cho; Suh Eun Bae; Jeong Hoon Lee; Young Soo Park; Ji Yong Ahn; Do Hoon Kim; Kee Don Choi; Ho June Song; Gin Hyug Lee; Se Jin Jang; Hwoon-Yong Jung Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-01-10 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Min Seong Kim; Sang Gyun Kim; Hyunsoo Chung; Jung Kim; Hyoungju Hong; Hee Jong Lee; Hyun Ju Kim; Min A Kim; Woo Ho Kim; Hyun Chae Jung Journal: Gut Liver Date: 2018-09-15 Impact factor: 4.519
Authors: Jung Won Jeon; Soo Jin Kim; Jae Young Jang; Sun-Moon Kim; Chul-Hyun Lim; Jae Myung Park; Su Jin Hong; Chan Gyoo Kim; Seong Woo Jeon; Si Hyung Lee; Jae Kyu Sung; Gwang Ho Baik Journal: Gut Liver Date: 2021-03-15 Impact factor: 4.519