R Brooks Vance1, Nisa Kubiliun1, Kerry B Dunbar2,3. 1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd., Dallas, TX, 75390, USA. 2. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd., Dallas, TX, 75390, USA. Kerry.Dunbar@va.gov. 3. VA North Texas Healthcare System - Dallas VA Medical Center, 4500 South Lancaster Road, Dallas, TX, 75216, USA. Kerry.Dunbar@va.gov.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) is an accepted pathologic precursor to gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC). While surveillance of GIM in Europe and Asia is common, only limited recommendations related to endoscopic surveillance of GIM exist in the United States. AIM: To understand the clinical practice patterns of US gastroenterologists in the management and endoscopic surveillance of GIM. METHODS: A 23 item survey was developed to explore endoscopists' opinions regarding the surveillance of GIM and knowledge of current guidelines. Eight clinical vignettes were developed to address specific clinical scenarios where endoscopic surveillance of GIM might be considered. RESULTS: There were 227 respondents, with 60 % working primarily in the private sector and 40 % in academic medicine. While 68 % of the respondents refer to major society guidelines for guidance in patient management, almost 78 % of endoscopist responders believe that there are no specific US guidelines pertaining to surveillance of GIM. Only two-thirds of respondents believe that based on current data, patients at increased risk of GAC should be a part of an endoscopic surveillance program, while 15 % believe all patients with GIM should receive endoscopic surveillance. Respondents use a wide range of biopsy techniques and surveillance intervals for patients with GIM, with no consistent pattern of practice identified. CONCLUSIONS: There is variability in the knowledge and practice patterns of US endoscopists related to surveillance of gastric intestinal metaplasia. In the absence of detailed US GI society guidelines, many endoscopists perform surveillance endoscopy on patients with GIM using variable biopsy techniques and surveillance intervals.
BACKGROUND:Gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) is an accepted pathologic precursor to gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC). While surveillance of GIM in Europe and Asia is common, only limited recommendations related to endoscopic surveillance of GIM exist in the United States. AIM: To understand the clinical practice patterns of US gastroenterologists in the management and endoscopic surveillance of GIM. METHODS: A 23 item survey was developed to explore endoscopists' opinions regarding the surveillance of GIM and knowledge of current guidelines. Eight clinical vignettes were developed to address specific clinical scenarios where endoscopic surveillance of GIM might be considered. RESULTS: There were 227 respondents, with 60 % working primarily in the private sector and 40 % in academic medicine. While 68 % of the respondents refer to major society guidelines for guidance in patient management, almost 78 % of endoscopist responders believe that there are no specific US guidelines pertaining to surveillance of GIM. Only two-thirds of respondents believe that based on current data, patients at increased risk of GAC should be a part of an endoscopic surveillance program, while 15 % believe all patients with GIM should receive endoscopic surveillance. Respondents use a wide range of biopsy techniques and surveillance intervals for patients with GIM, with no consistent pattern of practice identified. CONCLUSIONS: There is variability in the knowledge and practice patterns of US endoscopists related to surveillance of gastric intestinal metaplasia. In the absence of detailed US GI society guidelines, many endoscopists perform surveillance endoscopy on patients with GIM using variable biopsy techniques and surveillance intervals.
Authors: L Vannella; E Lahner; J Osborn; C Bordi; M Miglione; G Delle Fave; B Annibale Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2010-02-18 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Stuart J Spechler; Prateek Sharma; Rhonda F Souza; John M Inadomi; Nicholas J Shaheen Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Lisette G Capelle; Annemarie C de Vries; Jelle Haringsma; Frank Ter Borg; Richard A de Vries; Marco J Bruno; Herman van Dekken; Jos Meijer; Nicole C T van Grieken; Ernst J Kuipers Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2010-04-09 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Frederik Hvid-Jensen; Lars Pedersen; Asbjørn Mohr Drewes; Henrik Toft Sørensen; Peter Funch-Jensen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-10-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lisette G Capelle; Jelle Haringsma; Annemarie C de Vries; Ewout W Steyerberg; Katharina Biermann; Herman van Dekken; Ernst J Kuipers Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Justin M Gomez; James T Patrie; Wissam Bleibel; Jeanetta W Frye; Bryan G Sauer; Vanessa M Shami; Edward B Stelow; Christopher A Moskaluk; Andrew Y Wang Journal: World J Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2017-02-16
Authors: Andrew J Gawron; Shailja C Shah; Osama Altayar; Perica Davitkov; Douglas Morgan; Kevin Turner; Reem A Mustafa Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2019-12-06 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Osama Altayar; Perica Davitkov; Shailja C Shah; Andrew J Gawron; Douglas R Morgan; Kevin Turner; Reem A Mustafa Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2019-12-06 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Sheeva K Parbhu; Shailja C Shah; Michael J Sossenheimer; John C Fang; Kathryn A Peterson; Andrew J Gawron Journal: Therap Adv Gastroenterol Date: 2022-09-03 Impact factor: 4.802