OBJECTIVES: Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is considered a very effective method to identify gastric cancer (GC). However, the existence of missed lesions has been frequently discussed. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at assessing the magnitude of missing GC diagnosis with EGD and its predictive factors. METHODS: MEDLINE was searched to identify all studies assessing and reporting the proportion of missed GC diagnosis with EGD. Pooled proportion and negative predictive values were computed using the random-effects model and heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochrane Q-test and I. RESULTS: The studies included (n=22) were grouped by study design. The pooled negative predictive value was 99.7% (95% confidence interval 99.6-99.9%). Missed GCs proportion was 9.4% (95% confidence interval 5.7-13.1%), being 10.0% in studies including patients with negative EGD followed over time, 8.3% in studies including patients with GC, and 23.3% in studies evaluating the proportion of missed synchronous lesions. Mainly, missed cancers were located in the gastric body both in Eastern and in Western studies (39 and 47%, respectively). The majority of missed GCs were adenocarcinomas. Younger age (<55 years), female sex, marked gastric atrophy, gastric adenoma or ulcer, and inadequate number of biopsy fragments were reported as predictive factors for diagnostic failure. CONCLUSION: EGD is a very effective method to rule out GC. However, missing GC with EGD is not uncommon, with one out of 10 cancers being potentially missed. Interestingly, lesions were more often missed in the body and therefore a more rigorous protocol for endoscopy and biopsy should be implemented worldwide.
OBJECTIVES: Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is considered a very effective method to identify gastric cancer (GC). However, the existence of missed lesions has been frequently discussed. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at assessing the magnitude of missing GC diagnosis with EGD and its predictive factors. METHODS: MEDLINE was searched to identify all studies assessing and reporting the proportion of missed GC diagnosis with EGD. Pooled proportion and negative predictive values were computed using the random-effects model and heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochrane Q-test and I. RESULTS: The studies included (n=22) were grouped by study design. The pooled negative predictive value was 99.7% (95% confidence interval 99.6-99.9%). Missed GCs proportion was 9.4% (95% confidence interval 5.7-13.1%), being 10.0% in studies including patients with negative EGD followed over time, 8.3% in studies including patients with GC, and 23.3% in studies evaluating the proportion of missed synchronous lesions. Mainly, missed cancers were located in the gastric body both in Eastern and in Western studies (39 and 47%, respectively). The majority of missed GCs were adenocarcinomas. Younger age (<55 years), female sex, marked gastric atrophy, gastric adenoma or ulcer, and inadequate number of biopsy fragments were reported as predictive factors for diagnostic failure. CONCLUSION: EGD is a very effective method to rule out GC. However, missing GC with EGD is not uncommon, with one out of 10 cancers being potentially missed. Interestingly, lesions were more often missed in the body and therefore a more rigorous protocol for endoscopy and biopsy should be implemented worldwide.
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
Authors: Jin Hwa Park; Kang Nyeong Lee; Hang Lak Lee; Dae Won Jun; Jai Hoon Yoon; Oh Young Lee; Byung Chul Yoon; Ho Soon Choi Journal: Turk J Gastroenterol Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 1.852
Authors: Marcin Romańczyk; Bartosz Ostrowski; Tomasz Marek; Tomasz Romańczyk; Małgorzata Błaszczyńska; Krzysztof Budzyń; Maciej Bugajski; Mateusz Koziej; Maciej Kajor; Krzysztof Januszewski; Wojciech Zajęcki; Marek Waluga; Marek Hartleb Journal: J Gastroenterol Date: 2021-05-02 Impact factor: 6.772
Authors: Pedro Lisboa-Gonçalves; Diogo Libânio; Joana Marques-Antunes; Mário Dinis-Ribeiro; Pedro Pimentel-Nunes Journal: GE Port J Gastroenterol Date: 2018-04-03