Han Hee Lee1, Jae Myung Park2, Chul-Hyun Lim1, Jin Su Kim1, Yu Kyung Cho1, Myung-Gyu Choi1. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222 Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 137-701, South Korea. 2. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222 Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 137-701, South Korea. parkjerry@catholic.ac.kr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Synchronous multiple gastric cancers have been reported in up to 14% of patients, but few efforts have been made to optimize techniques for detection of multiple neoplasms. We sought to evaluate whether the length of endoscopic examination before endoscopic resection affected the detection rates of synchronous gastric neoplasms. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Among patients referred for endoscopic treatment of gastric neoplasms (n = 1,017), we enrolled those in whom at least one other synchronous neoplasm was found during pre-resection endoscopy or during the 1-year follow-up examination. Pre-resection endoscopic examination time was compared between those in whom multiple neoplasms were completely diagnosed before resection (complete examination group) and those in whom multiple neoplasms were not fully diagnosed prior to resection but were found during follow-up evaluation (incomplete examination group). RESULTS: Eighty-three patients were included in the study. We found no significant difference in any of the multiplicity, location, gross appearance, size, or resection type of primary lesion between the complete (n = 46) and incomplete examination (n = 37) groups. The complete examination group had a significantly longer examination time compared to the incomplete examination group (6.5 ± 2.4 min vs. 3.8 ± 1.8 min, respectively; P < 0.001). The synchronous lesions most commonly presented as the flat type (42/94 lesions, 45%) and were smaller than the primary lesions (10.0 ± 7.4 mm vs. 14.3 ± 9.1 mm, respectively; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopists should consider the possibility of synchronous gastric neoplasms and examine the whole stomach, thus allowing adequate time to reduce the risk of missed lesions.
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Synchronous multiple gastric cancers have been reported in up to 14% of patients, but few efforts have been made to optimize techniques for detection of multiple neoplasms. We sought to evaluate whether the length of endoscopic examination before endoscopic resection affected the detection rates of synchronous gastric neoplasms. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Among patients referred for endoscopic treatment of gastric neoplasms (n = 1,017), we enrolled those in whom at least one other synchronous neoplasm was found during pre-resection endoscopy or during the 1-year follow-up examination. Pre-resection endoscopic examination time was compared between those in whom multiple neoplasms were completely diagnosed before resection (complete examination group) and those in whom multiple neoplasms were not fully diagnosed prior to resection but were found during follow-up evaluation (incomplete examination group). RESULTS: Eighty-three patients were included in the study. We found no significant difference in any of the multiplicity, location, gross appearance, size, or resection type of primary lesion between the complete (n = 46) and incomplete examination (n = 37) groups. The complete examination group had a significantly longer examination time compared to the incomplete examination group (6.5 ± 2.4 min vs. 3.8 ± 1.8 min, respectively; P < 0.001). The synchronous lesions most commonly presented as the flat type (42/94 lesions, 45%) and were smaller than the primary lesions (10.0 ± 7.4 mm vs. 14.3 ± 9.1 mm, respectively; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopists should consider the possibility of synchronous gastric neoplasms and examine the whole stomach, thus allowing adequate time to reduce the risk of missed lesions.
Authors: Douglas K Rex; Philip S Schoenfeld; Jonathan Cohen; Irving M Pike; Douglas G Adler; M Brian Fennerty; John G Lieb; Walter G Park; Maged K Rizk; Mandeep S Sawhney; Nicholas J Shaheen; Sachin Wani; David S Weinberg Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Jun Liang Teh; Jin Rong Tan; Linus Jian Fa Lau; Nakul Saxena; Agus Salim; Amy Tay; Asim Shabbir; Sydney Chung; Mikael Hartman; Jimmy Bok-Yan So Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2014-08-10 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: H Isomoto; S Shikuwa; N Yamaguchi; E Fukuda; K Ikeda; H Nishiyama; K Ohnita; Y Mizuta; J Shiozawa; S Kohno Journal: Gut Date: 2008-11-10 Impact factor: 23.059