BACKGROUND: Ulcerative finding (UL) is one of the factors that define the indication and curability of endoscopic resection (ER) in early gastric cancer (EGC). Discrepancies between endoscopic UL (cUL) and pathological UL (pUL) sometimes occur in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to investigate the discrepancy rate in UL diagnosis and the risk factors associated with such discrepancies. METHODS: Patients with clinical intramucosal (cT1a) EGC who underwent ER or surgery between September 2002 and December 2017 were analyzed. The proportion of cUL-negative (cUL0) lesions that were identified as pUL-positive (pUL1) and that of cUL-positive (cUL1) lesions that were identified as pUL-negative (pUL0) were calculated. Logistic regression analysis was performed to estimate the associations between discrepancy in UL diagnosis and clinical variables of the lesion, such as the size, histology, location, and macroscopic type. RESULTS: In total, 5382 lesions were evaluated; 5.5% of cUL0 lesions (256/4619) were identified as pUL1, while 38.7% of cUL1 lesions (295/763) were pUL0. Multivariate analysis indicated that in cUL1 lesions, tumor location in the lower third of the stomach (odds ratio 3.11, 95% confidence interval 1.90-5.08) was identified as an independent risk factor for overestimation. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic diagnosis of UL in cT1a EGC was overestimated in 38.7% of lesions, especially for lesions located in the lower third of the stomach. This discrepancy should be considered in the management of cT1a EGC with UL.
BACKGROUND: Ulcerative finding (UL) is one of the factors that define the indication and curability of endoscopic resection (ER) in early gastric cancer (EGC). Discrepancies between endoscopic UL (cUL) and pathological UL (pUL) sometimes occur in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to investigate the discrepancy rate in UL diagnosis and the risk factors associated with such discrepancies. METHODS: Patients with clinical intramucosal (cT1a) EGC who underwent ER or surgery between September 2002 and December 2017 were analyzed. The proportion of cUL-negative (cUL0) lesions that were identified as pUL-positive (pUL1) and that of cUL-positive (cUL1) lesions that were identified as pUL-negative (pUL0) were calculated. Logistic regression analysis was performed to estimate the associations between discrepancy in UL diagnosis and clinical variables of the lesion, such as the size, histology, location, and macroscopic type. RESULTS: In total, 5382 lesions were evaluated; 5.5% of cUL0 lesions (256/4619) were identified as pUL1, while 38.7% of cUL1 lesions (295/763) were pUL0. Multivariate analysis indicated that in cUL1 lesions, tumor location in the lower third of the stomach (odds ratio 3.11, 95% confidence interval 1.90-5.08) was identified as an independent risk factor for overestimation. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic diagnosis of UL in cT1a EGC was overestimated in 38.7% of lesions, especially for lesions located in the lower third of the stomach. This discrepancy should be considered in the management of cT1a EGC with UL.
Entities:
Keywords:
Discrepancy; Early gastric cancer; Endoscopic resection; Ulcerative finding