Monika Laszkowska1,2, Han Truong3, Adam S Faye4,5, Judith Kim4, Sarah Xinhui Tan3, Francesca Lim3, Julian A Abrams4,6, Chin Hur4,3,6. 1. Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. LaszkowM@mskcc.org. 2. Department of Subspecialty Medicine, Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY, 10065, USA. LaszkowM@mskcc.org. 3. Division of General Medicine, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 4. Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 5. Division of Gastroenterology, New York University Langone Health, New York, NY, USA. 6. Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Guidelines cite extensive gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) as a bigger risk factor for gastric cancer (GC) than limited GIM and an indication for endoscopic surveillance. Data on progression of extensive GIM to GC in the USA are limited. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence and progression rates of extensive GIM in a US cohort. METHODS: This retrospective study assessed the prevalence of extensive GIM between 1/1/1990 and 8/1/2019 at a large academic medical center. Multivariable regression was used to identify predictors of extensive GIM. Incidence of GC on follow-up was calculated as number of new diagnoses divided by person-years of follow-up. Presence of GIM on subsequent follow-up endoscopy was assessed. RESULTS: Of 1256 individuals with GIM, 352 (28%) had extensive GIM and 904 (72%) had limited GIM. On multivariable analysis, older age (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02) and Hispanic ethnicity (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.11-2.16) were predictive of extensive GIM. The annual incidence of GC for GIM overall was 0.09%. There was no difference in progression to GC between extensive or limited GIM (IRR 0, 95% CI 0-2.6), or to advanced lesions overall (IRR 0.37, 95% CI 0.04-1.62). 70% of individuals had persistent GIM on follow-up biopsy, and 22% with limited GIM had extensive GIM on follow-up biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: 28% of individuals with GIM have the extensive subtype, and are more likely to be older and of Hispanic ethnicity. There was no difference in progression to GC between extensive and limited GIM. Further research is needed to better assess risk of GIM in the US context.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Guidelines cite extensive gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) as a bigger risk factor for gastric cancer (GC) than limited GIM and an indication for endoscopic surveillance. Data on progression of extensive GIM to GC in the USA are limited. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence and progression rates of extensive GIM in a US cohort. METHODS: This retrospective study assessed the prevalence of extensive GIM between 1/1/1990 and 8/1/2019 at a large academic medical center. Multivariable regression was used to identify predictors of extensive GIM. Incidence of GC on follow-up was calculated as number of new diagnoses divided by person-years of follow-up. Presence of GIM on subsequent follow-up endoscopy was assessed. RESULTS: Of 1256 individuals with GIM, 352 (28%) had extensive GIM and 904 (72%) had limited GIM. On multivariable analysis, older age (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02) and Hispanic ethnicity (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.11-2.16) were predictive of extensive GIM. The annual incidence of GC for GIM overall was 0.09%. There was no difference in progression to GC between extensive or limited GIM (IRR 0, 95% CI 0-2.6), or to advanced lesions overall (IRR 0.37, 95% CI 0.04-1.62). 70% of individuals had persistent GIM on follow-up biopsy, and 22% with limited GIM had extensive GIM on follow-up biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: 28% of individuals with GIM have the extensive subtype, and are more likely to be older and of Hispanic ethnicity. There was no difference in progression to GC between extensive and limited GIM. Further research is needed to better assess risk of GIM in the US context.
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: Walter G Park; Nicholas J Shaheen; Jonathan Cohen; Irving M Pike; Douglas G Adler; John M Inadomi; Loren A Laine; John G Lieb; Maged K Rizk; Mandeep S Sawhney; Sachin Wani Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Matthew Banks; David Graham; Marnix Jansen; Takuji Gotoda; Sergio Coda; Massimiliano di Pietro; Noriya Uedo; Pradeep Bhandari; D Mark Pritchard; Ernst J Kuipers; Manuel Rodriguez-Justo; Marco R Novelli; Krish Ragunath; Neil Shepherd; Mario Dinis-Ribeiro Journal: Gut Date: 2019-07-05 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Dan Li; Marita C Bautista; Sheng-Fang Jiang; Paras Daryani; Marilyn Brackett; Mary Anne Armstrong; Yun-Yi Hung; Debbie Postlethwaite; Uri Ladabaum Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-05-17 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: M B Fennerty; J C Emerson; R E Sampliner; D L McGee; L J Hixson; H S Garewal Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 1992 May-Jun Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: K S Choi; J K Jun; M Suh; B Park; D K Noh; S H Song; K W Jung; H-Y Lee; I J Choi; E-C Park Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2014-12-09 Impact factor: 7.640