Literature DB >> 36262509

Assigning a different endoscopist for each annual follow-up may contribute to improved gastric cancer detection rates.

Shuhei Unno1,2, Kimihiro Igarashi1, Hiroaki Saito1, Dai Hirasawa1, Toru Okuzono1, Yukari Tanaka1, Masato Nakahori1, Tomoki Matsuda1.   

Abstract

Background and study aims  Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is an effective and important diagnostic tool to detect gastric cancer (GC). Although previous studies show that examiner, patient, and instrumental factors influence the detection of GC, we analyzed whether assigning a different examiner to surveillance EGD would improve the detection of GC compared to assigning the same examiner as in the previous endoscopy. Patients and methods  We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent two or more consecutive surveillance EGDs at a single center between 2017 and 2019. We identified factors associated with GC detection using multivariable regression analysis and propensity-score matching. Results  Among 7794 patients, 99 GC lesions in 93 patients were detected by surveillance EGD (detection rate; 1.2 %), with a mean surveillance interval of 11.2 months. Among the detected 99 lesions, 87 (87.9 %) were curatively treated with endoscopy. There were no differences in the clinicopathologic characteristics of GC detected by the same or different endoscopists. GC detection in the group examined by different endoscopists was more statistically significant than in the group examined by the same endoscopist, even after propensity-score matching (1.6 % and 0.7 %; P  < 0.05). Endoscopic experience and other factors were not statistically significant between the two groups. Conclusions  In surveillance EGD, having a different endoscopist for each exam may improve GC detection rates, regardless of the endoscopist's experience. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Entities:  

Year:  2022        PMID: 36262509      PMCID: PMC9576325          DOI: 10.1055/a-1922-6429

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endosc Int Open        ISSN: 2196-9736


  34 in total

Review 1.  The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002.

Authors: 
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 9.427

2.  Effectiveness of the Korean National Cancer Screening Program in Reducing Gastric Cancer Mortality.

Authors:  Jae Kwan Jun; Kui Son Choi; Hoo-Yeon Lee; Mina Suh; Boyoung Park; Seung Hoon Song; Kyu Won Jung; Chan Wha Lee; Il Ju Choi; Eun-Cheol Park; Dukhyoung Lee
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2017-01-29       Impact factor: 22.682

3.  Longer Observation Time Increases Proportion of Neoplasms Detected by Esophagogastroduodenoscopy.

Authors:  Jae Myung Park; Sol Mi Huo; Han Hee Lee; Bo-In Lee; Ho Jin Song; Myung-Gyu Choi
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2017-05-10       Impact factor: 22.682

4.  Characteristics and consequences of missed gastric cancer: A multicentric cohort study.

Authors:  Nerea Hernanz; Enrique Rodríguez de Santiago; Héctor Miguel Marcos Prieto; Miguel Ángel Jorge Turrión; Eva Barreiro Alonso; Carlos Rodríguez Escaja; Andrea Jiménez Jurado; María Sierra; Isabel Pérez Valle; Nadja Volpato; María García Prada; Laura Nuñez-Gómez; Raquel Ríos-León; Andrés Castaño García; Ana García García de Paredes; Marta Aicart; Alejandra Caminoa; Beatriz Peñas Parcía; Enrique Vázquez-Sequeiros; Agustín Albillos
Journal:  Dig Liver Dis       Date:  2019-02-26       Impact factor: 4.088

5.  Metachronous gastric cancers after endoscopic resection: how effective is annual endoscopic surveillance?

Authors:  Takeshi Nakajima; Ichiro Oda; Takuji Gotoda; Hisanao Hamanaka; Takako Eguchi; Chizu Yokoi; Daizo Saito
Journal:  Gastric Cancer       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 7.370

6.  Long-term surveillance and treatment outcomes of metachronous gastric cancer occurring after curative endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Authors:  Seiichiro Abe; Ichiro Oda; Haruhisa Suzuki; Satoru Nonaka; Shigetaka Yoshinaga; Takeshi Nakajima; Masau Sekiguchi; Genki Mori; Hirokazu Taniguchi; Shigeki Sekine; Hitoshi Katai; Yutaka Saito
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2015-07-10       Impact factor: 10.093

Review 7.  Guidelines for the management of Helicobacter pylori infection in Japan: 2009 revised edition.

Authors:  Masahiro Asaka; Mototsugu Kato; Shin-ichi Takahashi; Yoshihiro Fukuda; Toshiro Sugiyama; Hiroyoshi Ota; Naomi Uemura; Kazunari Murakami; Kiichi Satoh; Kentaro Sugano
Journal:  Helicobacter       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 5.753

8.  Natural history of early gastric cancer: a non-concurrent, long term, follow up study.

Authors:  H Tsukuma; A Oshima; H Narahara; T Morii
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 9.  Smoking and gastric cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.

Authors:  Ricardo Ladeiras-Lopes; Alexandre Kirchhofer Pereira; Amanda Nogueira; Tiago Pinheiro-Torres; Isabel Pinto; Ricardo Santos-Pereira; Nuno Lunet
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2008-02-22       Impact factor: 2.506

Review 10.  Essential updates 2017/2018: Recent topics in the treatment and research of gastric cancer in Japan.

Authors:  Shuhei Komatsu; Eigo Otsuji
Journal:  Ann Gastroenterol Surg       Date:  2019-08-27
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.