Journals / Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology / 2016 / Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 2

Evaluation of endoscopic findings for discriminating between early carcinomas and low-grade adenomas in superficial elevated gastric lesions

Pages
108–114
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: The lesion size and reddish color were useful optical findings for discriminating between EC and LGA

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background/Aims: This study aimed to determine the useful endoscopic findings in a differential diagnosis between early carcinomas (EC) and low-grade adenomas (LGA) in superficial elevated gastric epithelial neoplasia during conventional endoscopy with white-light imaging (C-WLI).Materials and Methods: We investigated 270 consecutive cases of superficial elevated gastric epithelial neoplasias, which were removed by endoscopic submucosal dissection.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The pathological diagnostic criteria were based on the revised Vienna classification: category 4 (mucosal high-grade neoplasia) or 5 (submucosal invasion by carcinoma) lesions were diagnosed as EC, while category 3 (mucosal low-grade neoplasia) lesions were diagnosed as LGA.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: The lesion size and reddish color were useful optical findings for discriminating between EC and LGA
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Background/Aims: This study aimed to determine the useful endoscopic findings in a differential diagnosis between early carcinomas (EC) and low-grade adenomas (LGA) in superficial elevated gastric epithelial neoplasia during conventional endoscopy with white-light imaging (C-WLI).Materials and Methods: We investigated 270 consecutive cases of superficial elevated gastric epithelial neoplasias, which were removed by endoscopic submucosal dissection. The pathological diagnostic criteria were based on the revised Vienna classification: category 4 (mucosal high-grade neoplasia) or 5 (submucosal invasion by carcinoma) lesions were diagnosed as EC, while category 3 (mucosal low-grade neoplasia) lesions were diagnosed as LGA. The association between the postoperative pathological diagnoses (EC or LGA) and the following endoscopic findings: localized site, lesion size, color (reddish or whitish), shape (smooth, petal, or irregular), and presences of depression, erosion, ulceration, or nodularity on the surface, were evaluated. Results: Of 270 epithelial neoplasias, 222 (58 LGA and 164 EC) were retrospectively evaluated. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that the lesion size [odds ratio (OR), 1.216; p<0.001) and reddish color (OR, 5.274; p<0.001) were independent findings for EC. Conclusion: The lesion size and reddish color were useful optical findings for discriminating between EC and LGA

🔖

Cite This Article

NONAKA, T., INAMORİ, M., KANOSHİMA, K., OHKUMA, K., INOH, Y., MATSUURA, M., FUYUKİ, A., UCHİYAMA, S., HİGURASHİ, T., OHKUBO, H., IİDA, H., ENDO, H., TATEİSHİ, Y., KUSAKABE, A., OHASHİ, K., MAEDA, S., NAKAJIMA, A. (2016). Evaluation of endoscopic findings for discriminating between early carcinomas and low-grade adenomas in superficial elevated gastric lesions. Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology, Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 2, 108–114. https://ajindex.com/articles/410219

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (3)

  1. Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma: 3rd English edition. Gastric Cancer 2011; 14: 101-12. [CrossRef] Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2010 (ver. 3). Gastric Cancer 2011; 14: 113-23. [CrossRef] Dixon MF. Gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia: Vienna revisited. Gut 2002; 51: 130-1. [CrossRef] Fertitta AM, Comin U, Terruzzi V, et al. Clinical significance of gastric dysplasia: a multicenter follow-up study. Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Pathology Study Group. Endoscopy 1993; 25: 265-8.
  2. Rugge M, Farinati F, Baffa R, et al. Gastric epithelial dysplasia in the natural history of gastric cancer: a multicenter prospective follow-up study. Interdisciplinary Group on Gastric Epithelial Dys- plasia. Gastroenterology 1994; 107: 1288-96. [CrossRef] Yamada H, Ikegami M, Shimoda T, et al. Long-term follow-up study of gastric adenoma/dysplasia. Endoscopy 2004; 36: 390-6. [CrossRef] Muehldorfer SM, Stolte M, Martus P, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of forceps biopsy versus polypectomy for gastric polyps: a prospec- tive multicentre study. Gut 2002; 50: 465-70. [CrossRef] Yoon WJ, Lee DH, Jung YJ, et al. Histologic characteristics of gastric polyps in Korea: emphasis on discrepancy between endoscopic forceps biopsy and endoscopic mucosal resection specimen. World J Gastroenterol 2006; 12: 4029-32. [CrossRef] Szalóki T, Tóth V, Németh I, et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection: not only therapeutic, but a diagnostic procedure for sessile gas- tric polyps. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 23: 551-5. [CrossRef] Kim YJ, Park JC, Kim JH, et al. Histologic diagnosis based on for- ceps biopsy is not adequate for determining endoscopic treat- ment of gastric adenomatous lesions. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 620-6. [CrossRef] Gotoda T, Yanagisawa A, Sasako M, et al. Incidence of lymph node metastasis from early gastric cancer: estimation with a large num- ber of cases at two large centers. Gastric Cancer 2000; 3: 219-25. [CrossRef] Lauren P. The two histological main types of gastric carcinoma: diffuse and so-called intestinal-type carcinoma. An attempt at a histo-clinical classification. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand 1965; 64: 31-49.
  3. Park DI, Rhee PL, Kim JE, et al. Risk factors suggesting malignant transformation of gastric adenoma: univariate and multivariate analysis. Endoscopy 2001; 33: 501-6. [CrossRef] Tomasulo J. Gastric polyps. Histologic types and their relationship to gastric carcinoma. Cancer 1971; 2