Journals / Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology / 2018 / Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 4

Endoscopic small-capacity forceps increase the pathological diagnosis of gastric indefinite neoplasia

Pages
481–487
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)

The mean minor-axis lengths of the biopsy samples were 1.50±0.50 mm and 1.38±0.40 mm in the StF group and the SmF group, respectively, with the SmF group samples tending to be shorter (p=0.088).Conclusion: Because the SmF use may increase the rate of GIN diagnosis, the use of SmF with a standard-caliber endoscope should be avoided.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background/Aims: A definitive biopsy-based diagnosis of gastric cancer is sometimes difficult, and some cases are pathologically diag-nosed as gastric indefinite neoplasia (GIN).
📊
Key Findings & Data:The first group comprised patients evaluated during the period when standard biopsy forceps (StF) were used (April 2010-March 2011), and the second group comprised patients evaluated during the period when small biopsy forceps (SmF) were used (April 2011-March 2013).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The mean minor-axis lengths of the biopsy samples were 1.50±0.50 mm and 1.38±0.40 mm in the StF group and the SmF group, respectively, with the SmF group samples tending to be shorter (p=0.088).Conclusion: Because the SmF use may increase the rate of GIN diagnosis, the use of SmF with a standard-caliber endoscope should be avoided.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2010 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Background/Aims: A definitive biopsy-based diagnosis of gastric cancer is sometimes difficult, and some cases are pathologically diag-nosed as gastric indefinite neoplasia (GIN). The most appropriate forceps size for gastric biopsy has yet to be determined. In this study, we investigated the relation between the forceps size and the frequency of GIN diagnosis.Materials and Methods: The records of patients from two historical groups were reviewed. The first group comprised patients evaluated during the period when standard biopsy forceps (StF) were used (April 2010-March 2011), and the second group comprised patients evaluated during the period when small biopsy forceps (SmF) were used (April 2011-March 2013). Patients in whom GIN lesions were diagnosed with biopsy were identified, and pertinent data were compared between the two groups of patients.Results: Among the 8,420 patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) during the first period, 2,584 (30.7%) un-derwent gastric biopsy with StF. Among the 15,968 patients who underwent EGD during the second period, 4,204 (26.3%) underwent gastric biopsy with SmF. GIN was diagnosed in a significantly greater number of patients in the SmF group than in the StF group (52 [1.25%] vs. 19 [0.73%]; p=0.048). The mean minor-axis lengths of the biopsy samples were 1.50±0.50 mm and 1.38±0.40 mm in the StF group and the SmF group, respectively, with the SmF group samples tending to be shorter (p=0.088).Conclusion: Because the SmF use may increase the rate of GIN diagnosis, the use of SmF with a standard-caliber endoscope should be avoided.

🔖

Cite This Article

MATSUO, Y., YASUDA, H., KIYOKAWA, H., KATO, M., OZAWA, M., SATO, Y., IKEDA, Y., OZAWA, S., YAMASHITA, M., FUJINO, T., YAMAMOTO, H., TAKAGI, M., ITOH, F. (2018). Endoscopic small-capacity forceps increase the pathological diagnosis of gastric indefinite neoplasia. Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology, Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 4, 481–487. https://ajindex.com/articles/411062

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Dixon MF. Gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia: Vienna revisited. Gut 2002; 51: 130-1. Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Japanese classification of gas- tric carcinoma: 3rd English edition. Gastric Cancer 2011; 14: 101-12. Endoscopic Classification Review Group. Update on the Paris classification of superficial neoplastic lesions in the digestive tract. Endoscopy 2005; 37: 570-8.
  2. Bernstein DE, Barkin JS, Reiner DK, et al. Standard biopsy forceps versus large-capacity forceps with and without needle. Gastrointest Endosc 1995; 41: 573-6.
  3. Danesh BJ, Burke M, Newman J, et al. Comparison of weight, depth, and diagnostic adequacy of specimens obtained with 16 dif- ferent biopsy forceps designed for upper gastrointestinal endosco- py. Gut 1985; 26: 227-31.
  4. Elmunzer BJ, Higgins PD, Kwon YM, et al. Jumbo forceps are supe- rior to standard large-capacity forceps in obtaining diagnostically adequate inflammatory bowel disease surveillance biopsy speci- mens. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 68: 273-8
  5. Jeon HK, Ryu HY, Cho MY, et al. A randomized trial to determine the diagnostic accuracy of conventional vs. jumbo forceps biopsy of gastric epithelial neoplasias before endoscopic submucosal dissec- tion; open-label study. Gastric Cancer 2014; 17: 661-8.
  6. Ai ZL, Lan CH, Fan LL, et al. Unsedated transnasal upper gastro- intestinal endoscopy has favorable diagnostic effectiveness, cardio- pulmonary safety, and patient satisfaction compared with conven- tional or sedated endoscopy. Surg Endosc 2012; 26: 3565-72.
  7. Atar M, Kadayifci A. Transnasal endoscopy: technical consider- ations, advantages and limitations. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 6: 41-8.
  8. Jobe BA, Hunter JG, Chang EY, et al. Office-based unsedated small-caliber endoscopy is equivalent to conventional sedated en- doscopy in screening and surveillance for Barrett’s esophagus: a randomized and blinded comparison. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 2693-703.