How Do We Manage Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia? A Survey of Clinical Practice Trends for Gastrointestinal Endoscopists in the United States

Improving Adherence to Clinical Practice Guidelines for Managing Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia Among Gastroenterologists at a US Academic Institution

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines reserve endoscopic surveillance after a gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) diagnosis for high-risk patients. However, it is unclear how closely guidelines are followed in clinical practice. We examined the effectiveness of a standardized protocol for the management of GIM among gastroenterologists at a US hospital.

METHODS

This was a preintervention and postintervention study, which included developing a protocol and education of gastroenterologists on GIM management. For the preintervention study, 50 patients with GIM were randomly selected from a histopathology database at the Houston VA Hospital between January 2016 and December 2019. For the postintervention study, we assessed change in GIM management in a cohort of 50 patients with GIM between April 2020 and January 2021 and surveyed 10 gastroenterologists. The durability of the intervention was assessed in a cohort of 50 GIM patients diagnosed between April 2021 and July 2021.

RESULTS

In the preintervention cohort, GIM location was specified (antrum and corpus separated) in 11 patients (22%), and Helicobacter pylori testing was recommended in 11 of 26 patients (42%) without previous testing. Gastric mapping biopsies were recommended in 14% and surveillance endoscopy in 2%. In the postintervention cohort, gastric biopsy location was specified in 45 patients (90%, P <0.001) and H. pylori testing was recommended in 26 of 27 patients without prior testing (96%, P <0.001). Because gastric biopsy location was known in 90% of patients ( P <0.001), gastric mapping was not necessary, and surveillance endoscopy was recommended in 42% ( P <0.001). One year after the intervention, all metrics remained elevated compared with the preintervention cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

GIM management guidelines are not consistently followed. A protocol for GIM management and education of gastroenterologists increased adherence to H. pylori testing and GIM surveillance recommendations.

Practice Trends among US Gastroenterologists following the 2020 American Gastroenterological Association Guidelines on Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia: Data from a Tertiary Care Center

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Studies show variability in gastroenterologists' management of gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) in the United States. In 2020, the American Gastroenterological Association published GIM guidelines, recommending physician-patient shared decision-making on GIM surveillance based on risk factors. We compared gastroenterologists' communication trends of a GIM finding and surveillance recommendations before and after 2020 and evaluated patient and provider factors associated with a surveillance recommendation.

METHODS

A sample of patients diagnosed with GIM on biopsies from upper endoscopies performed in 2018 (cohort A) and 2021 (cohort B) were included. Logistic regression analysis assessed the association between patient/provider characteristics and surveillance recommendations in the overall cohort and over time.

MATERIALS

In all, 347 patients were included: 175 in cohort A and 172 in B. Median age was 65.7 (56.0, 73.4), and 54.5% were females. Communication to patients about GIM findings and surveillance recommendations increased from 24.6% <2020 to 50% >2020 (P<0.001) and 20% <2020 to 41.3% >2020 (P<0.001), respectively. Overall, endoscopy >2020, family history of gastric cancer, autoimmune gastritis, female providers, and gastroenterologists with 10 to 20 years of experience were associated with a surveillance recommendation. The effect of family history of gastric cancer and the effect of the patient's female sex on surveillance was significantly different between both cohorts [Odds ratio (OR): 0.13, 95% (Confidence interval) CI: 0.02, 0.97 and OR 3.39, 95% CI: 1.12, 10.2, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a 2-fold increase in surveillance recommendations after 2020, there was no meaningful effect of any of the patients' factors on a recommendation for surveillance over time, which raises the question as to whether surveillance is being offered to both average and high-risk patients without thorough risk stratification.

Clinical epidemiology and outcomes of patients with gastric intestinal metaplasia in the Los Angeles County System

BACKGROUND

Gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) is a precursor to gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC). In the United States, there is no consensus on the utility of surveillance for GIM, and minority populations most affected by GAC are understudied. Our aims were to define clinical and endoscopic features, surveillance practices, and outcomes in patients with GIM in a multicenter safety-net system.

METHODS

We identified patients with biopsy-proven GIM between 2016-2020 at the three medical centers comprising Los Angeles County Department of Health Services. Demographics, findings at index esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) first showing GIM, recommended interval for repeat EGD, and findings at repeat EGD were abstracted. Descriptive statistics were performed to characterize our cohort. T-tests and chi-squared (χ²) tests were used to compare patients with and without multifocal GIM.

RESULTS

There were 342 patients with newly-diagnosed biopsy-proven GIM, 18 (5.2%) of whom had GAC at index EGD. Hispanic patients comprised 71.8% of patients. For most patients (59%), repeat EGD was not recommended. If recommended, 2-3 years was the most common interval. During a median time to repeat EGD of 13 months and cumulative follow-up of 119 patient-years, 29.5% of patients underwent at least one repeat EGD, of whom 14% had multifocal GIM not previously detected. Progression to dysplasia or GAC was not detected in any patients.

CONCLUSION

In a predominantly minority population with biopsy-proven GIM, there was a 5% incidence of GAC on index EGD. Though progression to neither dysplasia nor GAC was detected, there was significant variability in endoscopic sampling and surveillance practices.

Index diagnoses of gastric intestinal metaplasia in the United States: patient characteristics, endoscopic findings, and clinical practice patterns at a large tertiary care center

Background

Gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) is a premalignant gastric mucosal change that is often incidentally detected during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Despite the established higher risk of gastric cancer associated with GIM, the incidence, prevalence, and outcomes data for GIM are limited in the United States (US), and practice patterns are highly variable.

Objectives

Our primary objectives were to accurately identify incident histology-confirmed GIM cases and determine patient characteristics, endoscopy findings, Helicobacter pylori (HP) detection, and eradication treatment outcomes, as well as surveillance and follow-up recommendations.

Design

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using administrative data.

Methods

We first developed and validated a rule-based natural language processing tool to identify the patients with GIM on gastrointestinal pathology reports between 2011 and 2016. We then performed a manual chart review of all EGD procedures and associated pathology notes to confirm cases and obtain clinically relevant data.

Results

In all, 414 patients with an index diagnosis of GIM were confirmed (prevalence = 2.5% of patients undergoing any EGD). A majority (52.4%) of patients were non-Hispanic white. The most common indication for EGD was abdominal pain (46.9%). A majority (55%) did not receive specific follow-up recommendations or were asked to see their primary care provider. HP testing was documented in 86% of patients, and detected in 94 patients (prevalence = 26.4%). Treatment was documented in 94.7% of cases, and eradication confirmed in only 34.8% of these cases.

Conclusion

A large group of US patients with an index diagnosis of GIM was accurately identified. There was wide variability in clinical practice patterns including biopsy practice, HP treatment and eradication confirmation testing, and surveillance recommendations. This work demonstrates that there is a major unmet need for quality improvement efforts to standardize care for patients with GIM, a premalignant condition, and inform future prospective studies in a US population.

Gastroenterologists' attitudes on the detection and management of gastric premalignant conditions: results of a nationwide survey in Spain

INTRODUCTION

Gastric premalignant conditions (GPC) surveillance has been proposed to improve the prognosis of gastric cancer (GC), but the early GC detection rate remaining low, and missing GC during an esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy is still a problem. We aimed to explore the gastroenterologists' attitudes on the detection and management of GPC.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was designed based on a survey among gastroenterologists from Asociación Española de Gastroenterología.

RESULTS

The participation rate was 12% (146/1243). Eighty-one percent worked at secondary or tertiary-care hospitals with the capability to perform mucosectomy (80%), but with a lesser availability of endoscopic submucosal dissection (35%). Most respondents had high-definition endoscopes (88%), and virtual chromoendoscopy (86%), but during performing an upper endoscopy, 34% never or rarely use chromoendoscopy, and 73% apply a biopsy protocol often/very often when atrophy or intestinal metaplasia (IM) is suspected. Half of the respondents self-reported their ability to recognize atrophy or IM ≤7 (on a scale from 0 to 10), whereas ≤6 for dysplasia or early GC. Helicobacter pylori infection is eradicated and verified by ≥90%. Endoscopic surveillance of atrophy/IM is performed by 62%. An immediate endoscopy for dysplasia is not always performed. For low-grade dysplasia, 97.6% consider endoscopic management, but for high-grade dysplasia, 23% regard gastric surgery.

CONCLUSION

There is a wide variability in the detection and management of GPC among Spanish gastroenterologists, and compliance with guidelines and biopsy protocols could be improved. Performance of high-quality gastroscopies including use of virtual chromoendoscopy, that might allow an improvement in the GPC detection, needs also to be generalized.

Endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of gastric dysplasia and early cancer: Current evidence and what the future may hold

Gastric cancer accounts for a significant proportion of worldwide cancer-related morbidity and mortality. The well documented precancerous cascade provides an opportunity for clinicians to detect and treat gastric cancers at an endoscopically curable stage. In high prevalence regions such as Japan and Korea, this has led to the implementation of population screening programs. However, guidelines remain ambiguous in lower prevalence regions. In recent years, there have been many advances in the endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of early gastric cancer and precancerous lesions. More advanced endoscopic imaging has led to improved detection and characterization of gastric lesions as well as superior accuracy for delineation of margins prior to resection. In addition, promising early data on artificial intelligence in gastroscopy suggests a future role for this technology in maximizing the yield of advanced endoscopic imaging. Data on endoscopic resection (ER) are particularly robust in Japan and Korea, with high rates of curative ER and markedly reduced procedural morbidity. However, there is a shortage of data in other regions to support the applicability of protocols from these high prevalence countries. Future advances in endoscopic therapeutics will likely lead to further expansion of the current indications for ER, as both technology and proceduralist expertise continue to grow.

Evaluation of a Phone Call Reminder Strategy in the Surveillance of Patients with Gastric Precancerous Lesions Lost to Follow-Up

Background

Surveillance of gastric precancerous lesions (GPL) may reduce gastric cancer (GC)-related mortality, but some patients with GPL are lost to follow-up.

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of a "phone-call" strategy in surveillance of the lost to follow-up patients.

Patients and Methods

Among all the patients diagnosed with GPL (atrophic gastritis, intestinal metaplasia, low-grade dysplasia) between 2000 and 2015, we identified those who should undergo surveillance endoscopy according to the current guidelines. They were contacted by telephone and invited to undergo endoscopy with gastric biopsies for histological analysis.

Results

Among 535 patients with GPL, 134 were contacted. Sixty-two (46%) could not be joined, 36 did not have endoscopy for other reasons, and finally, 36 patients (22 males, median age 65 years) were included. After the median time interval of 57 months between 2 endoscopies, 18 patients showed stability, 11 regression, and 7 progression of GPL, including 1 patient who developed GC.

Conclusion

Despite several telephone calls, only one-third of the contacted patients could be brought to surveillance endoscopy. Most of the patients showed stability of GPL, but 1 progressed to GC and could be successfully treated.

Prevalence, risk factors, and surveillance patterns for gastric intestinal metaplasia among patients undergoing upper endoscopy with biopsy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) is an important precursor lesion to gastric cancer (GC), the second leading cause of cancer death worldwide. There exist few data regarding the prevalence of, risk factors for, and clinical practice patterns regarding GIM in the United States. Furthermore, there are currently no U.S. guidelines regarding screening/surveillance for GIM.

METHODS

All consecutive upper endoscopic procedures from 2 academic medical centers in Seattle between 1999 and 2014 were reviewed. Demographic, clinical, and endoscopic covariates were recorded at time of endoscopy. Procedures with gastric biopsy were matched to final the histologic diagnoses, including the presence of Helicobacter pylori. Cases of GIM and dysplasia were recorded and compared with non-GIM controls using univariate and multivariable regression. Surveillance patterns for cases of GIM were recorded.

RESULTS

Data from 36,799 upper endoscopies, 17,710 gastric biopsies, 2073 cases of GIM, 43 cases of dysplasia, and 78 cases of GC were captured. The point prevalence of GIM was 11.7% in patients who underwent gastric biopsy. Non-white race (P < .001), increasing age (P < .001), and presence of H pylori (P < .001) were associated with GIM. If GIM was present, increasing age (P < .001) and male gender (P < .001) were associated with progression, and the presence of H pylori (P < .001) was inversely associated with progression to dysplasia/GC. Few cases of GIM/dysplasia/GC were identified during procedures for GIM screening/surveillance. Only 16% of patients with a diagnosis of GIM received a recommendation for surveillance.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a high prevalence of GIM among non-white and Hispanic Americans. Risk factors for development of GIM may be distinct from the risk factors for progression to GC.

Gastric intestinal metaplasia is associated with gastric dysplasia but is inversely correlated with esophageal dysplasia

AIM

To determine which clinical factors might be associated with gastric intestinal metaplasia (IM) in a North American population.

METHODS

Pathology and endoscopy databases at an academic medical center were reviewed to identify patients with and without gastric IM on biopsies for a retrospective cohort study. Patient demographics, insurance status, and other clinical factors were reviewed.

RESULTS

Four hundred and sixty-eight patients with gastric IM (mean age: 61.0 years ± 14.4 years, 55.5% female) and 171 without gastric IM (mean age: 48.8 years ± 20.8 years, 55.0% female) were compared. The endoscopic appearance of atrophic gastritis correlated with finding gastric IM on histopathology (OR = 2.05, P = 0.051). Gastric IM was associated with histologic findings of chronic gastritis (OR = 2.56, P < 0.001), gastric ulcer (OR = 6.97, P = 0.015), gastric dysplasia (OR = 6.11, P = 0.038), and gastric cancer (OR = 6.53, P = 0.027). Histologic findings of Barrett’s esophagus (OR = 0.28, P = 0.003) and esophageal dysplasia (OR = 0.11, P = 0.014) were inversely associated with gastric IM. Tobacco use (OR = 1.73, P = 0.005) was associated with gastric IM.

CONCLUSION

Patients who smoke or have the endoscopic finding of atrophic gastritis are more likely to have gastric IM and should have screening gastric biopsies during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Patients with gastric IM are at increased risk for having gastric dysplasia and cancer, and surveillance EGD with gastric biopsies in these patients might be reasonable.