Factors associated with oesophagogastric cancers missed by gastroscopy: a case-control study

Esophageal cancers missed at upper endoscopy in Central Norway 2004 to 2021 - A population-based study

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of esophageal cancers is increasing in many Western countries and the rate of missed esophageal cancers (MEC) at upper endoscopy is of concern. We aimed to calculate the MEC rate and identify factors associated with MEC.

METHODS

This was a retrospective population-based cohort study including 613 patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer in Central Norway 2004-2021. MEC was defined as esophageal cancer diagnosed 6-36 months after a non-diagnostic upper endoscopy. Patient characteristics, tumor localization, histological type and cTNM stage were recorded. Symptoms, endoscopic findings, use of sedation and endoscopists experience at the endoscopy prior to esophageal cancer diagnosis and at the time of diagnosis were recorded. The association between these factors and MEC was assessed.

RESULTS

Forty-nine (8.0%) of 613 cancers were MEC. There was a significant increase in annual numbers of esophageal cancer (p < 0.001) as well as of MEC (p = 0.009), but MEC rate did not change significantly (p = 0.382). The median time from prior upper endoscopy to MEC diagnosis was 22.9 (12.1-28.6) months. MEC patients were older and were diagnosed with disease with a lower cTNM stage and cT category than non-missed cancers, whereas tumor localization and histological type were similar between the groups. The use of sedation or endoscopist experience did not differ between the endoscopy prior to esophageal cancer diagnosis and at the time of diagnosis. High proportions of MEC patients had Barrett's esophagus (n = 25, 51.0%), hiatus hernia (n = 26, 53.1%), esophagitis (n = 10, 20.4%) or ulceration (n = 4, 8.2%). Significant proportions of MECs were diagnosed after inappropriate follow-up of endoscopic Barrett's esophagus, histological dysplasia or ulcerations.

CONCLUSIONS

The annual number of MEC increased during the study period, while the MEC rate remained unchanged. Endoscopic findings related to gastroesophageal reflux disease such as esophagitis and Barrett's esophagus were identified in a high proportion of patients with subsequent MECs. Cautious follow-up of these patients could potentially reduce MEC-rate.

Post-Endoscopy Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Rate in a Tertiary Referral Centre: An Australian Data Linkage Analysis

OBJECTIVE

High-quality gastroscopy is critical for early diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal cancers (UGCs), and assessment of missed cancers may serve as a key quality metric. Using a prospective gastroscopy database and data linkage with the Queensland Cancer Registry, we assessed the risk of developing UGC within 3 years of a cancer-negative gastroscopy at an Australian tertiary centre. Additional aims were to identify factors predictive of missed cancer, perform root cause analyses for missed cancers and assess overall survival.

DESIGN/METHOD

We identified patients who were diagnosed with UGC within 3 years of undergoing gastroscopy between 2011 and 2016. Non-mucosal cancers, cancers distal to duodenum and patients undergoing surveillance were excluded. Cases diagnosed within 6 months of gastroscopy were defined as detected cancers, while those developing within 6-36 months were defined as missed cancers. Post-endoscopy UGC rate (PEUGIC-3Y) was calculated as ratio of missed over total cancers detected. Demographic, clinical, endoscopic and histologic variables were analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 17,131 gastroscopies were performed for 10,393 patients during the study period. One hundred and twenty-six UGCs were diagnosed, including 120 detected UGCs and 6 missed UGCs. The overall PEUGIC-3Y rate was 4.8% (95% CI 2.1-10.4). The missed UGCs included 3 gastric adenocarcinomas, 2 gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinomas and 1 oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma. At the preceding 'cancer-negative gastroscopy', no macroscopic abnormalities were detected at the site of future UGC in 5/6 patients. A UGC developed in 2/6 patients despite an apparent adequate examination at index gastroscopy. Age, sex, indication for endoscopy and cancer location or histology were not predictive of missed cases, and survival was comparable between groups.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrate that the PEUGIC-3Y rate was 4.8% (95% CI 2.1-10.4). The majority of missed cases were adenocarcinomas of the gastro-oesophageal junction or stomach and developed in segments which were found to be normal at index gastroscopy, highlighting the challenges in detecting subtle mucosal lesions in the upper gastrointestinal tract. While overall survival between patients with detected and post-gastroscopy cancers was comparable, these ultimately represent potential missed opportunities for diagnosing an early cancer and underscore the need for quality improvement in gastroscopy.

Prevalence and risk factors of upper gastrointestinal cancers missed during endoscopy: a nationwide registry-based study

BACKGROUND

A significant proportion of upper gastrointestinal cancers (UGICs) remain undetected during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). We investigated the characteristics and risk factors of UGICs missed during endoscopy.

METHODS

In this nationwide registry-based study, we analyzed two large Polish datasets (National Health Fund and National Cancer Registry) to identify individuals who underwent EGD and were subsequently diagnosed with UGIC. Cancers diagnosed < 6 months after EGD were defined as "prevalent" and those within ≥ 6- < 36 months as "missed." We compared the characteristics of missed and prevalent cancers, and analyzed the risk factors for missed UGICs in a multivariable regression model.

RESULTS

We included 4 105 399 patients (mean age 56.0 years [SD 17.4]; 57.5 % female) who underwent 5 877 674 EGDs in 2012-2018. Within this cohort, 33 241 UGICs were diagnosed, of which 1993 (6.0 %) were missed. Within esophageal neoplasms, adenocarcinomas were more frequently missed than squamous cell cancers (6.1 % vs. 4.2 %), with a relative risk of 1.4 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.1-1.8, P = 0.01). Most gastric cancers were adenocarcinomas, of which 5.7 % were classified as missed. Overall, a higher proportion of missed UGICs than prevalent cancers presented at an advanced stage (42.2 % vs. 36.2 %, P < 0.001). Risk factors for missed UGICs included initial EGD performed within primary (vs. secondary) care (odds ratio [OR] 1.3, 95 %CI 1.2-1.5), female sex (OR 1.3, 95 %CI 1.2-1.4), and higher comorbidity (Charlson comorbidity index ≥ 5 vs. 0; OR 6.0, 95 %CI 4.7-7.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Among UGICs, esophageal adenocarcinomas were missed most frequently. Missed cancers occur more frequently within the primary care sector and are found more often in women and individuals with multiple comorbidities.

Capsule endoscopy - a non-invasive modality to investigate the GI tract: out with the old and in with the new?

INTRODUCTION

Capsule endoscopy has had significant development since it was introduced into the field of medicine in 2000. It is non-invasive, well tolerated, does not require sedation and is a first-line small bowel investigative modality. As it transits through the entire gastrointestinal (GI) tract, it has the potential to provide a pan-enteric examination.

AREAS COVERED

In this review we will discuss the new diagnostic modalities along with traditional methods which have been used for examination of the gastro intestinal (GI) tract. The main focus of this review will be on the use of capsule endoscopy for pan-enteric examination.

EXPERT OPINION

Capsule endoscopy is an accepted first-line investigation for the small bowel. Diagnostic sensitivity of the colon capsule is comparable to colonoscopy in controlled trials and is being evaluated in high-risk patients in routine clinical practice in national programs. Preliminary data suggest that a magnetic-controlled examination of the upper GI tract could be developed to enable a complete upper GI examination.

Clinical and Endoscopic Characteristics Associated With Post-Endoscopy Upper Gastrointestinal Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Ten percent of patients with an upper gastrointestinal cancer will have received an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) within 3 years before diagnosis, termed post-endoscopy upper gastrointestinal cancers (PEUGIC). We aimed to determine the characteristics of PEUGIC, and compare these with detected cancers.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and Embase from inception for studies comparing the characteristics of PEUGIC and detected upper gastrointestinal cancers, and reported findings at the initial "cancer-negative" endoscopy. We synthesized results using random effects meta-analysis. This review is registered on PROSPERO, CRD42019125780.

RESULTS

A total of 2696 citations were screened and 25 studies were included, comprising 81,184 UGI cancers, of which 7926 were considered PEUGIC. For PEUGIC assessed within 6 to 36 months of a "cancer-negative" EGD, the mean interval was approximately 17 months. Patients with PEUGIC were less likely to present with dysphagia (odds ratio [OR] 0.37) and weight loss (OR 0.58) and were more likely to present with gastroesophageal reflux (OR 2.64) than detected cancers. PEUGICs were more common in women in Western populations (OR 1.30). PEUGICs were typically smaller at diagnosis and associated with less advanced disease staging compared with detected cancers (OR 2.87 for stage 1 vs 2-4). Most EGDs (>75%) were abnormal preceding diagnosis of PEUGIC.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a substantial delay in the diagnosis of PEUGIC. They are less likely to present with alarm symptoms than detected cancers. PEUGICs are overall less advanced at diagnosis. Most patients with PEUGIC have abnormalities reported at the preceding "cancer-negative" EGD. The epidemiology of PEUGIC may inform preventive strategy.

Endoscopic characteristics in predicting prognosis of biopsy-diagnosed gastric low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic biopsy can underestimate gastric malignancies as low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (LGIN). Definitively diagnosed LGIN would progress. This study aimed to evaluate predictive factors to identify malignancies misdiagnosed as LGIN by biopsy and LGIN at high risk of progression.

METHODS

The clinical records of patients diagnosed with gastric LGIN by endoscopic biopsy who underwent at least two endoscopies during the first year of follow-up between 2007 and 2017 were retrospectively collected. Three endoscopists reviewed photographs of the initial endoscopy, described lesion characteristics, and made endoscopic diagnoses. Logistic regression was used to analyze predictors to identify malignancies underestimated as LGIN. A receiver operating characteristic curve was used to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of these predictors. Patient clinical outcomes of follow-up >1 year were collected. Kaplan-Meier estimates with log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to analyze predictors of progression.

RESULTS

Overall, 48 of 182 (26.4%) patients were proven to have malignancies. A single lesion, a large lesion size, and marked intestinal metaplasia (IM) were independent predictors of initially misdiagnosed malignancies. The area under the curve of these predictors was 0.871, with a sensitivity of 68.7% and specificity of 92.5%. Twelve of 98 patients (12.2%) progressed during the 33-month median follow-up period. A whitish appearance, irregular margins, marked IM, and histological diagnosis of LGIN more than twice within the first year were predictors for progression.

CONCLUSIONS

Lesions diagnosed as LGIN by biopsy with marked IM and other predictors above should be prudently treated for high potential to be malignancies or progress. Endoscopic follow-up with repeated biopsies within the first year is recommended.

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.

Automatic Recognition of Colon and Esophagogastric Cancer with Machine Learning and Hyperspectral Imaging

There are approximately 1.8 million diagnoses of colorectal cancer, 1 million diagnoses of stomach cancer, and 0.6 million diagnoses of esophageal cancer each year globally. An automatic computer-assisted diagnostic (CAD) tool to rapidly detect colorectal and esophagogastric cancer tissue in optical images would be hugely valuable to a surgeon during an intervention. Based on a colon dataset with 12 patients and an esophagogastric dataset of 10 patients, several state-of-the-art machine learning methods have been trained to detect cancer tissue using hyperspectral imaging (HSI), including Support Vector Machines (SVM) with radial basis function kernels, Multi-Layer Perceptrons (MLP) and 3D Convolutional Neural Networks (3DCNN). A leave-one-patient-out cross-validation (LOPOCV) with and without combining these sets was performed. The ROC-AUC score of the 3DCNN was slightly higher than the MLP and SVM with a difference of 0.04 AUC. The best performance was achieved with the 3DCNN for colon cancer and esophagogastric cancer detection with a high ROC-AUC of 0.93. The 3DCNN also achieved the best DICE scores of 0.49 and 0.41 on the colon and esophagogastric datasets, respectively. These scores were significantly improved using a patient-specific decision threshold to 0.58 and 0.51, respectively. This indicates that, in practical use, an HSI-based CAD system using an interactive decision threshold is likely to be valuable. Experiments were also performed to measure the benefits of combining the colorectal and esophagogastric datasets (22 patients), and this yielded significantly better results with the MLP and SVM models.

The yield of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients below 60 years and without alarm symptoms presenting with dyspepsia

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is frequently performed in patients with upper abdominal symptoms. Although guidelines recommend withholding an endoscopy in the absence of alarm symptoms, dyspeptic symptoms remain a predominant indication for endoscopy. We aimed to investigate the yield of upper GI endoscopy in patients with low-risk dyspeptic symptoms.

METHODS

We conducted an analysis in a prospectively maintained endoscopy reporting database. We collected the results of all upper GI endoscopy procedures between 2015 and 2019 that was performed in adult patients aged <60 years with dyspeptic symptoms. Patients with documented alarm symptoms were excluded. We categorized endoscopic findings into major and minor endoscopic findings.

RESULTS

We identified 26,440 patients with dyspeptic symptoms who underwent upper GI endoscopy. A total of 13,978 patients were considered low-risk and included for analysis (median age 46 years, interquartile range (IQR) [36-53], 62% female). In 11,353 patients (81.2%), no endoscopic abnormalities were detected. Major endoscopic findings were seen in 513 patients (3.7%) and minor endoscopic findings in 2178 patients (15.6%). Endoscopic findings indicative of upper GI cancer were reported in 47 patients (0.3%), including 16 (0.1%) oesophageal, 28 (0.2%) gastric and 5 (0.04%) duodenal lesions. Despite an initial unremarkable endoscopy result, 1015 of 11,353 patients (8.9%) underwent a follow-up endoscopy after a median of 428 days [IQR 158-819]. This did not lead to the additional identification of malignancy.

CONCLUSIONS

The yield of upper GI endoscopy in low-risk (<60 years, no alarm symptoms) patients with dyspepsia is very limited. This study further supports a restrictive use of upper GI endoscopy in these patients.