Causes of missed synchronous gastric epithelial neoplasms with endoscopic submucosal dissection: a multicenter study

Endoscopic causes and characteristics of missed gastric cancers after endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Because endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer (EGC) preserves the entire stomach, missed gastric cancers (MGCs) are often found in the remaining gastric mucosa. However, the endoscopic causes of MGCs remain unclear. Therefore, we aimed to elucidate the endoscopic causes and characteristics of MGCs after ESD.

METHODS

From January 2009 to December 2018, all patients undergoing ESD for initially detected EGC were enrolled. According to a review of EGD images before ESD, we identified the endoscopic causes (perceptual, exposure, sampling errors, and inadequate preparation) and characteristics of MGC in each endoscopic cause.

RESULTS

Of 2208 patients who underwent ESD for initial EGC, 82 patients (3.7%) had 100 MGCs. The breakdown of endoscopic causes of MGCs was as follows: 69 (69%) perceptual errors, 23 (23%) exposure errors, 7 (7%) sampling errors, and 1 (1%) inadequate preparation. Logistic regression analysis showed that the risk factors for perceptual error were male sex (odds ratio [OR], 2.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-5.18), isochromatic coloration (OR, 3.17; 95% CI, 1.47-6.84), greater curvature (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.121-4.40), and lesion size ≤12 mm (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.07-2.84). The sites of exposure errors were around the incisura angularis (11 [48%]), posterior wall of the gastric body (6 [26%]), and antrum (5 [21%]).

CONCLUSIONS

We identified MGCs in 4 categories and clarified their characteristics. Quality improvements in EGD observation, with attention to the risks of perceptual and site of exposure errors, can potentially prevent missing EGCs.

Quality indicators in the endoscopic detection of gastric cancer

Gastroscopy is the reference standard for the diagnosis of gastric cancer, but it is operator-dependent and associated with missed gastric cancer. The proliferation of gastroscopic examinations, increasingly for the screening and detection of subtle premalignant lesions, has motivated scrutiny of quality in gastroscopy. The concept of a high-quality endoscopic examination for the detection of superficial gastric neoplasia has been defined by expert guidelines to improve mucosal visualization, engender a systematic examination process and detect superficial neoplasia. This review discusses the evidence supporting the components of a high-quality diagnostic gastroscopic examination in relation to the detection of gastric cancer, and their potential role as procedural quality indicators to drive a structured improvement in clinically meaningful outcomes.

A predictive risk-scoring model for multiple synchronous early gastric cancers or gastric dysplasia before initial endoscopic resection

OBJECTIVE

To establish a new and easy-to-use risk-scoring predictive model to help identify high-risk patients with multiple synchronous gastric neoplasms (MSGN), including early gastric cancer (EGC) and gastric dysplasia (GD), before initial endoscopic resection (ER).

METHODS

We retrospectively enrolled 1361 patients with EGC or GD who had undergone ER from November 2006 to September 2019. The patients were randomly divided into the training (n = 681) and validation cohorts (n = 680). In the training phase a prediction score was constructed to assess the independent predictors of MSGN based on multivariate logistic regression analysis. The performance of the prediction model was evaluated using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test.

RESULTS

Of the 1361 patients, 122 (9.0%) had MSGN. Three predictors for MSGN were scored and weighted, as follows: elderly male (≥65 y; three points), a family history of gastric cancer (two points) and surface redness (two points). Accordingly, patients were divided into the low (risk score, 0-3 points) or high-risk groups (risk score, 4-7 points). In the validation cohort, the incidence of MSGN in the low-risk and high-risk groups were 6.1% and 32.0%, respectively (P < 0.001). Our predictive risk-scoring model showed good discrimination (the area under the ROC curve [AUROC] 0.719, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.634-0.794, P < 0.001) and calibration ability (Hosmer-Lemeshow test, χ²  = 6.539, P = 0.587) in the validation group.

CONCLUSION

This risk-scoring model has a good performance in predicting MSGN before the initial ER.

Risk factors associated with surveillance loss after endoscopic submucosal dissection in patients with gastric neoplasm

Background

After endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric neoplasms, surveillance endoscopy is required for patients with synchronous or metachronous neoplasms. We aimed to evaluate the risk factors associated with surveillance loss in patients who underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Methods

Ninety-five patients treated with endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric neoplasms between May 2015 and June 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Clinicopathologic factors, sociodemographic factors, psychiatric measures, and associated risk factors for surveillance loss were evaluated. The chi-square or Fisher exact test, t-test, and logistic regression analysis were used in data analysis.

Results

Twenty-five (26.3%) patients were identified as having surveillance loss. Compared to the surveillance group, the surveillance loss group was old and had dysplasia, and a healthy American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status. Similarly, surveillance loss was related to low symptom perception, low incidence of alexithymia, mindful awareness, and high trait forgiveness. Logistic regression analysis showed that dysplasia (odds ratio, 15.23; 95% CI, 1.56-149.09, P=0.019), old age (odds ratio, 7.14; 95% CI, 1.90-26.88, P=0.004), and American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 1 (odds ratio, 3.99; 95% CI, 1.09-14.60, P=0.037) were associated with surveillance loss.

Conclusions

Dysplasia, old age, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 1 were associated with surveillance loss in patients who underwent gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection. It could be helpful to proactively monitor patients with such conditions after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Common Locations of Gastric Cancer: Review of Research from the Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Era

Detection of early-stage gastric cancer improves the prognosis of patients. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a curative and stomach-preserving treatment for early gastric cancer (EGC) associated with a low risk of lymph node metastasis. However, several studies have reported missed diagnosis of gastric cancer. Therefore, endoscopists are required to learn accurate diagnostic skills to eliminate endoscopic blind spots. A systematic screening protocol to map the entire stomach without blind spots reduces the risk of missed lesions. Knowledge of the features of EGC or dysplasia is essential to identify suspicious lesion. Information of the common sites of occurrence of EGC can also enable a detailed endoscopic examination to improve detection rates. Previous reports investigating the location of gastric cancers resected by ESD or surgery showed that the antrum and lesser curvature of stomach were predominantly affected. Helicobacter pylori-induced atrophic changes advance from the antrum to the corpus along the lesser curvature, predominantly affecting these areas. Gastric cancers in the antrum and the lower corpus are also commonly missed during screening examination. Therefore, a careful examination of the lower third stomach is warranted to avoid missing synchronous and metachronous gastric lesions. Knowledge of the location of EGC enables accurate endoscopic examination and detection of EGC in early stage.

Simultaneous endoscopic submucosal dissection for multiple early gastric cancers in a low volume center

The aim of the study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of simultaneous endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for multiple early gastric cancers.A total of 70 solitary early gastric cancers from 70 patients and 20 multiple early gastric cancers from 10 patients were included in this retrospective study. The curative resection rate, en bloc resection rate, procedure-related complications, and local recurrence were compared between the 2 groups.There was no statistical difference in the rate of complete resection, en bloc resection, and curative resection between the 2 groups (P > .05). No significant difference was found with respect to the occurrence of postoperative bleeding (P > .05). Procedure time was significantly longer in the simultaneous group than that in the single group (87.6 ± 25.1 min vs 54.6 ± 22.0 min, P = .004). The overall incidence of synchronous early gastric cancer was 7.5%.Simultaneous ESD for multiple early gastric cancers is a safe and feasible choice in low-volume hospital. The entire stomach should be examined meticulously during and after ESD. Larger randomized studies are needed to validate our results.

Missing rate for gastric cancer during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is considered a very effective method to identify gastric cancer (GC). However, the existence of missed lesions has been frequently discussed. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at assessing the magnitude of missing GC diagnosis with EGD and its predictive factors.

METHODS

MEDLINE was searched to identify all studies assessing and reporting the proportion of missed GC diagnosis with EGD. Pooled proportion and negative predictive values were computed using the random-effects model and heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochrane Q-test and I.

RESULTS

The studies included (n=22) were grouped by study design. The pooled negative predictive value was 99.7% (95% confidence interval 99.6-99.9%). Missed GCs proportion was 9.4% (95% confidence interval 5.7-13.1%), being 10.0% in studies including patients with negative EGD followed over time, 8.3% in studies including patients with GC, and 23.3% in studies evaluating the proportion of missed synchronous lesions. Mainly, missed cancers were located in the gastric body both in Eastern and in Western studies (39 and 47%, respectively). The majority of missed GCs were adenocarcinomas. Younger age (<55 years), female sex, marked gastric atrophy, gastric adenoma or ulcer, and inadequate number of biopsy fragments were reported as predictive factors for diagnostic failure.

CONCLUSION

EGD is a very effective method to rule out GC. However, missing GC with EGD is not uncommon, with one out of 10 cancers being potentially missed. Interestingly, lesions were more often missed in the body and therefore a more rigorous protocol for endoscopy and biopsy should be implemented worldwide.

Characteristics of Missed Simultaneous Gastric Lesions Based on Double-Check Analysis of the Endoscopic Image

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The detection of multifocal lesions is important for the successful management of gastric neoplasms. We investigated the characteristics of missed simultaneous lesions and the reason for the missed diagnoses.

METHODS

A total of 140 patients who underwent repeat endoscopy before endoscopic resection between June 2013 and June 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. We classified simultaneous lesions into three groups based on a review of earlier images: group 1, no images of the location of simultaneous lesions were taken; group 2, no corresponding lesion was evident in the previous images; and group 3, simultaneous lesions were visible in the earlier images but a biopsy was not performed.

RESULTS

Simultaneous lesions were found in 12 patients (8.6%) with 13 lesions, comprising 10 dysplasia (76.9%) and three adenocarcinoma (23.1%). Regarding the reasons for missed diagnoses, seven lesions (53.8%) were classified as group 3, five (38.5%) as group 1, and the remaining lesion (7.7%) as group 2. There were no significant differences in the characteristics of the patients with and without simultaneous lesions.

CONCLUSIONS

Lesions disregarded or unnoticed during endoscopic examination were the main reason for missed diagnosis of simultaneous lesions. Endoscopists should consider the possibility of simultaneous lesions and attempt to meticulously evaluate the entire gastric mucosa.

Increased incidence of secondary gastric neoplasia in patients with early gastric cancer and coexisting gastric neoplasia at the initial endoscopic evaluation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Multiple synchronous gastric cancers are found in up to 14% of affected patients. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of secondary gastric neoplasia including missed synchronous gastric neoplasia in this patient group compared with that after a single cancer resection.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Four hundred and forty patients who underwent endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer (EGC) were divided into two groups: those with or without synchronous gastric neoplasia at the initial assessment. Secondary gastric neoplasia was defined as missed synchronous gastric neoplasia or metachronous gastric neoplasia. We compared the clinicopathological characteristics and the incidence of secondary gastric neoplasia between the two groups.

RESULTS

Synchronous gastric neoplasias were found in 34 patients (7.7%) at the initial endoscopic examination of EGC. Secondary gastric neoplasias were found in 67 of 440 patients (15.2%) during the follow-up period (median 24.0 months). The incidence of secondary gastric neoplasia and missed synchronous gastric neoplasia was higher in those patients with synchronous gastric neoplasia than in those with a solitary EGC at the initial treatment (P<0.01). Between the two groups, the risk of the secondary neoplasia was significantly higher within 1 year after endoscopic resection (P<0.01), but not after 1 year (P=0.20).

CONCLUSION

EGC with synchronous gastric neoplasia at the initial endoscopic examination was associated with an increased risk of secondary gastric neoplasia. These patients should be evaluated carefully with a shorter interval after the initial treatment.