Characteristics and consequences of missed gastric cancer: A multicentric cohort study

BACKGROUND

Missed gastric cancer (MGC) is poorly documented in Mediterranean populations.

AIMS

(1) To assess the rate, predictors and survival of MGC. (2) To compare MGC and non-MGC tumors.

METHODS

This is a retrospective-cohort study conducted at four centers. MGC was defined as cancer detected within three years after negative esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Gastric adenocarcinomas diagnosed between 2008-2015 were included. Patients with no follow-up were excluded.

RESULTS

During the study period 123,395 esophagogastroduodenoscopies were performed, with 1374 gastric cancers being diagnosed (1.1%). A total of 1289 gastric cancers were finally included. The overall rate of MGC was 4.7% (61/1289, 3.7-6%). A negative esophagogastroduodenoscopy in MGC patients was independently associated with PPI therapy (p < 0.001), previous Billroth II anastomosis (p = 0.002), and lack of alarm symptoms (p < 0.001). The most frequent location for MGC was the gastric body(52.4%). MGCs were smaller than non-MGCs (31 vs 41 mm, p = 0.047), more often flat or depressed (p = 0.003) and less likely to be encountered as advanced disease. Overall 2-year survival was similar between MGC (34.1%) and Non-MGC (35.3 %) (p = 0.59).

CONCLUSION

MGC accounted for nearly five percent of newly-diagnosed gastric adenocarcinomas. Overall survival was poor and not different between MGC and non-MGC.

Mercaptopurine and inflammatory bowel disease: the other thiopurine

BACKGROUND

Data about use and effectiveness of mercaptopurine in inflammatory bowel disease are relatively limited.

AIMS

To assess the possible therapeutic indications, efficacy and safety of mercaptopurine as an alternative to azathioprine in inflammatory bowel disease.

METHODS

Retrospective observational study in patients treated with mercaptopurine in a total cohort of 1,574 patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-two patients received mercaptopurine, 15.7% of these patients as an initial thiopurine, 5.3% after azathioprine failure, and 79% after azathioprine intolerance. In 52.6% of patients (n = 80), adverse effects of mercaptopurine occurred, resulting in withdrawal in 49 of them. Mercaptopurine was effective in 39% of cases (95% CI 31-48%). In the remaining patients, failure was due mainly to withdrawal due to side effects (55.1%) and therapeutic step-up (33.7%). The average total time of mercaptopurine exposure was 36 months (IQR: 2-60). Myelotoxicity with mercaptopurine was more common in patients with intermediate TPMT activity than in those with normal activity (p = 0.046).

CONCLUSIONS

In our setting, mercaptopurine is primarily used as a rescue therapy in patients with azathioprine adverse effects. This could explain its modest efficacy and the high rate of adverse effects. However, this drug is still an alternative in this group of patients, before a therapeutic step-up to biologics is considered.