Clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosa dissection for high-grade dysplasia from endoscopic forceps biopsy

22Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background and study aims: Although the Vienna Classification recommends endoscopic resection for gastric high-grade dysplasia (HGD), many resected lesions are diagnosed as gastric cancer after endoscopic resection. This study aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes of gastric HGD identified by endoscopic forceps biopsy (EFB) after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and factors associated with discrepant results. Patients and methods: From December 2008 to July 2015, a total of 427 lesions diagnosed as initial HGD by EFB were enrolled. The rate of early gastric cancer (EGC) and factors predicting diagnosis upgrade were analyzed retrospectively. Results: Tumors ranged between 2 and 65 mm in size (median 12.59). En bloc and complete resection rates were 97.4 and 95.3%, respectively. The diagnostic discrepancy rate was 76.3%. Upgrade and downgrade rates of pathological diagnoses were 66.5 and 9.8%, respectively. Central depression (OR 4.151), nodular surface (OR 5.582), surface redness (OR 2.926), lesion location (upper third of the stomach) (OR 3.894), and tumor size ≥10 mm (OR 2.287) were significantly associated with EGC. Nodular surface (OR 2.746), submucosal fibrosis (OR 3.958), lesion location (upper third of the stomach) (OR 6.652), and tumor size ≥10 mm (OR 4.935) significantly predicted invasive submucosal cancer. Conclusions: Central depression, nodular surface, surface redness, lesion location, large tumor size, and submucosal fibrosis were associated with EGC or submucosal cancer. Caution must be used in treating lesions with these features with ESD.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ryu, D. G., Choi, C. W., Kang, D. H., Kim, H. W., Park, S. B., Kim, S. J., & Nam, H. S. (2017). Clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosa dissection for high-grade dysplasia from endoscopic forceps biopsy. Gastric Cancer, 20(4), 671–678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-016-0665-6

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free