Difficulty in distinguishing malignant gastric lymphoma from advanced gastric cancer: Focusing on endoscopic findings of the Borrmann type

Abstract

Malignant gastric lymphoma (MGL) accounts for a small proportion (upto 5%) of gastric malignancies. However, unlike for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) that requires surgical treatment, the standard treatments for MGL are chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Hence, the initial impression of the endoscopist is critical for the differential diagnosis and for planning future treatment. The purpose of this study was to assess the endoscopic diagnostic accuracy and the possibility of distinguishing between AGC and MGL depending on the endoscopist's experience.A total of 48 patients who had MGL, and 48 age and sex-matched patients who had AGC were assessed by endoscopic review at a tertiary referral hospital between June 2008 and February 2017. Two endoscopic specialists reviewed the endoscopic findings and divided these diagnoses into 5 groups: Borrmann type (1, 2, 3, and 4) and early gastric cancer-like type. After this, 7 experts and 8 trainees were asked to complete a quiz that was comprised of 6 images for each of the 96 cases and to provide an endoscopic diagnosis for each case. The test results were analyzed to assess the diagnostic accuracy according to the pathologic results, endoscopic subgroups, and endoscopists' experience. For inter-observer agreement was calculated with Fleiss kappa values.The overall diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic findings by the experts was 0.604 and that by the trainees was 0.493 (P = .050). There was no significant difference in the diagnosis according to the final pathology (lymphoma cases, 0.518 vs 0.440, P = .378; AGC cases, 0.690 vs 0.547, P = .089, respectively). In the subgroup analysis, the experts showed significantly higher diagnostic accuracy for the endoscopic Borrmann type 4 subgroup, including lymphoma or AGC cases, than the trainees (P = .001). Inter-observer agreement of final diagnosis (Fleiss kappa, 0.174) and endoscopic classification groups (Fleiss kappa, 0.123-0.271) was slightly and fair agreement.The experts tended to have a higher endoscopic diagnostic accuracy. Distinguishing MGL from AGC based on endoscopic findings is difficult, especially for the beginners. Even if the endoscopic impression is AGC, it is important to consider MGL in the differential diagnosis.