Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 30, Issue 9, pp 3987–3993 | Cite as

Diagnostic group classifications of gastric neoplasms by endoscopic resection criteria before and after treatment: real-world experience

  • Jun Hee Lee
  • Yang Won Min
  • Jun Haeng LeeEmail author
  • Eun Ran Kim
  • Hyuk Lee
  • Byung-Hoon Min
  • Jae J. Kim
  • Kee-Taek Jang
  • Kyoung-Mee Kim
  • Cheol Keun Park
Article

Abstract

Background and study aims

There are often discrepancies between the pretreatment evaluation of gastric neoplasms by endoscopy with biopsy and the final diagnosis of resected specimen in terms of pathology and depth of invasion. We evaluated the spectrum of discrepancies between pretreatment and posttreatment diagnosis which may deliver significant differences on clinical practice.

Patients and methods

A total of 2041 patients with gastric dysplasia or cancer who underwent curative endoscopic resections or surgeries in 2012 were enrolled. Patients were classified into five different diagnostic groups: low-grade dysplasia (LGD), high-grade dysplasia (HGD), absolute indication early gastric cancer (AI-EGC), beyond absolute indication early gastric cancer (BAI-EGC), and advanced gastric cancer (AGC). The choice of initial treatment and final pathologic diagnosis was analyzed.

Results

The study patients belonged to the following pretreatment diagnostic groups: LGDs in 162, HGDs in 164, AI-EGCs in 396, BAI-EGCs in 824, and AGCs in 495 cases. Posttreatment diagnostic groups were LGDs in 140, HGDs in 121, AI-EGCs in 322, BAI-EGCs in 947, AGCs in 505, and no residual tumor in 6 cases. In general, 6.9 % (141/2041) of cases were downgraded and 15.9 % (324/2041) were upgraded. Thirty-four percent of pretreatment HGDs (56/164) were changed to cancers after endoscopic resection. Thirty-three percent of pretreatment AI-EGCs (131/396) were regrouped as posttreatment BAI-EGCs. The additional surgery rate in each pretreatment group was 0.6 % in LGD, 4.3 % in HGD, 15.7 % in AI-EGC, 23.6 % in BAI-EGC among the patients with initial endoscopic resection (p < 0.01).

Conclusions

Twenty-three percent of gastric neoplasms changed in their final diagnostic group after endoscopic resection or surgery. This discrepancy should be considered when the initial treatment strategy is being selected.

Keywords

Stomach neoplasms Diagnosis Endoscopic submucosal dissection 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

Jun Hee Lee, Yang Won Min, Jun Haeng Lee, Eun Ran Kim, Hyuk Lee, Byung-Hoon Min, Jae J. Kim, Kee-Taek Jang, Kyoung-Mee Kim, and Cheol Keun Park have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Jung KW, Won YJ, Kong HJ et al (2014) Cancer statistics in Korea: incidence, mortality, survival, and prevalence in 2011. Cancer Res Treat 46:109–123CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Soetikno R, Kaltenbach T, Yeh R et al (2005) Endoscopic mucosal resection for early cancers of the upper gastrointestinal tract. J Clin Oncol 23:4490–4498CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Min BH, Lee JH, Kim JJ et al (2009) Clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for treating early gastric cancer: comparison with endoscopic mucosal resection after circumferential precutting (EMR-P). Dig Liver Dis 41:201–209CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Min YW, Lee JH (2014) Endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer beyond absolute indication with emphasis on controversial issues. J Gastric Cancer 14:7–14CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Choi J, Kim SG, Im JP et al (2010) Comparison of endoscopic ultrasonography and conventional endoscopy for prediction of depth of tumor invasion in early gastric cancer. Endoscopy 42:705–713CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nagahama T, Yao K, Maki S et al (2011) Usefulness of magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging for determining the horizontal extent of early gastric cancer when there is an unclear margin by chromoendoscopy (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 74:1259–1267CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee BE, Kim GH, do Park Y et al (2010) Acetic acid-indigo carmine chromoendoscopy for delineating early gastric cancers: its usefulness according to histological type. BMC Gastroenterol 10:97CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Park DI, Rhee PL, Kim JE et al (2001) Risk factors suggesting malignant transformation of gastric adenoma: univariate and multivariate analysis. Endoscopy 33:501–506CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lim H, Jung HY, Park YS et al (2014) Discrepancy between endoscopic forceps biopsy and endoscopic resection in gastric epithelial neoplasia. Surg Endosc 28:1256–1262CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shim CN, Song MK, Kang DR et al (2014) Size discrepancy between endoscopic size and pathologic size is not negligible in endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer. Surg Endosc 28:2199–2207CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goto O, Fujishiro M, Kodashima S et al (2009) Outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer with special reference to validation for curability criteria. Endoscopy 41:118–122CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gotoda T, Iwasaki M, Kusano C et al (2010) Endoscopic resection of early gastric cancer treated by guideline and expanded National Cancer Centre criteria. Br J Surg 97:868–871CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ahn JY, Jung HY, Choi KD et al (2011) Endoscopic and oncologic outcomes after endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer: 1370 cases of absolute and extended indications. Gastrointest Endosc 74:485–493CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee H, Yun WK, Min BH et al (2011) A feasibility study on the expanded indication for endoscopic submucosal dissection of early gastric cancer. Surg Endosc 25:1985–1993CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Park CH, Shin S, Park JC et al (2013) Long-term outcome of early gastric cancer after endoscopic submucosal dissection: expanded indication is comparable to absolute indication. Dig Liver Dis 45:651–656CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Min BH, Kang KJ, Lee JH et al (2014) Endoscopic resection for undifferentiated early gastric cancer: focusing on histologic discrepancies between forceps biopsy-based and endoscopic resection specimen-based diagnosis. Dig Dis Sci 59:2536–2543CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee JH, Lee JH, Kim KM et al (2015) Clinicopathological factors of multiple lateral margin involvement after endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer. Surg Endosc 29:3460–3468CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shin KY, Jeon SW, Cho KB et al (2015) Clinical outcomes of the endoscopic submucosal dissection of early gastric cancer are comparable between absolute and new expanded criteria. Gut Liver 9:181–187CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yamamoto Y, Fujisaki J, Hirasawa T et al (2010) Therapeutic outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection of undifferentiated-type intramucosal gastric cancer without ulceration and preoperatively diagnosed as 20 millimetres or less in diameter. Dig Endosc 22:112–118CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Japanese Gastric Cancer (2011) A. Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2010 (ver. 3). Gastric Cancer 14:113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee JH, Kim JG, Jung HK et al (2014) Clinical practice guidelines for gastric cancer in Korea: an evidence-based approach. J Gastric Cancer 14:87–104CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jung SJ, Cho SJ, Choi IJ et al (2013) Argon plasma coagulation is safe and effective for treating smaller gastric lesions with low-grade dysplasia: a comparison with endoscopic submucosal dissection. Surg Endosc 27:1211–1218CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shin SH, Bae JM, Jung H et al (2010) Clinical significance of the discrepancy between preoperative and postoperative diagnoses in gastric cancer patients. J Surg Oncol 101:384–388PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Park HS, Lee SY, Hong SN et al (2013) Early gastric cancer-like advanced gastric cancer versus advanced gastric cancer-like early gastric cancer. Clin Endosc 46:155–160CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Asada-Hirayama I, Kodashima S, Goto O et al (2013) Factors predictive of inaccurate determination of horizontal extent of intestinal-type early gastric cancers during endoscopic submucosal dissection: a retrospective analysis. Dig Endosc 25:593–600CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mori H, Kobara H, Tsushimi T et al (2015) Unavoidable human errors of tumor size measurement during specimen attachment after endoscopic resection: a clinical prospective study. PLoS One 10:e0121798CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Okada K, Fujisaki J, Kasuga A et al (2011) Endoscopic ultrasonography is valuable for identifying early gastric cancers meeting expanded-indication criteria for endoscopic submucosal dissection. Surg Endosc 25:841–848CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Park JM, Ahn CW, Yi X et al (2011) Efficacy of endoscopic ultrasonography for prediction of tumor depth in gastric cancer. J Gastric Cancer 11:109–115CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lee JY, Choi IJ, Kim CG et al (2015) Therapeutic decision-making using endoscopic ultrasonography in endoscopic treatment of early gastric cancer. Gut Liver. doi: 10.5009/gnl14401 Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pei Q, Wang L, Pan J et al (2015) EUS for staging depth of invasion in early gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 30:1566–1573CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Matsuda T, Fujii T, Saito Y et al (2008) Efficacy of the invasive/non-invasive pattern by magnifying chromoendoscopy to estimate the depth of invasion of early colorectal neoplasms. Am J Gastroenterol 103:2700–2706CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Uchita K, Yao K, Uedo N et al (2015) Highest power magnification with narrow-band imaging is useful for improving diagnostic performance for endoscopic delineation of early gastric cancers. BMC Gastroenterol 15:155CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Shim CN, Kim H, Kim DW et al (2014) Clinicopathologic factors and outcomes of histologic discrepancy between differentiated and undifferentiated types after endoscopic resection of early gastric cancer. Surg Endosc 28:2097–2105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kim ES, Jeon SW, Park SY et al (2009) Where has the tumor gone? The characteristics of cases of negative pathologic diagnosis after endoscopic mucosal resection. Endoscopy 41:739–745CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yang MJ, Shin SJ, Lee KS et al (2015) Non-neoplastic pathology results after endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric epithelial dysplasia or early gastric cancer. Endoscopy 47:598–604CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gotoda T, Yanagisawa A, Sasako M et al (2000) Incidence of lymph node metastasis from early gastric cancer: estimation with a large number of cases at two large centers. Gastric Cancer 3:219–225CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kim YI, Kim YW, Choi IJ et al (2015) Long-term survival after endoscopic resection versus surgery in early gastric cancers. Endoscopy 47:293–301CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jun Hee Lee
    • 1
  • Yang Won Min
    • 1
  • Jun Haeng Lee
    • 1
    Email author
  • Eun Ran Kim
    • 1
  • Hyuk Lee
    • 1
  • Byung-Hoon Min
    • 1
  • Jae J. Kim
    • 1
  • Kee-Taek Jang
    • 2
  • Kyoung-Mee Kim
    • 2
  • Cheol Keun Park
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical CenterSungkyunkwan University School of MedicineSeoulKorea
  2. 2.Department of Pathology, Samsung Medical CenterSungkyunkwan University School of MedicineSeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations