Abstract
Background
In ulcerative early gastric cancer, improvement and exacerbation of ulceration repeat as a malignant cycle. Moreover, early gastric cancer combined with ulcer is associated with a low curative resection rate and high risk of adverse events. The aim of this study was to investigate the ulcer healing rate and clinical outcomes with the administration of a proton pump inhibitor before endoscopic submucosal dissection for differentiated early gastric cancer with ulcer.
Methods
A total of 136 patients with differentiated early gastric cancer with ulcer who met the expanded indications for endoscopic submucosal dissection were reviewed between June 2005 and June 2014. Eighty-one patients were given PPI before endoscopic submucosal dissection and 55 patients were not given PPI.
Results
The complete ulcer healing rate was significantly different between the two groups (59.3 % vs. 23.6 %, P < 0.001). The procedure time was 38.1 ± 35.7 and 50.8 ± 50.2 min (P = 0.047). However, no significant differences were detected in the en bloc resection rate, complete resection rate, and adverse events including bleeding and perforation. Multivariate analysis showed that administration of PPI (OR = 10.83, P < 0.001) and mucosal invasion (OR = 24.43, P < 0.001) were independent factors that predicted complete healing of ulceration. The calculated accuracy for whether complete healing of the ulcer after PPI administration can differentiate mucosal from submucosal invasion was 75.3 %.
Conclusions
Administration of PPI before ESD in differentiated EGC meeting the expanded criteria is effective to heal the ulcer lesion and reduce the mean procedure time. Complete healing of the ulcer after PPI administration suggests mucosal cancer.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Minimally invasive treatment such as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an effective alternative to surgical treatment for early gastric cancer (EGC) [1–3]. Endoscopic treatment for ulcerative EGC with differentiated mucosal cancer of less than 3 cm has been proposed in the expanded criteria [4]. However, improvement and exacerbation of ulceration repeat in patients with ulcerative EGC as a malignant cycle [5]. Moreover, EGC combined with ulcer is associated with a low curative resection rate and high risk of adverse events such as perforation and bleeding [3, 6–8].
Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) produce a high gastric pH by irreversibly binding to the proton pump on gastric parietal cells [9]. In previous studies, treatment with PPI led to improvement of the endoscopic signs in ulcerative EGC. Additionally, the degree of ulcer healing has been associated with the degree of submucosal invasion [10, 11]. However, these studies were limited because they were case reports or did not control for the use of antisecretory medication.
Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate ulcer healing, clinical outcomes, and adverse events such as perforation and bleeding after PPI administration before ESD for differentiated EGC with ulcer.
Patients and methods
Patients
We retrospectively reviewed 145 patients with differentiated EGCs with ulcer who met the expanded indications for ESD at the Soonchunhyang University Hospital (Bucheon, Korea) between June 2005 and June 2014.
The expanded indication was determined by pre-ESD clinical indications. Patients who had received endoscopic examination with a minimum interval of 1 week between the initial examination and follow-up were identified. The following exclusion criteria were applied: (1) patients whose endoscopic image was too poor to characterize the lesion, (2) patients who did not have a definite ulcer, and (3) patients who used other antisecretory medications (H2-receptor antagonists).
The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Soonchunhyang University Bucheon Hospital (SCHBC 2015-01-001).
Administration of PPI
The enrolled patients were divided into two groups: the PPI group (patients who received PPI before gastric ESD) and non-PPI group (patients who did not receive PPI). PPI was orally administered once daily in patients with symptoms such as epigastric pain and dyspepsia. The duration of administration was from the date of diagnosis to the day of the procedure.
Endoscopic findings
Initial and follow-up endoscopic images were independently reviewed by a reviewer who was blinded to the clinical information and pathologic diagnosis. Initial endoscopic images were defined as the initial photos taken at the Soonchunhyang University Hospital.
We collected data from both groups regarding the ulcer stage, size, and location of the lesion. The ulcer stages of EGC were classified as active or healing according to the Sakita and Fukutomi system [12]. Endoscopic ulcer was defined as breaks in the mucosal surface >5 mm in size, with depth to the submucosa.
ESD
Two experienced endoscopists (M.S.L. and S.J.H) performed all of the procedures. All patients underwent procedures under sedation with intravenous administration of midazolam and propofol. The electrosurgical unit used was the VIO300D or ICC 200 (ERBE, Tuebingen, Germany). The circumferential margin was marked with argon plasma coagulation or a hook knife (KD-620L, Olympus, Tokyo, Japan). A mixture of indigo carmine and diluted epinephrine (1:100,000) in normal saline solution was used for submucosal injection. After submucosal injection, the mucosal layer around the lesion was incised with various knives such as a hook knife, insulated-tip knife (KD-610L, 611L Olympus, Tokyo, Japan), or flex knife (KD-630L, Olympus, Tokyo, Japan), and the submucosal layer was dissected. Hemostatic forceps (Coagrasper, FD-410LR, Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) were used to control bleeding during ESD and at any visible vessel in the post-ESD ulcer site.
Histopathology
Resected specimens were fixed in 10 % formaldehyde, sectioned at 2-mm sections, and embedded in paraffin. A pathologist (H.K.K) examined the embedded specimens and reported the histological diagnosis according to the World Health Organization. The size of the tumor, depth of invasion, presence of tumor cells in the dissected margin, and lymphatic and vascular involvement were reported.
En bloc resection was defined as resection in a single piece. Complete resection was defined as the absence of cancer in both the lateral and vertical resection margins and no evidence of lymphovascular invasion. Non-complete resection included EGCs that had incomplete margin resection or lymphovascular invasion.
Measured outcomes
The primary endpoint was the ulcer healing rate at the follow-up endoscopy compared with the initial endoscopy. Endoscopic ulcer healing was classified as complete, partial, no change, or exacerbation. Complete ulcer healing was defined as the ulcer improving to a scar lesion (Fig. 1). Partial ulcer healing was defined as the ulcer improving in depth and size, but not completely. We defined the outcome as exacerbation if a new ulcer developed or an existing ulcer was aggravated in depth or size (Fig. 2). The secondary endpoints were clinical outcomes such as en bloc resection and complete resection, procedure time, and adverse events. The procedure time was defined as the time from the submucosal injection to the removal of resected tumors by endoscopy. Assessed adverse events were significant bleeding and perforation. Significant bleeding was defined as follows: (1) hematemesis or melena that required endoscopic treatment or surgery after ESD or (2) depression of the hemoglobin count by more than 2 g/dl after the procedure. Perforation was defined as a gross defect or the presence of free air on radiography following the procedure.
Statistical analysis
Statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics, clinical outcomes, and adverse events between the two groups were determined using Fisher’s exact test, the χ2 test, Mann-Whitney U test, or Student’s t test, as appropriate. Independent factors to predict complete ulcer healing were evaluated by multiple logistic regression analysis and reported with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). P < 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. Variables are presented as mean ± standard deviation. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 12.0 for Windows (SPSS; Chicago, IL, USA).
Results
Patient characteristics
During the study period, 145 eligible patients underwent gastric ESD. Six patients (4.1 %) with poor images and three (2.0 %) who used a H2-receptor antagonist were subsequently excluded. Thus, 136 patients were ultimately enrolled. Of these 136 patients, 81 (59.5 %) received PPI and 55 (40.5 %) did not. Table 1 lists the clinical characteristics of the patients in the two groups. The PPI group included 64 males and 17 females with a mean age of 66.1 ± 10.5 years. The non-PPI group included 41 males and 14 females with a mean age of 65.2 ± 10.1 years. Helicobacter pylori infection was positive in 45 patients (55.6 %) in the PPI group and 32 patients (58.2 %) in the non-PPI group. They were not treated during PPI treatment. The ulcer stages at first endoscopy were 25 active (31 %) and 56 healing (69 %) for the PPI group as well as 11 active (20 %) and 44 healing (80 %) for the non-PPI group. The two groups did not differ significantly in age, gender ratio, tumor size, ulcer size and ulcer stage, tumor location, depth of invasion, Helicobacter pylori infection, and mean interval days.
Change of ulcer stage and clinical outcomes
Table 2 lists changes in ulcer stage and clinical outcomes for the two groups. Change in ulcer stage at follow-up endoscopy was observed in 65 patients (80.2 %) in the PPI group: 48 patients (59.3 %) had complete healing, 15 patients (18.5 %) had partial healing, and 2 patients (2.5 %) had exacerbation. Change in ulcer stage at follow-up endoscopy was observed in 42 patients (76.4 %) in the non-PPI group: 13 patients (23.6 %) had complete healing, 22 (40.0 %) had partial healing, and 7 (7.0 %) had exacerbation. There was a significant difference in change of ulcer stage (P < 0.001).
The two groups did not differ significantly in the en bloc resection rate (96.3 % in the PPI group and 98.2 % in the non-PPI group; P = 0.647) or complete resection rate (75.3 % in the PPI group and 80.0 % in the non-PPI group; P = 0.522). However, the procedure time for the PPI group was 38.1 ± 35.7 min compared with 50.8 ± 50.2 min for the non-PPI group, indicating a significantly shorter procedure time for the PPI group (P = 0.047). Moreover, when the patients were divided into two groups, the complete healing group and others group (partial healing, no change and exacerbation group), there was a significant difference in procedure time (33.0 ± 22.3 min and 43.6 ± 43.4, P = 0.022).
Significant bleeding occurred in three patients (3.7 %) in the PPI group and five patients (9.1 %) in the non-PPI group (P = 0.268). All cases were successfully managed endoscopically using endoclips or conservatively. Perforation occurred in only one patient in the PPI group. This patient was successfully managed endoscopically using endoclips (Table 2).
Factors associated with complete ulcer healing
We compared the changes in ulcer stage among patients with mucosal cancer. Patients in the PPI group were more likely to exhibit complete healing of ulceration than those in the non-PPI group (71.9 vs. 30.2 %; P < 0.001). Moreover, the complete ulcer healing rate of the PPI group among mucosal cancer patients was higher than that among submucosal cancer patients (71.9 vs. 11.8 %, P < 0.001). On multivariate logistic regression, mucosal cancer (OR = 24.43, 95 % CI 4.93–120.97, P < 0.001) and administration of PPI (OR = 10.83, 95 % CI 4.10–28.45, P < 0.001) were independently associated with complete healing of malignant ulcers (Table 3).
Diagnostic analysis in the prediction of mucosal cancer
We assessed whether complete healing of ulcers after PPI administration could differentiate mucosal from submucosal invasion (Table 4). The calculated sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV) of complete ulcer healing to differentiate mucosal invasion were 71.9, 88.2, 45.5, and 95.8 %, respectively. The overall accuracy for differentiating mucosal invasion from submucosal invasion was 75.3 %. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.827.
Discussion
In the expanded indications for endoscopic treatment, the Japanese guidelines for gastric cancer include <30 mm differentiated gastric cancer confined to the mucosa with an ulcer [4]. According to the expanded indications, ESD is applicable to limited cases in EGC with ulcer. However, ESD of ulcerative EGC involves several problems. First, ulceration in EGC goes through phases of improvement and exacerbation in a malignant cycle [13]. Malignant ulceration is considered to arise at the site of the cancer in the presence of acid and pepsin. Healing takes place next, with benign tissue growing, and then malignant invasion occurs, forming a cycle [5]. Therefore, there is a risk in applying different indications in the same lesions depending on the presence of ulcer. Moreover, patients who are referred after biopsies have been performed at a private clinic are likely to be overestimated because of iatrogenic ulcers. Second, precise pretreatment staging is difficult in EGC with ulcer. It is important to investigate the invasive depth of the tumor before ESD. However, the accuracy of T staging in EGC with ulcer is very low [14]. Third, the presence of ulceration interferes with complete resection and promotes a long procedure time and high risk of adverse events such as bleeding and perforation [3, 6–8].
PPI may mask symptoms of early gastric cancer and even lead to complete or partial improvement of endoscopic signs of malignant ulcer [15, 16]. Previous studies have reported that ulcer healing in EGC was associated with antisecretory medications such as H2-receptor antagonists (H2RA) or PPI [10, 11]. In the current study, 48 (59.3 %) of the 81 patients exhibited complete improvement of ulceration, whereas exacerbation occurred in only 2 patients (2.5 %) in the PPI group. The complete healing rate of ulceration in the PPI group was significantly higher than in the non-PPI group. Additionally, the complete healing rate of ulceration was higher in mucosal cancer (78.0 %). We speculated that complete ulcer healing in EGC can be accelerated by PPI, especially in cases of mucosal cancer.
A previous study reported that the rates of en bloc resection and curative resection for ulcerative EGC were 94 and 72 %, respectively [7]. Our results were similar: rates of en bloc resection and curative resection were 98.2 and 80.0 %,respectively, in the non-PPI group. In contrast to our expectations, rates of en bloc resection and curative resection in the PPI group did not differ significantly from those in the non-PPI group. Additionally, adverse events such as bleeding and perforation did not differ between groups. However, the mean procedure time was significantly shorter in the PPI group than in the non-PPI group. A previous study reported that the presence of ulceration was associated with a long procedure time [7]. The presence of endoscopic ulceration was associated with submucosal fibrosis, and the fibrosis or inflammation caused by ulceration made it more difficult to lift the tumor tissue from the muscle layer, lengthening the procedure time [17, 18]. We speculate that PPI administration improved inflammation, made it easier to dissect the submucosa, and thereby shortened the procedure time.
Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is thought to be a reliable method for determining the depth of invasion for EGC, and T staging accuracy of EGC has been reported to be about 80–90 % [19, 20]. However, the accuracy of T staging in EGC with ulcer has been reported at about 55–63 % [19, 21]. In our study, the calculated accuracy (75.3 %) of whether complete healing of the ulcer after PPI administration can differentiate mucosal invasion from submucosal invasion was higher than the accuracy in previous EUS studies. Therefore, complete ulcer healing after PPI administration is considered to indicate mucosal cancer.
Our study had several limitations. First, it was not a prospective study, which could have skewed the results regarding the effectiveness of PPI administration. However, the clinical characteristics of the patients in the two groups were similar, and factors that may have affected the results were controlled for using multiple logistic regression analysis. Second, the interval between initial and follow-up endoscopic examination was variable. However, there was no statistically significant difference between groups, and the interval of most patients was within 1 month. Third, the duration of PPI administration was variable because of the retrospective nature of the study. Fourth, ESD was performed by two expert endoscopists. Therefore, there was no difference in en bloc, complete resection and adverse event rates. If ESDs were performed by less experienced endoscopists, then those outcomes might have been affected significantly. Finally, the presence of ulceration was determined only by endoscopic findings without pathologic confirmation. However, concordance between the two methods of identifying ulceration was 99 % in a previous study [17]. Therefore, ulceration can be diagnosed solely on the basis of endoscopic examination.
In conclusion, administration of PPI before ESD in differentiated EGC with ulcer meeting the expanded criteria is effective in healing the ulcer lesion and reducing the mean procedure time. Also, complete healing of the ulcer after PPI administration suggests mucosal cancer.
References
Ono H, Kondo H, Gotoda T, Shirao K, Yamaguchi H, Saito D, et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection for treatment of early gastric cancer. Gut. 2001;48:225–9.
Oda I, Saito D, Tada M, Iishi H, Tanabe S, Oyama T, et al. A multicenter retrospective study of endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2006;9:262–70.
Oka S, Tanaka S, Kaneko I, Mouri R, Hirata M, Kawamura T, et al. Advantage of endoscopic submucosal dissection compared with EMR for early gastric cancer. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;64:877–83.
Japanese Gastric Cancer A. Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2010 (ver. 3). Gastric Cancer. 2011;14:113–23.
Sakita T, Oguro Y, Takasu S, Fukutomi H, Miwa T. Observations on the healing of ulcerations in early gastric cancer. The life cycle of the malignant ulcer. Gastroenterology. 1971;60:835-9 passim.
Ohnita K, Isomoto H, Yamaguchi N, Fukuda E, Nakamura T, Nishiyama H, et al. Factors related to the curability of early gastric cancer with endoscopic submucosal dissection. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:2713–9.
Imagawa A, Okada H, Kawahara Y, Takenaka R, Kato J, Kawamoto H, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: results and degrees of technical difficulty as well as success. Endoscopy. 2006;38:987–90.
Isomoto H, Shikuwa S, Yamaguchi N, Fukuda E, Ikeda K, Nishiyama H, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: a large-scale feasibility study. Gut. 2009;58:331–6.
Sachs G, Shin JM, Briving C, Wallmark B, Hersey S. The pharmacology of the gastric acid pump: the H+, K+ ATPase. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 1995;35:277–305.
Im JP, Kim SG, Kim JS, Jung HC, Song IS. Time-dependent morphologic change in depressed-type early gastric cancer. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:2509–14.
Lee JI, Kim JH, Kim JH, Choi BJ, Song YJ, Choi SB, et al. Indication for endoscopic treatment of ulcerative early gastric cancer according to depth of ulcer and morphological change. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;27:1718–25.
Satika TFH. Endoscopic diagnosis. 1st ed. Tokyo: Nankodo; 1917. p. 198–208.
Shimizu S, Tada M, Kawai K. Early gastric cancer: its surveillance and natural course. Endoscopy. 1995;27:27–31.
Akashi K, Yanai H, Nishikawa J, Satake M, Fukagawa Y, Okamoto T, et al. Ulcerous change decreases the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography diagnosis for the invasive depth of early gastric cancer. Int J Gastrointest Cancer. 2006;37:133–8.
Wayman J, Hayes N, Griffin SM. The response of early gastric cancer to proton-pump inhibitors. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:1924–5.
Griffin SM, Raimes SA. Proton pump inhibitors may mask early gastric cancer. Dyspeptic patients over 45 should undergo endoscopy before these drugs are started. BMJ. 1998;317:1606–7.
Higashimaya M, Oka S, Tanaka S, Sanomura Y, Yoshida S, Hiyama T, et al. Outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric neoplasm in relationship to endoscopic classification of submucosal fibrosis. Gastric Cancer. 2013;16:404–10.
Jeong JY, Oh YH, Yu YH, Park HS, Lee HL, Eun CS, et al. Does submucosal fibrosis affect the results of endoscopic submucosal dissection of early gastric tumors? Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;76:59–66.
Choi J, Kim SG, Im JP, Kim JS, Jung HC, Song IS. Comparison of endoscopic ultrasonography and conventional endoscopy for prediction of depth of tumor invasion in early gastric cancer. Endoscopy. 2010;42:705–13.
Kwee RM, Kwee TC. Imaging in local staging of gastric cancer: a systematic review. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:2107–16.
Choi J, Kim SG, Im JP, Kim JS, Jung HC, Song IS. Is endoscopic ultrasonography indispensable in patients with early gastric cancer prior to endoscopic resection? Surg Endosc. 2010;24:3177–85.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported in part by the Soonchunhyang University Research Fund.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All authors disclosed no financial relationships relevant to this publication.
Ethical standards
All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 and later versions. Informed consent or substitute for it was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.
If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach and demonstrate that the institutional review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study.
Identifying information on human subjects, including names, initials, addresses, admission dates, hospital numbers, or any other data that might identify patients, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, or pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. If any identifying information about patients is included in the article, the following sentence should also be included: Additional informed consent was obtained from all patients for which identifying information is included in this article.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Myung, Y.S., Hong, S.J., Han, J.P. et al. Effects of administration of a proton pump inhibitor before endoscopic submucosal dissection for differentiated early gastric cancer with ulcer. Gastric Cancer 20, 200–206 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-015-0578-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-015-0578-9