Predictors of upstage diagnosis after endoscopic resection of gastric low-grade dysplasia
The optimal management of precursor lesions such as gastric low-grade dysplasia is crucial in order to improve gastric cancer-related mortality. However, there are no universally accepted management guidelines regarding which lesions should be resected or should be monitored by follow-up visits.
Patients and methods
We retrospectively analyzed data from 1006 gastric low-grade dysplasia lesions that had been resected via endoscopic submucosal dissection. We also evaluated the endoscopic risk factors associated with upstage diagnosis from low-grade dysplasia to high-grade dysplasia or gastric cancer.
The mean age of our patients was 63.7 ± 9.1 years and 70.3% of our study population included men. The predominant location and gross type of lesions was the lower third of the stomach (78.6%) and the elevated type (57.8%), respectively. The rates of pathological concordance, upstage, and downstage diagnosis were 85.3, 12.1, and 2.6%, respectively. Multivariate analysis, after adjusting for age and sex, showed that a lesion size ≥ 10 mm (Odds ratio [OR] 2.231; p = 0.003), erythema (OR 7.315; p < 0.001), nodularity (OR 5.589; p < 0.001), depression (OR 3.024; p = 0.002), and erosion (OR 7.680; p < 0.001) were all factors significantly associated with upstage diagnosis. Furthermore, an increasing number of risk factors was associated with an increasing frequency of upstage diagnosis; if there were no risk factors, then there was no upstage diagnosis.
This study identified several risk factors that were significantly associated with the upstage diagnosis of gastric low-grade dysplasia: lesion size ≥ 10 mm and a variety of surface changes (erythema, nodularity, depression, and erosion). Our data indicate that if there is no evidence of these endoscopic risk factors, then regular follow-up may be considered, according to the patient’s combined comorbid conditions.
KeywordsDysplasia Endoscopic submucosal dissection Gastric cancer
Compliance with ethical standards
Cheol Woong Choi, Dae Hwan Kang, Hyung Wook Kim, Su Bum Park, Su Jin Kim, Hyeong Seok Nam, and Dae Gon Ryu have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
- 2.Li D, Bautista MC, Jiang SF, Daryani P, Brackett M, Armstrong MA, Hung YY, Postlethwaite D, Ladabaum U (2016) Risks and predictors of gastric adenocarcinoma in patients with gastric intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia: a population-based study. Am J Gastroenterol 111:1104–1113CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.(2003) The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc 58:S3-43Google Scholar
- 12.Jeon HK, Ryu HY, Cho MY, Kim HS, Kim JW, Park HJ, Kim MY, Baik SK, Kwon SO, Park SY, Won SH (2014) A randomized trial to determine the diagnostic accuracy of conventional vs. jumbo forceps biopsy of gastric epithelial neoplasias before endoscopic submucosal dissection; open-label study. Gastric Cancer 17:661–668CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Min BH, Kim KM, Kim ER, Park CK, Kim JJ, Lee H, Lee JH, Chang DK, Kim YH, Rhee PL, Rhee JC (2011) Endoscopic and histopathological characteristics suggesting the presence of gastric mucosal high grade neoplasia foci in cases initially diagnosed as gastric mucosal low grade neoplasia by forceps biopsy in Korea. J Gastroenterol 46:17–24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Yang MJ, Shin SJ, Lee KS, Lee KM, Lim SG, Kang JK, Hwang JC, Kim SS, Lee D, Kim JS, Lee GH, Ryu HS, Yoo BM, Lee KJ, Kim YB, Kim JH (2015) Non-neoplastic pathology results after endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric epithelial dysplasia or early gastric cancer. Endoscopy 47:598–604CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar