Article Search
검색
검색 팝업 닫기

Metrics

Help

  • 1. Aims and Scope

    Gut and Liver is an international journal of gastroenterology, focusing on the gastrointestinal tract, liver, biliary tree, pancreas, motility, and neurogastroenterology. Gut atnd Liver delivers up-to-date, authoritative papers on both clinical and research-based topics in gastroenterology. The Journal publishes original articles, case reports, brief communications, letters to the editor and invited review articles in the field of gastroenterology. The Journal is operated by internationally renowned editorial boards and designed to provide a global opportunity to promote academic developments in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology. +MORE

  • 2. Editorial Board

    Editor-in-Chief + MORE

    Editor-in-Chief
    Yong Chan Lee Professor of Medicine
    Director, Gastrointestinal Research Laboratory
    Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Univ. California San Francisco
    San Francisco, USA

    Deputy Editor

    Deputy Editor
    Jong Pil Im Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
    Robert S. Bresalier University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
    Steven H. Itzkowitz Mount Sinai Medical Center, NY, USA
  • 3. Editorial Office
  • 4. Articles
  • 5. Instructions for Authors
  • 6. File Download (PDF version)
  • 7. Ethical Standards
  • 8. Peer Review

    All papers submitted to Gut and Liver are reviewed by the editorial team before being sent out for an external peer review to rule out papers that have low priority, insufficient originality, scientific flaws, or the absence of a message of importance to the readers of the Journal. A decision about these papers will usually be made within two or three weeks.
    The remaining articles are usually sent to two reviewers. It would be very helpful if you could suggest a selection of reviewers and include their contact details. We may not always use the reviewers you recommend, but suggesting reviewers will make our reviewer database much richer; in the end, everyone will benefit. We reserve the right to return manuscripts in which no reviewers are suggested.

    The final responsibility for the decision to accept or reject lies with the editors. In many cases, papers may be rejected despite favorable reviews because of editorial policy or a lack of space. The editor retains the right to determine publication priorities, the style of the paper, and to request, if necessary, that the material submitted be shortened for publication.

Search

Search

Year

to

Article Type

Original Article

Split Viewer

Gastric Cancer Caused by Adenoma: Predictive Factors Associated with Lesions Other Than the Expanded Indications

Seong Hwan Park1, Kee Don Choi1, Kyoungwon Jung2, Yangsoon Park3, Sunpyo Lee1, Eun Jeong Gong1, Hee Kyong Na1, Ji Yong Ahn1, Kee Wook Jung1, Jeong Hoon Lee1, Do Hoon Kim1, Ho June Song1, Gin Hyug Lee1, Hwoon-Yong Jung1

1Department of Gastroenterology, Asan Digestive Disease Research Institute, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, 2Department of Internal Medicine, Kosin University College of Medicine, Busan, Korea, 3Department of Pathology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence to: Kee Don Choi, Department of Gastroenterology, Asan Digestive Disease Research Institute, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 05505, Korea, Tel: +82-2-3010-5813, Fax: +82-2-2045-4043, E-mail: keedon@amc.seoul.kr

Received: March 16, 2017; Revised: September 2, 2017; Accepted: September 30, 2017

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Gut Liver 2018;12(3):246-254. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl17162

Published online February 8, 2018, Published date May 31, 2018

Copyright © Gut and Liver.

Background/Aims

We aimed to investigate whether the current indications for curative endoscopic resection (ER) of gastric cancer (GC) can be applied to GC caused by adenoma. Additionally, we attempted to identify factors predictive of lesions subsequently found in addition to the expanded indications for ER.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 342 patients diagnosed with GC caused by adenoma who underwent ER at a single tertiary center between February 2011 and December 2014. The gross whole tumor size was measured using the endoscopically resected specimen. The microscopic whole tumor size was measured using mapping paper. The estimated cancer size was calculated using the microscopic whole tumor size and the square root of the carcinoma component.

Results

A gross whole tumor size ≥3 cm, carcinoma component ≥35%, and gross ulceration were predictive of lesions other than the expanded indications for ER. The overall rate of lymph node metastasis was 0.3% (1/327), which only occurred in one patient with a lesion other than the expanded indications (4.5%, 1/22).

Conclusions

The current indications for curative ER in GC can be applied to GC caused by adenoma. In cases suspected of having lesions other than the expanded indications, patients should be cautiously selected for ER to reduce the risk of an inappropriate procedure.

Keywords: Upper gastrointestinal track, Adenoma, Adenocarcinoma, Endoscopy

Gastric adenoma is a premalignant lesion.1 Although the risk of progression from adenoma to gastric cancer is relatively low,2,3 adenomas can progress to invasive carcinoma4 or even advanced gastric cancer.3 Endoscopic forceps biopsy is the gold standard for histological diagnosis of adenoma before endoscopic resection (ER). However, the histological discrepancy rate between the results of biopsy specimens and those obtained at ER was noted to be considerably high in recent studies.58 Reportedly, 6.4% to 30.1% of biopsy-diagnosed low-grade adenomas are finally diagnosed as high-grade ones and 3.8% to 11.0% as adenocarcinomas after ER.5,9 ER for early gastric cancer (EGC) is currently the established treatment of choice because it both minimally invasive and effective as a curative procedure for EGC.10,11 Recently, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been developed to improve the en bloc resection rate over that of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR).12 ESD is performed for EGC lesions meeting the expanded indications for ER.13,14 Patients with EGC who undergo treatment based on the expanded indications have been reported to have similar long-term survival and outcomes to those treated according to the earlier absolute indications.15 However, if ER is performed and the lesion is subsequently found to be beyond the expanded indications, patients require additional treatment such as surgery. Thus, accurate prediction prior to ER of which EGC lesions will be found to be beyond the expanded indications could help physicians determine an appropriate treatment strategy and avoid unnecessary procedures. To the best of our knowledge, the criteria for evaluation of curative ER of gastric cancer arising from adenoma are rarely reported. Factors that might predict which lesions are actually beyond the expanded indications after ER are also rarely reported. This study was conducted to evaluate whether the current criteria for curative ER for EGC can be applied to gastric cancer arising from adenoma and to identify factors that can predict which lesions are beyond the expanded indications for ER.

1. Patients

Between February 2011 and December 2014, 2,050 consecutive patients underwent ER for EGC at the Asan Medical Center, which is a tertiary academic center in Seoul, Korea. On reviewing the pathology report database, we found that 344 were diagnosed with gastric cancer arising from adenoma. After histological reanalysis, two patients were found to have de novo gastric cancer. We analyzed the medical records of the remaining 342 patients with gastric cancer arising from adenoma (Fig. 1). This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Asan Medical Center (IRB number: 2016-0825). Patients were not required to give informed consent to the study because the analysis used anonymous clinical data that were obtained after each patient agreed to treatment by written consent. For full disclosure, the details of the study are published on the home page of Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine.

2. Evaluation of endoscopic features

Endoscopic reports and photographs of the procedures were reviewed using electronic medical records for each patient, assessing morphological type, ulceration, and location of the lesions. Lesions with active ulceration or accompanying fibrous scarring were reported as ulcerated. Tumor location was categorized based on the longitudinal axis of the stomach: upper third, containing the fundus, cardia, and upper body; middle third, containing the mid-body, lower body, and angle; and lower third, containing the antrum and pylorus.16 Macroscopic classification of tumors was as follows: type I (protruded), IIa (superficial elevated), IIb (flat), IIc (superficial depressed), and III (excavated).16,17

3. Endoscopic procedures

Endoscopic procedures followed at our institution have been previously described.18 Briefly, for EMR, after we checked the lesion, saline solution containing epinephrine (0.01 mg/mL) mixed with indigo carmine was injected into the submucosal layer with a 23-gauge needle. The raised lesion was removed using an SD-9U-1 or SD-12U-1 snare (Olympus Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) after circumferential mucosal incision. For ESD, the typical procedure involved marking, mucosal incision, and submucosal dissection with simultaneous hemostasis. After making several marking dots outside the lesion, saline solution containing epinephrine and indigo carmine was injected into the submucosal layer with a 23-gauge needle. A circumferential incision was made into the mucosa using a needle-knife (MTW Endoskopie Co., Ltd., Wesel, Germany) or insulated-tipped knife (Olympus Co., Ltd.). The submucosal layer was directly dissected with various knives until the lesion was completely removed. Hemostasis was achieved with hemoclips or hemostatic forceps (FD-410LR; Olympus Co., Ltd.) whenever bleeding or an exposed vessel was observed.

4. Histological analysis

The resected specimen was stretched, pinned to a polystyrene plate, and completely immersed in 10% neutral buffered formalin. After applying red, green, and yellow ink to the lateral resection margins and black ink to the deep resection margins, the entire specimen was sectioned into 2-mm thick slices parallel to an imaginary line drawn from the edge of the tumor to the closest resection margin (Fig. 2). Each sliced tissue specimen was embedded in paraffin, and 5-μm sections were cut from each paraffin block and stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E). Each slide was then examined to determine the extent of tumor involvement. The borders of the tumors were indicated on mapping paper (Fig. 2). The carcinoma component was analyzed by histological examination according to the area of the entire tumor tissue occupied by adenocarcinoma. All lesions were classified as gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia according to Vienna classification, i.e., low-grade adenoma/dysplasia as category 3, high-grade adenoma/dysplasia or noninvasive carcinoma as category 4, and intramucosal or submucosal carcinoma or beyond as category 5.19 The histological type of gastric cancer was classified according to the World Health Organization (WHO) classification.20 The degree of differentiation was classified as differentiated (well or moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma or papillary adenocarcinoma) or undifferentiated (poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma, signet ring cell carcinoma, or mucinous cell carcinoma). Patients with adenomatous components at the margin of the carcinoma were defined as cancers arising from adenomas. Lymphovascular invasion was defined as observable spread of tumor cells into the lymphatic vessels (e.g., carcinoma cells floating within the endothelia-lined space). In order to confirm the lymphovascular invasion, most cases were deciphered using the H&E stain. Only in case where it was unsure whether it is an artifact or true vessel, immunohistochemical CD34 stain or monoclonal antibody D2-40 were used. Depth of invasion was categorized as lamina propria, muscularis mucosa, or submucosa.16 Submucosal invasion was classified into three layers: SM1 (penetration of <500 μm into the submucosal layer from the muscularis mucosa), SM2 (penetration of 500 to 1,000 μm), and SM3 (penetration of ≥1,000 μm).

5. Size measurement and calculation

Gross whole tumor size was measured using a ruler based on the dimensions of the endoscopically resected specimen. Microscopic whole tumor size was measured on mapping paper (Fig. 2).

Maximum diameter was used as the measure for tumor size. Estimated cancer size was calculated using the microscopic whole tumor size and square root of the carcinoma component.

Estimate the cancer size was calculated by following equation: microscopic whole tumor size (cm)×√carcinoma component (%)/100

6. Indications for ER

Estimated cancer size was the basis for determining whether ER was indicated. The absolute indications include differentiated elevated cancer of <2 cm in diameter and depressed cancer of <1 cm in diameter without ulceration.21 Expanded indications include differentiated mucosal cancer of >2 cm in diameter without ulceration, differentiated mucosal cancer of up to 3 cm in diameter with ulceration, undifferentiated mucosal cancer of up to 2 cm in diameter without ulceration, or a submucosal cancer not deeper than SM1 and <3 cm in diameter.22 ER was considered to have been performed beyond the expanded indications if any of the values for the expanded indications were exceeded.

7. Evaluation after ER

Curative resection was defined when all of the following conditions were met: final mapping results within the expanded indications, en bloc resection, negative horizontal and vertical margins, and absence of lymphatic invasion and venous involvement.13 Evaluation for lymph node (LN) metastasis was based on pathological results from surgery or surveillance computed tomography (CT), looking for perigastric LNs. Pathology was available if patients underwent additional gastrectomy with lymphadenectomy after ER; otherwise, patients were followed up with endoscopic examination and abdominal CT. Both were performed every 6 months for the first 2 years, and then annually for the next 3 years. Patients were excluded from outcome analysis if they were seen for less than 6 months of follow-up.

8. Statistical analysis

The chi-square or Fisher exact test was used to assess relationships among categorical variables and t-test was used for non-categorical variables. Factors associated with ER performed beyond the expanded indications were analyzed using logistic regression analysis. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to estimate the effect of variables. All tests of significance were two-tailed, and p<0.05 indicated statistical significance. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS, version 21.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

1. Clinicopathological characteristics

A total of 342 patients (256 men; mean age, 64.6±9.5 years) were enrolled. The mean gross whole tumor size was 2.6±1.8 cm. The most predominant gastric location was the lower third (221/342, 64.6%). In resected specimens, mucosal layer invasion was confirmed in 313 cases (91.5%), SM1 invasion in 16 (4.7%), and SM2 invasion in 13 (3.8%). Most tumors were differentiated (336/342, 98.2%), with only six (1.8%) being undifferentiated (poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma or signet ring cell carcinoma). The mean carcinoma component was 31.9%±27.1%, and the mean estimated cancer size was 1.3±1.0 cm. Indications for ER were considered to have been absolute in 193 cases (56.5%), expanded in 125 (36.5%), and beyond the expanded indications in 24 (7%). The baseline, pathological, and endoscopic characteristics are shown in Table 1.

2. Outcomes of ER based on the type of indication for curative resection in gastric cancer

Fifteen patients were lost to follow up, leaving 327 available for the outcome analysis (Fig. 1). The median follow-up duration was 24 months (interquartile range, 14.1 to 37 months). The curative resection rate was 92.7% overall, 100% (185/185) for lesions meeting the absolute indications, 98.3% (118/120) for lesions meeting the expanded indications, and 0% (0/22) for lesions beyond the expanded indications. Immediate surgery was performed in 54.2% patients (13/24) who had a non-curative resection, including one of the two with expanded indications and 12 of the 22 with lesions beyond the expanded indications. The 11 patients who did not undergo surgery were carefully followed up. Surgery was not performed in those cases because of severe comorbid illness, patient reluctance, or physician opinion. LN metastasis was found in only one patient; the overall rate of LN metastasis was 0.3% (1/327); 0% (0/185) in the absolute group, 0% (0/118) in the expanded group, and 4.5% (1/22) in the beyond the expanded group (Table 2).

3. Comparison analysis between indications for ER (absolute or expanded vs beyond the expanded indications) in patients diagnosed as adenomas based on forceps biopsy

A total of 243 patients were diagnosed as adenomas with pre-procedural forceps biopsy. Among them, 16 patients were diagnosed as having lesions beyond expanded indications after ER. Gross whole tumor size, microscopic whole tumor size, estimated cancer size and carcinoma component were significantly larger in lesions beyond the expanded indications; submucosal invasion and gross ulceration were also more frequent (Table 3). By univariate analysis submucosal invasion, carcinoma component of ≥35%, estimated cancer size of ≥1.5 cm were significantly associated with lesions that were beyond the expanded indications (Table 4). By multivariate analysis, the following variables were independently associated with lesions beyond the expanded indications: gross whole tumor size of ≥3 cm (OR, 4.4; 95% CI, 1.3 to 14; p<0.05), and carcinoma component of ≥35% (OR, 8.1; 95% CI, 2.4 to 27.5; p<0.05). Presence of gross ulceration was marginally significant (OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 0.95 to 18.9; p=0.058) (Table 4).

Small de novo colorectal cancer, defined as tumors that have no demonstrable in situ (adenomatous) component, are reportedly more aggressive than conventional adenocarcinomas that develop from well-defined adenomatous precursor lesions.2325 Analogously, gastric carcinoma arising from adenoma may be biologically different from de novo gastric cancer. However, to the best of our knowledge, clinical and biological features of gastric cancer arising from adenoma have rarely been reported. We conducted this study to evaluate whether the current criteria for curative resection of gastric cancer can be applied to gastric cancer arising from adenoma and to identify factors that can predict which lesions are beyond the expanded indications for ER. Previously reported rates of LN metastasis in cases where ER was performed beyond the expanded indications are as follows: (1) 3.0% (7/230) for >3 cm, predominantly differentiated, pT1a, and ulcerated lesions; (2) 2.6% (2/78) for >3 cm, predominantly differentiated, and pT1b (SM1) lesions; (3) 2.8% (6/214) for >2 cm, predominantly undifferentiated, pT1a, and non-ulcerated lesions; (4) 5.1% (52/1014) for predominantly undifferentiated, pT1a, and ulcerated lesions; and (5) 10.6% (9/85) for predominantly undifferentiated and pT1b (SM1) lesions.13,14,26 In this study, patients with gastric cancer arising from adenoma and considered suitable for ER by the absolute and expanded indications were believed to have a negligible risk of LN metastasis, and in fact, none of them did (Table 2). The LN metastasis rate of 4.5% in patients with lesions beyond the expanded indications was similar to that reported in previously published data.14,26 Therefore, our results suggest that the current indications for curative resection of gastric cancer can also be applied to gastric cancer arising from adenoma.

Non-curative ER because of errors in preoperative diagnosis is an inevitable consequence of the fact that evaluations based on endoscopy, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), and even diagnostic biopsies before the procedure are not always accurate.27,28

The discrepancy rates between forceps biopsy samples and post-resected specimens ranged from 20% to 40% in previous reports.2932 Discrepancies occur because the amount of tissue obtained by forceps biopsy is too small to represent the histology of the entire tumor lesions.33 In this study, endoscopies and forceps biopsies were performed on a total of 233 patients (68.1%) at the Asan Medical Center prior to the ER. Since results of endoscopies conducted at other hospitals were missing, the numbers of forceps biopsies of 41 patients were unknown. Analyzing the remaining 301 patients, the mean frequencies of forceps biopsy in concordance group were 3 and the mean frequencies of forceps biopsy in discrepancy group were 2.7. But the frequencies of forceps biopsy between two groups did not show significant difference.

Mandai and Yasuda34 measured the invasion depth of EGC using EUS. Among the 280 cases considered to have mucosal/SM1 cancer based on EUS findings, 20 (7.1%) had SM2 cancer. Of the tumors thought to be differentiated adenocarcinoma, 1.5% to 8.0% turn out to be undifferentiated after ESD.35,36 Histological discrepancy between pre- and post-ESD specimens can be attributed to inter- and intraobserver variability as well as to the fact that gastric cancer can have histological heterogeneity (containing both differentiated and undifferentiated areas).37,38 For these reasons, ESD has been recommended as a diagnostic tool for gastric lesions in cases where there is a discrepancy between the forceps biopsy pathology and endoscopic findings.39

Despite the diagnostic effectiveness and safety of ESD, there is a low incidence of adverse events with endoscopic procedures. A multicenter study40 showed that the incidences of post-ESD bleeding, perforation and serious adverse event were 5.5%, 4.7%, and 0.43%, respectively. Longer procedure times have been associated with an increased risk of adverse events,41,42 and tumor location and size may affect ESD procedure time.4345 Although determining if the indications for curative ER have been met is difficult, accurate preoperative prediction of which EGC is beyond the expanded indications is very important to reduce the risks associated with an unnecessary procedure. Yamada et al.46 described three risk factors for submucosal and lymphovascular invasion in ESD specimens of EGC: a dominant histology of moderately differentiated or papillary adenocarcinoma, non-flat gross morphology, and tumor size of ≥1.5 cm. In another study, SM2 invasion was correlated on multivariate analysis with tumor size, ulceration, undifferentiated histology, gross type, and tumor location.47 We found several factors predictive of gastric carcinoma arising from adenoma being beyond the expanded indications for ER.

Gross whole tumor size of ≥3 cm (OR, 4.4; 95% CI, 1.3 to 14; p<0.05) and carcinoma component of ≥35% (OR, 8.1; 95% CI, 2.4 to 27.5; p<0.05) were independently associated with lesions that were beyond the expanded indications and gross ulceration (OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 0.95 to 18.9; p=0.058) showed marginally significant association. Therefore, in cases suspicious of being beyond the expanded indications, very careful selection of the patients for ER is needed to reduce the risk associated with an unnecessary procedure.

There are several limitations to our study. First, this was a single-center retrospective study. Second, we defined the absence of LN metastasis radiologically in most patients, as pathology was unavailable for those not undergoing surgery. Considering the approximately 90% negative predictive value of stomach protocol CT,48 it is possible that some patients with normal CT findings at 12 months of follow-up had LN metastasis that went undetected. Third, the carcinoma component is not a pre-procedure clinicopathological parameter. The endoscopic features suggesting the presence of carcinomatous foci in gastric adenoma, as reported by Kasuga et al.49 include a lesion size of >20 mm and central-depressed appearance. Further, Ko et al.33 reported that surface redness seen on endoscopy suggested an underestimation on forceps biopsy. Although the carcinoma component is a post-procedure parameter, the aforementioned endoscopic findings suggest the presence of a carcinomatous component in gastric adenoma. For validation that such findings are predictive of carcinoma component before ER, further study is needed on the endoscopic appearance compared with subsequent findings on pathology (Fig. 2). Fourth, the calculation method to estimate the cancer size suggested in this research is under the hypothesis that the tumor is round. If it is hypothesized that the shape of the adenoma is oval, then the estimated cancer size using the calculation method suggested in this study overestimate the cancer size. However, most cancers are distributed in a mosaic pattern thus it is impossible to calculate the exact extent, as shown in the case (Fig. 2). Therefore, the size discrepancy can be considered as a limitation of this study.

Despite these limitations, our study is the first regarding EGC arising from adenoma. Our results suggest several clinicopathological characteristics predicting that the lesion is beyond the expanded indications for ER. The rate of standardized follow-up in our series was high (95.6%, 327/342), and the endoscopic procedures and pathology examinations were performed according to a standard protocol.

In this study, the LN metastasis rate was 0% (0/185) in the absolute indications, 0% (0/118) in the expanded indications, and 4.5% (1/22) in beyond the expanded indications. Therefore, the current indications for curative ER of gastric cancer can be applied to gastric cancer arising from adenoma. Gross whole tumor size of ≥3 cm and carcinoma component of ≥35% were independently associated with lesions that were beyond the expanded indications and gross ulceration showed marginally significant association. Accordingly, in cases with these clinicopathological parameters, cautious selection of patients for ER is needed to reduce the risk of an inappropriate procedure.

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Author contributions: K.D.C. designed and supervised the research; S.H.P. and K.D.C. reviewed medical records and analyzed the data; S.H.P. and Y.P. reviewed pathology; S.H.P., K.J., S.L., E.J.G., H.K.N. collected data; S.H.P., J.Y.A., K.W.J., J.H.L., D.H.K., H.J.S., G.H.L. interpreted data; H.Y.J. reviewed and supervised study concept.

Fig. 1.Flow chart of patient enrollment. Median follow-up period was 24 months (interquartile range, 14.1 to 37).

EGC, early gastric cancer.

Fig. 2.Example of calculation of estimated cancer size. (A) The gross whole tumor size, which was measured using a ruler based on the dimension of the endoscopically resected specimen, was 12 cm. (B) Mapping paper showed cancer in the red area and adenoma in the blue area. The microscopic whole tumor size, which was measured using the mapping paper, was 10.4 cm. The carcinoma component, which was analyzed by a histological examination according to the area occupied by cancer within the whole tumor tissue, was 20%. (C) Example of calculation of estimated cancer size in this case. The estimated cancer size was 4.65 cm, and the degree of differentiation was the differentiated type (well-differentiated adenocarcinoma). The depth of invasion was submucosa. Thus, this case was classified as beyond absolute indication.

Baseline, Pathological, and Endoscopic Characteristics

CharacteristicValue
Age, yr64.6±9.5
Sex
 Male256 (74.9)
 Female86 (25.1)
Gross whole tumor size, cm2.6±1.8
Location
 Upper third34 (9.9)
 Middle third87 (25.4)
 Lower third221 (64.6)
Endoscopic type
 I13 (3.8)
 IIa161 (47.1)
 IIb47 (13.7)
 IIc120 (35.1)
 III1 (0.3)
Gross ulceration
 Negative316 (92.4)
 Positive26 (7.6)
Initial forceps biopsy result
 LGD126 (36.8)
 HGD117 (34.2)
 WD88 (25.7)
 MD11 (3.2)
Invasion layer
 M2257 (75.1)
 M356 (16.4)
 SM116 (4.7)
 SM213 (3.8)
Differentiation
 WD301 (88.0)
 MD35 (10.2)
 PD/SRC6 (1.8)
LVI
 Negative336 (98.2)
 Positive6 (1.8)
Microscopic whole tumor size, cm2.6±1.8
Carcinoma component, %31.9±27.1
Estimated cancer size, cm1.3±1.0
Indication after endoscopic resection
 Absolute193 (56.5)
 Expanded125 (36.5)
 Beyond expanded24 (7.0)

Outcomes of Endoscopic Resection According to Indications for Endoscopic Resection

Absolute (n=185)Expanded (n=120)Beyond expanded (n=22)
Curative resection185 (100)118 (98.3)0
Non-curative resection02 (1.7)22 (100)
Management of non-curative lesion
 Immediate surgery0112
 Follow-up with surveillance CT0110
LN metastasis001 (4.5)
 LN metastasis (surgery group)001
 LN metastasis on CT (non-surgery group)000

Baseline, Pathological, and Endoscopic Characteristics According to Indications after Endoscopic Resection in Patients Diagnosed with Adenomas Based on Forceps Biopsy

Clinicopathological featureAbsolute or expanded indications (n=227)Beyond expanded indications (n=16)p-value
Age, yr65.1±9.166.0±8.60.71
Sex0.25
 Male170 (74.9)14 (87.5)
 Female57 (25.1)2 (12.5)
Location0.41
 Upper third26 (11.5)3 (18.8)
 Middle third58 (25.6)2 (12.5)
 Lower third143 (63.0)11 (68.8)
Endoscopic type0.51
 I8 (3.5)2 (12.5)
 IIa115 (50.7)8 (50)
 IIb29 (12.8)2 (12.5)
 IIc74 (32.6)4 (25)
 III1 (0.4)0
Gross ulceration0.05
 Negative213 (93.8)13 (81.3)
 Positive14 (6.2)3 (18.8)

Univariate and Multivariate Analyses of Clinicopathological Parameters Associated with Lesions Other Than the Expanded Indications in Patients Diagnosed with Adenomas Based on Forceps Biopsy

VariableUnivariate analysisMultivariate analysis


OR (95% CI)p-valueOR (95% CI)p-value
Gross whole tumor size, cm
 <3 (n=147)11
 ≥3 (n=96)2.7 (0.9–7.7)0.064.4 (1.3–14)<0.05
Initial forceps biopsy result
 LGD (n=126)1
 HGD (n=117)1.1 (0.3–2.9)0.87
Invasion layer
 Mucosa (n=221)1
 SM (n=22)104.9 (25.3–434.8)<0.05
Carcinoma component, %
 <35 (n=159)11
 ≥35 (n=84)6.4 (2–20.7)<0.058.1 (2.4–27.5)<0.05
Estimated cancer size, cm
 <1.5 (n=172)1
 ≥1.5 (n=71)6.1 (2–18.3)<0.05
Gross ulceration
 Negative (n=226)11
 Positive (n=17)3.5 (0.8–13.7)0.074.2 (0.9–18.9)0.058

  1. Abraham, SC, Montgomery, EA, Singh, VK, Yardley, JH, and Wu, TT (2002). Gastric adenomas: intestinal-type and gastric-type adenomas differ in the risk of adenocarcinoma and presence of background mucosal pathology. Am J Surg Pathol. 26, 1276-1285.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  2. Yamada, H, Ikegami, M, Shimoda, T, Takagi, N, and Maruyama, M (2004). Long-term follow-up study of gastric adenoma/dysplasia. Endoscopy. 36, 390-396.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Rugge, M, Cassaro, M, and Di Mario, F (2003). The long term outcome of gastric non-invasive neoplasia. Gut. 52, 1111-1116.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  4. Rugge, M, Farinati, F, and Baffa, R (1994). Gastric epithelial dysplasia in the natural history of gastric cancer: a multicenter prospective follow-up study. Gastroenterology. 107, 1288-1296.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  5. Cho, SJ, Choi, IJ, and Kim, CG (2011). Risk of high-grade dysplasia or carcinoma in gastric biopsy-proven low-grade dysplasia: an analysis using the Vienna classification. Endoscopy. 43, 465-471.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. Kim, MK, Jang, JY, and Kim, JW (2014). Is lesion size an independent indication for endoscopic resection of biopsy-proven low-grade gastric dysplasia?. Dig Dis Sci. 59, 428-435.
    CrossRef
  7. Lim, H, Jung, HY, and Park, YS (2014). Discrepancy between endoscopic forceps biopsy and endoscopic resection in gastric epithelial neoplasia. Surg Endosc. 28, 1256-1262.
    CrossRef
  8. Kim, CG (2013). Tissue acquisition in gastric epithelial tumor prior to endoscopic resection. Clin Endosc. 46, 436-440.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  9. Choi, CW, Kim, HW, and Shin, DH (2014). The risk factors for discrepancy after endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric category 3 lesion (low grade dysplasia). Dig Dis Sci. 59, 421-427.
    CrossRef
  10. Isomoto, H, Shikuwa, S, and Yamaguchi, N (2009). Endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: a large-scale feasibility study. Gut. 58, 331-336.
    CrossRef
  11. Chung, IK, Lee, JH, and Lee, SH (2009). Therapeutic outcomes in 1000 cases of endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric neoplasms: Korean ESD Study Group multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 69, 1228-1235.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  12. Oka, S, Tanaka, S, and Kaneko, I (2006). Advantage of endoscopic submucosal dissection compared with EMR for early gastric cancer. Gastrointest Endosc. 64, 877-883.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  13. Japanese Gastric Cancer Association (2011). Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2010 (ver. 3). Gastric Cancer. 14, 113-123.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  14. Gotoda, T, Yanagisawa, A, and Sasako, M (2000). Incidence of lymph node metastasis from early gastric cancer: estimation with a large number of cases at two large centers. Gastric Cancer. 3, 219-225.
    CrossRef
  15. Gotoda, T, Iwasaki, M, Kusano, C, Seewald, S, and Oda, I (2010). Endoscopic resection of early gastric cancer treated by guideline and expanded National Cancer Centre criteria. Br J Surg. 97, 868-871.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Japanese Gastric Cancer Association (1998). Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma: 2nd English edition. Gastric Cancer. 1, 10-24.
    CrossRef
  17. Endoscopic Classification Review Group (2005). Update on the Paris classification of superficial neoplastic lesions in the digestive tract. Endoscopy. 37, 570-578.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  18. Ahn, JY, Jung, HY, and Choi, KD (2011). Endoscopic and oncologic outcomes after endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer: 1370 cases of absolute and extended indications. Gastrointest Endosc. 74, 485-493.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  19. Schlemper, RJ, Riddell, RH, and Kato, Y (2000). The Vienna classification of gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia. Gut. 47, 251-255.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  20. Jass, JR, Sobin, LH, and Watanabe, H (1990). The World Health Organization’s histologic classification of gastrointestinal tumors: a commentary on the second edition. Cancer. 66, 2162-2167.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  21. Tada, M, Murakami, A, Karita, M, Yanai, H, and Okita, K (1993). Endoscopic resection of early gastric cancer. Endoscopy. 25, 445-450.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  22. Soetikno, R, Kaltenbach, T, Yeh, R, and Gotoda, T (2005). Endoscopic mucosal resection for early cancers of the upper gastrointestinal tract. J Clin Oncol. 23, 4490-4498.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  23. Kuramoto, S, and Oohara, T (1989). Flat early cancers of the large intestine. Cancer. 64, 950-955.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  24. Shimoda, T, Ikegami, M, Fujisaki, J, Matsui, T, Aizawa, S, and Ishikawa, E (1989). Early colorectal carcinoma with special reference to its development de novo. Cancer. 64, 1138-1146.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  25. Stolte, M, and Bethke, B (1995). Colorectal mini-de novo carcinoma: a reality in Germany too. Endoscopy. 27, 286-290.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  26. Hirasawa, T, Gotoda, T, and Miyata, S (2009). Incidence of lymph node metastasis and the feasibility of endoscopic resection for undifferentiated-type early gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 12, 148-152.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  27. Choi, J, Kim, SG, Im, JP, Kim, JS, Jung, HC, and Song, IS (2010). Comparison of endoscopic ultrasonography and conventional endoscopy for prediction of depth of tumor invasion in early gastric cancer. Endoscopy. 42, 705-713.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  28. Choi, J, Kim, SG, Im, JP, Kim, JS, Jung, HC, and Song, IS (2010). Is endoscopic ultrasonography indispensable in patients with early gastric cancer prior to endoscopic resection?. Surg Endosc. 24, 3177-3185.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  29. Choi, CW, Kang, DH, Kim, HW, Park, SB, Kim, S, and Cho, M (2012). Endoscopic submucosal dissection as a treatment for gastric adenomatous polyps: predictive factors for early gastric cancer. Scand J Gastroenterol. 47, 1218-1225.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  30. Szalóki, T, Tóth, V, Tiszlavicz, L, and Czakó, L (2006). Flat gastric polyps: results of forceps biopsy, endoscopic mucosal resection, and long-term follow-up. Scand J Gastroenterol. 41, 1105-1109.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  31. Sung, HY, Cheung, DY, and Cho, SH (2009). Polyps in the gastrointestinal tract: discrepancy between endoscopic forceps biopsies and resected specimens. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 21, 190-195.
    CrossRef
  32. Yoon, WJ, Lee, DH, and Jung, YJ (2006). Histologic characteristics of gastric polyps in Korea: emphasis on discrepancy between endoscopic forceps biopsy and endoscopic mucosal resection specimen. World J Gastroenterol. 12, 4029-4032.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  33. Ko, SJ, Yang, MA, Yun, SH, Park, MS, Han, SH, and Cho, JW (2016). Predictive factors suggesting an underestimation of gastric lesions initially diagnosed as adenomas by forceps biopsy. Turk J Gastroenterol. 27, 115-121.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  34. Mandai, K, and Yasuda, K (2012). Accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography for determining the treatment method for early gastric cancer. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2012, 245390.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  35. Takao, M, Kakushima, N, and Takizawa, K (2012). Discrepancies in histologic diagnoses of early gastric cancer between biopsy and endoscopic mucosal resection specimens. Gastric Cancer. 15, 91-96.
    CrossRef
  36. Lee, CK, Chung, IK, and Lee, SH (2010). Is endoscopic forceps biopsy enough for a definitive diagnosis of gastric epithelial neoplasia?. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 25, 1507-1513.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  37. Haruma, K, Sumii, K, Inoue, K, Teshima, H, and Kajiyama, G (1990). Endoscopic therapy in patients with inoperable early gastric cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 85, 522-526.
    Pubmed
  38. Luinetti, O, Fiocca, R, Villani, L, Alberizzi, P, Ranzani, GN, and Solcia, E (1998). Genetic pattern, histological structure, and cellular phenotype in early and advanced gastric cancers: evidence for structure-related genetic subsets and for loss of glandular structure during progression of some tumors. Hum Pathol. 29, 702-709.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  39. Lee, H, Kim, H, and Shin, SK (2012). The diagnostic role of endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric lesions with indefinite pathology. Scand J Gastroenterol. 47, 1101-1107.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  40. Kato, M, Nishida, T, and Tsutsui, S (2011). Endoscopic submucosal dissection as a treatment for gastric noninvasive neoplasia: a multi-center study by Osaka University ESD Study Group. J Gastroenterol. 46, 325-331.
    CrossRef
  41. Lee, IL, Wu, CS, and Tung, SY (2008). Endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancers: experience from a new endoscopic center in Taiwan. J Clin Gastroenterol. 42, 42-47.
    CrossRef
  42. Isomoto, H, Ohnita, K, Yamaguchi, N, Fukuda, E, Ikeda, K, and Nishiyama, H (2010). Clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection in elderly patients with early gastric cancer. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 22, 311-317.
    CrossRef
  43. Kakushima, N, Fujishiro, M, Kodashima, S, Muraki, Y, Tateishi, A, and Omata, M (2006). A learning curve for endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric epithelial neoplasms. Endoscopy. 38, 991-995.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  44. Goto, O, Fujishiro, M, Kodashima, S, Ono, S, and Omata, M (2009). Is it possible to predict the procedural time of endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer?. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 24, 379-383.
    CrossRef
  45. Ahn, JY, Choi, KD, and Choi, JY (2011). Procedure time of endoscopic submucosal dissection according to the size and location of early gastric cancers: analysis of 916 dissections performed by 4 experts. Gastrointest Endosc. 73, 911-916.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  46. Yamada, T, Sugiyama, H, and Ochi, D (2014). Risk factors for submucosal and lymphovascular invasion in gastric cancer looking indicative for endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastric Cancer. 17, 692-696.
    CrossRef
  47. Kim, JM, Sohn, JH, and Cho, MY (2016). Pre- and post-ESD discrepancies in clinicopathologic criteria in early gastric cancer: the NECA-Korea ESD for Early Gastric Cancer Prospective Study (N-Keep). Gastric Cancer. 19, 1104-1113.
    CrossRef
  48. Ahn, HS, Lee, HJ, and Yoo, MW (2009). Diagnostic accuracy of T and N stages with endoscopy, stomach protocol CT, and endoscopic ultrasonography in early gastric cancer. J Surg Oncol. 99, 20-27.
    CrossRef
  49. Kasuga, A, Yamamoto, Y, and Fujisaki, J (2012). Clinical characterization of gastric lesions initially diagnosed as low-grade adenomas on forceps biopsy. Dig Endosc. 24, 331-338.
    Pubmed CrossRef

Article

Original Article

Gut and Liver 2018; 12(3): 246-254

Published online May 31, 2018 https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl17162

Copyright © Gut and Liver.

Gastric Cancer Caused by Adenoma: Predictive Factors Associated with Lesions Other Than the Expanded Indications

Seong Hwan Park1, Kee Don Choi1, Kyoungwon Jung2, Yangsoon Park3, Sunpyo Lee1, Eun Jeong Gong1, Hee Kyong Na1, Ji Yong Ahn1, Kee Wook Jung1, Jeong Hoon Lee1, Do Hoon Kim1, Ho June Song1, Gin Hyug Lee1, Hwoon-Yong Jung1

1Department of Gastroenterology, Asan Digestive Disease Research Institute, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, 2Department of Internal Medicine, Kosin University College of Medicine, Busan, Korea, 3Department of Pathology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence to:Kee Don Choi, Department of Gastroenterology, Asan Digestive Disease Research Institute, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 05505, Korea, Tel: +82-2-3010-5813, Fax: +82-2-2045-4043, E-mail: keedon@amc.seoul.kr

Received: March 16, 2017; Revised: September 2, 2017; Accepted: September 30, 2017

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background/Aims

We aimed to investigate whether the current indications for curative endoscopic resection (ER) of gastric cancer (GC) can be applied to GC caused by adenoma. Additionally, we attempted to identify factors predictive of lesions subsequently found in addition to the expanded indications for ER.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 342 patients diagnosed with GC caused by adenoma who underwent ER at a single tertiary center between February 2011 and December 2014. The gross whole tumor size was measured using the endoscopically resected specimen. The microscopic whole tumor size was measured using mapping paper. The estimated cancer size was calculated using the microscopic whole tumor size and the square root of the carcinoma component.

Results

A gross whole tumor size ≥3 cm, carcinoma component ≥35%, and gross ulceration were predictive of lesions other than the expanded indications for ER. The overall rate of lymph node metastasis was 0.3% (1/327), which only occurred in one patient with a lesion other than the expanded indications (4.5%, 1/22).

Conclusions

The current indications for curative ER in GC can be applied to GC caused by adenoma. In cases suspected of having lesions other than the expanded indications, patients should be cautiously selected for ER to reduce the risk of an inappropriate procedure.

Keywords: Upper gastrointestinal track, Adenoma, Adenocarcinoma, Endoscopy

INTRODUCTION

Gastric adenoma is a premalignant lesion.1 Although the risk of progression from adenoma to gastric cancer is relatively low,2,3 adenomas can progress to invasive carcinoma4 or even advanced gastric cancer.3 Endoscopic forceps biopsy is the gold standard for histological diagnosis of adenoma before endoscopic resection (ER). However, the histological discrepancy rate between the results of biopsy specimens and those obtained at ER was noted to be considerably high in recent studies.58 Reportedly, 6.4% to 30.1% of biopsy-diagnosed low-grade adenomas are finally diagnosed as high-grade ones and 3.8% to 11.0% as adenocarcinomas after ER.5,9 ER for early gastric cancer (EGC) is currently the established treatment of choice because it both minimally invasive and effective as a curative procedure for EGC.10,11 Recently, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been developed to improve the en bloc resection rate over that of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR).12 ESD is performed for EGC lesions meeting the expanded indications for ER.13,14 Patients with EGC who undergo treatment based on the expanded indications have been reported to have similar long-term survival and outcomes to those treated according to the earlier absolute indications.15 However, if ER is performed and the lesion is subsequently found to be beyond the expanded indications, patients require additional treatment such as surgery. Thus, accurate prediction prior to ER of which EGC lesions will be found to be beyond the expanded indications could help physicians determine an appropriate treatment strategy and avoid unnecessary procedures. To the best of our knowledge, the criteria for evaluation of curative ER of gastric cancer arising from adenoma are rarely reported. Factors that might predict which lesions are actually beyond the expanded indications after ER are also rarely reported. This study was conducted to evaluate whether the current criteria for curative ER for EGC can be applied to gastric cancer arising from adenoma and to identify factors that can predict which lesions are beyond the expanded indications for ER.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

1. Patients

Between February 2011 and December 2014, 2,050 consecutive patients underwent ER for EGC at the Asan Medical Center, which is a tertiary academic center in Seoul, Korea. On reviewing the pathology report database, we found that 344 were diagnosed with gastric cancer arising from adenoma. After histological reanalysis, two patients were found to have de novo gastric cancer. We analyzed the medical records of the remaining 342 patients with gastric cancer arising from adenoma (Fig. 1). This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Asan Medical Center (IRB number: 2016-0825). Patients were not required to give informed consent to the study because the analysis used anonymous clinical data that were obtained after each patient agreed to treatment by written consent. For full disclosure, the details of the study are published on the home page of Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine.

2. Evaluation of endoscopic features

Endoscopic reports and photographs of the procedures were reviewed using electronic medical records for each patient, assessing morphological type, ulceration, and location of the lesions. Lesions with active ulceration or accompanying fibrous scarring were reported as ulcerated. Tumor location was categorized based on the longitudinal axis of the stomach: upper third, containing the fundus, cardia, and upper body; middle third, containing the mid-body, lower body, and angle; and lower third, containing the antrum and pylorus.16 Macroscopic classification of tumors was as follows: type I (protruded), IIa (superficial elevated), IIb (flat), IIc (superficial depressed), and III (excavated).16,17

3. Endoscopic procedures

Endoscopic procedures followed at our institution have been previously described.18 Briefly, for EMR, after we checked the lesion, saline solution containing epinephrine (0.01 mg/mL) mixed with indigo carmine was injected into the submucosal layer with a 23-gauge needle. The raised lesion was removed using an SD-9U-1 or SD-12U-1 snare (Olympus Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) after circumferential mucosal incision. For ESD, the typical procedure involved marking, mucosal incision, and submucosal dissection with simultaneous hemostasis. After making several marking dots outside the lesion, saline solution containing epinephrine and indigo carmine was injected into the submucosal layer with a 23-gauge needle. A circumferential incision was made into the mucosa using a needle-knife (MTW Endoskopie Co., Ltd., Wesel, Germany) or insulated-tipped knife (Olympus Co., Ltd.). The submucosal layer was directly dissected with various knives until the lesion was completely removed. Hemostasis was achieved with hemoclips or hemostatic forceps (FD-410LR; Olympus Co., Ltd.) whenever bleeding or an exposed vessel was observed.

4. Histological analysis

The resected specimen was stretched, pinned to a polystyrene plate, and completely immersed in 10% neutral buffered formalin. After applying red, green, and yellow ink to the lateral resection margins and black ink to the deep resection margins, the entire specimen was sectioned into 2-mm thick slices parallel to an imaginary line drawn from the edge of the tumor to the closest resection margin (Fig. 2). Each sliced tissue specimen was embedded in paraffin, and 5-μm sections were cut from each paraffin block and stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E). Each slide was then examined to determine the extent of tumor involvement. The borders of the tumors were indicated on mapping paper (Fig. 2). The carcinoma component was analyzed by histological examination according to the area of the entire tumor tissue occupied by adenocarcinoma. All lesions were classified as gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia according to Vienna classification, i.e., low-grade adenoma/dysplasia as category 3, high-grade adenoma/dysplasia or noninvasive carcinoma as category 4, and intramucosal or submucosal carcinoma or beyond as category 5.19 The histological type of gastric cancer was classified according to the World Health Organization (WHO) classification.20 The degree of differentiation was classified as differentiated (well or moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma or papillary adenocarcinoma) or undifferentiated (poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma, signet ring cell carcinoma, or mucinous cell carcinoma). Patients with adenomatous components at the margin of the carcinoma were defined as cancers arising from adenomas. Lymphovascular invasion was defined as observable spread of tumor cells into the lymphatic vessels (e.g., carcinoma cells floating within the endothelia-lined space). In order to confirm the lymphovascular invasion, most cases were deciphered using the H&E stain. Only in case where it was unsure whether it is an artifact or true vessel, immunohistochemical CD34 stain or monoclonal antibody D2-40 were used. Depth of invasion was categorized as lamina propria, muscularis mucosa, or submucosa.16 Submucosal invasion was classified into three layers: SM1 (penetration of <500 μm into the submucosal layer from the muscularis mucosa), SM2 (penetration of 500 to 1,000 μm), and SM3 (penetration of ≥1,000 μm).

5. Size measurement and calculation

Gross whole tumor size was measured using a ruler based on the dimensions of the endoscopically resected specimen. Microscopic whole tumor size was measured on mapping paper (Fig. 2).

Maximum diameter was used as the measure for tumor size. Estimated cancer size was calculated using the microscopic whole tumor size and square root of the carcinoma component.

Estimate the cancer size was calculated by following equation: microscopic whole tumor size (cm)×√carcinoma component (%)/100

6. Indications for ER

Estimated cancer size was the basis for determining whether ER was indicated. The absolute indications include differentiated elevated cancer of <2 cm in diameter and depressed cancer of <1 cm in diameter without ulceration.21 Expanded indications include differentiated mucosal cancer of >2 cm in diameter without ulceration, differentiated mucosal cancer of up to 3 cm in diameter with ulceration, undifferentiated mucosal cancer of up to 2 cm in diameter without ulceration, or a submucosal cancer not deeper than SM1 and <3 cm in diameter.22 ER was considered to have been performed beyond the expanded indications if any of the values for the expanded indications were exceeded.

7. Evaluation after ER

Curative resection was defined when all of the following conditions were met: final mapping results within the expanded indications, en bloc resection, negative horizontal and vertical margins, and absence of lymphatic invasion and venous involvement.13 Evaluation for lymph node (LN) metastasis was based on pathological results from surgery or surveillance computed tomography (CT), looking for perigastric LNs. Pathology was available if patients underwent additional gastrectomy with lymphadenectomy after ER; otherwise, patients were followed up with endoscopic examination and abdominal CT. Both were performed every 6 months for the first 2 years, and then annually for the next 3 years. Patients were excluded from outcome analysis if they were seen for less than 6 months of follow-up.

8. Statistical analysis

The chi-square or Fisher exact test was used to assess relationships among categorical variables and t-test was used for non-categorical variables. Factors associated with ER performed beyond the expanded indications were analyzed using logistic regression analysis. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to estimate the effect of variables. All tests of significance were two-tailed, and p<0.05 indicated statistical significance. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS, version 21.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

RESULTS

1. Clinicopathological characteristics

A total of 342 patients (256 men; mean age, 64.6±9.5 years) were enrolled. The mean gross whole tumor size was 2.6±1.8 cm. The most predominant gastric location was the lower third (221/342, 64.6%). In resected specimens, mucosal layer invasion was confirmed in 313 cases (91.5%), SM1 invasion in 16 (4.7%), and SM2 invasion in 13 (3.8%). Most tumors were differentiated (336/342, 98.2%), with only six (1.8%) being undifferentiated (poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma or signet ring cell carcinoma). The mean carcinoma component was 31.9%±27.1%, and the mean estimated cancer size was 1.3±1.0 cm. Indications for ER were considered to have been absolute in 193 cases (56.5%), expanded in 125 (36.5%), and beyond the expanded indications in 24 (7%). The baseline, pathological, and endoscopic characteristics are shown in Table 1.

2. Outcomes of ER based on the type of indication for curative resection in gastric cancer

Fifteen patients were lost to follow up, leaving 327 available for the outcome analysis (Fig. 1). The median follow-up duration was 24 months (interquartile range, 14.1 to 37 months). The curative resection rate was 92.7% overall, 100% (185/185) for lesions meeting the absolute indications, 98.3% (118/120) for lesions meeting the expanded indications, and 0% (0/22) for lesions beyond the expanded indications. Immediate surgery was performed in 54.2% patients (13/24) who had a non-curative resection, including one of the two with expanded indications and 12 of the 22 with lesions beyond the expanded indications. The 11 patients who did not undergo surgery were carefully followed up. Surgery was not performed in those cases because of severe comorbid illness, patient reluctance, or physician opinion. LN metastasis was found in only one patient; the overall rate of LN metastasis was 0.3% (1/327); 0% (0/185) in the absolute group, 0% (0/118) in the expanded group, and 4.5% (1/22) in the beyond the expanded group (Table 2).

3. Comparison analysis between indications for ER (absolute or expanded vs beyond the expanded indications) in patients diagnosed as adenomas based on forceps biopsy

A total of 243 patients were diagnosed as adenomas with pre-procedural forceps biopsy. Among them, 16 patients were diagnosed as having lesions beyond expanded indications after ER. Gross whole tumor size, microscopic whole tumor size, estimated cancer size and carcinoma component were significantly larger in lesions beyond the expanded indications; submucosal invasion and gross ulceration were also more frequent (Table 3). By univariate analysis submucosal invasion, carcinoma component of ≥35%, estimated cancer size of ≥1.5 cm were significantly associated with lesions that were beyond the expanded indications (Table 4). By multivariate analysis, the following variables were independently associated with lesions beyond the expanded indications: gross whole tumor size of ≥3 cm (OR, 4.4; 95% CI, 1.3 to 14; p<0.05), and carcinoma component of ≥35% (OR, 8.1; 95% CI, 2.4 to 27.5; p<0.05). Presence of gross ulceration was marginally significant (OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 0.95 to 18.9; p=0.058) (Table 4).

DISCUSSION

Small de novo colorectal cancer, defined as tumors that have no demonstrable in situ (adenomatous) component, are reportedly more aggressive than conventional adenocarcinomas that develop from well-defined adenomatous precursor lesions.2325 Analogously, gastric carcinoma arising from adenoma may be biologically different from de novo gastric cancer. However, to the best of our knowledge, clinical and biological features of gastric cancer arising from adenoma have rarely been reported. We conducted this study to evaluate whether the current criteria for curative resection of gastric cancer can be applied to gastric cancer arising from adenoma and to identify factors that can predict which lesions are beyond the expanded indications for ER. Previously reported rates of LN metastasis in cases where ER was performed beyond the expanded indications are as follows: (1) 3.0% (7/230) for >3 cm, predominantly differentiated, pT1a, and ulcerated lesions; (2) 2.6% (2/78) for >3 cm, predominantly differentiated, and pT1b (SM1) lesions; (3) 2.8% (6/214) for >2 cm, predominantly undifferentiated, pT1a, and non-ulcerated lesions; (4) 5.1% (52/1014) for predominantly undifferentiated, pT1a, and ulcerated lesions; and (5) 10.6% (9/85) for predominantly undifferentiated and pT1b (SM1) lesions.13,14,26 In this study, patients with gastric cancer arising from adenoma and considered suitable for ER by the absolute and expanded indications were believed to have a negligible risk of LN metastasis, and in fact, none of them did (Table 2). The LN metastasis rate of 4.5% in patients with lesions beyond the expanded indications was similar to that reported in previously published data.14,26 Therefore, our results suggest that the current indications for curative resection of gastric cancer can also be applied to gastric cancer arising from adenoma.

Non-curative ER because of errors in preoperative diagnosis is an inevitable consequence of the fact that evaluations based on endoscopy, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), and even diagnostic biopsies before the procedure are not always accurate.27,28

The discrepancy rates between forceps biopsy samples and post-resected specimens ranged from 20% to 40% in previous reports.2932 Discrepancies occur because the amount of tissue obtained by forceps biopsy is too small to represent the histology of the entire tumor lesions.33 In this study, endoscopies and forceps biopsies were performed on a total of 233 patients (68.1%) at the Asan Medical Center prior to the ER. Since results of endoscopies conducted at other hospitals were missing, the numbers of forceps biopsies of 41 patients were unknown. Analyzing the remaining 301 patients, the mean frequencies of forceps biopsy in concordance group were 3 and the mean frequencies of forceps biopsy in discrepancy group were 2.7. But the frequencies of forceps biopsy between two groups did not show significant difference.

Mandai and Yasuda34 measured the invasion depth of EGC using EUS. Among the 280 cases considered to have mucosal/SM1 cancer based on EUS findings, 20 (7.1%) had SM2 cancer. Of the tumors thought to be differentiated adenocarcinoma, 1.5% to 8.0% turn out to be undifferentiated after ESD.35,36 Histological discrepancy between pre- and post-ESD specimens can be attributed to inter- and intraobserver variability as well as to the fact that gastric cancer can have histological heterogeneity (containing both differentiated and undifferentiated areas).37,38 For these reasons, ESD has been recommended as a diagnostic tool for gastric lesions in cases where there is a discrepancy between the forceps biopsy pathology and endoscopic findings.39

Despite the diagnostic effectiveness and safety of ESD, there is a low incidence of adverse events with endoscopic procedures. A multicenter study40 showed that the incidences of post-ESD bleeding, perforation and serious adverse event were 5.5%, 4.7%, and 0.43%, respectively. Longer procedure times have been associated with an increased risk of adverse events,41,42 and tumor location and size may affect ESD procedure time.4345 Although determining if the indications for curative ER have been met is difficult, accurate preoperative prediction of which EGC is beyond the expanded indications is very important to reduce the risks associated with an unnecessary procedure. Yamada et al.46 described three risk factors for submucosal and lymphovascular invasion in ESD specimens of EGC: a dominant histology of moderately differentiated or papillary adenocarcinoma, non-flat gross morphology, and tumor size of ≥1.5 cm. In another study, SM2 invasion was correlated on multivariate analysis with tumor size, ulceration, undifferentiated histology, gross type, and tumor location.47 We found several factors predictive of gastric carcinoma arising from adenoma being beyond the expanded indications for ER.

Gross whole tumor size of ≥3 cm (OR, 4.4; 95% CI, 1.3 to 14; p<0.05) and carcinoma component of ≥35% (OR, 8.1; 95% CI, 2.4 to 27.5; p<0.05) were independently associated with lesions that were beyond the expanded indications and gross ulceration (OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 0.95 to 18.9; p=0.058) showed marginally significant association. Therefore, in cases suspicious of being beyond the expanded indications, very careful selection of the patients for ER is needed to reduce the risk associated with an unnecessary procedure.

There are several limitations to our study. First, this was a single-center retrospective study. Second, we defined the absence of LN metastasis radiologically in most patients, as pathology was unavailable for those not undergoing surgery. Considering the approximately 90% negative predictive value of stomach protocol CT,48 it is possible that some patients with normal CT findings at 12 months of follow-up had LN metastasis that went undetected. Third, the carcinoma component is not a pre-procedure clinicopathological parameter. The endoscopic features suggesting the presence of carcinomatous foci in gastric adenoma, as reported by Kasuga et al.49 include a lesion size of >20 mm and central-depressed appearance. Further, Ko et al.33 reported that surface redness seen on endoscopy suggested an underestimation on forceps biopsy. Although the carcinoma component is a post-procedure parameter, the aforementioned endoscopic findings suggest the presence of a carcinomatous component in gastric adenoma. For validation that such findings are predictive of carcinoma component before ER, further study is needed on the endoscopic appearance compared with subsequent findings on pathology (Fig. 2). Fourth, the calculation method to estimate the cancer size suggested in this research is under the hypothesis that the tumor is round. If it is hypothesized that the shape of the adenoma is oval, then the estimated cancer size using the calculation method suggested in this study overestimate the cancer size. However, most cancers are distributed in a mosaic pattern thus it is impossible to calculate the exact extent, as shown in the case (Fig. 2). Therefore, the size discrepancy can be considered as a limitation of this study.

Despite these limitations, our study is the first regarding EGC arising from adenoma. Our results suggest several clinicopathological characteristics predicting that the lesion is beyond the expanded indications for ER. The rate of standardized follow-up in our series was high (95.6%, 327/342), and the endoscopic procedures and pathology examinations were performed according to a standard protocol.

In this study, the LN metastasis rate was 0% (0/185) in the absolute indications, 0% (0/118) in the expanded indications, and 4.5% (1/22) in beyond the expanded indications. Therefore, the current indications for curative ER of gastric cancer can be applied to gastric cancer arising from adenoma. Gross whole tumor size of ≥3 cm and carcinoma component of ≥35% were independently associated with lesions that were beyond the expanded indications and gross ulceration showed marginally significant association. Accordingly, in cases with these clinicopathological parameters, cautious selection of patients for ER is needed to reduce the risk of an inappropriate procedure.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Author contributions: K.D.C. designed and supervised the research; S.H.P. and K.D.C. reviewed medical records and analyzed the data; S.H.P. and Y.P. reviewed pathology; S.H.P., K.J., S.L., E.J.G., H.K.N. collected data; S.H.P., J.Y.A., K.W.J., J.H.L., D.H.K., H.J.S., G.H.L. interpreted data; H.Y.J. reviewed and supervised study concept.

Fig 1.

Figure 1.Flow chart of patient enrollment. Median follow-up period was 24 months (interquartile range, 14.1 to 37).

EGC, early gastric cancer.

Gut and Liver 2018; 12: 246-254https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl17162

Fig 2.

Figure 2.Example of calculation of estimated cancer size. (A) The gross whole tumor size, which was measured using a ruler based on the dimension of the endoscopically resected specimen, was 12 cm. (B) Mapping paper showed cancer in the red area and adenoma in the blue area. The microscopic whole tumor size, which was measured using the mapping paper, was 10.4 cm. The carcinoma component, which was analyzed by a histological examination according to the area occupied by cancer within the whole tumor tissue, was 20%. (C) Example of calculation of estimated cancer size in this case. The estimated cancer size was 4.65 cm, and the degree of differentiation was the differentiated type (well-differentiated adenocarcinoma). The depth of invasion was submucosa. Thus, this case was classified as beyond absolute indication.
Gut and Liver 2018; 12: 246-254https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl17162

Table 1 Baseline, Pathological, and Endoscopic Characteristics

CharacteristicValue
Age, yr64.6±9.5
Sex
 Male256 (74.9)
 Female86 (25.1)
Gross whole tumor size, cm2.6±1.8
Location
 Upper third34 (9.9)
 Middle third87 (25.4)
 Lower third221 (64.6)
Endoscopic type
 I13 (3.8)
 IIa161 (47.1)
 IIb47 (13.7)
 IIc120 (35.1)
 III1 (0.3)
Gross ulceration
 Negative316 (92.4)
 Positive26 (7.6)
Initial forceps biopsy result
 LGD126 (36.8)
 HGD117 (34.2)
 WD88 (25.7)
 MD11 (3.2)
Invasion layer
 M2257 (75.1)
 M356 (16.4)
 SM116 (4.7)
 SM213 (3.8)
Differentiation
 WD301 (88.0)
 MD35 (10.2)
 PD/SRC6 (1.8)
LVI
 Negative336 (98.2)
 Positive6 (1.8)
Microscopic whole tumor size, cm2.6±1.8
Carcinoma component, %31.9±27.1
Estimated cancer size, cm1.3±1.0
Indication after endoscopic resection
 Absolute193 (56.5)
 Expanded125 (36.5)
 Beyond expanded24 (7.0)

Data are presented as mean±SD or number (%).

LGD, low-grade dysplasia; HGD, high-grade dysplasia; WD, well differentiated; MD, moderately differentiated; M2, lamina propria; M3, muscularis mucosa; SM1, submucosal 1 layer; SM2, submucosal 2 layer; PD, poorly differentiated; SRC, signet ring cell; LVI, lymphovascular invasion.


Table 2 Outcomes of Endoscopic Resection According to Indications for Endoscopic Resection

Absolute (n=185)Expanded (n=120)Beyond expanded (n=22)
Curative resection185 (100)118 (98.3)0
Non-curative resection02 (1.7)22 (100)
Management of non-curative lesion
 Immediate surgery0112
 Follow-up with surveillance CT0110
LN metastasis001 (4.5)
 LN metastasis (surgery group)001
 LN metastasis on CT (non-surgery group)000

Data are presented as number (%) or number.

CT, computed tomography; LN, lymph node.


Table 3 Baseline, Pathological, and Endoscopic Characteristics According to Indications after Endoscopic Resection in Patients Diagnosed with Adenomas Based on Forceps Biopsy

Clinicopathological featureAbsolute or expanded indications (n=227)Beyond expanded indications (n=16)p-value
Age, yr65.1±9.166.0±8.60.71
Sex0.25
 Male170 (74.9)14 (87.5)
 Female57 (25.1)2 (12.5)
Location0.41
 Upper third26 (11.5)3 (18.8)
 Middle third58 (25.6)2 (12.5)
 Lower third143 (63.0)11 (68.8)
Endoscopic type0.51
 I8 (3.5)2 (12.5)
 IIa115 (50.7)8 (50)
 IIb29 (12.8)2 (12.5)
 IIc74 (32.6)4 (25)
 III1 (0.4)0
Gross ulceration0.05
 Negative213 (93.8)13 (81.3)
 Positive14 (6.2)3 (18.8)

Data are presented as mean±SD or number (%).


Table 4 Univariate and Multivariate Analyses of Clinicopathological Parameters Associated with Lesions Other Than the Expanded Indications in Patients Diagnosed with Adenomas Based on Forceps Biopsy

VariableUnivariate analysisMultivariate analysis


OR (95% CI)p-valueOR (95% CI)p-value
Gross whole tumor size, cm
 <3 (n=147)11
 ≥3 (n=96)2.7 (0.9–7.7)0.064.4 (1.3–14)<0.05
Initial forceps biopsy result
 LGD (n=126)1
 HGD (n=117)1.1 (0.3–2.9)0.87
Invasion layer
 Mucosa (n=221)1
 SM (n=22)104.9 (25.3–434.8)<0.05
Carcinoma component, %
 <35 (n=159)11
 ≥35 (n=84)6.4 (2–20.7)<0.058.1 (2.4–27.5)<0.05
Estimated cancer size, cm
 <1.5 (n=172)1
 ≥1.5 (n=71)6.1 (2–18.3)<0.05
Gross ulceration
 Negative (n=226)11
 Positive (n=17)3.5 (0.8–13.7)0.074.2 (0.9–18.9)0.058

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; LGD, low-grade dysplasia; HGD, high-grade dysplasia; SM, submucosa.


References

  1. Abraham, SC, Montgomery, EA, Singh, VK, Yardley, JH, and Wu, TT (2002). Gastric adenomas: intestinal-type and gastric-type adenomas differ in the risk of adenocarcinoma and presence of background mucosal pathology. Am J Surg Pathol. 26, 1276-1285.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  2. Yamada, H, Ikegami, M, Shimoda, T, Takagi, N, and Maruyama, M (2004). Long-term follow-up study of gastric adenoma/dysplasia. Endoscopy. 36, 390-396.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Rugge, M, Cassaro, M, and Di Mario, F (2003). The long term outcome of gastric non-invasive neoplasia. Gut. 52, 1111-1116.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  4. Rugge, M, Farinati, F, and Baffa, R (1994). Gastric epithelial dysplasia in the natural history of gastric cancer: a multicenter prospective follow-up study. Gastroenterology. 107, 1288-1296.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  5. Cho, SJ, Choi, IJ, and Kim, CG (2011). Risk of high-grade dysplasia or carcinoma in gastric biopsy-proven low-grade dysplasia: an analysis using the Vienna classification. Endoscopy. 43, 465-471.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. Kim, MK, Jang, JY, and Kim, JW (2014). Is lesion size an independent indication for endoscopic resection of biopsy-proven low-grade gastric dysplasia?. Dig Dis Sci. 59, 428-435.
    CrossRef
  7. Lim, H, Jung, HY, and Park, YS (2014). Discrepancy between endoscopic forceps biopsy and endoscopic resection in gastric epithelial neoplasia. Surg Endosc. 28, 1256-1262.
    CrossRef
  8. Kim, CG (2013). Tissue acquisition in gastric epithelial tumor prior to endoscopic resection. Clin Endosc. 46, 436-440.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  9. Choi, CW, Kim, HW, and Shin, DH (2014). The risk factors for discrepancy after endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric category 3 lesion (low grade dysplasia). Dig Dis Sci. 59, 421-427.
    CrossRef
  10. Isomoto, H, Shikuwa, S, and Yamaguchi, N (2009). Endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: a large-scale feasibility study. Gut. 58, 331-336.
    CrossRef
  11. Chung, IK, Lee, JH, and Lee, SH (2009). Therapeutic outcomes in 1000 cases of endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric neoplasms: Korean ESD Study Group multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 69, 1228-1235.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  12. Oka, S, Tanaka, S, and Kaneko, I (2006). Advantage of endoscopic submucosal dissection compared with EMR for early gastric cancer. Gastrointest Endosc. 64, 877-883.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  13. Japanese Gastric Cancer Association (2011). Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2010 (ver. 3). Gastric Cancer. 14, 113-123.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  14. Gotoda, T, Yanagisawa, A, and Sasako, M (2000). Incidence of lymph node metastasis from early gastric cancer: estimation with a large number of cases at two large centers. Gastric Cancer. 3, 219-225.
    CrossRef
  15. Gotoda, T, Iwasaki, M, Kusano, C, Seewald, S, and Oda, I (2010). Endoscopic resection of early gastric cancer treated by guideline and expanded National Cancer Centre criteria. Br J Surg. 97, 868-871.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Japanese Gastric Cancer Association (1998). Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma: 2nd English edition. Gastric Cancer. 1, 10-24.
    CrossRef
  17. Endoscopic Classification Review Group (2005). Update on the Paris classification of superficial neoplastic lesions in the digestive tract. Endoscopy. 37, 570-578.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  18. Ahn, JY, Jung, HY, and Choi, KD (2011). Endoscopic and oncologic outcomes after endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer: 1370 cases of absolute and extended indications. Gastrointest Endosc. 74, 485-493.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  19. Schlemper, RJ, Riddell, RH, and Kato, Y (2000). The Vienna classification of gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia. Gut. 47, 251-255.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  20. Jass, JR, Sobin, LH, and Watanabe, H (1990). The World Health Organization’s histologic classification of gastrointestinal tumors: a commentary on the second edition. Cancer. 66, 2162-2167.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  21. Tada, M, Murakami, A, Karita, M, Yanai, H, and Okita, K (1993). Endoscopic resection of early gastric cancer. Endoscopy. 25, 445-450.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  22. Soetikno, R, Kaltenbach, T, Yeh, R, and Gotoda, T (2005). Endoscopic mucosal resection for early cancers of the upper gastrointestinal tract. J Clin Oncol. 23, 4490-4498.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  23. Kuramoto, S, and Oohara, T (1989). Flat early cancers of the large intestine. Cancer. 64, 950-955.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  24. Shimoda, T, Ikegami, M, Fujisaki, J, Matsui, T, Aizawa, S, and Ishikawa, E (1989). Early colorectal carcinoma with special reference to its development de novo. Cancer. 64, 1138-1146.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  25. Stolte, M, and Bethke, B (1995). Colorectal mini-de novo carcinoma: a reality in Germany too. Endoscopy. 27, 286-290.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  26. Hirasawa, T, Gotoda, T, and Miyata, S (2009). Incidence of lymph node metastasis and the feasibility of endoscopic resection for undifferentiated-type early gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 12, 148-152.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  27. Choi, J, Kim, SG, Im, JP, Kim, JS, Jung, HC, and Song, IS (2010). Comparison of endoscopic ultrasonography and conventional endoscopy for prediction of depth of tumor invasion in early gastric cancer. Endoscopy. 42, 705-713.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  28. Choi, J, Kim, SG, Im, JP, Kim, JS, Jung, HC, and Song, IS (2010). Is endoscopic ultrasonography indispensable in patients with early gastric cancer prior to endoscopic resection?. Surg Endosc. 24, 3177-3185.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  29. Choi, CW, Kang, DH, Kim, HW, Park, SB, Kim, S, and Cho, M (2012). Endoscopic submucosal dissection as a treatment for gastric adenomatous polyps: predictive factors for early gastric cancer. Scand J Gastroenterol. 47, 1218-1225.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  30. Szalóki, T, Tóth, V, Tiszlavicz, L, and Czakó, L (2006). Flat gastric polyps: results of forceps biopsy, endoscopic mucosal resection, and long-term follow-up. Scand J Gastroenterol. 41, 1105-1109.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  31. Sung, HY, Cheung, DY, and Cho, SH (2009). Polyps in the gastrointestinal tract: discrepancy between endoscopic forceps biopsies and resected specimens. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 21, 190-195.
    CrossRef
  32. Yoon, WJ, Lee, DH, and Jung, YJ (2006). Histologic characteristics of gastric polyps in Korea: emphasis on discrepancy between endoscopic forceps biopsy and endoscopic mucosal resection specimen. World J Gastroenterol. 12, 4029-4032.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  33. Ko, SJ, Yang, MA, Yun, SH, Park, MS, Han, SH, and Cho, JW (2016). Predictive factors suggesting an underestimation of gastric lesions initially diagnosed as adenomas by forceps biopsy. Turk J Gastroenterol. 27, 115-121.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  34. Mandai, K, and Yasuda, K (2012). Accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography for determining the treatment method for early gastric cancer. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2012, 245390.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  35. Takao, M, Kakushima, N, and Takizawa, K (2012). Discrepancies in histologic diagnoses of early gastric cancer between biopsy and endoscopic mucosal resection specimens. Gastric Cancer. 15, 91-96.
    CrossRef
  36. Lee, CK, Chung, IK, and Lee, SH (2010). Is endoscopic forceps biopsy enough for a definitive diagnosis of gastric epithelial neoplasia?. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 25, 1507-1513.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  37. Haruma, K, Sumii, K, Inoue, K, Teshima, H, and Kajiyama, G (1990). Endoscopic therapy in patients with inoperable early gastric cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 85, 522-526.
    Pubmed
  38. Luinetti, O, Fiocca, R, Villani, L, Alberizzi, P, Ranzani, GN, and Solcia, E (1998). Genetic pattern, histological structure, and cellular phenotype in early and advanced gastric cancers: evidence for structure-related genetic subsets and for loss of glandular structure during progression of some tumors. Hum Pathol. 29, 702-709.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  39. Lee, H, Kim, H, and Shin, SK (2012). The diagnostic role of endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric lesions with indefinite pathology. Scand J Gastroenterol. 47, 1101-1107.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  40. Kato, M, Nishida, T, and Tsutsui, S (2011). Endoscopic submucosal dissection as a treatment for gastric noninvasive neoplasia: a multi-center study by Osaka University ESD Study Group. J Gastroenterol. 46, 325-331.
    CrossRef
  41. Lee, IL, Wu, CS, and Tung, SY (2008). Endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancers: experience from a new endoscopic center in Taiwan. J Clin Gastroenterol. 42, 42-47.
    CrossRef
  42. Isomoto, H, Ohnita, K, Yamaguchi, N, Fukuda, E, Ikeda, K, and Nishiyama, H (2010). Clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection in elderly patients with early gastric cancer. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 22, 311-317.
    CrossRef
  43. Kakushima, N, Fujishiro, M, Kodashima, S, Muraki, Y, Tateishi, A, and Omata, M (2006). A learning curve for endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric epithelial neoplasms. Endoscopy. 38, 991-995.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  44. Goto, O, Fujishiro, M, Kodashima, S, Ono, S, and Omata, M (2009). Is it possible to predict the procedural time of endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer?. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 24, 379-383.
    CrossRef
  45. Ahn, JY, Choi, KD, and Choi, JY (2011). Procedure time of endoscopic submucosal dissection according to the size and location of early gastric cancers: analysis of 916 dissections performed by 4 experts. Gastrointest Endosc. 73, 911-916.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  46. Yamada, T, Sugiyama, H, and Ochi, D (2014). Risk factors for submucosal and lymphovascular invasion in gastric cancer looking indicative for endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastric Cancer. 17, 692-696.
    CrossRef
  47. Kim, JM, Sohn, JH, and Cho, MY (2016). Pre- and post-ESD discrepancies in clinicopathologic criteria in early gastric cancer: the NECA-Korea ESD for Early Gastric Cancer Prospective Study (N-Keep). Gastric Cancer. 19, 1104-1113.
    CrossRef
  48. Ahn, HS, Lee, HJ, and Yoo, MW (2009). Diagnostic accuracy of T and N stages with endoscopy, stomach protocol CT, and endoscopic ultrasonography in early gastric cancer. J Surg Oncol. 99, 20-27.
    CrossRef
  49. Kasuga, A, Yamamoto, Y, and Fujisaki, J (2012). Clinical characterization of gastric lesions initially diagnosed as low-grade adenomas on forceps biopsy. Dig Endosc. 24, 331-338.
    Pubmed CrossRef
Gut and Liver

Vol.16 No.6
November, 2022

pISSN 1976-2283
eISSN 2005-1212

qrcode
qrcode

Share this article on :

  • line

Popular Keywords

Gut and LiverQR code Download
qr-code

Editorial Office