Indexed In : Science Citation Index Expanded(SCIE), MEDLINE,
Pubmed/Pubmed Central, Elsevier Bibliographic, Google Scholar,
Databases(Scopus & Embase), KCI, KoreaMed, DOAJ
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
Yong Chan Lee |
Professor of Medicine Director, Gastrointestinal Research Laboratory Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Univ. California San Francisco San Francisco, USA |
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 |
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.
Robert J. Huang1 , Alyssa Y. Choi2 , Camtu D. Truong3, Matthew M. Yeh3, Joo Ha Hwang1
Correspondence to: Joo Ha Hwang
Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Dr. H0268, MC:5244, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
Tel: +1-650-497-6313, Fax: +1-650-498-6323, E-mail: jooha@stanford.edu
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 2019;13(6):596-603. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl19181
Published online August 12, 2019, Published date November 15, 2019
Copyright © Gut and Liver.
Gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) is a known premalignant condition of the human stomach along the pathway to gastric cancer (GC). Histologically, GIM represents the replacement of normal gastric mucosa by mucin-secreting intestinal mucosa. Helicobacter pylori infection is the most common etiologic agent of GIM development worldwide. The prevalence of GIM is heterogeneous among different regions of the world and correlates with the population endemicity of H. pylori carriage, among other environmental factors. GC remains the third leading cause of cancer-related mortality globally. GIM is usually diagnosed by upper endoscopy with biopsy, and histologic scoring systems have been developed to risk-stratify patients at highest risk for progression to GC. Several recent endoscopic imaging modalities may improve the optical detection of GIM and early GC. Appropriate surveillance of GIM may be cost effective and represents an opportunity for the early diagnosis and therapy of GC. Certain East Asian nations have established population-level programs for the screening and surveillance of GIM; guidelines regarding GIM surveillance have also recently been published in Europe. By contrast, few data exist regarding the appropriateness of surveillance of GIM in the United States. In this review, we discuss the pathogenesis, epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of GIM with an emphasis on the role of appropriate endoscopic surveillance.
Keywords: Helicobacter pylori, Epidemiology, Stomach
Gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) is defined as the replacement of the oxyntic or antral gastric mucosa by intestinal mucosa consisting of Paneth, goblet, and absorptive cells.1 GIM is an important precursor lesion in the pathway to gastric cancer (GC),2–5 and regional prevalence of GIM correlates closely with incidence of GC worldwide.6 History of
In Western Europe, it has been estimated that annual rates of progression onto GC to be approximately 0.1%, 0.25%, 0.6%, and 6% for patients with atrophic gastritis (AG), GIM, mild-to-moderate dysplasia, and severe dysplasia, respectively.10 In contrast, in East Asia it has been estimated that annually 1.8%, 10%, and 73% of patients with AG, GIM, and dysplasia will progress to GC, respectively, highlighting the importance of geography and ethnicity/race in determining risk for progression.11 While GC rates have declined worldwide (including in East Asia) due in part to improvements in sanitation and recognition of the carcinogenic role of
Correa’s cascade is a widely accepted model of the pathogenesis of GC (Fig. 1).12 The first step in this cascade is the development of chronic mucosal inflammation, mediated through both polymorphonuclear cells and mononuclear cells, which can occur as a consequence of infection with
Eradication reduces inflammation associated with
Individuals with a positive family history, particularly first-degree relatives with GC, carry an increased risk for premalignant gastric lesions and GC. However, it is estimated that less than 10% of GCs are hereditary, with the remainder being sporadic.24 The combination of a virulent bacterial strain, a genetically susceptible host, and a predisposed gastric environment may be required for cancer to develop.25 In a systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 cohort and 30 case-control studies, high red-meat and processed-meat intake were both associated with an approximately 50% increase in relative risk for subsequent development of GC.26 Prior to widespread availability of electric refrigeration, salting and pickling was a predominant method of food preservation, especially in East Asia. High salt intake has associated with risk for GC, whereas years of refrigeration availability has associated against risk for GC in a case-control study.27 Tobacco smoking significantly increases risk for GC, with an observed dose-dependent effect.28 Notably, tobacco cessation seems to mitigate some of this risk.29 Obesity also appears to be an independent risk factor for the development of GC.30,31
The Updated Sydney System is a comprehensive endoscopic and histologic sampling protocol by which to stage
As a corollary to the Sydney System, the Operative Link for Gastritis Assessment (OLGA) was proposed as a way to stage gastric atrophy. In this system, the stage of AG is determined by combining the degree of atrophy with the location of the biopsy. The degree of atrophy is scored on a scale of 0 to 3 (none, mild, moderate), or marked by combining the overall antrum score with the overall corpus score, the stage (0 to IV) is determined.33 Retrospective studies have shown that gastric adenocarcinoma tends to develop in patients with OLGA stage III or IV while it rarely or never develops in those with stage 0, I or II.33,34
Similar to OLGA, the Operative Link for Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia (OLGIM) is a scoring system based upon the Sydney System to risk-stratify patients at highest risk for progressing from GIM to GC, with the aim of reducing interobserver variability due to GIM being more readily recognized and quantifiable compared to AG.35 It adopts an ordinal scoring system similar to OLGA, with each individual biopsy scored according to a visual-analogue scale, and reports an overall stage. Additional studies are needed to compare the diagnostic and testing characteristics of OLGIM.
A separate histologic classification system based on morphologic features combined with mucin expressed patterns has been proposed.36 In this classification scheme, type I (complete) GIM is characterized by the presence of goblet cells secreting sialomucins, columnar and/or Paneth cells. Type II (incomplete) also contains goblet cells, but lacks columnar and/or Paneth cells. Type III (or IIa) also demonstrate the presence of goblet cells and absence of columnar and/or Paneth cells, but sulfomucins rather than sialomucins are the predominantly expressed mucins. The relative risk of developing cancer has been observed to be higher in type III intestinal metaplasia.37
Utilizing immunohistochemistry to differentiate between gastric mucins and intestinal mucins has also been explored.38 Weak expression of MUC2 (intestinal mucin) and the absence of MUC1 (epithelial membrane mucin), MUC5AC (gastric mucin), and MUC6 (gastric mucin), characterize the complete type of intestinal metaplasia. Incomplete intestinal metaplasia is characterized by strong expression of MUC1 (epithelial membrane mucin), MUC2 (intestinal mucin), and MUC5AC (gastric mucin). Das-1 (a marker of colonic epithelium) has been seen to be expressed in high-risk, incomplete phenotypes.39 It has also been reported that the complete type of intestinal metaplasia expresses sucrase, which is specific to absorptive cells of the small intestine, much more frequently than the incomplete type of intestinal metaplasia.40
From these observations, it has been hypothesized that complete intestinal metaplasia displays predominantly small intestinal phenotypic markers such as MUC2 and sucrase, while incomplete intestinal metaplasia expresses gastric phenotypic markers MUC5AC and large intestinal phenotypic markers such as Das-1.
There exist regional differences in definition between Western and Japanese pathologists in the classification of dysplastic lesions.41 The term dysplasia is used by Western pathologists when there is no evidence of an invasive component, whereas carcinoma is defined as lesions exhibiting invasion into or beyond the lamina propria. In contrast, the diagnosis of “mucosal carcinoma” is rendered by Japanese pathologists when there is sufficient cytoarchitectural complexity regardless whether there is invasion into the lamina propria. Thus, many lesions that are diagnosed as high-grade dysplasia by most Western pathologists are diagnosed as carcinoma by most Japanese pathologists. These differences may be mostly semantic, as most Western clinicians would refer patients with high-grade dysplasia to either endoscopic or surgical resection, similar to the management of early mucosal carcinoma in Japan or elsewhere in East Asia.
Both architectural and cytologic features are important in evaluating for low-grade and high-grade dysplasia.41 In low-grade dysplasia, architectural changes are relatively mild and characterized by glandular crowding and disarray, mild glandular branching and rare glandular budding. The nuclei display hyperchromasia and elongation, mild to moderate mitotic activity, are still basally located, and maintain nuclear polarity. High-grade dysplasia demonstrates more complex architecture with marked glandular crowding and disarray, back-to-back glands with intraluminal folds and cribiforming. Glandular branching and budding are frequently seen. The cytologic atypia is more severe with markedly increased mitotic activity and presence of atypical mitoses. The nuclei usually reach the luminal surface of the cell cytoplasm, displaying loss of nuclear polarity and appear round and vesicular. In invasive carcinoma, infiltration of the lamina propria by either glands or single cells is seen.
Conventional white light endoscopy cannot accurately differentiate between and diagnose preneoplastic gastric lesions.42 Therefore, research has been directed at endoscopic techniques to improve diagnosis of preneoplastic gastric lesions and assess the invasiveness of cancerous lesions.43 While these methods are more sensitive in detecting GIM and early GC, they may be limited by significant interobserver variability.43,44
Narrow-band imaging (NBI) is an endoscopic technology relying on the filtering of white light into defined wave lengths to maximize absorption by hemoglobin, and limit penetration of light beyond the mucosal surface. Given its shorter wavelength, blue light penetrates less deeply than red light and thus enhances the imaging of fine structures of the mucosal surface without the use of dyes. On magnified NBI, normal stomach mucosa should demonstrate a regular circular pattern, homogeneously spaced gastric pits (Fig. 4).45,46 GIM is characterized on NBI by the presence of features including tubule-villous mucosal pattern, irregular mucosal pattern, light blue crests, and variable vascular density.45,46 A Dutch study of 47 patients with GIM who were undergoing surveillance found the sensitivity, specificity positive and negative predictive values to be 71%, 58%, 65% and 65% for NBI, compared to 51%, 67%, 62%, 55% for white light endoscopy, respectively.47 Although NBI has decent sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of gastric lesions, NBI classification systems vary among studies and suffers from high interobserver variability.
Chromoendoscopy relies on dye-based staining of the gastric mucosa with either methylene blue or indigo carmine, which is selectively absorbed by non-acid-producing, mostly absorptive mucosa such as that found in intestinal cells.48 This technique can accurately delineate the anatomical extend of minute surface irregularities and histological abnormalities in the stomach, which in turn helps estimate the depth of invasion of early GCs.49 It is also useful in determining the lateral borders during endoscopic submucosal dissection.50 While chromoendoscopy may help to detect preneoplastic gastric lesions, this technique lengthens the time of the endoscopic procedure, adds to staff workload, and may decrease patient tolerance of the procedure.
Probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) provides high-level magnification (×1,000) of the gastrointestinal tract epithelium, and has been used for real-time evaluation of gastric lesions.51 pCLE requires the intravenous administration of fluorescein, an organic fluorophore which is administered prior to the examination. During pCLE, goblet cells can be clearly identified by the presence of mucin-containing vesicles within the cytoplasm which appear dark due to absence of fluorescein uptake (Fig. 5). pCLE has demonstrated excellent sensitivity and specificity, and additionally provides the benefit of surveying a larger swath of mucosa than is possible to biopsy.52 Substitution of a forceps biopsy with an “optical” biopsy may decrease mucosal scar formation which would otherwise confound future lesion determination; pCLE also offers the advantage of real-time diagnosis of lesions, and may therefore permit endoscopic resection during a diagnostic evaluation. Disadvantages of pCLE include the need to stock fluorescein, interobserver variability in interpretation, the high cost of initial capital expenditure, and the operator learning curve required to accurately interpret confocal images.
The optimal practice of surveillance of GIM is currently undefined. The lack of consensus on surveillance is due in part to the heterogeneity in rates of GC not only between different regions of the world, but even heterogeneity within a given country between members of different ethnic or racial groups. In high-incidence countries with a relative abundance of resources and a developed endoscopic tradition (such as South Korea and Japan), endoscopic screening for GC of the general population has been proposed. In Japan, biennial screening on a population-level with barium meals have been conducted on a prefectural level since 1960;53 in 2016, the Japanese government introduced endoscopic screening as an alternative to barium testing on a national level.54 Similarly, as GC is the most common cancer in South Korea, a population-level mass screening program was launched in 2002 consisting of biennial endoscopic examinations for men and women beginning at age 40.53 Notably, these screening recommendations do not make overt reference to surveillance once GIM is diagnosed, but presumably the frequency of surveillance should be at least as intense as that recommended for screening of the general population. A retrospective study from South Korea found that in patients with marked GIM (based upon the Sydney System), a vigilant surveillance strategy of yearly endoscopy led to a higher rate of detection of GC at an early stage compared to usual screening.55 Therefore even yearly endoscopies in very high risk individuals may be warranted. While no mass screening programs exist in other regions of high
In lower-incidence European countries, the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) recommends that patients with GIM or AG in both antrum and corpus undergo surveillance every 3 years after diagnosis, and patients with mild-to-moderate AG or GIM confined to the antrum not undergo surveillance.42 Patients with low-grade dysplasia should be followed-up within a year of diagnosis while those with high-grade dysplasia should be closely followed by endoscopy every 6 months. In the United States, a racially and ethnically heterogeneous nation with a large population of immigrants, no clear guidelines for GIM surveillance exist; however, a recent modeling study suggests that a screening upper endoscopy at the age of 50 and subsequent surveillance if GIM is diagnosed is cost-effective in non-Hispanic black, Hispanic, and Asian Americans.56
We recommend a surveillance strategy for the United States which takes into account ethnicity, race, immigration status, and family history (Fig. 6). We recommend that non-Hispanic white Americans and immigrants from low-incidence regions (such as Western Europe or Australia) with biopsy-proven GIM be surveyed with a strategy similar to ESGE guidelines, as antral-only GIM in this population likely carries low risk for progression. African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, immigrants from high-incidence regions, and those with a family history of GC are at much higher risk for GIM progression. As such, in these patients a more intensive surveillance strategy is warranted. Notably, many patients may have GIM diagnosed incidentally on stomach biopsy for other symptoms; therefore, the topographical extent of GIM may not be known. We recommend recalling patients with incidentally diagnosed GIM for a mapping endoscopy, with the interval of recall based on risk group.
GIM represents a known premalignant state of the human stomach along the pathway to GC. Prevalence of GIM is highly variable in different regions of the world, and is strongly correlated to both endemicity of
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Correa’s cascade, a model for the histologic progression towards gastric cancer. Infection with
High-power view (H&E, ×100) of intestinal metaplasia showing metaplastic goblet cells on the surface and in the foveolar epithelium.
Updated the Sydney System biopsy protocol, with two biopsies taken from the antrum, one biopsy taken from the incisura, one biopsy taken along the lesser curvature of the gastric body, and one biopsy taken along the greater curvature of the gastric body.
On magnified narrow-band imaging, the normal gastric mucosa (A) should demonstrate a regular circular pattern and homogeneously spaced gastric pits. In contrast, gastric intestinal metaplasia (B) is characterized by the presence of features such as a tubule-villous mucosal pattern, irregular mucosal pattern, and variable vascular density.
With probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy, intestinal cells can clearly be identified by the presence of mucin-containing vesicles within the cytoplasm, which appear dark due to absence of fluorescein uptake (white arrows).
Recommended surveillance strategy following a gastric biopsy that shows intestinal metaplasia (IM).
Gut and Liver 2019; 13(6): 596-603
Published online November 15, 2019 https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl19181
Copyright © Gut and Liver.
Robert J. Huang1 , Alyssa Y. Choi2 , Camtu D. Truong3, Matthew M. Yeh3, Joo Ha Hwang1
1Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, and Departments of 2Medicine and 3Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
Correspondence to:Joo Ha Hwang
Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Dr. H0268, MC:5244, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
Tel: +1-650-497-6313, Fax: +1-650-498-6323, E-mail: jooha@stanford.edu
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.
Gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) is a known premalignant condition of the human stomach along the pathway to gastric cancer (GC). Histologically, GIM represents the replacement of normal gastric mucosa by mucin-secreting intestinal mucosa. Helicobacter pylori infection is the most common etiologic agent of GIM development worldwide. The prevalence of GIM is heterogeneous among different regions of the world and correlates with the population endemicity of H. pylori carriage, among other environmental factors. GC remains the third leading cause of cancer-related mortality globally. GIM is usually diagnosed by upper endoscopy with biopsy, and histologic scoring systems have been developed to risk-stratify patients at highest risk for progression to GC. Several recent endoscopic imaging modalities may improve the optical detection of GIM and early GC. Appropriate surveillance of GIM may be cost effective and represents an opportunity for the early diagnosis and therapy of GC. Certain East Asian nations have established population-level programs for the screening and surveillance of GIM; guidelines regarding GIM surveillance have also recently been published in Europe. By contrast, few data exist regarding the appropriateness of surveillance of GIM in the United States. In this review, we discuss the pathogenesis, epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of GIM with an emphasis on the role of appropriate endoscopic surveillance.
Keywords: Helicobacter pylori, Epidemiology, Stomach
Gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) is defined as the replacement of the oxyntic or antral gastric mucosa by intestinal mucosa consisting of Paneth, goblet, and absorptive cells.1 GIM is an important precursor lesion in the pathway to gastric cancer (GC),2–5 and regional prevalence of GIM correlates closely with incidence of GC worldwide.6 History of
In Western Europe, it has been estimated that annual rates of progression onto GC to be approximately 0.1%, 0.25%, 0.6%, and 6% for patients with atrophic gastritis (AG), GIM, mild-to-moderate dysplasia, and severe dysplasia, respectively.10 In contrast, in East Asia it has been estimated that annually 1.8%, 10%, and 73% of patients with AG, GIM, and dysplasia will progress to GC, respectively, highlighting the importance of geography and ethnicity/race in determining risk for progression.11 While GC rates have declined worldwide (including in East Asia) due in part to improvements in sanitation and recognition of the carcinogenic role of
Correa’s cascade is a widely accepted model of the pathogenesis of GC (Fig. 1).12 The first step in this cascade is the development of chronic mucosal inflammation, mediated through both polymorphonuclear cells and mononuclear cells, which can occur as a consequence of infection with
Eradication reduces inflammation associated with
Individuals with a positive family history, particularly first-degree relatives with GC, carry an increased risk for premalignant gastric lesions and GC. However, it is estimated that less than 10% of GCs are hereditary, with the remainder being sporadic.24 The combination of a virulent bacterial strain, a genetically susceptible host, and a predisposed gastric environment may be required for cancer to develop.25 In a systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 cohort and 30 case-control studies, high red-meat and processed-meat intake were both associated with an approximately 50% increase in relative risk for subsequent development of GC.26 Prior to widespread availability of electric refrigeration, salting and pickling was a predominant method of food preservation, especially in East Asia. High salt intake has associated with risk for GC, whereas years of refrigeration availability has associated against risk for GC in a case-control study.27 Tobacco smoking significantly increases risk for GC, with an observed dose-dependent effect.28 Notably, tobacco cessation seems to mitigate some of this risk.29 Obesity also appears to be an independent risk factor for the development of GC.30,31
The Updated Sydney System is a comprehensive endoscopic and histologic sampling protocol by which to stage
As a corollary to the Sydney System, the Operative Link for Gastritis Assessment (OLGA) was proposed as a way to stage gastric atrophy. In this system, the stage of AG is determined by combining the degree of atrophy with the location of the biopsy. The degree of atrophy is scored on a scale of 0 to 3 (none, mild, moderate), or marked by combining the overall antrum score with the overall corpus score, the stage (0 to IV) is determined.33 Retrospective studies have shown that gastric adenocarcinoma tends to develop in patients with OLGA stage III or IV while it rarely or never develops in those with stage 0, I or II.33,34
Similar to OLGA, the Operative Link for Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia (OLGIM) is a scoring system based upon the Sydney System to risk-stratify patients at highest risk for progressing from GIM to GC, with the aim of reducing interobserver variability due to GIM being more readily recognized and quantifiable compared to AG.35 It adopts an ordinal scoring system similar to OLGA, with each individual biopsy scored according to a visual-analogue scale, and reports an overall stage. Additional studies are needed to compare the diagnostic and testing characteristics of OLGIM.
A separate histologic classification system based on morphologic features combined with mucin expressed patterns has been proposed.36 In this classification scheme, type I (complete) GIM is characterized by the presence of goblet cells secreting sialomucins, columnar and/or Paneth cells. Type II (incomplete) also contains goblet cells, but lacks columnar and/or Paneth cells. Type III (or IIa) also demonstrate the presence of goblet cells and absence of columnar and/or Paneth cells, but sulfomucins rather than sialomucins are the predominantly expressed mucins. The relative risk of developing cancer has been observed to be higher in type III intestinal metaplasia.37
Utilizing immunohistochemistry to differentiate between gastric mucins and intestinal mucins has also been explored.38 Weak expression of MUC2 (intestinal mucin) and the absence of MUC1 (epithelial membrane mucin), MUC5AC (gastric mucin), and MUC6 (gastric mucin), characterize the complete type of intestinal metaplasia. Incomplete intestinal metaplasia is characterized by strong expression of MUC1 (epithelial membrane mucin), MUC2 (intestinal mucin), and MUC5AC (gastric mucin). Das-1 (a marker of colonic epithelium) has been seen to be expressed in high-risk, incomplete phenotypes.39 It has also been reported that the complete type of intestinal metaplasia expresses sucrase, which is specific to absorptive cells of the small intestine, much more frequently than the incomplete type of intestinal metaplasia.40
From these observations, it has been hypothesized that complete intestinal metaplasia displays predominantly small intestinal phenotypic markers such as MUC2 and sucrase, while incomplete intestinal metaplasia expresses gastric phenotypic markers MUC5AC and large intestinal phenotypic markers such as Das-1.
There exist regional differences in definition between Western and Japanese pathologists in the classification of dysplastic lesions.41 The term dysplasia is used by Western pathologists when there is no evidence of an invasive component, whereas carcinoma is defined as lesions exhibiting invasion into or beyond the lamina propria. In contrast, the diagnosis of “mucosal carcinoma” is rendered by Japanese pathologists when there is sufficient cytoarchitectural complexity regardless whether there is invasion into the lamina propria. Thus, many lesions that are diagnosed as high-grade dysplasia by most Western pathologists are diagnosed as carcinoma by most Japanese pathologists. These differences may be mostly semantic, as most Western clinicians would refer patients with high-grade dysplasia to either endoscopic or surgical resection, similar to the management of early mucosal carcinoma in Japan or elsewhere in East Asia.
Both architectural and cytologic features are important in evaluating for low-grade and high-grade dysplasia.41 In low-grade dysplasia, architectural changes are relatively mild and characterized by glandular crowding and disarray, mild glandular branching and rare glandular budding. The nuclei display hyperchromasia and elongation, mild to moderate mitotic activity, are still basally located, and maintain nuclear polarity. High-grade dysplasia demonstrates more complex architecture with marked glandular crowding and disarray, back-to-back glands with intraluminal folds and cribiforming. Glandular branching and budding are frequently seen. The cytologic atypia is more severe with markedly increased mitotic activity and presence of atypical mitoses. The nuclei usually reach the luminal surface of the cell cytoplasm, displaying loss of nuclear polarity and appear round and vesicular. In invasive carcinoma, infiltration of the lamina propria by either glands or single cells is seen.
Conventional white light endoscopy cannot accurately differentiate between and diagnose preneoplastic gastric lesions.42 Therefore, research has been directed at endoscopic techniques to improve diagnosis of preneoplastic gastric lesions and assess the invasiveness of cancerous lesions.43 While these methods are more sensitive in detecting GIM and early GC, they may be limited by significant interobserver variability.43,44
Narrow-band imaging (NBI) is an endoscopic technology relying on the filtering of white light into defined wave lengths to maximize absorption by hemoglobin, and limit penetration of light beyond the mucosal surface. Given its shorter wavelength, blue light penetrates less deeply than red light and thus enhances the imaging of fine structures of the mucosal surface without the use of dyes. On magnified NBI, normal stomach mucosa should demonstrate a regular circular pattern, homogeneously spaced gastric pits (Fig. 4).45,46 GIM is characterized on NBI by the presence of features including tubule-villous mucosal pattern, irregular mucosal pattern, light blue crests, and variable vascular density.45,46 A Dutch study of 47 patients with GIM who were undergoing surveillance found the sensitivity, specificity positive and negative predictive values to be 71%, 58%, 65% and 65% for NBI, compared to 51%, 67%, 62%, 55% for white light endoscopy, respectively.47 Although NBI has decent sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of gastric lesions, NBI classification systems vary among studies and suffers from high interobserver variability.
Chromoendoscopy relies on dye-based staining of the gastric mucosa with either methylene blue or indigo carmine, which is selectively absorbed by non-acid-producing, mostly absorptive mucosa such as that found in intestinal cells.48 This technique can accurately delineate the anatomical extend of minute surface irregularities and histological abnormalities in the stomach, which in turn helps estimate the depth of invasion of early GCs.49 It is also useful in determining the lateral borders during endoscopic submucosal dissection.50 While chromoendoscopy may help to detect preneoplastic gastric lesions, this technique lengthens the time of the endoscopic procedure, adds to staff workload, and may decrease patient tolerance of the procedure.
Probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) provides high-level magnification (×1,000) of the gastrointestinal tract epithelium, and has been used for real-time evaluation of gastric lesions.51 pCLE requires the intravenous administration of fluorescein, an organic fluorophore which is administered prior to the examination. During pCLE, goblet cells can be clearly identified by the presence of mucin-containing vesicles within the cytoplasm which appear dark due to absence of fluorescein uptake (Fig. 5). pCLE has demonstrated excellent sensitivity and specificity, and additionally provides the benefit of surveying a larger swath of mucosa than is possible to biopsy.52 Substitution of a forceps biopsy with an “optical” biopsy may decrease mucosal scar formation which would otherwise confound future lesion determination; pCLE also offers the advantage of real-time diagnosis of lesions, and may therefore permit endoscopic resection during a diagnostic evaluation. Disadvantages of pCLE include the need to stock fluorescein, interobserver variability in interpretation, the high cost of initial capital expenditure, and the operator learning curve required to accurately interpret confocal images.
The optimal practice of surveillance of GIM is currently undefined. The lack of consensus on surveillance is due in part to the heterogeneity in rates of GC not only between different regions of the world, but even heterogeneity within a given country between members of different ethnic or racial groups. In high-incidence countries with a relative abundance of resources and a developed endoscopic tradition (such as South Korea and Japan), endoscopic screening for GC of the general population has been proposed. In Japan, biennial screening on a population-level with barium meals have been conducted on a prefectural level since 1960;53 in 2016, the Japanese government introduced endoscopic screening as an alternative to barium testing on a national level.54 Similarly, as GC is the most common cancer in South Korea, a population-level mass screening program was launched in 2002 consisting of biennial endoscopic examinations for men and women beginning at age 40.53 Notably, these screening recommendations do not make overt reference to surveillance once GIM is diagnosed, but presumably the frequency of surveillance should be at least as intense as that recommended for screening of the general population. A retrospective study from South Korea found that in patients with marked GIM (based upon the Sydney System), a vigilant surveillance strategy of yearly endoscopy led to a higher rate of detection of GC at an early stage compared to usual screening.55 Therefore even yearly endoscopies in very high risk individuals may be warranted. While no mass screening programs exist in other regions of high
In lower-incidence European countries, the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) recommends that patients with GIM or AG in both antrum and corpus undergo surveillance every 3 years after diagnosis, and patients with mild-to-moderate AG or GIM confined to the antrum not undergo surveillance.42 Patients with low-grade dysplasia should be followed-up within a year of diagnosis while those with high-grade dysplasia should be closely followed by endoscopy every 6 months. In the United States, a racially and ethnically heterogeneous nation with a large population of immigrants, no clear guidelines for GIM surveillance exist; however, a recent modeling study suggests that a screening upper endoscopy at the age of 50 and subsequent surveillance if GIM is diagnosed is cost-effective in non-Hispanic black, Hispanic, and Asian Americans.56
We recommend a surveillance strategy for the United States which takes into account ethnicity, race, immigration status, and family history (Fig. 6). We recommend that non-Hispanic white Americans and immigrants from low-incidence regions (such as Western Europe or Australia) with biopsy-proven GIM be surveyed with a strategy similar to ESGE guidelines, as antral-only GIM in this population likely carries low risk for progression. African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, immigrants from high-incidence regions, and those with a family history of GC are at much higher risk for GIM progression. As such, in these patients a more intensive surveillance strategy is warranted. Notably, many patients may have GIM diagnosed incidentally on stomach biopsy for other symptoms; therefore, the topographical extent of GIM may not be known. We recommend recalling patients with incidentally diagnosed GIM for a mapping endoscopy, with the interval of recall based on risk group.
GIM represents a known premalignant state of the human stomach along the pathway to GC. Prevalence of GIM is highly variable in different regions of the world, and is strongly correlated to both endemicity of
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Correa’s cascade, a model for the histologic progression towards gastric cancer. Infection with
High-power view (H&E, ×100) of intestinal metaplasia showing metaplastic goblet cells on the surface and in the foveolar epithelium.
Updated the Sydney System biopsy protocol, with two biopsies taken from the antrum, one biopsy taken from the incisura, one biopsy taken along the lesser curvature of the gastric body, and one biopsy taken along the greater curvature of the gastric body.
On magnified narrow-band imaging, the normal gastric mucosa (A) should demonstrate a regular circular pattern and homogeneously spaced gastric pits. In contrast, gastric intestinal metaplasia (B) is characterized by the presence of features such as a tubule-villous mucosal pattern, irregular mucosal pattern, and variable vascular density.
With probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy, intestinal cells can clearly be identified by the presence of mucin-containing vesicles within the cytoplasm, which appear dark due to absence of fluorescein uptake (white arrows).
Recommended surveillance strategy following a gastric biopsy that shows intestinal metaplasia (IM).