Clinicopathological Features of Advanced Gastric Cancers which Were Misjudged and Subjected to Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection.
Journal
Gastroenterology research and practice
ISSN: 1687-6121
Titre abrégé: Gastroenterol Res Pract
Pays: Egypt
ID NLM: 101475557
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
15
01
2020
accepted:
08
02
2020
entrez:
20
3
2020
pubmed:
20
3
2020
medline:
20
3
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is widely performed for early gastric cancer (EGC). We have sometimes encountered gastric cancer lesions for which ESD was performed and at which pathologically advanced cancer was found. In this study, we performed clinicopathological examination of lesions whose endoscopic diagnosis and pathology differed substantially. ESD was performed for 2,194 gastric cancer lesions (1,753 cases) in our institute from April 2005 through March 2015. The vertical margin was positive or status unknown in 51 lesions (2.3%); among these, muscularis propria (MP) or deeper infiltration was identified in 6 lesions from specimens obtained during subsequent surgery. In 1 lesion with MP invasion, the vertical margin was negative. We evaluated the clinicopathological features of these 7 lesions and retrospectively reviewed endoscopic indicators of submucosal invasion for EGC on white light imaging (WLI), narrow-band imaging magnifying endoscopy (NBI-ME), and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) performed previously. Average age was 73.2 ± 7.2 years, and all cases were men. The 7 lesions diagnosed as advanced cancer were 0.32% of 2,194 lesions and were all located in the U region (fundus). On retrospective review of endoscopic findings, 2 of 7 lesions on WBI, 3 of 6 lesions on NBI-ME, and 2 of 5 lesions on EUS met the criteria for indicating submucosal invasion of EGC. No lesions had findings on all 3 modalities. In rare cases, advanced gastric cancer could not be accurately diagnosed by endoscopy using various modalities. Each case had special characteristics making identification of deep infiltration difficult.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
OBJECTIVE
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is widely performed for early gastric cancer (EGC). We have sometimes encountered gastric cancer lesions for which ESD was performed and at which pathologically advanced cancer was found. In this study, we performed clinicopathological examination of lesions whose endoscopic diagnosis and pathology differed substantially.
METHODS
METHODS
ESD was performed for 2,194 gastric cancer lesions (1,753 cases) in our institute from April 2005 through March 2015. The vertical margin was positive or status unknown in 51 lesions (2.3%); among these, muscularis propria (MP) or deeper infiltration was identified in 6 lesions from specimens obtained during subsequent surgery. In 1 lesion with MP invasion, the vertical margin was negative. We evaluated the clinicopathological features of these 7 lesions and retrospectively reviewed endoscopic indicators of submucosal invasion for EGC on white light imaging (WLI), narrow-band imaging magnifying endoscopy (NBI-ME), and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) performed previously.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Average age was 73.2 ± 7.2 years, and all cases were men. The 7 lesions diagnosed as advanced cancer were 0.32% of 2,194 lesions and were all located in the U region (fundus). On retrospective review of endoscopic findings, 2 of 7 lesions on WBI, 3 of 6 lesions on NBI-ME, and 2 of 5 lesions on EUS met the criteria for indicating submucosal invasion of EGC. No lesions had findings on all 3 modalities.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
In rare cases, advanced gastric cancer could not be accurately diagnosed by endoscopy using various modalities. Each case had special characteristics making identification of deep infiltration difficult.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32190041
doi: 10.1155/2020/6525098
pmc: PMC7071798
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
6525098Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Yorinari Ochiai et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Références
World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Aug 25;8(16):558-67
pubmed: 27621768
Dig Endosc. 2016 Jan;28(1):3-15
pubmed: 26234303
Gastric Cancer. 2011 Mar;14(1):35-40
pubmed: 21327924
Dig Endosc. 2011 May;23 Suppl 1:58-71
pubmed: 21535204
Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 May;73(5):917-27
pubmed: 21316050
Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2012;2012:245390
pubmed: 23213325
Gastric Cancer. 2000 Dec;3(4):219-225
pubmed: 11984739
Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2013 Jan;43(1):87-91
pubmed: 23166384
Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2013;2013:217695
pubmed: 23401676
Digestion. 2013;87(1):29-33
pubmed: 23343966
Oncol Rep. 2000 Jan-Feb;7(1):57-61
pubmed: 10601592
Gastric Cancer. 2011 Jun;14(2):113-23
pubmed: 21573742
Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2004 Sep;34(9):525-31
pubmed: 15466826
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Sep;82(3):452-9
pubmed: 25841580
Gastric Cancer. 2018 Jan;21(1):114-123
pubmed: 28224238
Gastric Cancer. 1998 Dec;1(1):10-24
pubmed: 11957040