4.7 Article

Endoscopic causes and characteristics of missed gastric cancers after endoscopic submucosal dissection

Journal

GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
Volume 98, Issue 5, Pages 735-+

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2023.02.024

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to elucidate the endoscopic causes and characteristics of missed gastric cancers (MGCs) after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer (EGC). The results showed that the endoscopic causes of MGCs included perceptual errors, exposure errors, sampling errors, and inadequate preparation. Logistic regression analysis revealed the risk factors for perceptual errors and the sites of exposure errors.
Background and Aims: Because endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer (EGC) pre-serves the entire stomach, missed gastric cancers (MGCs) are often found in the remaining gastric mucosa. How-ever, the endoscopic causes of MGCs remain unclear. Therefore, we aimed to elucidate the endoscopic causes and characteristics of MGCs after ESD. Methods: From January 2009 to December 2018, all patients undergoing ESD for initially detected EGC were enrolled. According to a review of EGD images before ESD, we identified the endoscopic causes (perceptual, exposure, sampling errors, and inadequate preparation) and characteristics of MGC in each endoscopic cause. Results: Of 2208 patients who underwent ESD for initial EGC, 82 patients (3.7%) had 100 MGCs. The breakdown of endoscopic causes of MGCs was as follows: 69 (69%) perceptual errors, 23 (23%) exposure errors, 7 (7%) sampling errors, and 1 (1%) inadequate preparation. Logistic regression analysis showed that the risk factors for perceptual error were male sex (odds ratio [OR], 2.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-5.18), isochromatic coloration (OR, 3.17; 95% CI, 1.47-6.84), greater curvature (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.121-4.40), and lesion size <= 12 mm (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.07-2.84). The sites of exposure errors were around the incisura angularis (11 [48%]), posterior wall of the gastric body (6 [26%]), and antrum (5 [21%]). Conclusions: We identified MGCs in 4 categories and clarified their characteristics. Quality improvements in EGD observation, with attention to the risks of perceptual and site of exposure errors, can potentially prevent missing EGCs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available