4.7 Article

The Current Spectrum of Gastric Polyps: A 1-Year National Study of over 120,000 Patients

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 104, Issue 6, Pages 1524-1532

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2009.139

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES: To use a large pathology database (Caris Diagnostics) to analyze the frequency and associations of gastric polyps in a nationwide US population. METHODS: A total of 121,564 esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) procedures from private practices in 36 states in the Caris Diagnostics database from 1 April 2007 to 31 March 2008 were searched for the endoscopic designations of polyp, nodule, and mass, and for the pathological diagnoses that commonly present as gastric polyps. Pertinent demographic data, clinical indications for EGD, and information regarding Helicobacter pylori infection, reactive gastropathy, chronic inactive gastritis, and intestinal metaplasia were also obtained. RESULTS: A total of 78,909 of the 121,564 patients who underwent EGD had gastric biopsies. The prevalence of gastric polyps in the EGD population was 6.35%; 77% were fundic gland polyps, 17% hyperplastic polyps/polypoid foveolar hyperplasia, 0.69% adenomas, and 0.1% inflammatory fibroid polyps. Malignant neoplasms were slightly >2%. None of the benign gastric polyps had a significant positive association with concurrent H. pylori infection; intestinal metaplasia was detected in the background of 52.2% of carcinoids, 29.6% of adenomas, 20.1% of xanthomas, and 13% of adenocarcinomas and hyperplastic polyps. Adenomas were rarely associated with synchronous adenocarcinomas. CONCLUSIONS: The relative prevalence of fundic gland polyps in this population was much higher than that reported earlier, most likely because of the widespread use of proton pump inhibitors. H. pylori and atrophy-associated polyps, including adenomas, were less common than in earlier series.

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