4.5 Article

Multicenter study of autoimmune gastritis in Japan: Clinical and endoscopic characteristics

期刊

DIGESTIVE ENDOSCOPY
卷 32, 期 3, 页码 364-372

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/den.13500

关键词

autoimmune gastritis; endoscopic appearance; remnant oxyntic mucosa; scattered minute whitish protrusions; sticky adherent dense mucus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aim In Japan, the prevalence of autoimmune gastritis (AIG) is assumed to be very low. With the recent rapid decrease in Helicobacter pylori (Hp) prevalence, reports on AIG are increasing. This multicenter registry study aimed to clarify the characteristics of AIG, especially its endoscopic appearance. Methods A total of 245 patients with AIG from 11 institutions in Japan from January 2010 to October 2016 were included, and their clinical and endoscopic findings were evaluated. Results Mean age was 67.2 +/- 11.4 years, and 63.7% of the participants were women. The most common approach to diagnose AIG was endoscopic examination. Repeated incorrect treatment for Hp infection, due to a false-positive result in C-13-urea breath test, ranked third among the basis for diagnosis of AIG. Associated gastric lesions were type 1 neuroendocrine tumor (11.4%), adenocarcinoma (9.8%), and hyperplastic polyps (21.1%). Corpus pan-atrophy was the most common appearance (90.1%); however, remnant oxyntic mucosa was found in 31.5% of the patients (flat, localized type, 48.6%). Sticky adherent dense mucus and scattered minute whitish protrusions were also observed in approximately 30% of the patients. Despite the prevailing presumption of the antral mucosa remaining normal, 42.3% of the patients presented with various extents of atrophy, and patchy redness and circular wrinkle-like patterns were both observed in approximately 20% of the patients. Conclusions The present study showed some prominent clinical characteristics and endoscopic findings of AIG. We believe that our study will facilitate the diagnosis of potential AIG.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据