Upgrade of Lesions Initially Diagnosed as Low-Grade Gastric Dysplasia upon Forceps Biopsy Following Endoscopic Resection

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Gastric dysplasia is generally accepted to be the precursor lesion of gastric carcinoma. Approximately 25% to 35% of histological diagnoses based on endoscopic forcep biopsies for gastric dysplastic lesions change following endoscopic resection (ER). The aim of this study was to determine the predictive endoscopic features of high-grade gastric dysplasia (HGD) or early gastric cancer (EGC) following ER for lesions initially diagnosed as low-grade dysplasia (LGD) by a forceps biopsy. METHODS: To determine predictive variables for upgraded histology (LGD to HGD or EGC). The lesion size, gross endoscopic appearance, location, and surface nodularity or redness as well as the presence of a depressed portion, Helicobacter pylori infection, and intestinal metaplasia were retrospectively investigated. RESULTS: Among 251 LGDs diagnosed by an initial forceps biopsy, the diagnoses of 100 lesions (39.8%) changed following the ER; 56 of 251 LGDs (22.3%) were diagnosed as HGD, 39 (15.5%) as adenocarcinoma, and 5 (2.0%) as chronic gastritis. In a univariate analysis, large lesions (>15 mm), those with a depressed portion, and those with surface nodularity were significantly correlated with a upgraded histology classification following ER. In a multivariate analysis, a large size (>15 mm; odds ratio [OR], 2.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.46 to 5.43) and a depressed portion in the lesion (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.44 to 5.03) were predictive factors for upgraded histology following ER. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that a substantial proportion of diagnoses of low-grade gastric dysplasias based on forceps biopsies were not representative of the entire lesion. We recommend ER for lesions with a depressed portion and for those larger than 15 mm.

Comparison of Endoscopic Forcep Biopsy and the Histopathologic Diagnosis after Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection / 대한소화기내시경학회지

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The discrepancy of the histopathological diagnosis between endoscopic forcep biopsy, surgery and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), has been reported on in a previous study. We compared the results of endoscopic forcep biopsy and the histopathologic diagnosis after performing endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 434 lesions for which we were able to compare the post-ESD histopathologic results with the endoscopic biopsy. RESULTS: 1) Of the 14 lesions that showed chronic gastritis or atypia by endoscopic biopsy, 9 were diagnosed with carcinoma in situ or adenocarcinoma after ESD. 2) fifty one of 141 lesions that showed low grade dysplasia on the endoscopic biopsy were diagnosed with carcinoma in situ or adenocarcinoma after ESD. 3) Of the 60 lesions that showed high grade dysplasia on the endoscopic biopsy, 46 were diagnosis with carcinoma in situ or adenocarcinoma after ESD. CONCLUSIONS: The discrepancy of the histopathological diagnosis was found between ESD and forcep biopsy. In light of these results, if a lesion that is suspected to be EGC, although it is not diagnosed by endoscopic biopsy, then it should be confirmed by ESD.