Systematic alphanumeric-coded endoscopy versus chromoendoscopy for the detection of precancerous gastric lesions and early gastric cancer in subjects at average risk for gastric cancer. / Aplicación de la endoscopia sistemática alfanumérica codificada más cromoendoscopia para la detección de lesiones precancerosas gástricas y cáncer gástrico temprano en sujetos con riesgo promedio de cáncer gástrico.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Gastric cancer is one of the main causes of cancer worldwide, but there is currently no global screening strategy for the disease. Endoscopy is the screening method of choice in some Asian countries, but no standardized technique has been recognized. Systematic alphanumeric-coded endoscopy can increase gastric lesion detection. The aim of the present article was to compare the usefulness of systematic alphanumeric-coded endoscopy with conventional endoscopy for the detection of premalignant lesions and early gastric cancer in subjects at average risk for gastric cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional, comparative, prospective, randomized study was conducted on patients at average risk for gastric cancer (40-50 years of age, no history of H. pylori infection, intestinal metaplasia, gastric atrophy, or gastrointestinal surgery). Before undergoing endoscopy, the patients had gastric preparation (200mg of oral acetylcysteine or 50mg of oral dimethicone). Conventional chromoendoscopy was performed with indigo carmine dye for contrast enhancement. RESULTS: Fifty consecutive cases (mean age 44.4 ± 3.34 years, 60% women, BMI 27.6 ± 5.82 kg/m2) were evaluated. Endoscopic imaging quality was satisfactory in all the cases, with no differences between methods (p = 0.817). The detection rate of premalignant lesions and early gastric cancer was 14% (6 cases of intestinal metaplasia and one case of gastric adenocarcinoma). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy were 100, 95, 80, 100 and 96%, respectively, for systematic alphanumeric-coded endoscopy, and 100, 45, 20, 100, and 52%, respectively, for conventional endoscopy. Lesion detection through systematic alphanumeric-coded endoscopy was superior to that of conventional endoscopy (p = 0.003; OR = 12). CONCLUSION: Both techniques were effective, but systematic alphanumeric-coded endoscopy significantly reduced the false positive rate.