Gastric cancer develops in persons infected with H. pylori but not in uninfected persons. Those with histologic findings of severe gastric atrophy, corpus-predominant gastritis, or intestinal metaplasia are at increased risk. Persons with H. pylori infection and nonulcer dyspepsia, gastric ulcers, or gastric hyperplastic polyps are also at risk, but those with duodenal ulcers are not.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The intercountry differences in the diagnoses of adenoma/dysplasia and early carcinoma can, in large part, be resolved by adopting terminology based on neoplastic severity and depth of invasion. Problems with defining intramucosal invasion are thus avoided. Moreover, grouping high-grade adenoma/dysplasia and mucosal carcinoma together in one category is clinically useful, as patients with small mucosal neoplastic lesions can be cured by endoscopic local resection.

Gastrointestinal lesions considered to be high-grade adenoma/dysplasia by Western pathologists using the conventional Western classification are often diagnosed as carcinoma by Japanese pathologists using the Japanese group classification. To overcome these differences, the Padova classification, the Vienna classification, and a revision of the Vienna classification have recently been proposed. The clinical usefulness of these five classifications needs to be reviewed for early gastric, esophageal, and colorectal neoplasias. In 1998, 31 pathologists from 12 countries individually diagnosed the same 35 gastric, 21 esophageal, and 20 colorectal specimens. Their histological diagnoses can be classified conventionally and according to the newly proposed terminology, and from these data, the extent of agreement between pathologists with Western and Japanese viewpoints can be calculated, using kappa statistics. With the conventional Western, Japanese, Padova, Vienna, and revised classifications, the agreement scores were 37%, 37%, 71%, 71%, and 80%, respectively, for gastric lesions; 14%, 14%, 57%, 62%, and 67% for esophageal lesions; and 45%, 50%, 65%, 65%, and 70% for colorectal lesions. The kappa values were lower than 0.3 with the conventional Western and Japanese classifications, but higher than 0.5 for gastric lesions, higher than 0.3 for esophageal lesions, and higher than 0.4 for colorectal lesions with the newly proposed classifications. When the literature regarding treatment indications for early neoplastic lesions is reviewed, it becomes apparent that the categories of the revised classification would fit best with current clinical treatment considerations. This classification would be particularly useful for endoscopically resected specimens, to determine whether additional surgery with lymph node dissection is required. In conclusion, the use of the newly proposed terminology can, in large part, resolve the intercountry differences in the diagnosis of adenoma/dysplasia and early carcinoma. However, the newly proposed classifications should be used with caution for biopsy specimens, as sampling error may result in an underestimation of the neoplastic grade or depth of invasion. For the choice between endoscopic and surgical treatment, assessment of the depth of invasion by endoscopic inspection and ultrasound or radiography is essential.

Three cases sharing the following radiologic features are reported: (a) abdominal conventional radiography-vascular calcifications at the right hemicolon, (b) abdominal computed tomography-colonic wall thickening and venous calcifications, and (c) barium enema examination-luminal narrowing of the right hemicolon and thumbprinting. There were no clinical or laboratory findings suggestive of portal hypertension. The disease entity, "phlebosclerotic colitis," should be differentiated from ordinary ischemic colitis.

BACKGROUND Large discrepancies have been found between Western and Japanese pathologists in the diagnosis of adenoma/dysplasia versus carcinoma for gastric and colorectal glandular lesions. It is important to determine whether similar differences exist in the diagnosis of esophageal squamous lesions. METHODS Eleven expert gastrointestinal pathologists from Japan, North America, and Europe individually reviewed a set of microscopic slides containing 21 sections of biopsies and corresponding endoscopic mucosal resection specimens from Japanese patients with superficial esophageal squamous neoplastic lesions. The pathologists indicated the pathologic findings on which they based each diagnosis. RESULTS Invasion was the most important diagnostic criterion of carcinoma for the Western pathologists whereas nuclear and structural features were more important for the Japanese pathologists. For two sections showing low grade dysplasia according to most Western pathologists, the Japanese pathologists diagnosed suspected carcinoma in one case and definite carcinoma in the other. For nine sections with high grade dysplasia according to the Western pathologists, the Japanese pathologists diagnosed suspected carcinoma in two cases and definite carcinoma in seven cases. For six sections with suspected carcinoma according to most Western pathologists, the Japanese pathologists diagnosed suspected carcinoma in one case and definite carcinoma in five cases. Four sections showed definite carcinoma according to both the Western and Japanese pathologists. Thus, there was agreement among the Western and Japanese pathologists for only 5 of the 21 sections (kappa value, 0.04). However, when high grade dysplasia, noninvasive carcinoma, and suspected carcinoma were grouped together, the agreement was excellent (19 of the 21 sections; kappa value, 0.75). CONCLUSIONS In Japan, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma is diagnosed mainly based on nuclear criteria, even in cases judged to be noninvasive low grade dysplasia in the West. This difference in diagnostic practice may contribute to the relatively high incidence rate and good prognosis of superficial esophageal carcinoma in Japan. To improve the comparability of research data, the authors recommend that high grade dysplasia, noninvasive carcinoma, and suspected carci‐ noma be grouped together into one category of “noninvasive high grade neoplasia.” [See editorial on pages 969‐70, this issue.] Cancer 2000;88:996–1006. © 2000 American Cancer Society.