Adequacy of endoscopic recognition and surveillance of gastric intestinal metaplasia and atrophic gastritis: A multicentre retrospective study in low incidence countries

Abstract

Background Gastric atrophy (GA) and gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) are precursor conditions to gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) and should be monitored endoscopically in selected individuals. However, little is known about adherence to recommendations in clinical practice in low-risk countries. Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate endoscopic recognition and adequacy of surveillance for GA and GIM in countries with low GAC prevalence. Methods We retrospectively analysed patients diagnosed with GIM or GA in three centers in The Netherlands and UK between 2012 and 2019. Cases with GIM and/or GA diagnosis at index endoscopy were retrieved through systematic search of pathology databases using ‘gastric’ and ‘intestinal metaplasia’ or ‘atrophy’ keywords. Endoscopy reports were analysed to ascertain accuracy of endoscopic diagnoses. Adequacy of surveillance was assessed following histological diagnosis at the index endoscopy based on ESGE guidelines published in 2012. Results We included 396 patients with a median follow-up of 57.2 months. Mean age was 66 years and the rates of antrum-predominant versus extensive GIM were comparable (37% vs 38%). Endoscopic recognition rates were 48.5% for GA and 16.3% for GIM. Surveillance was adequately carried out in 215 of 396 patients (54.3%). Conclusion In countries with a low incidence of GAC, the rate of endoscopic recognition of gastric pre-cancerous lesions and adherence to surveillance recommendation are low. Substantial improvement is required in endoscopic training and awareness of guidelines recommendation in order to optimise detection and management of pre-malignant gastric conditions.

Non-Invasive Markers for the Detection of Gastric Precancerous Conditions

“…However, the endoscopic diagnostic performance of gastric premalignant conditions—CAG and IM—is questionable. The real-world data show that the sensitivity of the detection of CAG does not exceed 70% and the detection of IM 20% [ 16 , 17 ]. The diagnostic performance depends on the operator’s expertise and may vary significantly between centers [ 17 , 18 ].…”

“…The real-world data show that the sensitivity of the detection of CAG does not exceed 70% and the detection of IM 20% [ 16 , 17 ]. The diagnostic performance depends on the operator’s expertise and may vary significantly between centers [ 17 , 18 ]. Because of low detection by optical judgment, the diagnosis of CAG and IM still relies on “mapping” biopsies [ 12 ].…”