Risk factors for under-diagnosis of gastric intraepithelial neoplasia and early gastric carcinoma in endoscopic forceps biopsy in comparison with endoscopic submucosal dissection in Chinese patients.

Abstract

Differences in pathologic diagnosis between endoscopic forceps biopsy (EFB) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for gastric intraepithelial neoplasia (GIN) and early gastric carcinoma (EGC) in Chinese patients remain unknown. The aim of the study was to investigate risk factors for under-diagnosed pathology in initial EFB, compared to final ESD. We reviewed endoscopic and histopathologic findings for tumor location, size, macroscopic pattern, nodularity, erythema, erosion, GIN (low and high grade), and EGC diagnosed with the WHO criteria. Differences in those features between EFB and ESD were compared and risk factors for under-diagnosis by EFB were analyzed. Although concordant in most (74.9%) cases between EFBs and ESDs, pathological diagnoses in 57 (25.1%) cases were upgraded in ESDs. Compared to the concordant group, the lesion size ≥2cm, and depressed and excavated patterns were significantly more frequent in the upgraded group. Further multivariate regression analysis demonstrated the depressed pattern and lesion size ≥2cm as independent risk factors for upgraded pathology with the odds ratio of 5.778 (95% confidence interval 2.893-11.542) and 2.535 (95% confidence interval 1.257-5.111), respectively. Lesion size ≥2.0cm and the depressed pattern at initial EFB were independent risk factors for pathologic upgrade to advanced diseases in ESD. Therefore, these endoscopic characteristics should be considered together with the initial EFB diagnosis to guide the optimal clinical management of patients with GIN and EGC.