You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 140 No. 7, July 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Original Article
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Gastrointestinal/ Upper Foregut
 •Diagnosis
 •Oncology, Other
 •Alert me on articles by topic

Diagnostic Variation and Outcome for High-Grade Gastric Epithelial Dysplasia

Abeezar I. Sarela, MD; Nigel Scott, MD; Caroline S. Verbeke, MD; Judy I. Wyatt, MD; Simon P. L. Dexter, MD; Henry M. Sue-Ling, MD; Pierre J. Guillou, MD

Arch Surg. 2005;140:644-649.

Hypothesis  High-grade dysplasia (HGD) of the gastric epithelium is associated with high prevalence of invasive carcinoma, and distinction by endoscopic biopsy is difficult.

Design  Cohort study, 1996 to 2003.

Setting  Tertiary care center.

Patients  Consecutive sample of 22 patients with initial diagnosis of gastric HGD by endoscopic biopsy. Biopsy specimens were separately reviewed by 3 experienced pathologists. Clinical management was individually decided.

Main Outcome Measures  Strength of interpathologist agreement ({kappa}) and final pathological diagnosis.

Results  The diagnosis was revised to intramucosal carcinoma in 14% to 32% of patients or suspicious for invasive carcinoma in 23% to 41%. The strength of agreement between any 2 pathologists for distinguishing between dysplasia and invasive carcinoma was fair ({kappa} = 0.35-0.36). A diagnosis of intramucosal carcinoma or suspicious for invasive carcinoma by 2 pathologists correlated strongly with subsequent detection of invasive carcinoma. Three patients underwent gastrectomy for HGD, and invasive carcinoma was detected in all (2 patients, T1 N0; 1 patient, T2 N0). Six patients had invasive carcinoma on endoscopic surveillance at a median of 15 months (range, 3-34 months) after diagnosis of HGD and underwent endoscopic mucosal resection (2 patients, T1 NX), gastrectomy (2 patients, T1 N0), or no resection (2 patients). Another patient had metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma despite having a diagnosis of only HGD by endoscopy. Seven patients (32%) died of unrelated causes, without invasive carcinoma, at a median of 19 months (range, 1-38 months). Three patients were alive with persistent HGD at 26 to 61 months. Two patients had no dysplasia on follow-up.

Conclusions  Experienced pathologists often disagreed in distinguishing invasive carcinoma from HGD in gastric biopsy specimens. One third of patients with gastric HGD died of causes unrelated to cancer. Invasive carcinoma was detected in 67% of the remainder.


Author Affiliations: Departments of Surgery (Drs Sarela, Dexter, Sue-Ling, and Guillou) and Pathology (Drs Scott, Verbeke, and Wyatt), Leeds Teaching Hospitals and University of Leeds School of Medicine, Leeds, England.







HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2005 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.