Endoscopic causes and characteristics of missed gastric cancers after endoscopic submucosal dissection

• Published in: Gastrointestinal endoscopy 2023-11, Vol.98 (5), p.735-743.e2
• Main Authors: Shimada, Seitaro, Yabuuchi, Yohei, Kawata, Noboru, Maeda, Yuki, Yoshida, Masao, Yamamoto, Yoichi, Minamide, Tatsunori, Shigeta, Kohei, Takada, Kazunori, Kishida, Yoshihiro, Ito, Sayo, Imai, Kenichiro, Hotta, Kinichi, Ishiwatari, Hirotoshi, Matsubayashi, Hiroyuki, Ono, Hiroyuki
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Endoscopic Mucosal Resection - adverse effects; Endoscopic Mucosal Resection - methods; Female; Gastric Mucosa - pathology; Gastric Mucosa - surgery; Gastroscopy - methods; Humans; Male; Retrospective Studies; Stomach Neoplasms - pathology; Stomach Neoplasms - surgery; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 0016-5107; 1097-6779
• DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2023.02.024

Because endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer (EGC) preserves the entire stomach, missed gastric cancers (MGCs) are often found in the remaining gastric mucosa. However, the endoscopic causes of MGCs remain unclear. Therefore, we aimed to elucidate the endoscopic causes and characteristics of MGCs after ESD. From January 2009 to December 2018, all patients undergoing ESD for initially detected EGC were enrolled. According to a review of EGD images before ESD, we identified the endoscopic causes (perceptual, exposure, sampling errors, and inadequate preparation) and characteristics of MGC in each endoscopic cause. Of 2208 patients who underwent ESD for initial EGC, 82 patients (3.7%) had 100 MGCs. The breakdown of endoscopic causes of MGCs was as follows: 69 (69%) perceptual errors, 23 (23%) exposure errors, 7 (7%) sampling errors, and 1 (1%) inadequate preparation. Logistic regression analysis showed that the risk factors for perceptual error were male sex (odds ratio [OR], 2.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-5.18), isochromatic coloration (OR, 3.17; 95% CI, 1.47-6.84), greater curvature (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.121-4.40), and lesion size ≤12 mm (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.07-2.84). The sites of exposure errors were around the incisura angularis (11 [48%]), posterior wall of the gastric body (6 [26%]), and antrum (5 [21%]). We identified MGCs in 4 categories and clarified their characteristics. Quality improvements in EGD observation, with attention to the risks of perceptual and site of exposure errors, can potentially prevent missing EGCs.