Linked color imaging-based endoscopic grading of gastric intestinal metaplasia and histological gastritis staging in the assessment of gastric cancer risk.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the value and compare the effectiveness of linked color imaging-based endoscopic grading of gastric intestinal metaplasia (LCI-EGGIM) and operative link on gastric intestinal metaplasia (OLGIM) in risk stratification of early gastric cancer (EGC). METHODS: Eighty-one patients with EGC who underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection were included. The general data and EGC-related risk factors of all participants were recorded. LCI-EGGIM and OLGIM were used for both groups. RESULTS: The number of patients with LCI-EGGIM score ≥ 5 was significantly higher in the EGC group than in the control group (58.02% vs. 12.35%, p < .001). Furthermore, the number of patients with OLGIM stage III/IV in the EGC group was significantly higher than that in the control group (56.79% vs. 7.41%, p < .001). Multivariate analysis showed that OLGIM stage III/IV (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 29.74, 95% CI: 7.49-117.94) and LCI-EGGIM score ≥ 5 (AOR: 12.33, 95% CI: 3.71-41.02) were significantly associated with EGC. There was no significant difference in the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve between LCI-EGGIM and OLGIM in predicting the risk of EGC (0.74 vs. 0.77, p = .1116). CONCLUSION: OLGIM and LCI-EGGIM can be used and have the same value for predicting the risk stratification of EGC in patients with gastric intestinal metaplasia.

Gastric intestinal metaplasia assessment between linked color imaging based on endoscopy and pathology.

OBJECTIVE: Cumulative evidence suggests that linked color imaging (LCI) can be used to identify gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM). We aimed to develop endoscopic grading for GIM (EGGIM) with LCI. METHODS: Two hundred and seventy-seven patients who underwent high-resolution white-light gastroscopy followed by LCI for EGGIM estimation were included. LCI was performed for the entire mucosa, and images of five areas each were recorded from the lesser and greater curvatures of the antrum and corpus, and for the incisura. For each area, scores of 0 (no GIM), 1 (focal GIM, ≤30% of the area), and 2 (extensive GIM, >30% of the area) were attributed for 10 points. If GIM was suspected based on endoscopy findings, targeted biopsies were performed; if GIM was not evident, random biopsies were performed according to the Sydney system to estimate the operative link on GIM (OLGIM). RESULTS: GIM was staged as OLGIM 0, I, II, III, and IV in 136, 70, 37, 28, and 6 patients, respectively. For OLGIM III/IV diagnosis, the area under the receiver operating curve was 0.949 (95% CI 0.916-0.972). EGGIM of 4, with sensitivity and specificity of 94.12% (95% CI 80.3%-99.3%) and 86.42% (95% CI 81.5%-90.5%), respectively, was determined the best cut-off value for identifying OLGIM III/IV patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrated the ability of EGGIM for diagnosing the extent of intestinal metaplasia and showed that EGGIM is related to OLGIM staging. EGGIM of 4 was the best cut-off value for identifying OLGIM III/IV patients.