INTRODUCCIÓN: En la actualidad, la incidencia del cáncer gástrico (CG) está disminuyendo, sin embargo, la supervivencia continúa siendo baja. El cáncer gástrico precoz (CGP) ofrece un mejor pronóstico y la posibilidad de tratamientos endoscópicos curativos. PACIENTES Y MÉTODOS: Estudio observacional de una cohorte retrospectiva de todos los pacientes con CG en un periodo de 5años en un área sanitaria de España. El CGP incluyó los pacientes con afectación mucosa o submucosa (T1) independientemente de la afectación ganglionar, mientras que el avanzado fueron los T2-T4. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 209 pacientes de los cuales 26 (12%) fueron CGP. El CGP no tuvo diferencias en comparación con el avanzado en la edad, sexo, infección por HP, lesiones premalignas ni tipo histológico; sin embargo, tuvo diferencias significativas en la localización (antro e incisura en un 76% vs. 38%, p = 0,01), síntomas de alarma (69% vs. 90%, p < 0,01), tratamiento con intención curativa (100% vs. 30%, p < 0,01), performance status (PS 0-1: 92% vs. 75%, p = 0,03) y supervivencia (85% vs. 20%, p < 0,001). Entre los pacientes tratados con intención curativa, el 98% (79/81) fueron operados y el 2% (2/81) fueron tratados con mucosectomía. Siete (27%) pacientes con CGP se hubiesen podido beneficiar de disección submucosa. DISCUSIÓN: La frecuencia del CGP fue baja en nuestra área sanitaria (12% de los CG). El CGP tuvo síntomas de alarma en un alto porcentaje, se localizó en el tercio distal del estómago (antro e incisura) y tuvo mejor pronóstico en relación con el CG avanzado. Se deben implementar medidas para incrementar la detección y tratamiento endoscópico del CGP
INTRODUCTION: Gastric cancer (GC) incidence is currently decreasing; however, survival is still low. Early GC (EGC) has better prognosis and it could be cured by endoscopic methods. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Observational study of a retrospective cohort of all patients with GC during a five-year period in a health area of Spain. EGC diagnosis was defined as mucosal or submucosal (T1) cancers regardless of lymph node involvement, whereas the advanced GC were T2-T4. RESULTS: 209 patients were included, and 26 (12%) of them were EGC. There was no difference between EGC and advanced GC in age, sex, HP infection, precancerous lesions or histological type. Other characteristics of EGC were different from advanced GC: location (antrum and incisura in 76% vs 38%, p = 0.01), alarm symptoms (69% vs 90%, p < 0.01), curative treatment (100% vs 30%, p < 0.01), performance status (PS 0-1: 92% vs 75%, p = 0.03) and survival (85% vs 20%, p < 0.001). Among patients who received curative treatment, 98% (79/81) underwent surgery and 2% (2/81) were treated by mucosectomy. Seven (27%) patients with EGC could have benefited from treatment by endoscopic submucosal resection. DISCUSSION: EGC frequency was low (12% of GCs) in our health area. EGC had a high percentage of alarm symptoms, and was located in the distal third of the stomach (antrum and incisura) and had better prognosis compared to advanced GC. Strategies to increase detection and endoscopic treatment of EGC should be implemented
Humans , Male , Female , Aged , Stomach Neoplasms/epidemiology , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , Cohort Studies , Stomach Neoplasms/diagnosis , Stomach Neoplasms/therapy , Survival Analysis , Neoplasm Metastasis/pathology , Stomach Neoplasms/pathology , Spain/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , Endoscopic Mucosal Resection/methods , Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal/methods , Neoadjuvant Therapy/methods
INTRODUCTION: Gastric cancer (GC) incidence is currently decreasing; however, survival is still low. Early GC (EGC) has better prognosis and it could be cured by endoscopic methods. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Observational study of a retrospective cohort of all patients with GC during a five-year period in a health area of Spain. EGC diagnosis was defined as mucosal or submucosal (T1) cancers regardless of lymph node involvement, whereas the advanced GC were T2-T4. RESULTS: 209 patients were included, and 26 (12%) of them were EGC. There was no difference between EGC and advanced GC in age, sex, HP infection, precancerous lesions or histological type. Other characteristics of EGC were different from advanced GC: location (antrum and incisura in 76% vs 38%, p=0.01), alarm symptoms (69% vs 90%, p<0.01), curative treatment (100% vs 30%, p<0.01), performance status (PS 0-1: 92% vs 75%, p=0.03) and survival (85% vs 20%, p<0.001). Among patients who received curative treatment, 98% (79/81) underwent surgery and 2% (2/81) were treated by mucosectomy. Seven (27%) patients with EGC could have benefited from treatment by endoscopic submucosal resection. DISCUSSION: EGC frequency was low (12% of GCs) in our health area. EGC had a high percentage of alarm symptoms, and was located in the distal third of the stomach (antrum and incisura) and had better prognosis compared to advanced GC. Strategies to increase detection and endoscopic treatment of EGC should be implemented.
Stomach Neoplasms/diagnosis , Stomach Neoplasms/epidemiology , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasm Staging , Retrospective Studies , Stomach Neoplasms/pathology
BACKGROUND: Although esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is the standard procedure for the diagnosis of gastric cancer (GC), some GCs are missed. There are no published data on the missed rate of GC in Spain. AIMS: To determine the frequency and characteristics of missed GCs and assess the quality of the EGD in a specific population with GC. METHODS: Records of all patients diagnosed with gastric adenocarcinoma between 2012 and 2016 in a defined geographic area were reviewed. Missed GC was defined as a case with a prior negative EGD for cancer. Quality indicators from the prior EGDs were measured. RESULTS: From 212 cases of GC, 25 cases were excluded. Seventeen out of 187 patients had a prior EGD (9.1%). Twelve of those 17 missed GC had a prior EGD with some abnormal findings. In 6 of them, biopsies were taken. Survival was no different between patients with missed and non-missed GC. Quality indicators that failed to meet standards were recording time, image documentation, and a protocol of biopsies. CONCLUSIONS: Missed GC in an EGD in a defined population in Spain is not uncommon (9.1%). The endoscopist is an important factor in missed GC due to lack of adequate detection and sampling error. Compliance with performance of quality indicators could reduce missed GC.
Diagnostic Errors/statistics & numerical data , Endoscopy, Digestive System/statistics & numerical data , Stomach Neoplasms/diagnosis , Stomach Neoplasms/mortality , Aged , Female , Humans , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Male , Quality Indicators, Health Care , Retrospective Studies , Spain/epidemiology
