RESUMEN
Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the prediction of severity of gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) in localized and entire gastric mucosa using endoscopy. Methods: The authors searched Web of Science, PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and performed systematic searches on endoscopic grading of GIM of the entire stomach using Meta-DiSc and Stata. Results: Sensitivity and specificity for the stratified prediction of overall GIM were 0.91 (95% CI: 0.85-0.95) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.88-0.93), respectively. Sensitivity in predicting the different grades of GIM was higher in operative link on GIM assessment grades 0, III and IV but lower in grades I and II. Conclusion: Digital chromoendoscopy is well suited to predicting the severity of localized and overall GIM.
Asunto(s)
Lesiones Precancerosas , Neoplasias Gástricas , Endoscopía Gastrointestinal , Mucosa Gástrica/patología , Humanos , Metaplasia/diagnóstico , Metaplasia/patología , Lesiones Precancerosas/diagnóstico , Lesiones Precancerosas/patología , Neoplasias Gástricas/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Gástricas/patologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) is a significant risk factor for gastric cancer. Risk of gastric cancer/dysplasia between complete intestinal metaplasia (CIM) and incomplete intestinal metaplasia (IIM) was controversial. Our study aimed to pool relative risk (RR) of cancer/dysplasia of IIM compared with CIM in GIM patients. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched for studies concerning cancer/dysplasia in GIM patients. Random-effects or fixed-effects model was utilized for pooling RR. Sensitivity and publication bias analyses were conducted. Stability of results would be evaluated in case of publication bias. RESULTS: 12 studies were included. Compared with CIM, pooled RR of cancer/dysplasia in IIM patients was 4.48 (95% CI 2.50-8.03), and the RR was 4.96 (95% CI 2.72-9.04) for cancer, and 4.82 (95% CI 1.45-16.0) for dysplasia. The pooled RR for cancer/dysplasia in type III IM was 6.27 (95% CI 1.89-20.77) compared with type II + I IM, while it was 5.55 (95% CI 2.07-14.92) compared with type II IM. Pooled RR between type II IM and type I IM was 1.62 (95% CI 1.16-2.27). Subgroup analyses showed that IIM was associated with a higher risk of gastric cancer/dysplasia in Western population (pooled RR = 4.65 95% CI 2.30-9.42), but not in East Asian population (pooled RR = 4.01 95% CI 0.82-19.61). CONCLUSIONS: IIM was related to a higher risk of cancer/dysplasia compared with CIM. Risk of developing cancer/dysplasia from type I, II, and III intestinal metaplasia increased gradually.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Studies have shown the value of subtypes and distribution of gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) for prediction of gastric cancer. We aim to combine GIM subtypes and distribution to form a new scoring system for GIM. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study. No GIM, type I, II, and III GIM of gastric antrum and corpus scored 0-3 points respectively. Then the severity of the whole stomach was calculated in two ways: 1. The gastric antrum and corpus scores were added together, with a score ranging from 0 to 6, which named "Subtype Distribution Score of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia (SDSGIM)". 2. Direct classification according to a table corresponding to that of OLGIM. We compared the SDSGIM among benign lesions, dysplasia, and cancer and drew receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve to determine the optimal cut-off value. According to the cut-off value and the classification from the table, the predictive ability of these two methods were calculated. RESULTS: 227 patients were included. For SDSGIM, benign lesion group was significantly different from dysplasia or cancer group. Area under curve of ROC curve was 0.889 ± 0.023. The optimal cut-off value was 3. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of SDSGIM for malignancy were 89.5%, 78.0%, 74.6%, 91.2% and 82.8%. And those for the second classification method were 84.2%, 82.6%, 77.7%, 87.9%, and 83.3% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study firstly combined GIM subtypes with its distribution forming a novel scoring system, which showed high prediction accuracy for malignant lesions.
