PDF herunterladen
Endoscopy 2023; 55(10): 909-917
DOI: 10.1055/a-2089-6849
Original article

Metachronous lesions after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: first assessment of the FAMISH prediction score

Andreia Rei 
1   Gastroenterology Department, Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Santo António, Porto, Portugal
,
Raquel Ortigão 
2   Gastroenterology Department, RISE@CI-IPOP (Health Research Network), Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto (IPO Porto) and Porto Comprehensive Cancer Centre (Porto.CCC), Porto, Portugal
,
Mariana Pais 
3   MEDCIDS, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
,
Luís P. Afonso
4   Pathology Department, Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto, Porto, Portugal
,
Pedro Pimentel-Nunes 
2   Gastroenterology Department, RISE@CI-IPOP (Health Research Network), Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto (IPO Porto) and Porto Comprehensive Cancer Centre (Porto.CCC), Porto, Portugal
,
Mário Dinis-Ribeiro
2   Gastroenterology Department, RISE@CI-IPOP (Health Research Network), Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto (IPO Porto) and Porto Comprehensive Cancer Centre (Porto.CCC), Porto, Portugal
3   MEDCIDS, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
,
Diogo Libânio 
2   Gastroenterology Department, RISE@CI-IPOP (Health Research Network), Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto (IPO Porto) and Porto Comprehensive Cancer Centre (Porto.CCC), Porto, Portugal
3   MEDCIDS, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints


Abstract

Background Surveillance after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is recommended for all patients owing to the persistent risk of metachronous gastric lesions (MGLs). We developed and validated a prediction score to estimate MGL risk after ESD for early neoplastic gastric lesions, to define an individualized and cost-saving approach.

Methods Clinical predictors and a risk score were derived from meta-analysis data. A retrospective, single-center, cohort study including patients with ≥ 3 years of standardized surveillance after ESD was conducted for score validation. Predictive accuracy of the score by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was assessed and cumulative probabilities of MGL were estimated.

Results The risk score (0–9 points) included six clinical predictors (scored 0–3): positive family history of gastric cancer, older age, male sex, corpus intestinal metaplasia, synchronous gastric lesions, and persistent Helicobacter pylori infection (FAMISH). The study population included 263 patients. The MGL rate was 16 %. The score diagnostic accuracy for predicting MGL at 3 years’ follow-up, measured by the AUC, was 0.704 (95 %CI 0.603–0.806). At 3 years and a cutoff < 2, the score achieved maximal sensitivity and negative predictive value; 15 % of patients could be assigned to a low-risk group, in which the progression to MGL was significantly lower than for the high-risk group (P = 0.04).

Conclusion The FAMISH score might be a useful tool to accurately identify patients with low-to-intermediate risk for MGL at 3 years of follow-up who could have surveillance intervals extended to reduce the burden of care.

Supplementary material



Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 19. November 2022

Angenommen nach Revision: 09. Mai 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
09. Mai 2023

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
12. Juli 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Rose T, Pennington A, Kypridemos C. et al. Analysis of the burden and economic impact of digestive diseases and investigation of research gaps and priorities in the field of digestive health in the European region – White Book 2: executive summary. United European Gastroenterol J 2022; 10: 657-662
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Pimentel-Nunes P, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Ponchon T. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 829-854
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Prinz F, Ebigbo A, Probst A. et al. Gastric cancer – endoscopic treatment of early lesions, the West learns from the East. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2021; 50–51: 101739
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Ortigão R, Figueirôa G, Frazzoni L. et al. Risk factors for gastric metachronous lesions after endoscopic or surgical resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2022; 54: 892-901
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Pimentel-Nunes P, Libânio D, Bastiaansen BAJ. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial gastrointestinal lesions: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2022. Endoscopy 2022; 54: 591-622
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2018 (5th edition). Gastric Cancer 2021; 24: 1-21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ono H, Yao K, Fujishiro M. et al. Guidelines for endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection for early gastric cancer (second edition). Dig Endosc 2021; 33: 4-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Libânio D, Pimentel-Nunes P, Afonso LP. et al. Long-term outcomes of gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: focus on metachronous and non-curative resection management. GE Port J Gastroenterol 2017; 24: 31-39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Pimentel-Nunes P, Mourão F, Veloso N. et al. Long-term follow-up after endoscopic resection of gastric superficial neoplastic lesions in Portugal. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 933-940
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Abe S, Oda I, Minagawa T. et al. Metachronous gastric cancer following curative endoscopic resection of early gastric cancer. Clin Endosc 2018; 51: 253-259
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Suzuki H, Takizawa K, Hirasawa T. et al. Short-term outcomes of multicenter prospective cohort study of gastric endoscopic resection: ‘Real-world evidence’ in Japan. Dig Endosc 2019; 31: 30-39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Tanabe S, Ishido K, Matsumoto T. et al. Long-term outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: a multicenter collaborative study. Gastric Cancer 2017; 20: 45-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Libânio D, Braga V, Ferraz S. et al. Prospective comparative study of endoscopic submucosal dissection and gastrectomy for early neoplastic lesions including patients’ perspectives. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 30-39
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Abe S, Oda I, Suzuki H. et al. Long-term surveillance and treatment outcomes of metachronous gastric cancer occurring after curative endoscopic submucosal dissection. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 1113-1118
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kobayashi M, Narisawa R, Sato Y. et al. Self-limiting risk of metachronous gastric cancers after endoscopic resection. Dig Endosc 2010; 22: 169-173
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Figueiroa G, Pimentel-Nunes P, Dinis-Ribeiro M. et al. Gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis on risk factors for poor short-term outcomes. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 31: 1234-1246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Xu SS, Chai NL, Tang XW. et al. Characteristics of metachronous gastric neoplasms after curative endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric neoplasms. Chin Med J (Engl) 2021; 134: 2603-2610
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Nakajima T, Oda I, Gotoda T. et al. Metachronous gastric cancers after endoscopic resection: how effective is annual endoscopic surveillance?. Gastric Cancer 2006; 9: 93-98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Wang AY, Hwang JH, Bhatt A. et al. AGA clinical practice update on surveillance after pathologically curative endoscopic submucosal dissection of early gastrointestinal neoplasia in the United States: commentary. Gastroenterology 2021; 161: 2030-2040
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kato M, Nishida T, Yamamoto K. et al. Scheduled endoscopic surveillance controls secondary cancer after curative endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer: a multicentre retrospective cohort study by Osaka University ESD study group. Gut 2013; 62: 1425-1432
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Watari J, Tomita T, Tozawa K. et al. Preventing metachronous gastric cancer after the endoscopic resection of gastric epithelial neoplasia: roles of Helicobacter pylori eradication and aspirin. Gut Liver 2020; 14: 281-290
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Chung CS, Woo HS, Chung JW. et al. Risk factors for metachronous recurrence after endoscopic submucosal dissection of early gastric cancer. J Korean Med Sci 2017; 32: 421-426
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Nozaki I, Nasu J, Kubo Y. et al. Risk factors for metachronous gastric cancer in the remnant stomach after early cancer surgery. World J Surg 2010; 34: 1548-1554
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Morgagni P, Gardini A, Marrelli D. et al. Gastric stump carcinoma after distal subtotal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: experience of 541 patients with long-term follow-up. Am J Surg 2015; 209: 1063-1068
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG. et al. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. BMJ 2015; 350: g7594
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Moons KG, Kengne AP, Woodward M. et al. Risk prediction models: I. Development, internal validation, and assessing the incremental value of a new (bio)marker. Heart 2012; 98: 683-690
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Moons KG, Altman DG, Reitsma JB. et al. Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2015; 162: W1-73
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Solomon DH, Ganz DA, Avorn J. et al. Which patients with unstable angina or non-Q-wave myocardial infarction should have immediate cardiac catheterization? A clinical decision rule for predicting who will fail medical therapy. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55: 121-128
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Esposito G, Pimentel-Nunes P, Angeletti S. et al. Endoscopic grading of gastric intestinal metaplasia (EGGIM): a multicenter validation study. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 515-521
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Unal I. Defining an optimal cut-point value in ROC analysis: an alternative approach. Comput Math Methods Med 2017; 2017: 3762651
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Yoon H, Kim N, Shin CM. et al. Risk factors for metachronous gastric neoplasms in patients who underwent endoscopic resection of a gastric neoplasm. Gut Liver 2016; 10: 228-236
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Kim HJ, Kim YJ, Seo SI. et al. Impact of the timing of Helicobacter pylori eradication on the risk of development of metachronous lesions after treatment of early gastric cancer: a population-based cohort study. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 92: 613-622
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Brito-Gonçalves G, Libânio D, Marcos P. et al. Clinicopathologic characteristics of patients with gastric superficial neoplasia and risk factors for multiple lesions after endoscopic submucosal dissection in a Western country. GE Port J Gastroenterol 2020; 27: 76-89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Zhou HJ, Dan YY, Naidoo N. et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis evaluating endoscopic surveillance for gastric cancer for populations with low to intermediate risk. PLoS One 2013; 8: e83959
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Yeh JM, Hur C, Ward Z. et al. Gastric adenocarcinoma screening and prevention in the era of new biomarker and endoscopic technologies: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Gut 2016; 65: 563-574
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar