Download PDF
Endoscopy 2020; 52(07): 556-562
DOI: 10.1055/a-1130-6127
Original article

Noneffectiveness of scopolamine for facilitating detection of upper gastrointestinal neoplasia during screening esophagogastroduodenoscopy: propensity score-matched study

Fumio Omata
1   Gastroenterology Division, St. Luke’s International University, Tokyo, Japan
,
Yasuhisa Kumakura
1   Gastroenterology Division, St. Luke’s International University, Tokyo, Japan
,
Naoki Ishii
2   Gastroenterology Division, Tokyo Shinagawa Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
,
Gautam A. Deshpande
3   General Internal Medicine Division, Juntendo University, Tokyo, Japan
,
Kohei Matoba
1   Gastroenterology Division, St. Luke’s International University, Tokyo, Japan
,
Akemi Ohmuro
1   Gastroenterology Division, St. Luke’s International University, Tokyo, Japan
,
Fumie Rai
1   Gastroenterology Division, St. Luke’s International University, Tokyo, Japan
,
Misako Takashima
1   Gastroenterology Division, St. Luke’s International University, Tokyo, Japan
,
Akira Kato
1   Gastroenterology Division, St. Luke’s International University, Tokyo, Japan
,
Katsunori Masuda
1   Gastroenterology Division, St. Luke’s International University, Tokyo, Japan
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints


Referred to by:

Author commentary on Fumio Omata et al.Endoscopy 2020; 52(07): v24-v24
DOI: 10.1055/a-1157-1437

Abstract

Background Antispasmodics, such as scopolamine, are widely used in several countries prior to diagnostic and screening esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), with the goal of optimizing the detection of minute lesions, typically early gastric cancer (T1 lesions). The aim of this study was to determine whether scopolamine facilitates detection of gastric cancer in the screening setting.

Methods A propensity score-matched retrospective study was conducted in a tertiary referral medical center in Tokyo, Japan. Consecutive individuals (n = 40 776) underwent screening EGD between January 2011 and May 2016. All outcome lesions were diagnosed with histopathological confirmation. Detection of esophageal cancer, gastric adenoma, duodenal adenoma, and upper gastrointestinal neoplasia (UGIN) were investigated as secondary outcomes.

Results Scopolamine was used in 31 130 patients (76.3 %) and propensity score matching yielded 6625 pairs. Bivariate analysis revealed no significant association between possible confounders (age, sex, overweight, atrophic gastritis, alcohol history, smoking history, midazolam use, endoscopist biopsy rate grade, and gastric cancer in first-degree relatives) and scopolamine use. Lesions detected were 18 gastric cancers, 11 esophageal cancers, 19 gastric adenomas, 6 duodenal adenomas, and 54 UGINs, with no significant association between scopolamine use and lesion detection.

Conclusions Scopolamine use did not appear to effectively facilitate detection of gastric or esophageal cancer, gastric or duodenal adenoma, and UGIN during screening EGD. Scopolamine should be avoided until its efficacy is confirmed by a randomized controlled trial.



Publication History

Received: 29 September 2019

Accepted: 10 February 2020

Article published online:
06 April 2020

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Stuttgart · New York

 

  • References

  • 1 Gastric cancer screening guideline based on the evaluation of effectiveness, 2014 edition. Available from (Accessed 8 August 2019): http://canscreen.ncc.go.jp/guideline/igan.html
    PubMed
  • 2 Hamashima C. Systematic Review Group and Guideline Development Group for Gastric Cancer Screening Guidelines. Update version of the Japanese guidelines for gastric cancer screening. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2018; 48: 673-683
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Taniyama Y, Katanoda K, Charvat H. et al. Estimation of lifetime cumulative incidence and mortality risk of gastric cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2017; 47: 1097-1102
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Chiu PWY, Uedo N, Singh R. et al. An Asian consensus on standards of diagnostic upper endoscopy for neoplasia. Gut 2019; 68: 186-197
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Westfall T, Westfall D. Neurotransmission: the autonomic and somatic motor nervous systems. In: Brunton L. Goodman & Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. New York: The McGraw-Hill companies; 2011: 171-218
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 6 Fazio DT, Bateman JB, Christensen RE. Acute angle-closure glaucoma associated with surgical anesthesia. Arch Ophthalmol 1985; 103: 360-362
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Katsube T, Kon-No S, Hamaguchi K. et al. Scopolamine raises cardiac demand in the elderly during gastrointestinal endoscopy. Hepatogastroenterology 2005; 52: 1463-1466
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Kimura K, Takemoto T. An endoscopic recognition of the atrophic border and its significance in chronic gastritis. Endoscopy 1969; 3: 87-97
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Januszewicz W, Wieszczy P, Bialek A. et al. Endoscopist biopsy rate as a quality indicator for outpatient gastroscopy: a multicenter cohort study with validation. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 1141-1149
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Yao K. The endoscopic diagnosis of early gastric cancer. Ann Gastroenterol 2013; 26: 11-22
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma: 3rd English edition. Gastric Cancer 2011; 14: 101-112
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Japan Esophageal Society. Japanese classification of esophageal cancer, 11th Edition: part I. Esophagus 2017; 14: 1-36
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Japan Esophageal Society. Japanese classification of esophageal cCancer, 11th Edition: part II and III. Esophagus 2017; 14: 37-65
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 WHO Classification of Tumours Editorial Board. Digestive system tumours. WHO classification of tumours. 5. edn.. Lyon: IARC; 2019
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 15 Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res 2011; 46: 399-424
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Morgan CJ. Reducing bias using propensity score matching. J Nucl Cardiol 2018; 25: 404-406
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Hedenbro JL, Frederiksen SG, Lindblom A. Anticholinergic medication in diagnostic endoscopy of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Endoscopy 1991; 23: 199-202
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Interview form of scopolamine (8th edition). Available from (Accessed 8 August 2019): http://e-mr.sanofi.co.jp/
    PubMed
  • 19 Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report database (JADER). Available from (Accessed 11 March 2019): http://www.pmda.go.jp/index.html
    PubMed
  • 20 Parkin DM. International variation. Oncogene 2004; 23: 6329-6340
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Jun JK, Choi KS, Lee HY. et al. Effectiveness of the Korean National Cancer Screening Program in reducing gastric cancer mortality. Gastroenterology 2017; 152: 1319-1328
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Song M, Camargo MC, Weinstein SJ. et al. Family history of cancer in first-degree relatives and risk of gastric cancer and its precursors in a Western population. Gastric Cancer 2018; 21: 729-737
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Forman D, Newell DG, Fullerton F. et al. Association between infection with Helicobacter pylori and risk of gastric cancer: evidence from a prospective investigation. BMJ 1991; 302: 1302-1305
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Barreto-Zuniga R, Maruyama M, Kato Y. et al. Significance of Helicobacter pylori infection as a risk factor in gastric cancer: serological and histological studies. J Gastroenterol 1997; 32: 289-294
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Kaji K, Hashiba A, Uotani C. et al. Grading of atrophic gastritis is useful for risk stratification in endoscopic screening for gastric cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2019; 114: 71-79
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Lin XJ, Wang CP, Liu XD. et al. Body mass index and risk of gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2014; 44: 783-791
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Ma K, Baloch Z, He TT. et al. Alcohol consumption and gastric cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Med Sci Monit 2017; 23: 238-246
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Pandeya N, Williams GM, Sadhegi S. et al. Associations of duration, intensity, and quantity of smoking with adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus. Am J Epidemiol 2008; 168: 105-114
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Pandeya N, Williams G, Green AC. et al. Alcohol consumption and the risks of adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus. Gastroenterology 2009; 136: 1215-1224
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Xie FJ, Zhang YP, Zheng QQ. et al. Helicobacter pylori infection and esophageal cancer risk: an updated meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19: 6098-6107
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Park JM, Huo SM, Lee HH. et al. Longer observation time increases proportion of neoplasms detected by esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Gastroenterology 2017; 153: 460-469
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70: 41-55
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Cepeda MS, Boston R, Farrar JT. et al. Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders. Am J Epidemiol 2003; 158: 280-287
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar