Field Of Vision
Copyright ©2013 Baishideng Publishing Group Co., Limited. All rights reserved.
World J Gastroenterol. Mar 14, 2013; 19(10): 1523-1526
Published online Mar 14, 2013. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i10.1523
Intestinal metaplasia surveillance: Searching for the road-map
Angelo Zullo, Cesare Hassan, Alessandro Repici, Bruno Annibale
Angelo Zullo, Cesare Hassan, Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Nuovo Regina Margherita Hospital, 00153 Rome, Italy
Alessandro Repici, Department of Gastroenterology, IRCCS Istituto Clinico Humanitas, 20089 Milan, Italy
Bruno Annibale, Department of Digestive and Liver Disease, Sant’Andrea Hospital, II School of Medicine University Sapienza of Rome, 00153 Rome, Italy
Author contributions: Zullo A and Hassan C wrote the manuscript; Repici A and Annibale B supervised the manuscript.
Correspondence to: Angelo Zullo, MD, Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Nuovo Regina Margherita Hospital, Via E. Morosini, 30, 00153 Rome, Italy. zullo66@yahoo.it
Telephone: +39-6-58446608 Fax: +39-6-58446533
Received: December 24, 2012
Revised: February 2, 2013
Accepted: February 8, 2013
Published online: March 14, 2013
Abstract

Atrophic gastritis and intestinal metaplasia (IM) of the stomach are common and are associated with an increased risk for gastric cancer. In the absence of guidelines, a pragmatic management has been performed in Western countries in patients with these premalignant conditions. Recently, formal European guidelines have been delivered on this topic. Basically, it has been recommended that patients with extensive atrophic gastritis (AG) and/or extensive IM should be offered endoscopic surveillance every 3 years. On the contrary, no scheduled endoscopic/histological control has been advised for those patients with precancerous conditions confined to the antrum. In this commentary, we highlighted some potential weaknesses in the management formally recommended by the new guidelines. In detail, we discussed that AG and IM patients do not share the same gastric cancer risk, at least in Western countries, deserving a different approach. Some factors significantly associated with gastric cancer risk, such as IM type, first-degree family history of gastric cancer, and smoking habit have not been considered in tailoring the endoscopic follow-up. Finally, some data would suggest that a 3-year follow-up in patients with extensive gastric precancerous conditions could result in an inadequate secondary prevention.

Keywords: Intestinal metaplasia, Guidelines, Atrophic gastritis, Gastric cancer, Follow-up