Diagnosis and therapies for gastric non-invasive neoplasia

Table 1 Vienna classification and Japanese classification of gastric cancer for diagnosis of gastric intraepithelial neoplasia

Vienna classification		Japanese	Western
Category 3	Low grade adenoma/dysplasia (LGA)	Adenoma	Adenoma
Category 4.1	High grade adenoma/dysplasia (HGA)	Adenoma/cancer	Adenoma
Category 4.2	Non-invasive carcinoma (carcinoma in situ)	Cancer	Adenoma/cancer
Category 4.3	Suspicion of invasive carcinoma	Cancer	Adenoma/cancer
Category 5.1	Intramucosal carcinoma	Cancer	Adenoma/cancer
Category 5.2	Submucosal carcinoma or beyond	Cancer	Cancer

Table 2 Diagnosis yields for gastric non-invasive intraepithelial neoplasia of various endoscopic modality

Ref.	Modality	Sensitivity	Specificity	Accuracy
Cho et al[21], 2011	WLE	7.5%	99.4%	68.2%
Kato et al[17], 2011	WLE	42.0%	59.0%	56.0%
Kanesaka et al[28], 2014	NBI-ME	90.0%	87.8%	88.2%
Miwa et al[22], 2012	NBI-ME	82.4%	97.3%	NA
Yao et al[27], 2008	NBI-ME	94.0%	96.0%	98.7%
Wang et al[29], 2012	CLE	66.7%	92.3%	86.8%
Li et al[30], 2011	CLE	88.1%	98.6%	96.2%

WLE: White light endoscopy; CLE: Confocal laser endomicroscopy.

Table 3 Long-term follow-up outcomes of gastric non-invasive intraepithelial neoplasia

Ref.	Incrusion criteria	Duration	Regression	Accuracy
Suzuki et al[31], 2015	Vienna C3 and C4	NA	26.0%	0.0%
Yamada et al[32], 2004	Vienna C3	4.7Y	0.0%	2.7%
	Vienna C4	4.7Y	0.0%	10.0%
Saito et al[33], 2000	Adenoma	2Y	NA	6.3%
Kokkola et al[34], 1996	Mild dysplasia	NA	NA	0.0%
				(4% to moderate)
Bearzi et al[35], 1994	LGD	NA	49.4%	32.1%
Fertitta et al[36], 1993	Moderate and severe dysplasia	13M	NA	33.0%
Di Gregorio et al[37], 1993	Mild dysplasia	NA	74.0%	7.0%
Saraga et al[38], 1987	Mild and moderate dysplasia	42M	NA	1.6%
	Severe dysplasia	42M	NA	86.0%

NA: Not available.