Editorial
Copyright ©2011 Baishideng Publishing Group Co.
World J Gastrointest Pathophysiol. Dec 15, 2011; 2(6): 93-99
Published online Dec 15, 2011. doi: 10.4291/wjgp.v2.i6.93
Table 1 Definition of intraepithelial neoplasia
Definition
Japanese viewWestern view
Indefinite for intraepithelial neoplasiaA temporary termA temporary term
It is difficult to distinguish whether a lesion is neoplastic or non-neoplastic, or reactive or regenerative
LGINCharacterized by a slightly modified mucosal architecture, including the presence of tubular structures with budding and branching, papillary enfolding, crypt lengthening with serration and cystic changes
HGINCharacterized by an increasing architectural distortion with glandular crowding and prominent cellular atypia without stromal invasion
Adenocarcinoma/carcinomaDiagnosed on nuclear and structural atypia, even when invasion is absent[45]Diagnosed when evident invasive growth of neoplastic epithelium into the lamina propria of the mucosa or beyond is observed[46]
Table 2 Histological discrepancy rates between biopsy and endoscopic resection sample n (%)
Reports (yr)Endoscopic biopsyResected specimensOverall
Underdiagnosis1Overdiagnosis2Discrepancy3
Yoon et al[47], 2006Tubular adenoma2/41 (4.9)2/41 (4.9)4/41 (9.8)
Jung et al[29], 2008LGIN31/74 (42)--
HGIN36/40 (90)2/40 (5)38/40 (95)
Lee et al[48], 2010IN114/311 (37)41/311 (13)155/311 (50)
Carcinoma7/86 (8.1)16/86 (19)23/86 (26)
Total121/397 (30)57/397 (14)178/397 (45)
Kato et al[27], 2010IN255/468 (44)4/468 (1.7)259/468 (46)
Table 3 Histological follow-up studies of gastric intraepithelial neoplasia through mild to severe dysplasia
Reports (yr)LGIN (including mild to moderate dysplasia)HGIN (including severe dysplasia)
Detection of carcinoma n (%)Interval (mean) n (%)Detection of carcinomaInterval (mean)
Saraga et al[49], 19871/64 (2)4 yr17/21 (81)4 mo
Lansdown et al[46], 19900/7 (0)-11/13 (85)5 mo
Rugge et al[50], 199112/69 (17)1 yr6/8 (75)4 mo
Fertitta et al[51], 19937/30 (23)10 mo25/31 (81)5 mo
Farinati et al[52], 1993--16/49 (33)1-
Di Gregorio et al[53], 19936/89 (7)2 yr6/10 (60)11 mo
Bearzi et al[54], 19948/81 (9.9)-27/44 (61)-
Rugge et al[55], 199413/90 (14)2 yr14/18 (78)9 mo
Kolodziejczyk et al[56], 19942/351 (5.72)-7/7 (100)-
Kokkola et al[57], 19960/9 (0)-2/3 (67)1.5 yr
Rugge et al[19], 20038/90 (8.9)4 yr11/16 (69)34 mo
Yamada et al[58], 20040/38 (0)-1/10 (10)54 mo
Park et al[59], 20083/26 (12)58 mo31/1 (100)58 mo3
Overall60/628 (9.5)145/231 (63)
Table 4 Endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection for early gastric cancer[60]
EMRESD
MeritsMinimally invasive technique which is safe, convenient and efficaciousThe advantage of achieving large en-bloc resections, not necessarily limited by lesion size
DemeritsInsufficient when treating larger lesions, especially larger that 15 mmRequiring significant additional technical skills and a longer procedure time
Prolonged learning curve
High risks of local recurrence, especially when resections are not performed en bloc or when the resection margins are involved by tumorA higher complication rate compared to standard EMR