metricas
covid
Buscar en
Gastroenterología y Hepatología (English Edition)
Toda la web
Inicio Gastroenterología y Hepatología (English Edition) Frequency and clinical characteristics of early gastric cancer in comparison to ...
Journal Information
Vol. 43. Issue 9.
Pages 506-514 (November 2020)
Visits
903
Vol. 43. Issue 9.
Pages 506-514 (November 2020)
Original article
Full text access
Frequency and clinical characteristics of early gastric cancer in comparison to advanced gastric cancer in a health area of Spain
Frecuencia y aspectos clínicos del cáncer gástrico precoz en relación con el avanzado en un área sanitaria de España
Visits
903
Pedro Delgado-Guillenaa,b,
Corresponding author
pgdg20@gmail.com

Corresponding author.
, Víctor Morales-Alvaradoa, Consuelo Ramírez Salazara, Mireya Jimeno Ramiroc, Gemma Llibre Nietoa, Jose Galvez-Olorteguid,e, Hugo Uchimaf
a Unidad de Aparato Digestivo, Hospital General de Granollers, Barcelona, Spain
b Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
c Unidad de Anatomía Patológica, Hospital General de Granollers, Barcelona, Spain
d Unidad Generadora de Evidencias y Vigilancia Epidemiológica, Scientia Clinical and Epidemiological Research Institute, Trujillo, Peru
e Vicerrectorado de Investigación, Universidad Nacional Santiago Antúnez de Mayolo, Huaraz, Peru
f Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Spain
This item has received
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Figures (2)
Tables (3)
Table 1. Characteristics of patients with early and advanced gastric cancer.
Table 2. Characteristics of patients with EGC and curative potential if ESD had been performed.
Table 3. Frequency of EGC in published series in Spain.
Show moreShow less
Abstract
Introduction

Gastric cancer (GC) incidence is currently decreasing; however, survival is still low. Early GC (EGC) has better prognosis and it could be cured by endoscopic methods.

Patients and methods

Observational study of a retrospective cohort of all patients with GC during a five-year period in a health area of Spain. EGC diagnosis was defined as mucosal or submucosal (T1) cancers regardless of lymph node involvement, whereas the advanced GC was T2–T4.

Results

209 patients were included, and 26 (12%) of them were EGC. There was no difference between EGC and advanced GC in age, sex, HP infection, precancerous lesions or histological type. Other characteristics of EGC were different from advanced GC: location (antrum and incisura in 76% vs. 38%, p=0.01), alarm symptoms (69% vs. 90%, p<0.01), curative treatment (100% vs. 30%, p<0.01), performance status (PS 0–1: 92% vs. 75%, p=0.03) and survival (85% vs. 20%, p<0.001). Among patients who received curative treatment, 98% (79/81) underwent surgery and 2% (2/81) were treated by mucosectomy. Seven (27%) patients with EGC could have benefited from treatment by endoscopic submucosal resection.

Discussion

EGC frequency was low (12% of GCs) in our health area. EGC had a high percentage of alarm symptoms, and was located in the distal third of the stomach (antrum and incisura) and had better prognosis compared to advanced GC. Strategies to increase detection and endoscopic treatment of EGC should be implemented.

Keywords:
Gastric cancer
Early diagnosis
Characteristics
Endoscopic treatment
Resumen
Introducción

En la actualidad, la incidencia del cáncer gástrico (CG) está disminuyendo, sin embargo, la supervivencia continúa siendo baja. El cáncer gástrico precoz (CGP) ofrece un mejor pronóstico y la posibilidad de tratamientos endoscópicos curativos.

Pacientes y métodos

Estudio observacional de una cohorte retrospectiva de todos los pacientes con CG en un periodo de 5años en un área sanitaria de España. El CGP incluyó los pacientes con afectación mucosa o submucosa (T1) independientemente de la afectación ganglionar, mientras que el avanzado fueron los T2-T4.

Resultados

Se incluyeron 209 pacientes de los cuales 26 (12%) fueron CGP. El CGP no tuvo diferencias en comparación con el avanzado en la edad, sexo, infección por HP, lesiones premalignas ni tipo histológico; sin embargo, tuvo diferencias significativas en la localización (antro e incisura en un 76% vs. 38%, p=0,01), síntomas de alarma (69% vs. 90%, p<0,01), tratamiento con intención curativa (100% vs. 30%, p<0,01), performance status (PS 0-1: 92% vs. 75%, p=0,03) y supervivencia (85% vs. 20%, p<0,001). Entre los pacientes tratados con intención curativa, el 98% (79/81) fueron operados y el 2% (2/81) fueron tratados con mucosectomía. Siete (27%) pacientes con CGP se hubiesen podido beneficiar de disección submucosa.

Discusión

La frecuencia del CGP fue baja en nuestra área sanitaria (12% de los CG). El CGP tuvo síntomas de alarma en un alto porcentaje, se localizó en el tercio distal del estómago (antro e incisura) y tuvo mejor pronóstico en relación con el CG avanzado. Se deben implementar medidas para incrementar la detección y tratamiento endoscópico del CGP.

Palabras clave:
Cáncer gástrico
Diagnóstico temprano
Características
Tratamiento endoscópico
Full Text
Introduction

The incidence of gastric cancer (GC) is decreasing all over the world, although it remains the fifth leading type of cancer in terms of incidence and the third most fatal.1 The reduction in the incidence of GC is due to the implementation of primary prevention strategies, such as better food preservation and eradication of Helicobacter pylori (HP).1,2 Despite this improvement, 5-year survival in patients diagnosed with GC is remains low (less than 30%), mainly because it is diagnosed in advanced stages.3

Oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD) is the diagnostic method of choice because it enables identification and biopsy of lesions.4 Clinical practice guidelines recommend an OGD in the presence of dyspepsia in all patients older than 55–60 years, or younger in the following cases: (a) recurrence of symptoms, (b) presence of one or more warning symptoms (weight loss, vomiting, dysphagia, odynophagia, signs of upper gastrointestinal bleeding, palpable abdominal mass, etc.), or (c) presence of high-risk factors for malignancy (being from a country with a high incidence or a family history of GC).4,5 Once GC is diagnosed, it is clinically staged according to the TNM classification.6

Early gastric cancer (EGC) is distinguished from advanced gastric cancer (AGC) by degree of gastric wall invasion. EGC is a carcinoma confined to the mucosa (T1a) or submucosa (T1b) regardless of lymph node involvement.7 According to the TNM classification, EGC is included as a T1, whereas AGC includes T2–T4.7,8 From an endoscopic standpoint, it is possible to predict GC as EGC according to microscopic appearance, mucus pattern and vascular pattern.9 Additional tests such as endoscopic ultrasound and abdominal tomography aid in clinical differentiation between EGC and AGC.6

Identification of EGC in a OGD is important because the risk of spread to the lymph nodes is low and it is associated with a 5-year survival rate of 90% following surgery with lymph node dissection.10 Nevertheless, endoscopic treatment, which is less invasive, could be beneficial for some patients with EGC – for example, patients with clinical stage T1a adenocarcinoma that is differentiated without ulceration ≤2cm (classic criterion) or one of the following (expanded criteria): differentiated without ulceration >2cm, differentiated with ulceration ≤3cm or undifferentiated without ulceration ≤2cm.11

High-risk countries (particularly East Asian countries), in view of the importance of diagnosing EGC, are carrying out population screening programmes in asymptomatic patients12; a significant increase has been seen in the proportion of EGC in recent decades in Japan and South Korea.13 This type of strategy is not pursued in low-and intermediate-risk Western countries such as Spain due to its limited cost effectiveness.14 However, with a view to improving EGC identification, measures have been adopted for diagnosis in early stages, such as access to an OGD from primary care,15 use of high-resolution endoscopy and chromoendoscopy. In addition, more recently, European clinical practice guidelines have been developed to improve OGD quality as well as detection and endoscopic monitoring of premalignant gastric lesions.14,16 Despite these measures, an increase in the frequency of detection of EGC has not been achieved.17,18

The most recent data on the frequency of EGC in the Spanish population, from the early 1990s, estimated that EGC accounted for 2.8%–15.3% of all GC diagnoses.19–24 Therefore, we set out to determine the frequency of and clinical considerations in EGC versus AGC in a healthcare area in Spain.

Patients and methods

A retrospective, observational study. All patients diagnosed with GC between January 2012 and December 2016 in the healthcare area of Vallès Oriental (Barcelona) were enrolled. This region had a mean population of 434,498 inhabitants per year in the study period (data from the Servei Català de la Salut [Catalan Health Service], CatSalud). The patients were recruited from the Pathology Unit at Hospital General de Granollers [Granollers General Hospital], where the histological studies of the 3 county hospitals in this healthcare area are centralised. The study protocol was approved by the Hospital General de Granollers ethics committee.

Information was obtained from electronic medical records. The following information was collected: demographic data (age and sex), HP infection at diagnosis, warning symptoms, histology, tumour location, TNM staging, treatment type, performance status and death (at the end of follow-up: 31 December 2017). Treatment was classified according to three categories: (i) curative intent: endoscopic resection or R0/R1 surgery; (ii) palliative: R2 surgery or chemotherapy/radiotherapy alone; and (iii) comfort: no surgery or chemotherapy/radiotherapy.25 Information was also gathered on associated premalignant lesions (atrophy, intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia) in resected specimens corresponding to GC which underwent treatment with curative intent.

GC was diagnosed using the biopsies obtained in the OGD. Staging of GC as EGC was based on involvement of mucosa and/or submucosa regardless of lymph node involvement (T0-1), whereas AGC was comprised of T2-T4 and patients whose clinical condition did not allow for staging tests.7,8 In patients having undergone surgery or endoscopy, staging was performed according to analysis of gastric specimen resected (pTNM or ypTNM for patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy), whereas initial clinical staging (cTNM) was used in patients not having undergone such a procedure. This study used the seventh edition of the TNM classification of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC).6

Finally, the characteristics of the patients with EGC and the possibility of a cure if submucosal dissection had been performed were analysed. The following curative criteria were considered in the analysis of the surgical specimen11: (i) classic curative criterion: pT1a, size ≤2cm and differentiated type; and (ii) expanded criteria:

  • (a)

    pT1a, size >2cm, differentiated type without ulceration;

  • (b)

    pT1a, size >3cm, differentiated type with ulceration;

  • (c)

    pT1a, size >2cm, undifferentiated type without ulceration;

  • (d)

    (d) pT1b (sm1, <500μm), size ≤3cm, differentiated type.

For this sub-analysis, the differentiated histological type was intestinal adenocarcinoma and the well-differentiated or moderately differentiated type, whereas the undifferentiated type was the diffuse type, poorly differentiated type or that which presented signet ring cells.11,26 EGC morphology was classified as follows: 0-I: polypoid lesion; 0-IIa: flat elevated lesion; 0-IIb: flat non-elevated lesion; 0-IIc: flat depressed lesion; 0-III: excavated lesion.7

Statistical analysis

Categorical variables were presented as absolute and relative values and the chi-squared test, Fisher's exact test or the linear-by-linear association test was performed (as applicable in each case). Age was presented as a continuous variable in terms of mean (±standard deviation) or median (minimum and maximum value), normality was assessed with the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and comparison was done with the non-parametric Mann–Whitney U test. The Kaplan–Meier regression method was used for analysis of survival, and comparison was done with the log-rank test. Statistical analyses were performed with the SPSS Statistics for Windows software program, version 24.0, with a p<0.05 being considered statistically significant.

ResultsFrequency

A total of 212 cases of gastric adenocarcinomas were identified. Of these, 209 patients were included, and 3 patients were excluded because they had a history of gastrectomy for GC (we could not verify whether they had relapses, synchronic lesions or metachronic lesions). A total of 81 (38%) patients received treatment with curative intent; of them, 98% (79/81) underwent gastrectomy and 2% (2/81) underwent endoscopic treatment consisting of mucosectomy (Table 1). Out of all patients with GC, 12% (26/209) had EGC (Fig. 1) and 30.4% (24/79) underwent surgery with curative intent (Table 1). We did not identify patients with clinical staging of EGC in whom clinical follow-up had been decided; however, we did find that the GC in 38% (10/26) of the patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and subsequent surgery with curative intent was classified as EGC (Table 2).

Table 1.

Characteristics of patients with early and advanced gastric cancer.

  TotalEGCAGCp 
  n  n  %col  n  %col   
Patients (n)  209  100%  26  12%  183  88%   
Mean age (SD)+Median [min–max72 (12.7)  74 [31–93]  69 (12.4)  72 [35–86]  72 (12.8)  74 [31–93]  0.197 
Sex
Female  87  42%  10  39%  77  42%  0.726 
Male  122  58%  16  61%  106  58%   
H. pylori infection
Negative  196  94%  23  89%  173  95%  0.209 
Positive  13  6%  11%  10  5%   
Warning symptoms
No  26  12%  31%  18  10%  0.007 
Yes  183  88%  18  69%  165  90%   
Histology
Intestinal  123  58%  16  61%  107  59%  0.384 
Diffuse  56  27%  31%  48  26%   
Mixed  12  6%  4%  11  6%   
Undifferentiated  1%  0%  0%   
Unreported  17  8%  4%  16  9%   
Premalignant lesionsa
No  25  31%  15%  21  38%  0.079 
Atrophy  20  25%  23%  14  25%   
Intestinal metaplasia  25  31%  35%  16  29%   
Dysplasia  11  11%  27%  7%   
Location
Proximal (fundus/cardia)  32  15%  0%  32  18%  0.010 
Medial (body)  66  32%  12%  63  34%   
Distal (antrum/angular incisure)  90  43%  20  76%  70  38%   
Gastric remnantb  10  5%  12%  4%   
Multifocal (≥2 parts)  11  5%  0%  11  6%   
Stage
40  19%  26  100%  14  8%  <0.001 
II  32  15%  0%  32  17%   
III  24  11%  0%  24  13%   
IV  105  50%  0%  105  57%   
Undefined  4%  0%  4%   
Treatment
Curative intent  81  39%  26  100%  55  30%  <0.001 
Endoscopic resection  1%  8%  0%   
Surgical R0  68  33%  24  92%  44  24%   
Surgical R1  11  5%  0%  11  6%   
Palliative  88  42%  0%  88  48%   
Surgical R2  14  7%  0%  14  8%   
Chemotherapy/radiotherapy  74  35%  0%  74  40%   
Comfort  40  19%  0%  40  22%   
Performance status (grouped)
0/1  162  77%  24  92%  138  75%  0.031 
20  10%  8%  18  10%   
3/4  27  13%  0%  27  15%   
Death
No  58  28%  22  85%  36  20%  <0.001 
Yes  150  72%  15%  146  80%   

AGC: advanced gastric cancer; EGC: early gastric cancer; GC: gastric cancer.

a

Premalignant lesions in resected specimens (cases of mucosectomy or surgery with curative intent).

b

All having previously undergone surgery for peptic ulcer disease.

Figure 1.

Flowchart of the patients included in the study. GC: gastric cancer.

(0.05MB).
Table 2.

Characteristics of patients with EGC and curative potential if ESD had been performed.

No.  Location  Warning symptom  cTNM  Resection type  Morphology  Size  Histology  Differentiation  Depth  InvolvementCurative criteria if ESD  Follow-up (months) 
                    Lymphatic  Vascular  Lymph nodes     
Medial third  No  T1N0M0  Surgical  0-IIb  4cm  Intestinal  Differentiated  pT1b (504μm)  No  No  0/9  No  46.2 
Medial third  Yes  T1N0M0  Surgical  0-I  4cm  Intestinal  Differentiated  pTis  No  No  0/12  Yes (cc)  69.4 
Medial third  No  T2N0M0  Surgical  0-IIb  N/A  Diffuse  Poorly differentiated  ypT1b (N/A)  N/A  N/A  0/7  N/A  43.3 
Distal third  Yes  T0-1N0M0  Mucosectomy  0-IIc  1cm  Intestinal  Differentiated  pT1is  No  No  N/A  Yes (cc)  31.3a 
Distal third  Yes  T1N0M0  Surgical  0-IIc  2.5cm  Mixed  Poorly differentiated  pT1a  No  No  0/4  No  2.2a 
Distal third  Yes  T1-2N0M0  Surgical  0-I  3cm  Intestinal  Differentiated  pT1a  No  No  0/11  Yes (ec: a)  28.6 
Distal third  Yes  T1-2N0M0  Surgical  0-IIc  1.5cm  Intestinal  Differentiated  pT1b (381μm)  No  No  0/23  Yes (ec: d)  51.3 
Distal third  Yes  T1N0M0  Surgical  0-III  1.7cm  Intestinal  Differentiated  pT1b (not avail.)  No  No  0/x  Yes (ec: d)  15.8 
Distal third  Yes  T2N0M0  Surgical  0-IIc  3cm  Intestinal  Differentiated  pT1b (3689μm)  No  No  0/28  No  31.6 
10  Distal third  No  T1N0M0  Surgical  0-IIb  2.5cm  Intestinal  Differentiated  pT1b (4667μm)  No  No  0/20  No  61.8 
11  Distal third  No  T1N0M0  Surgical  0-III  1cm  Diffuse  Signet ring cells  pT1b (not avail.)  No  No  0/x  No  68.8 
12  Distal third  Yes  T1-2N0M0  Surgical  0-IIc  1.2cm  Intestinal  Differentiated  pTis  No  No  0/9  Yes (cc)  58.2 
13  Distal third  No  T1N0M0  Surgical  0-IIc  1.5cm  Intestinal  Differentiated  pTis  No  No  0/x  Yes (cc)  68.1 
14  Distal third  Yes  T0-1N0M0  Mucosectomy  0-IIc  1cm  Not avail.  Differentiated  pTis  No  No  N/A  Yes (cc)  20.9a 
15  Distal third  Yes  T2N+M0  Surgical  0-IIb  N/A  Diffuse  Signet ring cells  ypT1b (N/A)  N/A  N/A  0/28  N/A  17.7 
16  Distal third  Yes  T2N+M0  Surgical  0-IIb  N/A  Diffuse  Poorly differentiated  ypT0  N/A  N/A  0/24  N/A  41.6 
17  Distal third  Yes  T3N+M0  Surgical  0-III  N/A  Intestinal  Differentiated  ypT0  N/A  N/A  0/x  N/A  63.7 
18  Distal third  No  T2-3N+M0  Surgical  0-III  N/A  Diffuse  Signet ring cells  ypT0  N/A  N/A  0/8  N/A  70.6 
19  Distal third  No  T2-3N+M0  Surgical  0-IIb  N/A  Intestinal  Poorly differentiated  ypT1a  N/A  N/A  0/13  N/A  42.6 
20  Distal third  Yes  T2N0M0  Surgical  0-IIb  N/A  Diffuse  Signet ring cells  ypT1a  N/A  N/A  0/17  N/A  44.0 
21  Distal third  Yes  T3N+M0  Surgical  0-IIb  N/A  Intestinal  Differentiated  ypT1b (N/A)  N/A  N/A  0/37  N/A  22.7 
22  Distal third  No  T2-3N0M0  Surgical  0-IIb  N/A  Diffuse  Poorly differentiated  ypT1b (N/A)  N/A  N/A  0/33  N/A  43.3 
23  Distal third  Yes  T2N+M0  Surgical  0-IIb  N/A  Diffuse  Poorly differentiated  ypT1b (N/A)  N/A  N/A  0/23  N/A  38.4 
24  Remnant  Yes  T0-1N0M0  Surgical  0-IIa  2cm  Intestinal  Differentiated  pT1b (2850μm)  Yes  No  0/4  No  22.3a 
25  Remnant  Yes  T0-1N0M0  Surgical  0-III  1.5cm  Intestinal  Differentiated  pT1b (229μm)  No  No  0/10  Yes (ec: d)  28.8 
26  Remnant  Yes  T2N0M0  Surgical  0-I  2.4cm  Intestinal  Differentiated  pT1b (8000μm)  No  No  0/13  No  16.7 

cc: classic criterion; cTNM: clinical stage; ec: expanded criterion; EGC: early gastric cancer; ESD: endoscopic submucosal dissection; N/A: not applicable; not avail.: not available. For level of submucosal involvement in the cases of pT1b that were not available, we assumed infiltration of the submucosa <500μm.

a

Deceased.

Clinical considerations

When EGC was compared to AGC, there were no significant differences with regard to mean age (69 years vs. 72 years; p=0.19), sex (61% men vs. 58% women; p=0.72), HP infection (11% vs. 5%; p=0.21), presence of premalignant lesions (85% vs. 62%; p=0.07) or intestinal histological type (61% vs. 59%; p=0.38). When EGC was compared to AGC, there were significant differences with regard to location (it was located in the distal third in 76% vs. 38%; p=0.01), warning symptoms (69% vs. 90%; p<0.01), treatment with curative intent (100% vs. 30%; p<0.01) and performance status (0–1: 92% vs. 75%; p=0.03). In addition, all patients with EGC were classified as stage 1, and only 8% of AGC patients entered this category (p<0.01) (Table 1).

When we evaluated patients with EGC, we found that 27% (7/26) of patients could have avoided surgical treatment had they undergone less invasive treatment, such as submucosal endoscopic dissection: 3 cases met the classic curative criterion and 4 cases met the expanded curative criterion (one case met the “a” expanded criterion and 3 cases met the “d” expanded criterion) (Table 2).

Median follow-up was 14 months (interquartile range: 0–71 months). Survival after one year was statistically superior in patients with EGC compared to patients with AGC (96.2% vs. 45.9%; log-rank p<0.01) (Fig. 2). Survival in patients who completed 5 years of follow-up (91 patients) was also higher in patients with EGC (72.7% vs. 11.3%; log-rank p<0.01). Mortality in patients with EGC was 15% (4 patients). One patient died in the first year due to a surgery-related complication (peritonitis secondary to dehiscence of the duodenal anastomosis), and the other 3 deaths occurred after the first year secondary to causes unrelated to the perioperative period (one patient due to a relapse of GC with liver metastases, one patient from cholangiocarcinoma of the common hepatic duct and one patient from bilateral pneumonia).

Figure 2.

Survival of patients with early gastric cancer (EGC) and advanced gastric cancer (AGC).

(0.07MB).
Discussion

The incidence of GC is gradually decreasing all over the world due to primary prevention measures such as better food preservation and eradication of HP.1,2 Moreover, in Japan, the proportion of EGC has been improved by up to 50% thanks to the implementation of a population screening programme as a secondary prevention measure.13 In one European country, namely France, the proportion of EGC has remained low (6.7%) in recent decades.17 In our series it accounted for 12% of all GCs, within the range previously reported in different Spanish series.19–24 On the other hand, the proportion of GC may be overestimated when it is only calculated among surgical patients.17,27 In our study, the proportion of GC among surgical patients was 30.4%, with an improvement in the selection of candidates for surgery when compared to studies published in recent years in Spain (Table 3).23,24,28–30 This improvement can also be accounted for by advances in neoadjuvant treatments.30 In our study, we identified 10 patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy with a surgical specimen classified as EGC (Table 2).

Table 3.

Frequency of EGC in published series in Spain.

Author  Location  Study period  EGC out of patients who underwent surgery  EGC out of all patients 
Velloso et al.19  Andalusia  1971–76  Not avail.  3.6% 
Velloso and Pou20  Multicentre  <1978  Not avail.  2.8% 
Oleagoitia et al.28  Basque Country  1975–85  14.6%  Not avail. 
Aguayo et al.21  Murcia  1982–85  Not avail.  15.3% 
Bordas et al.23  Catalonia  1987–88  17.8%  12% 
Moreto et al.22  Basque Country  1989a  Not avail.  10% 
Pérez López de Briñas24  Catalonia  1981–90  16.2%  7.2% 
Bianchi et al.29  Catalonia  1980–96  21%  Not avail. 
Bianchi and Espin30  Catalonia  1996–2000  29.5%  Not avail. 
    2006–11  20.5%  Not avail. 
Delgado-Guillena et al.  Catalonia  2012–16  30.4%  12% 

EGC: early gastric cancer; not avail.: not available.

a

Publication date (study period: 13 years).

GC is more common in men and in patients around 60 years of age.27 In our series, both EGC and AGC were more common in men, with no differences in terms of distribution between the two groups. Similarly, no differences were seen in terms of mean age of patients with EGC (69 years) and AGC (72 years). Age at diagnosis of EGC in our series was older than in series previously reported in European countries (59.9 years) and in Japanese patients (57.8 years).27

The main risk factor for GC is HP infection; however, in our cohort, only 6% had HP infection when they were diagnosed with GC, leading us to assume prior eradication in an unknown percentage of patients. It has been reported that GC risk does not disappear following eradication of HP and occurrence of changes such as atrophy and intestinal metaplasia; therefore, endoscopic monitoring is recommended.14,31

In Spain, population screening for GC (in asymptomatic patients) is not cost-effective14; therefore, a diagnostic method such as an OGD is usually performed in the presence of symptoms.4 Patients with EGC usually have unspecific symptoms such as dyspepsia, in some cases associated with alarm symptoms such as anaemia, gastrointestinal bleeding (less than 25%) and weight loss (less than 40%), whereas AGC is more commonly associated with warning symptoms.8,27 In our study, warning symptoms were seen in 18/26 (69%) patients with GC; the most common were anaemia in 9/26 (35%) cases, weight loss in 4/26 (15%) cases and gastrointestinal bleeding in 3/26 (12%) cases. The high frequency of warning symptoms may have been due to the lesions’ morphological characteristics; for example, in 12 cases, lesions were flat-depressed (0-IIc) or excavated (0-III). Multiple alarm symptoms were seen in 6 of the 10 patients classified as EGC after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (Table 2).

GC is an adenocarcinoma in more than 90% of cases and tends to be predominantly of the intestinal type. It is currently accepted that GC is the end result of a series of changes such as atrophic chronic gastritis, intestinal metaplasia, dysplasia and finally adenocarcinoma. This process is multifocal; usually it starts in the angular incisure, then spreads towards the stomach walls.8 In our study, 69% of the patients treated with curative intent (mucosectomy or surgical R0/R1) had premalignant lesions with no significant differences observed between EGC and AGC. Of all gastric adenocarcinomas, the intestinal type was the most common in both groups (61% in EGC and 59% in AGC).

GC location was similar to that reported by Miguélez-Ferreiro et al.,32 with 43% of cases in the distal third (antrum and angular incisure), followed by 32% of cases in the medial third (body); however, the distribution of EGC compared to AGC was more common in the distal third (76% vs. 38%), followed by the medial third (12% vs. 34%). All cases of EGC and only 8% of cases of AGC were classified as stage I; despite this, the total proportion of patients in stage I was less than 20%, similar to that reported previously in a Spanish hospital.32

Endoscopic resection of EGC (mucosectomy or submucosal dissection) serves as a diagnostic method, and when the resected lesion meets curative criteria, surgical treatment can be avoided in a high percentage of patients.33 For a patient to be considered cured, en bloc resection of the lesion must be performed, with clear margins and no lymphovascular invasion. A patient is regarded as cured if they meet the classic curative criterion (a well-differentiated intramucosal adenocarcinoma ≤2cm) or any of the expanded criteria.11 The expanded criteria have a low risk of lymph node involvement.33,34 However, the risk is not null and must therefore be evaluated by a multidisciplinary committee, particularly adenocarcinoma of undifferentiated histology which involves a more aggressive biology (“c” expanded criteria) and adenacarcinoma invading the submucosa (“d” expanded criteria). The incorporation of the expanded curative criteria has been shown to maintain a low risk of spread to the lymph nodes, a high cure rate and outcomes similar to surgery.33,34 Despite these advances in endoscopic treatment of EGC, we only detected 2 cases of mucosectomy and no cases of submucosal dissection. When we evaluated the surgical specimens from the patients with EGC, we found that 27% (7/26) of the patients could also have benefited from a less invasive endoscopic curative treatment with the same outcomes as surgery with lymph node dissection. Although cases of distal EGC are more likely to undergo an endoscopic approach, in Spain, implementation of submucosal dissection is limited by the low frequency with which EGC is diagnosed and the costs associated with the procedure.35

All cases of EGC received treatment with curative intent (2 cases of endoscopic treatment and 24 cases of surgical treatment). We did not identify any cases of EGC in which a decision not to treat was made. Since the concept of EGC was introduced in Japan (1962), these patients have been seen to have a 5-year survival rate ≥90% following treatment with lymph node dissection10; however, in Western countries, the survival rate tends to be slightly lower (84%–92%).27 We also observed a lower 5-year survival rate (72.7%). The difference has been attributed to surgical technique-related considerations.27 In our study, one (3.8%) of the patients with EGC died due to a perioperative complication. Guadagni et al. estimated operative mortality in EGC at 4.1% (including anastomotic dehiscence and other perioperative complications); and in long-term follow-up (5 or 10 years), pneumonia was a common cause.36 Given the limited number of patients with EGC, these 4 cases may have had a greater impact on the survival analysis.

The purpose of our study was not to evaluate surgical technique or chemotherapy type. However, our study's definition of EGC was based on surgical specimen examination and did not take into account whether or not the patient had received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The European guidelines establish neoadjuvant chemotherapy as standard treatment in a selected group of patients (clinically operable GC >T1N0), whereas the Japanese guidelines do not.6,11 Pathology-based staging is the best prognostic factor, and based on this, clinical staging is known to perhaps over- or under-stage GC (by up to 23%).37 Consequently, in the group of patients with EGC who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, we might have introduced bias by initially including over-staged patients (true EGC) and responders to neoadjuvant treatment (initial involvement deeper than the submucosa). Nevertheless, due to the introduction of neoadjuvant treatment in recent years, studies that are attempting to evaluate the prognosis for ypTNM and pTNM staging are being conducted.38 On this basis, future studies should take this factor into account and evaluate the prognosis for ypT1 and pT1 patients.

While our data did not come from a population registry, they did correspond to patients seen in a well-defined health area where care was provided at 3 county hospitals with endoscopy units, with surgical care for GC (non-cardia GC) and the pathology unit centralised at one of them.

The main weakness of our study was its retrospective design, which hampered the collection of data such as HP treatment before GC diagnosis and use of proton pump inhibitors, which in some cases may mask or delay the diagnosis of GC. The absence of a computerised registry in prior years made it impossible for us to compare the current frequency of EGC to previous data from our same healthcare area. In addition, we lacked access to death certificates; therefore, vital status at the end of the study was considered for the survival analysis.

The Spanish clinical practice guidelines recommend an OGD in patients over 55 years of age with dyspepsia and in patients with recurrence of symptoms or any warning symptom4; however, the diagnosis of EGC in patients of an age similar to advanced GC with a high frequency of alarm symptoms led us to suspect a lack of treatment adherence. Similarly, in Spain the diagnosis of GC may reportedly go unnoticed, in many cases due to a failure to recognise subtle mucosa lesions in an OGD.39,40 To improve ECG detection, it is important to learn to detect EGC and to improve OGD quality. The European clinical practice guidelines on OGD quality16 recommend a meticulous inspection of the gastric mucosa (at least 7min), suitable photographic documentation (at least 10 photographs altogether, and at least 5 photographs of the gastric cavity) and the performance of biopsies according to protocols (2 biopsies of the antrum and 2 biopsies of the body of the stomach) in patients with a high risk of GC. The quality of an OGD can be enhanced by means of a simple training programme.41 Moreover, the frequency of EGC is easy to measure (cases of T0-1 GC out of all cases of GC in a given period) and the definition thereof has remained unchanged over time; hence, it could serve as an indicator on endoscopy units to evaluate strategies in secondary prevention of GC.

Conclusion

The frequency of EGC was low in our health area (12% of cases of GC) and similar to figures previously reported in Spain. EGC presented in assocation with a high percentage of warning symptoms, was located mainly in the distal third of the stomach (antrum and angular incisure) and had a better prognosis than AGC. Measures must be implemented to increase the proportion of cases of EGC. In view of the better prognosis of early-stage GC and the possibility of endoscopic treatment, endoscopists must be trained to recognise these lesions and perform an OGD according to the recommended quality criteria.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References
[1]
F. Bray, J. Ferlay, I. Soerjomataram, R.L. Siegel, L.A. Torre, A. Jemal.
Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries.
CA Cancer J Clin, 68 (2018), pp. 394-424
[2]
J. Galceran, A. Ameijide, M. Carulla, A. Mateos, J.R. Quirós, D. Rojas, et al.
Cancer incidence in Spain, 2015.
Clin Transl Oncol, 19 (2017), pp. 799-825
[3]
R. De Angelis, M. Sant, M.P. Coleman, S. Francisci, P. Baili, D. Pierannunzio, et al.
Cancer survival in Europe 1999–2007 by country and age: results of EUROCARE-5-a population-based study.
Lancet Oncol, 15 (2014), pp. 23-34
[4]
J.P. Gisbert, X. Calvet, J. Ferrándiz, J. Mascort, P. Alonso-Coello, M. Marzo, et al.
Clinical practice guideline on the management of patients with dyspepsia Update 2012.
Gastroenterol Hepatol, 35 (2012), pp. 725
[5]
P. Moayyedi, B.E. Lacy, C.N. Andrews, R.A. Enns, C.W. Howden, N. Vakil.
ACG and CAG clinical guideline: management of dyspepsia.
Am J Gastroenterol, 112 (2017), pp. 988-1013
[6]
E.C. Smyth, M. Verheij, W. Allum, D. Cunningham, A. Cervantes, D. Arnold, et al.
Gastric cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.
Ann Oncol, 27 (2016), pp. v38-v49
[7]
Japanese Gastric Cancer Association.
Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma. 2nd English edition.
Gastric Cancer, 1 (1998), pp. 10-24
[8]
P. Correa.
Gastric cancer: overview.
Gastroenterol Clin North Am, 42 (2013), pp. 211-217
[9]
G. Fernández-Esparrach, Á. Calderón, J. de la Peña, J.B.D. Tasende, J.M. Esteban, A.Z. Gimeno-García, et al.
Disección submucosa endoscópica Guía de práctica clínica de la SEED.
Rev Esp Enferm Dig, 106 (2014), pp. 258-263
[10]
T. Okamura, S. Tsujitani, D. Korenaga, M. Haraguchi, H. Baba, Y. Hiramoto, et al.
Lymphadenectomy for cure in patients with early gastric cancer and lymph node metastasis.
Am J Surg, 155 (1988), pp. 476-480
[11]
Japanese Gastric Cancer Association.
Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2014 (ver. 4).
Gastric Cancer, 20 (2017), pp. 1-19
[12]
X. Zhang, M. Li, S. Chen, J. Hu, Q. Guo, R. Liu, et al.
Endoscopic screening in Asian countries is associated with reduced gastric cancer mortality: a meta-analysis and systematic review.
Gastroenterology, 155 (2018), pp. 347-354
[13]
A. De Sol, S. Trastulli, V. Grassi, A. Corsi, I. Barillaro, A. Boccolini, et al.
Requirement for a standardised definition of advanced gastric cancer.
Oncol Lett, 7 (2014), pp. 164-170
[14]
P. Pimentel-Nunes, D. Libânio, R. Marcos-Pinto, M. Areia, M. Leja, G. Esposito, et al.
Management of epithelial precancerous conditions and lesions in the stomach (MAPS II): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), European Helicobacter and Microbiota Study Group (EHMSG), European Society of Pathology (ESP), and Sociedade Portuguesa de Endoscopia Digestiva (SPED) guideline update 2019.
Endoscopy, 51 (2019), pp. 365-388
[15]
Z. Suvakovic, M. Bramble, R. Jones, C. Wilson, N. Idle, J. Ryott.
Improving the detection rate of early gastric cancer requires more than open access gastroscopy: a five year study.
Gut, 41 (1997), pp. 308-313
[16]
R. Bisschops, M. Areia, E. Coron, D. Dobru, B. Kaskas, R. Kuvaev, et al.
Performance measures for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy quality improvement initiative.
United Eur Gastroenterol J, 4 (2016), pp. 629-656
[17]
N. Chapelle, A.-M. Bouvier, S. Manfredi, A. Drouillard, C. Lepage, J. Faivre, et al.
Early gastric cancer: trends in incidence management, and survival in a well-defined French population.
Ann Surg Oncol, 23 (2016), pp. 3677-3683
[18]
A.E. Dassen, J.L. Dikken, K. Bosscha, M.W. Wouters, A. Cats, C.J. van de Velde, et al.
Gastric cancer: decreasing incidence but stable survival in the Netherlands.
Acta Oncol, 53 (2014), pp. 138-142
[19]
A. Velloso Jiménez, J. de la Santa Lopez, F. Gavilan Carrasco.
Early gastric cancer.
Rev Esp Enferm Apar Dig, 52 (1978), pp. 27-50
[20]
A. Velloso Jiménez, J.M. Pou Fernández.
Early gastric cancer in Spain. Analysis of 144 cases coming from 20 health centers.
Rev Esp Enferm Apar Dig, 59 (1981), pp. 303-312
[21]
J.L. Aguayo, F.A. Pastor, J.B. Vidal, J.E. Hernández, J. Hernández.
Early gastric carcinoma: presentation of a small series with a high frequency.
Rev Esp Enferm Apar Dig, 73 (1988), pp. 482-484
[22]
M. Moreto, M. Zaballa, R. Rodríguez María.
Analysis of early carcinoma of the stomach.
Rev Esp Enferm Apar Dig, 75 (1989), pp. 457-458
[23]
J.M. Bordas, V. Barragán, E. Condom, J. Fuster, L. Hinojosa, J.A. Bombí, et al.
Superficial gastric cancer in Barcelona Importance of the detection of severe epithelial dysplasia in biopsies obtained under endoscopic control in the diagnosis of early gastric cancer.
Med Clin (Barc), 97 (1991), pp. 321-325
[24]
J.M. Pérez López de Briñas.
Early gastric cancer at a third-level hospital in Barcelona in 1981–1990. Clinical considerations.
Rev Esp Enferm Dig, 84 (1993), pp. 90-94
[25]
B. Cady, R.L. Rossi, M.L. Silverman, W. Piccione, T.A. Heck.
Gastric adenocarcinoma. A disease in transition.
[26]
C. Mariette, F. Carneiro, H.I. Grabsch, R.S. van der Post, W. Allum, G. de Manzoni, et al.
Consensus on the pathological definition and classification of poorly cohesive gastric carcinoma.
Gastric Cancer, 22 (2019), pp. 1-9
[27]
S.M. Everett, A.T. Axon.
Early gastric cancer in Europe.
Gut, 41 (1997), pp. 142-150
[28]
J.M. Oleagoitia, A. Echevarria, J.I. Santidrian, M.A. Ulacia, J. Hernandez-Calvo.
Early gastric cancer.
Br J Surg, 73 (1986), pp. 804-806
[29]
A. Bianchi, J. Suñol, R. Diloy, J.M. Castellvi, M.J. Fantova, A. Badia, et al.
Early gastric cancer. Changes in its incidence over a 16-year period.
Cir Esp, 64 (1998), pp. 110-112
[30]
A. Bianchi, F. Espin.
Where are we in the treatment of gastric cancer? Experiences and evidences 30 years later.
Med Clin (Barc), 140 (2012), pp. 307-309
[31]
H.N. Chen, Z. Wang, X. Li, Z.G. Zhou.
Helicobacter pylori eradication cannot reduce the risk of gastric cancer in patients with intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia: evidence from a meta-analysis.
Gastric Cancer, 19 (2016), pp. 166-175
[32]
S. Miguélez Ferreiro, M. Cornide Santos, E. Martínez Moreno.
Gastric cancer in a Spanish hospital: Segovia General Hospital (2005–2008).
Gastroenterol Hepatol, 35 (2012), pp. 684-690
[33]
L. An, S. Gaowa, H. Cheng, M. Hou.
Long-term outcomes comparison of endoscopic resection with gastrectomy for treatment of early gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Front Oncol, 9 (2019), pp. 725
[34]
M.M. Abdelfatah, M. Barakat, H. Lee, J.J. Kim, N. Uedo, I. Grimm, et al.
The incidence of lymph node metastasis in early gastric cancer according to the expanded criteria in comparison with the absolute criteria of the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis.
Gastrointest Endosc, 87 (2018), pp. 338-347
[35]
J.J. Vila, M. Kutz, G. Fernández-Esparrach, L. López-Rosés, S. Rodríguez, A. Sánchez-Yague.
Endoscopic submucosal dissection in Spain: outcomes and development possibilities.
Rev Esp Enferm Dig, 105 (2013), pp. 544-552
[36]
S. Guadagni, M. Catarci, T. Kinoshitá, M. Valenti, G. De Bernardinis, M. Carboni.
Causes of death and recurrence after surgery for early gastric cancer.
World J Surg, 21 (1997), pp. 434-439
[37]
J.H. Lee, Y.W. Min, J.H. Lee, E.R. Kim, H. Lee, B.H. Min, et al.
Diagnostic group classifications of gastric neoplasms by endoscopic resection criteria before and after treatment: real-world experience.
Surg Endosc, 30 (2016), pp. 3987-3993
[38]
Z. Li, Y. Wang, X. Ying, F. Shan, Z. Wu, L. Zhang, et al.
Different prognostic implication of ypTNM stage and pTNM stage for gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis.
[39]
P.G. Delgado Guillena, V.J. Morales Alvarado, M. Jimeno Ramiro, J. Rigau Cañardo, C. Ramírez Salazar, A. García Rodríguez, et al.
Gastric cancer missed at esophagogastroduodenoscopy in a well-defined Spanish population.
Dig Liver Dis, 51 (2019), pp. 1123-1129
[40]
N. Hernanz, E. Rodríguez de Santiago, H.M. Marcos Prieto, Jorge Turrión MÁ, E. Barreiro Alonso, C. Rodríguez Escaja, et al.
Characteristics and consequences of missed gastric cancer: a multicentric cohort study.
Dig Liver Dis, 51 (2019), pp. 894-900
[41]
H. Córdova, C. Sánchez-Montes, P.G. Delgado-Guillena, V.J. Morales, O. Sendino, B. González-Suárez, et al.
Quality indicators for esophagogastroduodenoscopy: a comparative study of outcomes after an improvement programme in a tertiary hospital.
Gastroenterol Hepatol, 40 (2017), pp. 587-594

Please cite this article as: Delgado-Guillena P, Morales-Alvarado V, Ramírez Salazar C, Jimeno Ramiro M, Llibre Nieto G, Galvez-Olortegui J, et al. Frecuencia y aspectos clínicos del cáncer gástrico precoz en relación con el avanzado en un área sanitaria de España. Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;43:506–514.

Copyright © 2020. Elsevier España, S.L.U.. All rights reserved
Download PDF
Article options
es en pt

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos