Accuracy of Endoscopic Biopsies for Determining Tumor Grade in Pre-resection Evaluation of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma

IF 1.2 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.tige.2023.06.001
Ravi S. Shah , Omar Alaber , Xuefeng Zhang , Abel Joseph , Siva Raja , Suneel Kamath , Ruishen Lyu , John J. Vargo , Sudish C. Murthy , Amitabh Chak , Amit Bhatt
{"title":"Accuracy of Endoscopic Biopsies for Determining Tumor Grade in Pre-resection Evaluation of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma","authors":"Ravi S. Shah ,&nbsp;Omar Alaber ,&nbsp;Xuefeng Zhang ,&nbsp;Abel Joseph ,&nbsp;Siva Raja ,&nbsp;Suneel Kamath ,&nbsp;Ruishen Lyu ,&nbsp;John J. Vargo ,&nbsp;Sudish C. Murthy ,&nbsp;Amitabh Chak ,&nbsp;Amit Bhatt","doi":"10.1016/j.tige.2023.06.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and Aims</h3><p><span><span>Endoscopic resection<span> (ER) can be a curative treatment for early </span></span>esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Poor tumor differentiation is a histologic feature of noncurative ER and, when seen on preoperative biopsies, may lead to avoidance of endoscopic treatment. However, the accuracy of tumor grade on preoperative </span>endoscopic biopsies remains unclear. The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of tumor differentiation on endoscopic forceps biopsy compared with endoscopically or surgically resected tissue.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This retrospective cohort study from 2 tertiary referral centers compared tumor differentiation from preoperative biopsies with endoscopically or surgically resected EAC samples. Accuracy (%) of preoperative biopsy and agreement analyses (Gwet's AC2) were performed.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p><span>In total, 346 EAC lesions (225 esophagectomies, 121 ERs) were included. The overall accuracy and reliability of EAC grade on preoperative biopsies compared with postoperative tissue from ER or esophagectomy was 74% (114/154), with a substantial agreement coefficient (Gwet's AC2 0.78 [0.72-0.85]; </span><em>P</em> &lt; 0.001). The accuracy of ER was only 56%, with moderate agreement (Gwet's AC2 0.60 [0.46-0.73]; <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001). Poorly differentiated tumors were downgraded to moderately differentiated in 19.6% (20/102) of tumors, and conversely, moderately differentiated tumors were upgraded to poorly differentiated in 22.7% (37/163) of tumors. For patients with T1a tumors, poorly differentiated tumors on preoperative biopsies were downgraded to moderately differentiated tumors in 40% (4/10) of cases after resection.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The accuracy of tumor grade of EAC on preprocedural biopsies is suboptimal and should not be depended upon solely to make decisions regarding endoscopic treatment.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36169,"journal":{"name":"Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590030723000454","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and Aims

Endoscopic resection (ER) can be a curative treatment for early esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Poor tumor differentiation is a histologic feature of noncurative ER and, when seen on preoperative biopsies, may lead to avoidance of endoscopic treatment. However, the accuracy of tumor grade on preoperative endoscopic biopsies remains unclear. The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of tumor differentiation on endoscopic forceps biopsy compared with endoscopically or surgically resected tissue.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study from 2 tertiary referral centers compared tumor differentiation from preoperative biopsies with endoscopically or surgically resected EAC samples. Accuracy (%) of preoperative biopsy and agreement analyses (Gwet's AC2) were performed.

Results

In total, 346 EAC lesions (225 esophagectomies, 121 ERs) were included. The overall accuracy and reliability of EAC grade on preoperative biopsies compared with postoperative tissue from ER or esophagectomy was 74% (114/154), with a substantial agreement coefficient (Gwet's AC2 0.78 [0.72-0.85]; P < 0.001). The accuracy of ER was only 56%, with moderate agreement (Gwet's AC2 0.60 [0.46-0.73]; P < 0.001). Poorly differentiated tumors were downgraded to moderately differentiated in 19.6% (20/102) of tumors, and conversely, moderately differentiated tumors were upgraded to poorly differentiated in 22.7% (37/163) of tumors. For patients with T1a tumors, poorly differentiated tumors on preoperative biopsies were downgraded to moderately differentiated tumors in 40% (4/10) of cases after resection.

Conclusions

The accuracy of tumor grade of EAC on preprocedural biopsies is suboptimal and should not be depended upon solely to make decisions regarding endoscopic treatment.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
食管腺癌切除术前内镜活检判断肿瘤分级的准确性
背景与目的内镜下切除术(ER)是治疗早期食管腺癌(EAC)的有效方法。肿瘤分化差是非浸润性ER的一个组织学特征,当在术前活检中看到时,可能会导致避免内镜治疗。然而,术前内镜活检中肿瘤分级的准确性仍不清楚。本研究的目的是确定与内镜或手术切除的组织相比,内镜钳活检中肿瘤分化的准确性。方法这项来自2个三级转诊中心的回顾性队列研究比较了术前活检与内镜或手术切除的EAC样本的肿瘤分化。进行了术前活检和一致性分析(Gwet's AC2)的准确性(%)。结果共纳入346个EAC病变(225个食管切除术,121个ER)。与ER或食管切除术后组织相比,术前活检中EAC分级的总体准确性和可靠性为74%(114/154),具有显著的一致性系数(Gwet’s AC2 0.78[0.72-0.85];P<;0.001)。ER的准确性仅为56%,中度一致(Gwet's AC2 0.60[0.46-0.73];P<;0.001)。19.6%(20/102)的肿瘤中,低分化肿瘤降级为中分化,相反,22.7%(37/163)的肿瘤中将中分化肿瘤升级为低分化。对于T1a肿瘤患者,术前活检的低分化肿瘤在切除后40%(4/10)的病例中降级为中分化肿瘤。结论硬膜前活检中EAC肿瘤分级的准确性不理想,不应仅依赖于内镜治疗的决定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
50.00%
发文量
60
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Table of Contents Editorial Board Table of Contents Editorial Board
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1