Optimal Endoscopic Screening Interval for Early Detection of Gastric Cancer: a Single-Center Study.
10.3346/jkms.2018.33.e166
- Author:
Sun JIN
1
;
Seong Woo JEON
;
Yonghwan KWON
;
Su Youn NAM
;
Seong Jae YEO
;
Sang Hoon KWON
;
Sang Jik LEE
Author Information
1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Gastric Cancer Center, Kyungpook National University Hospital, Daegu, Korea. sw-jeon@hanmail.net
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Gastric Cancer;
Optimal Interval;
Endoscopic Screening
- MeSH:
Diagnosis;
Endoscopy;
Humans;
Mass Screening*;
Odds Ratio;
Prospective Studies;
Stomach Neoplasms*
- From:Journal of Korean Medical Science
2018;33(23):e166-
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: The optimal endoscopic screening interval for early gastric cancer (EGC) detection still remains controversial. Thus, we performed this prospective study to clarify the optimal interval between endoscopic examinations for EGC detection. METHODS: A questionnaire survey for penultimate endoscopy and gastric cancer (GC) diagnosis interval was used; the findings were then analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups according to GC type and endoscopic examinations intervals. RESULTS: A total of 843 patients were enrolled. The endoscopic GC detection interval (P < 0.001), tumor location (P < 0.001), tumor size (P < 0.001), histology (P < 0.001), tumor stage (P < 0.001), and treatment modality (P < 0.001) showed significant differences in the univariate analysis between EGC and advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Endoscopic examination intervals below 2 years and 3 years were associated with higher proportions of EGC detection (adjusted odds ratio, 2.458 and 3.022, respectively) (P < 0.001). The patients with endoscopic examination to GC diagnosis interval of < 2 years showed significant differences in tumor size (P < 0.001), tumor stage (P < 0.001), and treatment modality (P < 0.001) compared to those with intervals of > 2 years and without screening. Similar results were observed in those with < 3-year intervals. CONCLUSION: Triennial endoscopic screening might be as effective as biennial screening in increasing the detection rate of EGC and the risk of subsequent curable endoscopic resections.
