Endoscopic detection of early upper GI cancers

2005 ◽  
Vol 19 (6) ◽  
pp. 833-856 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louis-Michel Wong Kee Song ◽  
Brian C. Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Upper Gi ◽  
Gut ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 68 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-197 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Wai Yan Chiu ◽  
Noriya Uedo ◽  
Rajvinder Singh ◽  
Takuji Gotoda ◽  
Enders Kwok Wai Ng ◽  
...  

BackgroundThis is a consensus developed by a group of expert endoscopists aiming to standardise the preparation, process and endoscopic procedural steps for diagnosis of early upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancers.MethodThe Delphi method was used to develop consensus statements through identification of clinical questions on diagnostic endoscopy. Three consensus meetings were conducted to consolidate the statements and voting. We conducted a systematic literature search on evidence for each statement. The statements were presented in the second consensus meeting and revised according to comments. The final voting was conducted at the third consensus meeting on the level of evidence and agreement.ResultsRisk stratification should be conducted before endoscopy and high risk endoscopic findings should raise an index of suspicion. The presence of premalignant mucosal changes should be documented and use of sedation is recommended to enhance detection of superficial upper GI neoplasms. The use of antispasmodics and mucolytics enhanced visualisation of the upper GI tract, and systematic endoscopic mapping should be conducted to improve detection. Sufficient examination time and structured training on diagnosis improves detection. Image enhanced endoscopy in addition to white light imaging improves detection of superficial upper GI cancer. Magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging is recommended for characterisation of upper GI superficial neoplasms. Endoscopic characterisation can avoid unnecessary biopsy.ConclusionThis consensus provides guidance for the performance of endoscopic diagnosis and characterisation for early gastric and oesophageal neoplasia based on the evidence. This will enhance the quality of endoscopic diagnosis and improve detection of early upper GI cancers.


2005 ◽  
Vol 19 (6) ◽  
pp. 857-869 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Vieth ◽  
Manfred Stolte
Keyword(s):  
Upper Gi ◽  

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (10) ◽  
pp. 497-506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Björn LDM Brücher ◽  
Masaki Kitajima ◽  
Jörg Rüdiger Siewert
Keyword(s):  
Upper Gi ◽  

Gut ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 60 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. A13-A14 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Sugumaran ◽  
J. Hurley ◽  
P. George ◽  
J. Pye
Keyword(s):  
Upper Gi ◽  

Author(s):  
Björn L. D. M. Brücher ◽  
Yan Li ◽  
Philipp Schnabel ◽  
Martin Daumer ◽  
Timothy J. Wallace ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3516-3516
Author(s):  
Akihiro Ohba ◽  
Yoshiaki Nakamura ◽  
Hiroya Taniguchi ◽  
Masafumi Ikeda ◽  
Hideaki Bando ◽  
...  

3516 Background: We recently reported that clinical assessment of genomic biomarkers using ctDNA had advantages over tumor tissue-based sequencing for enrollment into matched clinical trials across a wide range of GI cancers. Herein we investigated the utility of ctDNA in non-CRC cancers in a SCRUM-Japan GI-SCREEN and GOZILA combined analysis. Methods: In GI-SCREEN, tumor tissue samples of pts with non-CRC were analyzed by a next generation sequencing (NGS)-based assay, Oncomine Comprehensive Assay, since Feb 2015. In GOZILA, plasma samples of non-CRC pts were analyzed by an NGS-based ctDNA assay, Guardant360, since Feb 2018. Results: As of Apr 2019, 2,952 pts in GI-SCREEN and 633 pts in GOZILA were enrolled. Baseline characteristics between the groups were well matched except that GOZILA included more pancreatic (P < 0.0001) and liver cancers (P = 0.016) but fewer gastric cancers (P < 0.0001) and GIST (P = 0.020) than GI-SCREEN. The success rates of the tests were 86.6% in GI-SCREEN and 87.3% in GOZILA (P = 0.649). Median turnaround time (TAT) was 37 days in GI-SCREEN and 12 days in GOZILA (P < 0.0001). The proportion of cases with actionable alterations detected (tissue vs blood; 29.8% vs 46.8%, P < 0.0001) and enrolled into matched clinical trials (4.8% vs 6.5%, P = 0.286) for each group by cancer type are shown in the Table. Pts with upper GI cancers, especially those in GOZILA, were more often enrolled into matched trials; trial enrollment for those with hepatobiliary and pancreatic (HBP) or other cancers was similar regardless of testing method. Median time from GI-SCREEN or GOZILA enrollment to clinical trial enrollment was 5.0 and 1.0 months (mo), respectively (P < 0.0001). Objective response rates (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) were not significantly different (tissue vs. blood; ORR: 14.6 vs. 26.3%, P = 0.30: median PFS: 3.3 vs. 2.6 mo, P = 0.71). Conclusions: Clinical sequencing of ctDNA, with its shorter TAT, contributed to rapid enrollment of non-CRC pts into matched clinical trials compared to those tested by tumor tissue sequencing, particularly for those with upper GI cancer, without compromising efficacy. Clinical trial information: UMIN000029315 . [Table: see text]


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document