4.4 Article

Follow-up of intestinal metaplasia in the stomach: When, how and why

期刊

出版社

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.4251/wjgo.v4.i3.30

关键词

Intestinal metaplasia; Gastric cancer; Follow-up; Prevention; Risk factors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gastric cancer remains the second most frequent cause of cancer-related mortality in the world. Screening programs in some Asian countries are impractical in the majority of other countries worldwide. Therefore, follow-up of precancerous lesions is advisable for secondary gastric cancer prevention. Intestinal metaplasia (IM) is recognized as a precancerous lesion for gastric cancer, increasing the risk by 6-fold. IM is highly prevalent in the general population, being detected in nearly 1 of every 4 patients undergoing upper endoscopy. The IM prevalence rate is significantly higher in patients with Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection, in firstdegree relatives of gastric cancer patients, in smokers and it increases with patient age. IM is the breaking point in the gastric carcinogenesis cascade and does not appear to regress following H. pylori eradication, although the cure of infection may slow its progression. Gastric cancer risk is higher in patients with incomplete- type IM, in those with both antral and gastric body involvement, and the risk significantly increases with IM extension over 20% of the gastric mucosa. Scheduled endoscopic control could be cost-effective in IM patients, depending on the yearly incidence of gastric cancer in IM patients, the stage of gastric cancer at diagnosis discovered at surveillance, and the cost of endoscopy. As a pragmatic behavior, yearly endoscopic control would appear justified in all IM patients with at least one of these conditions: (1) IM extension > 20%; (2) the presence of incomplete type IM; (3) first-degree relative of gastric cancer patients; and (4) smokers. In the remaining IM patients, a less intensive (2-3 years) could be proposed. (C) 2012 Baishideng. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据