The use of non-invasive stool tests for verification of Helicobacter pylori eradication and clarithromycin resistance

Background: Clarithromycin resistance of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) represents a major challenge in eradication therapy. In this study, we assessed if non-invasive stool tests can be used to verify successful H. pylori eradication and determine clarithromycin resistance. Materials and methods:In this prospective study, patients undergoing urea breath testing (UBT) for confirmation of H. pylori eradication were asked to collect the stool as both a dry fecal sample and fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Stool H. pylori antigen testing (SAT) was performed on these samples and assessed for its accuracy in eradication verification. Type and duration of antibiotic treatment were retrospectively collected from patient records and compared with clarithromycin resistance determined by PCR of stool samples. Results: H. pylori eradication information was available for a total of 145 patients (42.7% male, median age: 51.2). Successful eradication was achieved in 68.1% of patients. SAT on FIT samples had similar accuracy for eradication assessment compared to dry fecal samples, 72.1% [95% CI 61.4–81.2] versus 72.2% [95% CI 60.9–81.7]. Clarithromycin resistance rate was 13.4%. Conclusion: H. pylori antigen testing on FIT stool samples to verify H. pylori eradication is feasible and has similar accuracy as H. pylori antigen testing on dry stool samples. Dry stool, but not FIT, was suitable for non-invasive identification of H. pylori clarithromycin resistance by rt-PCR personalizing antibiotic treatment strategies without the need for invasive diagnostics is desirable, as the cure rate of first-line empirical H. pylori treatment remains low.</p

Increased Prevalence of Autoimmune Gastritis in Patients with a Gastric Precancerous Lesion

Background: Autoimmune gastritis (AIG), characterized with the presence of anti-parietal-cell antibodies (APCA), is a risk factor for gastric cancer. However, AIG may go underdiagnosed, especially in the case of H. pylori infection and the presence of gastric precancerous lesions (GPL), due to the ambiguous pathology and delayed symptom onset. Aim: Investigate the prevalence and characteristics of AIG in GPL patients. Methods:Prevalence of AIG was determined with the presence of APCA in patients with GPL (n = 256) and the control group (n = 70). Pathological characteristics and levels of gastrin 17 (G17), pepsinogen (PG) I and II and anti-Helicobacter pylori IgG were assessed in GPL cases, and the severity of intestinal metaplasia and gastric atrophy was scored by expert pathologists. Results: APCA positivity was observed in 18% of cases vs. 7% of controls (p = 0.033). Only 3/256 patients were previously diagnosed with AIG. The presence of APCA was associated with corpus-limited and extended GPL. A receiver operating curve analysis demonstrated that the G17 and PGI/II ratio could identify APCA-positive patients within GPL cases (AUC: 0.884). Conclusions: The prevalence of AIG is higher in patients with GPL but goes undiagnosed. Using G17 and PG I/II as diagnostic markers can help to identify patients with AIG and improve surveillance programs for patients with GPL.</p

Biopsy Sampling in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy : A Survey from 10 Tertiary Referral Centres across Europe

Funding Information: A. Link reports grants from European Commission “Eu-ropäischer Fond für regionale Entwicklung” (EFRE), outside the submitted work. In Lithuania the work was partly supported by Lithuanian Research Council Grant no APP-2/2016. In Latvia, the methodological support was made available from the project lzp-2018/1-0135. This work was also supported by the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care). In Barcelona, we thank the CERCA Programme/Generalitat de Catalunya for the support. Publisher Copyright: © 2020 The Author(s) Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.Background: Guidelines give robust recommendations on which biopsies should be taken when there is endoscopic suggestion of gastric inflammation. Adherence to these guidelines often seems arbitrary. This study aimed to give an overview on current practice in tertiary referral centres across Europe. Methods: Data were collected at 10 tertiary referral centres. Demographic data, the indication for each procedure, endoscopic findings, and the number and sampling site of biopsies were recorded. Findings were compared between centres, and factors influencing the decision to take biopsies were explored. Results: Biopsies were taken in 56.6% of 9,425 procedures, with significant variation between centres (p < 0.001). Gastric biopsies were taken in 43.8% of all procedures. Sampling location varied with the procedure indication (p < 0.001) without consistent pattern across the centres. Fewer biopsies were taken in centres which routinely applied the updated Sydney classification for gastritis assessment (46.0%), compared to centres where this was done only upon request (75.3%, p < 0.001). This was the same for centres stratifying patients according to the OLGA system (51.8 vs. 73.0%, p < 0.001). More biopsies were taken in centres following the MAPS guidelines on stomach surveillance (68.1 vs. 37.1%, p < 0.001). Biopsy sampling was more likely in younger patients in 8 centres (p < 0.05), but this was not true for the whole cohort (p = 0.537). The percentage of procedures with biopsies correlated directly with additional costs charged in case of biopsies (r = 0.709, p = 0.022). Conclusion: Adherence to guideline recommendations for biopsy sampling at gastroscopy was inconsistent across the participating centres. Our data suggest that centre-specific policies are applied instead.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Recent advances in the detection and management of early gastric cancer and its precursors

Despite declines in incidence, gastric cancer remains a disease with a poor prognosis and limited treatment options due to its often late stage of diagnosis. In contrast, early gastric cancer has a good to excellent prognosis, with 5-year survival rates as high as 92.6% after endoscopic resection. There remains an East-West divide for this disease, with high incidence countries such as Japan seeing earlier diagnoses and reduced mortality, in part thanks to the success of a national screening programme. With missed cancers still prevalent at upper endoscopy in the West, and variable approaches to assessment of the high-risk stomach, the quality of endoscopy we provide must be a focus for improvement, with particular attention paid to the minority of patients at increased cancer risk. High-definition endoscopy with virtual chromoendoscopy is superior to white light endoscopy alone. These enhanced imaging modalities allow the experienced endoscopist to accurately and robustly detect high-risk lesions in the stomach. An endoscopy-led staging strategy would mean biopsies could be targeted to histologically confirm the endoscopic impression of premalignant lesions including atrophic gastritis, gastric intestinal metaplasia, dysplasia and early cancer. This approach to quality improvement will reduce missed diagnoses and, combined with the latest endoscopic resection techniques performed at expert centres, will improve early detection and ultimately patient outcomes. In this review, we outline the latest evidence relating to diagnosis, staging and treatment of early gastric cancer and its precursor lesions

Colon capsule endoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review

Introduction Primary colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) are the most commonly used colorectal cancer (CRC) screening modalities. Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) might be an alternative. Data on the performance of CCE as a CRC screening tool in a screening population remain scarce. This is the first systematic review to provide an overview of the applicability of CCE as a CRC screening tool. Methods A systematic search was conducted of literature published up to September 2020. Studies reporting on CRC screening by second-generation CCE in an average-risk screening population were included. Results 582 studies were identified and 13 were included, comprising 2485 patients. Eight studies used CCE as a filter test after a positive FIT result and five studies used CCE for primary screening. The polyp detection rate of CCE was 24 % - 74 %. For polyps > 6 mm, sensitivity of CCE was 79 % - 96 % and specificity was 66 % - 97 %. For polyps ≥ 10 mm, sensitivity of CCE was 84 % - 97 %, which was superior to computed tomographic colonography (CTC). The CRC detection rate for completed CCEs was 93 % (25/27). Bowel preparation was adequate in 70 % - 92 % of examinations, and completion rates varied from 57 % to 92 %, depending on the booster used. No CCE-related complications were described. Conclusion CCE appeared to be a safe and effective tool for the detection of CRC and polyps in a screening setting. Accuracy was comparable to colonoscopy and superior to CTC, making CCE a good alternative to colonoscopy in CRC screening programs, although completion rates require improvement

Population-Based Prevalence of Gastrointestinal Abnormalities at Colon Capsule Endoscopy

Background & Aims: The population prevalence of gastrointestinal (GI) disease is unclear and difficult to assess in an asymptomatic population. The aim of this study was to determine prevalence of GI lesions in a largely asymptomatic population undergoing colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). Methods: Participants aged between 50-75 years were retrieved from the Rotterdam Study, a longitudinal epidemiological study, between 2017-2019. Participants received CCE with bowel preparation. Abnormalities defined as clinically relevant were Barrett segment >3cm, severe ulceration, polyp >10 mm or ≥3 polyps in small bowel (SB) or colon, and cancer. Results: Of 2800 invited subjects, 462 (16.5%) participants (mean age 66.8 years, female 53.5%) ingested the colon capsule. A total of 451 videos were analyzed, and in 94.7% the capsule reached the descending colon. At least 1 abnormal finding was seen in 448 (99.3%) participants. The prevalence of abnormalities per GI segment, and the most common type of abnormality, were as follows: Esophageal 14.8% (Barrett's esophagus 10 mm; n = 4, severe ulcer n = 1,) and 46 (10.2%) in colon (polyp > 10 mm or ≥3 polyps n = 46, colorectal cancer n = 1). Conclusions: GI lesions are very common in a mostly asymptomatic Western population, and clinically relevant lesions were found in 12% at CCE. These findings provide a frame of reference for the prevalence rates of GI lesions in the general population

Accuracy of upper endoscopies with random biopsies to identify patients with gastric premalignant lesions who can safely be exempt from surveillance

Introduction: Guidelines recommend endoscopy with biopsies to stratify patients with gastric premalignant lesions (GPL) to high and low progression risk. High-risk patients are recommended to undergo surveillance. We aimed to assess the accuracy of guideline recommendations to identify low-risk patients, who can safely be discharged from surveillance. Methods: This study includes patients with GPL. Patients underwent at least two endoscopies with an interval of 1–6 years. Patients were defined ‘low risk’ if they fulfilled requirements for discharge, and ‘high risk’ if they fulfilled requirements for surveillance, according to European guidelines (MAPS-2012, updated MAPS-2019, BSG). Patients defined ‘low risk’ with progression of disease during follow-up (FU) were considered ‘misclassified’ as low risk. Results: 334 patients (median age 60 years IQR11; 48.7% male) were included and followed for a median of 48 months. At baseline, 181/334 (54%) patients were defined low risk. Of these, 32.6% were ‘misclassified’, showing progression of disease during FU. If MAPS-2019 were followed, 169/334 (51%) patients were defined low risk, of which 32.5% were ‘misclassified’. If BSG were followed, 174/334 (51%) patients were defined low risk, of which 32.2% were ‘misclassified’. Seven patients developed gastric cancer (GC) or dysplasia, four patients were ‘misclassified’ based on MAPS-2012 and three on MAPS-2019 and BSG. By performing one additional endoscopy 72.9% (95% CI 62.4–83.3) of high-risk patients and all patients who developed GC or dysplasia were identified. Conclusion: One-third of patients that would have been discharged from GC surveillance, appeared to be ‘misclassified’ as low risk. One additional endoscopy will reduce this risk by 70%