Differences in routine esophagogastroduodenoscopy between Japanese and international facilities: A questionnaire survey. (17th April 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Uedo, Noriya; Gotoda, Takuji; Yoshinaga, Shigetaka; Tanuma, Tokuma; Morita, Yoshinori; Doyama, Hisashi; Aso, Akira; Hirasawa, Toshiaki; Yano, Tomonori; Uchita, Norihisa; Ho, Shiaw‐Hooi; Hsieh, Ping‐Hsin
• Is Part Of: Digestive endoscopy. Volume 28(2016)Supplement 1
• Page Start: 16
• Page End: 24
• Publication Date: 2016-04-17
• Subjects: biopsy -- early diagnosis -- esophagogastroduodenoscopy -- gastric cancer -- gastrointestinal endoscopy; Digestive organs -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Digestive organs -- Diseases -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; Endoscopy -- Periodicals; Digestive System Diseases -- diagnosis -- Periodicals; Digestive System Diseases -- therapy -- Periodicals; Endoscopy -- Periodicals; 616.3
• DOI: 10.1111/den.12629
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0915-5635

Abstract

Abstract : Background and Aim: The mortality rate of gastric cancer (GC) is close to the incidence rate worldwide. However, in Korea and Japan, the mortality rate of GC is less than half of the incidence rate. We hypothesized that good‐quality routine esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) contributes to a high detection rate for early GC (EGC) and improves mortality in these countries. Methods: To clarify the differences in routine EGD, a questionnaire survey was conducted in 98 Japanese and 53 international institutions. Results: Prevalence of screening examination among routine EGD was higher in Japanese than in international institutions. Japanese endoscopists noted that endoscopic mucosal atrophy was the most significant risk factor for GC, whereas international endoscopists paid more attention to clinical information such as age, symptoms and family history. Antispasmodics, mucolytics and defoaming agents were used more frequently in Japanese institutions. The examination time was similar (mostly 5–10 min) between Japanese and international institutions. Japanese endoscopists took more pictures (>20 in almost all institutions) than international endoscopists (≤20 in two‐thirds of institutions). In Japanese institutions, biopsy specimens were more frequently taken from areas of mucosal discoloration, unevenness or spontaneous bleeding rather than from obvious endoscopic lesions such as ulceration or polyps. In most Japanese institutions, one or two biopsy specimens were taken per lesion, compared with ≥three in international institutions. Conclusion: There were some discrepancies between Japanese and international institutions for routine EGD. Thus, standardization is required for adequate risk assessment, proper techniques, and knowledge of endoscopic diagnosis of EGC.