Recent Guidelines on the Management of Patients with Gastric Atrophy: Common Points and Controversies.
Adenocarcinoma
/ diagnosis
Disease Management
Europe
Gastritis, Atrophic
/ pathology
Gastroenterology
Gastroscopy
Helicobacter Infections
/ diagnosis
Helicobacter pylori
Humans
Metaplasia
Practice Guidelines as Topic
Precancerous Conditions
/ pathology
Societies, Medical
Stomach
/ pathology
Stomach Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
United States
Atrophic gastritis
Controversy
Gastric intestinal metaplasia
Gastric precancerous lesions
Guidelines
Surveillance
Journal
Digestive diseases and sciences
ISSN: 1573-2568
Titre abrégé: Dig Dis Sci
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7902782
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2020
07 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
2
5
2020
medline:
11
11
2020
entrez:
2
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Patients with gastric precancerous lesions (atrophic gastritis and intestinal metaplasia) have increased risk of developing gastric cancer, and adequate management and surveillance of these patients should allow to reduce gastric cancer-related mortality. The guidelines on the management of these patients have been recently published by the European Societies (MAPS II guidelines) and by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA). The aim of this commentary is to compare these two guidelines by highlighting the common points and differences between them. Both guidelines recommend a systematic detection and eradication of Helicobacter pylori in all patients with gastric atrophy. However, there is a major difference in the recommendations for surveillance: while the MAPS II guidelines recommend systematic endoscopic surveillance in all patients with severe gastric atrophy (with or without intestinal metaplasia), the AGA guidelines focus only on intestinal metaplasia and plead against systematic surveillance, leaving the possibility of surveillance in individual patients based on shared decision between clinicians and patients. The difference between two guidelines comes essentially from the different arguments used by two authorities (randomized control studies by AGA and observational cohort studies by the European Societies), and may be, at least in part, related to the difference between the European and American health care systems and potential economic burden.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32356261
doi: 10.1007/s10620-020-06272-9
pii: 10.1007/s10620-020-06272-9
pmc: PMC7767582
mid: NIHMS1652353
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1899-1903Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P01 CA028842
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P01 CA116087
Pays : United States
Références
Virchows Arch. 2014 Apr;464(4):403-7
pubmed: 24477629
Gut. 2019 Sep;68(9):1545-1575
pubmed: 31278206
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018 Jun 1;110(6):608-615
pubmed: 29361173
Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Jun;71(7):1150-8
pubmed: 20381801
Gut. 2020 May;69(5):823-829
pubmed: 32001553
Endoscopy. 2019 Apr;51(4):365-388
pubmed: 30841008
Lancet. 1975 Jul 12;2(7924):58-60
pubmed: 49653
Gut. 2007 May;56(5):631-6
pubmed: 17142647
Am J Surg Pathol. 1996 Oct;20(10):1161-81
pubmed: 8827022
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Jul;82(1):1-8
pubmed: 25935705
Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Feb;73(2):411-2; author reply 412-3
pubmed: 21295657
Gastroenterology. 2020 May;158(6):1534-1537
pubmed: 31926996
Dig Liver Dis. 2019 Dec;51(12):1621-1632
pubmed: 31635944
Cancer Res. 1992 Dec 15;52(24):6735-40
pubmed: 1458460
Gastroenterology. 2020 Feb;158(3):693-702
pubmed: 31816298
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Nov;68(6):394-424
pubmed: 30207593
Endoscopy. 2012 Jan;44(1):74-94
pubmed: 22198778