Biopsy Sampling in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Survey from 10 Tertiary Referral Centres Across Europe.
Biopsy sampling
CLO test
Gastritis
Gastroscopy
MAPS
OLGA
Sydney
Journal
Digestive diseases (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 1421-9875
Titre abrégé: Dig Dis
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 8701186
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
06
08
2020
accepted:
26
09
2020
pubmed:
2
10
2020
medline:
22
5
2021
entrez:
1
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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). 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.
Sections du résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33002891
pii: 000511867
doi: 10.1159/000511867
pmc: PMC8220928
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
179-189Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Author(s) Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.
Références
Virchows Arch. 2014 Apr;464(4):403-7
pubmed: 24477629
Lancet. 1984 Jun 16;1(8390):1311-5
pubmed: 6145023
Gut. 2019 Jan;68(1):11-17
pubmed: 29306868
Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Jun;71(7):1150-8
pubmed: 20381801
J Clin Pathol. 2016 Jan;69(1):19-25
pubmed: 26163538
Gut. 2017 Nov;66(11):1886-1899
pubmed: 28821598
Gut. 2020 Oct;69(10):1762-1768
pubmed: 32051208
Endoscopy. 2019 Apr;51(4):365-388
pubmed: 30841008
Gastroenterology. 2005 Nov;129(5):1807-8
pubmed: 16285989
Am J Gastroenterol. 2018 Nov;113(11):1621-1628
pubmed: 30333540
Gastroenterology. 2018 Aug;155(2):347-354.e9
pubmed: 29723507
Gut. 2015 Sep;64(9):1353-67
pubmed: 26187502
Am J Surg Pathol. 1996 Oct;20(10):1161-81
pubmed: 8827022
Helicobacter. 2014 Dec;19(6):425-36
pubmed: 25164596
N Engl J Med. 2001 Sep 13;345(11):784-9
pubmed: 11556297
J Dig Dis. 2018 Dec;19(12):737-744
pubmed: 30375167
Gut. 2019 Apr;68(4):585-593
pubmed: 29875257
Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Dec;14(12):697-710
pubmed: 28930292
Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Nov;40(9):587-594
pubmed: 28648767
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013 Aug;38(4):424-31
pubmed: 23796212
Endoscopy. 2020 Jan;52(1):17-28
pubmed: 31529444
Gut. 2019 Sep;68(9):1545-1575
pubmed: 31278206
Z Gastroenterol. 2019 Dec;57(12):1517-1632
pubmed: 31826284
Gut. 2017 Jan;66(1):6-30
pubmed: 27707777
Cancer Res. 1992 Dec 15;52(24):6735-40
pubmed: 1458460
Gastroenterology. 2020 Feb;158(3):693-702
pubmed: 31816298