Jue Lie Kim, Sang Gyun Kim, Jung Kim, Jae Yong Park, Hyo-Joon Yang, Hyun Ju Kim, and Hyunsoo Chung. Gut and Liver 2020;14:190-8. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl18575

Jooyoung Lee, Woo Sang Cho, Byeong Soo Kim, Dan Yoon, Jung Kim, Ji Hyun Song, Sun Young Yang, Seon Hee Lim, Goh Eun Chung, Ji Min Choi, Yoo Min Han, Hyoun-Joong Kong, Jung Chan Lee, Sungwan Kim, Jung Ho Bae. Gut and Liver 2024;18:857-66. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl240068

Additional surgical resection should be considered for the patients with pathological findings beyond the expanded criteria with the risk for LN metastasis. However, close observation without additional surgery may be applied because of various reasons. We aimed to determine the clinical outcomes of early gastric cancer beyond the expanded criteria after endoscopic resection according to the pathological extent. A total of 288 patients with 289 lesions beyond the expanded criteria of endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer were analyzed between 2005 and 2016, and classified into two groups according to additional treatment: observation (n = 175 patients, 175 lesions) and surgery (n = 113 patients, 114 lesions). The depth of tumor invasion was greater and the tumor-positive vertical margin and lymphatic and venous invasion were more common in the surgery group than in the observation group (P<0.001). Residual, synchronous, and metachronous tumors were more common in the observation group; however, the occurrence of regional lymph node and distant metastasis did not differ between the groups. Overall survival and 5-year disease-specific survival did not differ between the groups (observation vs surgery, 88.6 vs 93.8%; P = 0.259, 98.2 vs 100%; P = 0.484, respectively), but the 5-year disease-free survival was lower in the observation group (73.5 vs 97.9%; P<0.001). On multivariate analysis, tumor-positive lateral margin was a risk factor for residual tumor and lymphatic and venous invasion were risk factors for regional lymph node metastasis. In conclusion, the clinical course of beyond the expanded criteria of endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer showed good prognosis over 98% in 5-year disease specific survival. If additional surgery cannot be performed, a close follow-up with endoscopy and abdominal computed tomography can be considered as an alternative for carefully selected patients without lymphatic and vascular invasion.

Background/Aims: A longer cecal intubation time (CIT) occurs during colonoscopy under difficult insertion conditions, which may hinder meticulous mucosal observation. However, whether a longer CIT has detrimental effects on the detection of adenomas remains unclear. We evaluated the effects of CIT on the detection and miss rates of colorectal neoplasms in asymptomatic participants. Methods: Healthy examinees who underwent colonoscopy between March and July 2011, August 2015, and December 2016 were retrospectively enrolled. The primary outcome was the adenoma detection rate (ADR) across CIT quartiles, while the secondary outcomes included the mean number of adenomas, advanced ADR (AADR), clinically significant serrated lesion (CSSP) detection, adenoma miss rate (AMR), miss rate of CSSPs and any colorectal neoplasms, and the mean number of missed colorectal neoplasms in relation to CIT. Results: Overall, 12,402 participants were classified into quartiles according to the CIT. The longer the CIT, the lower the ADR (p < 0.001), AADR (p = 0.004), and mean number of adenomas (p < 0.001). The CSSP detection rate was not associated with CIT. On follow-up colonoscopy, AMR showed marginal increase with longer CIT (p = 0.065). The missed rates of CSSPs (p = 0.002) and colorectal neoplasms (p = 0.001) also increased with longer CIT. In the multivariate analysis, CIT was significantly associated with ADR, AADR, and AMR. Conclusions: Longer CIT was associated with lower ADR and higher AMR. Meticulous inspection is important for high-quality colonoscopy, particularly in patients requiring a longer CIT.

In the original version of this article (1), the same image was inadvertently duplicated in Fig. 5J, column #2. These errors have been corrected in the latest online HTML and PDF versions of the article. The authors regret this error.