Association of endoscopic biopsy sampling methods with detection of precursor lesions of gastric cancer.

Background And Aims: The yield of various endoscopic biopsy sampling methods for detection of precursor lesions of noncardia gastric cancer in a real-world setting remains unclear. Our objective was to evaluate the association of endoscopic biopsy sampling methods with detection of gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) and gastric dysplasia (GD).

Methods: We conducted a case-control study of adult patients who underwent EGD with biopsy sampling between 2010 and 2021 in a racially and ethnically diverse U.S. healthcare system. Cases were patients with histopathologic findings of GIM and/or GD. Control subjects were matched 1:1 by age, procedure date, and medical center. We compared the detection of GIM and GD using 4 different biopsy sampling methods: unspecified, specified stomach location, 2+2, and the Sydney protocol. Additionally, we assessed trends in use of sampling methods (Cochrane-Armitage) and identified patient and endoscopist factors associated with their use (logistic regression).

Results: We identified 20,938 GIM and 455 GD matched pairs. A greater proportion of GIM cases were detected using 2+2 (31.3% vs 25.3%, P < .0001) and the Sydney protocol (9.1% vs 1.0%, P < .0001) compared with control subjects. Similarly, a greater proportion of GD cases were detected using the Sydney protocol (15.6% vs .4%, P < .0001). We observed an increasing trend in the use of the Sydney protocol during the study period (3.8%-16.1% in cases, P < .0001; 1%-1.1% in control subjects, P = .005). Male and Asian American patients were more likely to undergo 2+2 or the Sydney protocol, whereas female and Hispanic endoscopists were more likely to perform sampling using these protocols.

Conclusions: The application of the Sydney protocol is associated with an increased detection of precursor lesions of gastric cancer in routine clinical practice.