Clinical diagnosis of minute gastric cancer less than 5 mm in diameter

Abstract

When 58 minute gastric cancers less than 5 mm in diameter from 55 patients were classified into 22 of the single group (minute gastric cancer alone) and 36 of the multiple group (associated with other large gastric cancers), the preoperative correct diagnostic rate by x‐ray was 22.7% and 11.1% in the single group and in the multiple group, respectively, with a total rate of 15.5%. The diagnostic rate by endoscopy, aided by endoscopic biopsy, was 95.5%, 13.9%, and 44.8%, respectively. Therefore, it appears that endoscopy and endoscopic biopsy are most efficient diagnostic tools for the detection of such minute gastric cancers. Since the detection of the depressed type (IIc) of minute gastric cancers is considered most significant because of their frequent submucosal invasion, their characteristic endoscopic findings are emphasized: (1) irregular and polygonal shape, (2) distinct depression, (3) clear demarcation, (4) nodular margins, and (5) moth‐eaten appearance and abrupt thinning of the mucosal folds. Cancer 53:162‐165, 1984.

Missed lesions in synchronous multiple gastric cancer

“…The gastric cancer of less than 5 mm in diameter may be defined as ‘minute gastric cancer’, which can be more easily missed at endoscopy 16 . However, their characteristic endoscopic finding can make endoscopists find cancer 17 . In this study, seven missed lesions of less than 5 mm have no significant histological difference compared with those of more than 5 mm.…”

Clinical characterization of gastric lesions initially diagnosed as low‐grade adenomas on forceps biopsy

“…19 We checked lesions for a moth-eaten appearance with indigo-carmine dye. sex and age) and the endoscopic appearance of lesions (i.e.…”

Early Gastric Cancer with Signet Ring Cell Histology Remained Unresected for 53 Months

“…(11,12) Multi-focal gastric cancer is often missed, because they tend to be small and flat in appearance. (13) Our patient developed a satellite lesion 46 months after the initial diagnosis. On review of the images taken in December 2005, no suspicious lesion was identified at the site of the satellite lesion.…”