Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Endoscopic stratification of gastric intestinal metaplasia: where are we, where do we want to go and how do we get there?
  1. Shailja C Shah1,2,
  2. Mario Dinis-Ribeiro3,4
  1. 1University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA
  2. 2Jennifer Moreno Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego
  3. 3Porto Comprehensive Cancer Center & RISE @ CI-IPO, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
  4. 4Gastroenterology Department, Portuguese Institute of Oncology of Porto, Porto, Portugal
  1. Correspondence to Dr Shailja C Shah; s6shah{at}health.ucsd.edu

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

We appreciate the positive remarks from Quach and colleagues in response to our manuscript.1 2 The authors propose that endoscopic staging should replace non-targeted mapping biopsies in individuals at increased risk of harbouring gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM), citing that endoscopic staging using the endoscopic grading of GIM (EGGIM) score (1) is a more resource-sensitive approach; (2) avoids the small added risk of biopsies; (3) can be performed effectively among adequately trained endoscopists; and (4) correlates with histological severity as measured via the operative link on gastric intestinal metaplasia assessment (OLGIM), at least based on a multicentre European study among trained endoscopists and external validation in a single-centre study from South Korea.3 4 Overall, we are conceptually aligned with the authors on these points.

However, the theme of our article was a …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors SS is the guarantor of this article. SS wrote the first draft. SS and MD-R edited and approved the final submission.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.