Skip to main content
editorial
. 2011 Dec 15;2(6):93–99. doi: 10.4291/wjgp.v2.i6.93

Table 2.

Histological discrepancy rates between biopsy and endoscopic resection sample n (%)

Reports (yr) Endoscopic biopsy Resected specimens Overall
Underdiagnosis1 Overdiagnosis2 Discrepancy3
Yoon et al[47], 2006 Tubular adenoma 2/41 (4.9) 2/41 (4.9) 4/41 (9.8)
Jung et al[29], 2008 LGIN 31/74 (42) - -
HGIN 36/40 (90) 2/40 (5) 38/40 (95)
Lee et al[48], 2010 IN 114/311 (37) 41/311 (13) 155/311 (50)
Carcinoma 7/86 (8.1) 16/86 (19) 23/86 (26)
Total 121/397 (30) 57/397 (14) 178/397 (45)
Kato et al[27], 2010 IN 255/468 (44) 4/468 (1.7) 259/468 (46)
1

Underdiagnosis was defined as if endoscopic biopsy showed tubular adenoma/ intraepithelial neoplasia but resected specimens finally led to the diagnosis of adenocarcinoma/carcinoma;

2

Overdiagnosis was defined as if endoscopic biopsy showed tubular adenoma/intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma/carcinoma but resected specimens finally led to the diagnosis of non-neoplastic, reactive, regenerative or tubular adenoma, respectively;

3

Discrepancy was defined as if endoscopic biopsy does not correspond with resected specimen. This can be calculated using resected specimen as a golden standard. LGIN: Low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia; IN: Intraepithelial neoplasia; HGIN: High-grade intraepithelial neoplasia.