You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Gastric biopsies in the assessment and management of patients at risk of gastric adenocarcinoma
  1. Ian L P Beales
  1. Medicine, University of East Anglia Norwich Medical School, Norwich NR4 7UY, Norfolk, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Ian L P Beales, Medicine, University of East Anglia Norwich Medical School, Norwich NR4 7UY, Norfolk, UK; i.beales{at}uea.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2020-321053

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.

    The recent BSG guideline on the diagnosis and management of patients at risk of gastric adenocarcinoma1 is a laudable attempt to bring some clarity to this often controversial area. The authors emphasised the importance of high-quality endoscopy with advanced imaging in the management of the patients with gastric atrophy (GA) and gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM). However, it is still very difficult to relate most of the data presented to the British patient population and the guideline is rather lacking on the place in the pathway of gastric biopsies in establishing the diagnosis of GA or GIM. The guidance clearly focuses on using advanced imaging initially as assessment following an …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors ILPB is the sole contributor to the work.

    • 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.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

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