Autoimmune Metaplastic Atrophic Gastritis Reporting: Are Pathologists and Endoscopists on the Same Page?

TL;DR

This study finds that pathologists and endoscopists often disagree on diagnosing autoimmune gastritis, leading to inconsistent patient care and follow-up.

Contribution

The paper identifies inconsistencies in AMAG diagnosis and follow-up practices between endoscopists and pathologists.

Findings

Endoscopy reports did not correlate with histology findings or atrophy severity.

Stronger pathology comments were linked to more follow-up lab tests.

Patients with NET had more follow-up biopsies than those without.

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Autoimmune metaplastic atrophic gastritis (AMAG) is a chronic, autoimmune-mediated condition associated with increased risk of malignancy and nutritional deficiencies, yet diagnostic and follow-up processes remain inconsistent and unclear. This study investigates follow-up testing performance in patients with AMAG and neuroendocrine tumors (NET), as well as the correlation between endoscopic impressions and histologic findings. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 65 gastric biopsies with final diagnoses or comments mentioning the possibility of AMAG, 12 of which included well-differentiated WHO grade 1 NET arising in AMAG. H&E slides were reviewed to assess atrophy severity, the presence or absence of enterochromaffin-like (ECL) cell hyperplasia, and Helicobacter organisms. The final diagnostic line or comments made were scored from 1 to 5, based on the strength of the language used to alert the treating clinician to the likelihood of AMAG. Corresponding endoscopy reports were scored from 1 to 5 based on the likelihood of the reports documenting AMAG features. Data regarding follow-up laboratory testing relevant to AMAG and biopsy performance were collected from the electronic medical records. Results: Endoscopy scores showed no significant associations with the histology comment score or atrophy grade. The histology comment score was positively associated with performing at least a total of three laboratory tests (p = 0.03). No association was found between the presence or absence of follow-up biopsy and histology comment score (p = 0.60). Follow-up biopsy was more common in patients with NET than those with AMAG without NET (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Poor endoscopic–histologic correlation with variable follow-up practices highlights the need for standardized protocols in AMAG management. Enhanced adherence to biopsy guidelines, standardized pathology reporting, and consistent surveillance, particularly for patients with AMAG without NET, are imperative to improve diagnosis and outcomes. Future research should focus on optimizing endoscopic techniques, standardizing serological tests, and establishing evidence-based surveillance protocols for AMAG patients.

Figures