2025+APAGE建议：幽门螺杆菌相关胃癌前病变的监测

ABSTRACT

Background The burden of gastric cancer remains substantial in Asia. Gastric premalignant conditions,including chronic atrophic gastric stritis, intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia, are important intermediate stages in the gastric carcinogenesis cascade. The sojourn time allows endoscopic surveillance to have a pivotal role in early detection and timely intervention.

Objective This task force was commissioned by the Asian Pacific Association of Gastroenterology to formulate recommendations for the surveillance and management of Helicobacter pylori associated gastric premalignant conditions in the region.

Design A systematic literature review was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase, focusing on studies related to gastric premalignant conditions and their surveillance,particularly from Asia.The evidence quality and strength of recommendations were appraised using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation(GRADE) system.

Results These recommendations address four key aspects of gastric premalignant condition surveillance:(1) epidemiology and risk factors;(2) endoscopic and histopathological diagnosis;(3) risk stratification and endoscopic surveillance strategies; and (4) management strategies. 28 statements were made after multiple rounds of voting by experts. The statements offer a comprehensive, evidence based framework designed to assist clinicians in the Asia Pacific region on the early detection and management of gastric premalignant conditions.

Conclusion These statements aim to provide a structured, evidence based surveillance framework for clinical practice in the Asia Pacific region, while also identifying priority areas for future research.

# WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC

$\Rightarrow$ Asia accounts for 70% of the global gastric cancer burden, due to its massive population and high prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection.

$ \Rightarrow $ There are currently no regional guidelines or recommendations for the Asia Pacific region on the endoscopic surveillance and management of these conditions.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

\Rightarrow 28 consensus statements addressed the epidemiology, endoscopic and histopathological diagnosis, risk based surveillance interval and management of gastric premalignant conditions in Asia.

\Rightarrow For diagnosis, we emphasised the importance of failed and high quality endoscopic examination and standardised gastric biopsy protocols, together with proper pathological reporting for better risk stratification.

$ \Rightarrow $ For most individuals with mild changes (operative link on gastritis assessment (OLGA)or operative link on gastric intestinal metaplasia (OLGI M) stage I) and in the absence of other risk factors, surveillance is not mandatory. $ \Rightarrow \mid$ In the highest risk patients (OLGA or OLGIM stages III-IV), biennial endoscopic surveillance is suggested as a standard recommendation.

# HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH,PRACTICE OR POLICY

→This consensus report helps to standardise the approach to endoscopic diagnosis, surveillance and management of gastric premalignant conditions in Asia, particularly in most Asian countries without a nationwide gastric cancer screening programme.

→The knowledge gap and priority area identified in this report will guide future research on surveillance and prevention of gastric cancer in Asia, where gastric cancer is prevalent.

Check for updates

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2025.Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ Group.

To cite: Leung WK, Ang TL,Shah S,et al.Gut Epub ahead of print:[please include Day Month Year].doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2025-335823

Guideline

cases and 65985 deaths globally. However, there is marked geographic variation in the gastric cancer burden, with>70%of new cases and deaths occurring in the Asia Pacific region. The highest incidence rates are reported in East Asia, particularly in China, Japan and Korea.2

Early stage gastric cancer often has no symptoms. Early detec-tion and timely intervention of early stage gastric cancer can improve 5 year survival rates to>90%.3 With the advancement of gastrointestinal endoscopy, including high definition endos-copy and image enhanced endoscopy, endoscopy has emerged as the most direct and widely used method for early detection of gastric cancer, as well as enhanced detection and staging of gastric premalignant conditions.

Chronic atrophic gastric (CAG), gastric intestinal meta-plasia(GIM) and dysplasia(DYS) are well recognised prema-lignant conditions in Correa's gastric carcinogenesis cascade,usually triggered by chronic Helicobacter pylori infection.45 In a recent meta-analysis, the global prevalence estimates of CAG,GIM and DYS were 25.4%, 16.2% and 2.0%, respectively.6 The prevalence rates were generally higher in countries with high or medium gastric cancer incidence, and with a higher preva-lence among H pylori infected individuals. The pooled global estimates of the progression rate per 1000 person years were 2.09(95% CI 1.46 to 2.99) for CAG, 2.89(2.03 to 4.11) for GIM and 10.09(5.23 to 19.49) for DYS, and progression rates seemed to be similar between countries with low and medium or high gastric cancer incidences.

In recent years, both European and North American societies have issued guidelines and recommendations on the manage-ment of gastric premalignant conditions.8-10 The updated Euro-peak guideline(MAPS III)11 recommends structured surveillance intervals based on histopathological risk stratification(eg, the operative link on gastritis assessment(OLGA) and the opera-tive link on gastric intestinal metaplasia(OLGIM) system) and offers a detailed follow-up algorithm. In contrast, the American Gastroenterological Association(AGA)4 12 and the American College of Gastroenterology10 provide broader surveillance recommendations, emphasising individual risk assessment and shared decision making without a unified interval schedule.While some individual Asian countries have developed country specific guidelines,13-15 a regional evidence based guideline of recommendations is lacking, despite the high incidence of gastric cancer and high prevalence of gastric premalignant conditions.Hence there is a pressing need for a unified regional recommen-dation on endoscopic surveillance and management of patients with gastric premalignant conditions or neoplastic lesions in the Asia Pacific region.

This task force was commissioned by the Asian Pacific Asso-ciation of Gastroenterology(APAGE) to develop guidelines and recommendations on the surveillance of gastric premalignant conditions for the Asia Pacific region. The aims of the task force were to standardise the surveillance approach and management in the region as well as highlight areas for future research.

METHODS

Data sources and search strategy

The task force was formed in January 2024. Working group members were invited from various member countries of APAGE, based on local gastric cancer incidences and indi-vidual expertise on gastric cancer screening and prevention.Members included 18 gastroenterologists, endoscopists,pathologists and epidemiologists from nine Asia Pacific countries and regions. Moreover, two international experts

were invited from Europe(MD-R) and North America(SS)to comment and vote on the drafted statements.

A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases(PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase)to identify relevant studies for each topic under consider-ation, particularly those from Asia. The search was supple-mented by manual checking of reference lists from identified studies and relevant systematic reviews.

This consensus used the Grading of Recommenda-tions Assessment, Development and Evaluation(GRADE)system as the standard for evaluating the evidence level and recommendation strength(online supplemental table S1).16 The strength of each recommendation was assessed based on several key factors, including the quality of evidence, alignment between the target population and the study population, extent of clinical benefit and cost considerations, among other factors. The recommenda-tions are categorised into two levels: strong and condi-tional(weak).

A core group(WKL, YL, TLA, Y-CL and KSC) was first formed to develop the clinical questions pertinent to the focus of surveillance and management of gastric prema-lignant conditions and neoplastic lesions. Four subgroups were then formed to address four different areas:(1) epide-miology of gastric premalignant conditions and neoplastic lesions,(2) histopathological and endoscopic diagnosis,(3) risk stratification for endoscopic surveillance and(4)management of gastric premalignant conditions. Internal discussion among each subgroup was through online meet-ings and emails.

The modified Delphi process was adopted in developing the consensus statements. The first round of voting was performed anonymously via a web based platform in early November 2024. Voting was made on the strength of recom-mendation in five point Likert scales, from strongly agree,agree,neutral, disagree to strongly disagree. Consensus was achieved for all statements under a preset threshold of 80%agreement(strongly agree and agree). After the first round of voting, a hybrid meeting was conducted in November 2024 in Bali, Indonesia, during the Asia Pacific Digestive Week to provide feedback and discuss the statements. It was then followed by two more rounds of online voting in December 2024 and January 2025 after incorporation of suggestions and feedback from all members.

This consensus primarily focuses on gastric premalig-nant conditions that arise through the H pylori associated Correa cascade, namely CAG, GIM and DYS. Conditions arising from hereditary cancer syndromes, gastric neoplasms arising from H pylori infection naive gastric mucosa,17 18 gastric polyps or autoimmune gastrics are not discussed in this consensus report. While we acknowledge that these conditions are important, they require distinct diagnostic,surveillance and management strategies, which are covered in other dedicated guidelines.19-21 Specifically, the manage-ment of gastric polyps(eg, hyperplastic polyps) centred on resection rather than surveillance. Autoimmune gastritis has a distinct pathophysiology and risk profile, including risk of neuroendocrine tumours, which necessitates different management and surveillance strategies.

CONSENSUS STATEMENTS

A summary of all 28 consensus statements is provided in online supplemental table S2.

Guideline

Part 1. Epidemiology

Statement 1

The term'gastric premalignant conditions' refers to mucosal environments characterised by chronic inflammation, leading to specific mucosal changes associated with an increased risk of gastric cancer.

Quality of evidence: low

Strongly agree 80%, agree 20%

The Correa gastric carcinogenesis cascade outlines a sequen-tial process beginning with chronic non-atrophic gastric, progressing through CAG, GIM and DYS, and culminating in gastric adenocarcinoma.22 Gastric premalignant conditions represent an extensive pathological state predisposing the tissue environment to carcinogenesis, incrementally elevating the long term risk of gastric cancer development without necessarily implying an immediate or direct progression to malignancy.Specifically, CAG is characterised by the loss of gastric glandular cells and their replacement with fibrosis or intestinal-type cells.GIM refers to the transformation of gastric mucosal epithelial cells into structures resembling those found in the small intes-tine(complete type) or colon(incomplete type), marked by the appearance of goblet and absorptive cells.23 The extensive distribution of GIM in the stomach, such as involvement of the fundus and body of the stomach, also carries a higher risk of malignant transformation than localised GIM.24 The presence of incomplete GIM indicates a further increased risk of malig-nancy.12 25 However, it remains controversial whether adeno-carcinoma mainly develops from GIM.25 26 Recent studies have provided evidence that certain subsets of GIM may act as direct precursors of gastric cancer.27-29 For DYS, a detailed histopatho-logical diagnosis is provided in statement 16.

In this report, we would also like to highlight the practical distinction between 'gastric premalignant conditions' and'neoplastic lesions'. Neoplastic lesions usually refer to endoscop-ically visible and discrete lesions, which are either dysplastic lesions(that can progress to cancer) or early gastric cancer(EGC), both of which require endoscopic or surgical inter-vention. On the other hand, premalignant conditions typically require monitoring and surveillance only.

Statement 2

Individuals with advanced chronic atrophic gastric tritis(OLGA III/IV), advanced gastric intestinal metaplasia(OLGIM III/IV or incomplete-type) and gastric dysplasia are at increased risk for the development of gastric cancer.

Quality of evidence: high

Strongly agree 85%, agree 15%

Overall, the incidence of gastric cancer in patients with CAG and GIM is relatively low. A previous study reported a pooled gastric cancer incidence rate of 1.24 per 1000 person years for CAG(95% CI 0.80 to 1.76) and 3.38 per 1000 person years for GIM(95% CI 2.13 to 4.85).30. In a 12 year follow-up study,Rugge et al showed that high risk CAG(OLGA stages III-IV)was consistently associated with invasive or intra-epithelial gastric neoplasia, whereas mild atrophy(OLGA stages I-II) was associated with a lower risk.31 Additionally, a prospective, multi-centco cohort study from Singapore showed that participants with OLGM stages III-IV were at the highest risk(adjusted hazard ratio(HR) 20.7; 95% CI 5.04 to 85.60) of developing early gastric neoplasia.32 Moreover, a meta-analysis by Akbari et al demonstrated that incomplete GIM(6.60, 95%CI 2.73 to 11.75) was associated with a higher estimated gastric cancer incidence compared with complete GIM(3.24, 95% CI 0.12 to

9.01).30 The details of OLGA and OLGIM staging are discussed in subsequent statements.

Statement 3

The prevalence of chronic atrophic gastritis and gastric intes-tinal metaplasia in the Asia Pacific region varies across different Asian countries and populations, with chronic atrophic gastritis more common than gastric intestinal metaplasia.

Quality of evidence: moderate

Strongly agree 60%, agree 35%, neutral 5%

The prevalence of CAG and GIM varies widely across Asia,which is attributed to differences in population characteristics,H pylori prevalence, local risk factors and even study method-ologies. Most existing data are from small scale, hospital based or regional studies that used heterogeneous diagnostic criteria and age groups. Due to these uncertainties, it is challenging to provide a single Asia Pacific prevalence rate. Reported rates in the literature typically range from 10% to 30% for CAG and from 8% to 25% for GIM,334 but these figures should be interpreted with caution due to potential sampling bias and variability. In general, Southern Asia has a higher CAG prevalence and Eastern Asia has a higher GIM prevalence.35 Data from Oceania coun-tries remain sparse.

Statement 4

The prevalence of chronic atrophic gastritis and gastric intes-tinal metaplasia in Asia is declining overall. However, the rate of decline varies, due to differences in socioeconomic conditions and access to healthcare.

Quality of evidence: moderate

Strongly agree 65%, agree 25%, neutral 10%

The prevalence of CAG and GIM in the Asia Pacific region has declined in recent decades, likely due to improved public health, socioeconomic development and reduced H pylori infec-tion in younger birth cohorts. A pooled analysis showed that the prevalence of GIM fell from 30%(1991-2000) to 21.1%(2011-22), with little change in CAG.35 This decline was more evident in high income countries with better healthcare systems,widespread screening and national screening programmes(eg,Japan and South Korea). However, higher endoscopy rates may also lead to increased detection.36 37 In contrast, data from low resource countries remain limited38, and the true prevalence may be underestimated due to various diagnostic constraints.

Statement 5

There is usually a strong positive correlation between Helico-bacter pylori infection and gastric premalignant conditions in Asia; however, there are exceptions in some regions which may be modulated by host, bacterial and environmental factors.

Quality of evidence: high

Strongly agree 65%, agree 30%, neutral 5%

While H pylori infection has been classified as a group 1 carcinogen, it is usually closely correlated with CAG and GIM,with a previous meta-analysis showing an OR of 2.16(95% CI 2.09 to 2.22) for CAG and 1.64(95% CI 1.57 to 1.72) for GIM in Asia.35 East Asian countries, such as China, Japan and South Korea, have a higher prevalence of CAG/GIM than other Asian countries.35 38

However, there are also'Asian enigma'39 and'Indian enigma',where regions with a high H pylori prevalence have low gastric cancer rates, suggesting that other factors, such as difference in H pylori virulent strains, host genetic polymorphisms and dietary habits may mitigate the risk of progression to malignancy. ${}^{41}$

Guideline

Statement 6

Apart from Helicobacter pylori infection, dietary habits,smoking, genetic factors and lower socioeconomic status are all associated with the development of gastric premalignant conditions

Quality of evidence: moderate

Strongly agree 40%, agree 55%, neutral 5%

Several environmental and genetic factors beyond H pylori infection could also influence the development of gastric prema-lignant conditions and neoplastic lesions. The International Agency for Research on Cancer(IARC) of WHO has classi-fied diet related factors, including high salt intake, pickled and preserved food, and smoked and grilled foods, as group 1 carcin-ogens for gastric cancer.42 43 Despite the lack of definitive guide-lines or consensus regarding the impact of dietary factors on the development of CAG or GIM, a growing body of evidence suggests that poor dietary habits in some Asian countries are significant risk factors for gastric premalignant conditions.43 An endoscopy based study in South Korea showed that high levels of salt intake were associated with CAG and GIM(OR 2.87, 95%CI 1.34 to 6.14).44 Other dietary risk factors, such as deficiencies in fresh fruits and vegetables, are associated with increased oxidative stress and diminished antioxidant defence mechanisms(eg, flavonoids), resulting in chronic inflammation and damage to the gastric mucosa and causing premalignant conditions.

Cigarette smoke is rich in free radicals and reactive oxygen species, which penetrate the gastric epithelium and induce oxidative stress. Additionally, nicotine present in cigarette smoke induces vasoconstriction, leading to reduced blood flow to the gastric mucosa, impaired nutrient delivery and diminished mucosal healing capacity.45 Genetic predispositions also has a

role, with polymorphisms in genes associated with inflammatory and immune responses(such as tumour necrosis factor(TNF)α,interleukin 22(IL-22)46 47 and IL-1B48) correlating with height-ened susceptibility to premalignant conditions. The prevalence of CAG and GIM decreased significantly with higher income or college education levels in a US population based study,49 and individuals with lower educational attainment or socioeconomic status were at a higher risk of developing gastric premalignant conditions and gastric cancer in the Chinese population.50

Part 2. Endoscopic and histopathological diagnosis Statement 7

APAGE recommends implementing measures to ensure optimal mucosal visualisation and adequate inspection time, along with adequate photographic documentation, to enhance the quality of endoscopic examination of the stomach.

Quality of evidence: Moderate

Strength of recommendation: Strong

Strongly agree 85%, agree 15%

The endoscopic appearance of gastric premalignant condi-tions, particularly CAG and GIM, can be inconspicuous,requiring a systematic and high quality examination to maximise diagnostic yield 5152(figure 1). Endoscopists should ensure excel-lent mucosal visualisation by aspirating luminal contents and adequately insuffblating the stomach to expand mucosal folds.Pre-procedural consumption or irrigation with mucolytic agents like simethicone,1% N-acetylcysteine and proteolytic enzymes(pronase) may improve mucosal visualisation versus water irri-gation alone.53-55 However, theoretical concerns regarding the risk of intraprocedural aspiration may limit the routine adoption of this practice. ${}^{56}$

High-definition white light endoscopy to systematically evaluate the whole gastric mucosa and avoid blind-spots

Ensure adequate examination time(>7 minutes) and photographic documentation

 Use of image-enhanced endoscopy for the diagnosis and characterization of gastric premalignant conditions

Figure 1 Systematic endoscopic evaluation and biopsy protocols.

   Biopsies from the antrum/incisura and corpus should be obtained separately following a systematic protocol for histological staging.

Targeted biopsies for lesions suspicious of advanced pathology

 Guideline

Another crucial aspect of a high quality endoscopic examina-tion is to ensure an adequate inspection time. A longer inspec-tion time has been strongly associated with increased detection of gastric lesions.57-59 In a retrospective cohort study involving 837 Singaporean patients, inspection time>7 min was associ-ated with increased detection of CAG and GIM, with an OR of 2.5(95% CI 1.52 to 4.12).57 In another Japanese retrospective cohort of 55 786 patients, inspection time>7 min was associated with increased detection of gastric neptlastic lesions. Compared with that in the fast group, OR for the neoplastic lesion detec-tion rate in the moderate and slow groups were 1.90(95% CI 1.06 to 3.40) and 1.89(95% CI 0.98 to 3.64), respectively.59 Both the AGA and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endos-copy(ESGE) have recommended that the whole inspection time for upper endoscopy should be at least 7 min.56 60 Furthermore,we advocate for standardised training programmes to ensure that endoscopists are adequately equipped to visually identify gastric premalignant conditions or neoplastic lesions.

Statement 8

APAGE recommends using high definition white light endos-copy to systematically evaluate the whole gastric mucosa and avoid blind spots

Quality of evidence: low

Strength of recommendation: strong

Strongly agree 70%, agree 30%

A systematic review reported that the rate of missing gastric cancer during upper endoscopy was 9.4%(95% CI5.7 to 13.1%).Missed cancers were mainly located in the gastric body and were presumably due to blind spots that were not examined or lesions that were not recognised despite being in the field of examina-tion.61 A systematic approach to ensure complete examination of the stomach has been proposed.62 The ESGE recommends precise photographic documentation that encompasses at least one illustrative image of the following anatomical landmarks:duodenum, major papilla, antrum, incisora, corpus, retroflexed view of the fundus, diaphragmatic indentation, upper aspect of the gastric folds, squamocolumnar junction, and distal and prox-imal oesophagus.60 The AGA and World Endoscopy Organisa-tion(WEO) have similar recommendations.56 63

There is indirect evidence from a multicentre study using an artificial intelligence(AI) system to monitor photographic docu-mentation that reduces the blind spots during upper endoscopy examination.64 An AI assisted upper GI endoscopic system has been launched commercially and, if available, may be used to complement the systematic examination. Early data concerning the use of AI assistance for gastric cancer diagnosis are also promising.65 66

Another study showed that training an endoscopist to perform standardised stomach examination improved the detection rate of gastric neoplasm from 0.2% to 2.3%.67 Additionally, the impact of dedicated teaching on the optimal technique of exam-ination and recognition of gastric lesions using video based plat-forms has been demonstrated in randomised controlled trials(RCTs) to improve the endoscopic diagnosis of EGC.68

Statement 9

APAGE recommends use of image enhanced endoscopy for the diagnosis of gastric premalignant conditions and neoplastic lesions.

Quality of evidence: moderate

Strength of recommendation: Strong

Strongly agree 70%, agree 30%

 Figure 2 Endoscopic progression of gastric premalignant and neoplastic lesions.(A) Helicobacter pylori infection naive stomach.The gastric folds are straight and preserved circumferentially, with regular arrangement of collecting ventules in the corpus along lesser curvature.(B) In patients with chronic atrophic gastritis, endoscopic atrophic mucosa, characterised by loss of gastric folds, pale colour and increased vessel visibility, is seen in the corpus of lesser curvature(yellow arrowheads).(C) In patients with gastric intestinal metaplasia(GIM),areas with metaplasia are seen as slightly whithe areas.(D) The colour difference becomes prominent in narrow band imaging.(E) A small depressed lesion in the antrum.(F) Magnification narrow band imaging shows clear demarcation line and irregular microvessel pattern inside(white box in(E)). The lesion is resected by endoscopic submucosal dissection, and the resected specimen revealed it to be moderate to poorly differentiated intramucosal adenocarcinoma.

Unlike statement 8 that refers to systematic examination of the stomach to detect lesions, this statement refers to the evaluation of detected pathologies. High definition white light endoscopy(WLE) could be complemented by image enhanced endoscopy to improve visualisation of mucosal details(figure 2a-2c). A cross sectional study from Greece showed that high definition WLE had a sensitivity of 75% and specificity of 94% for detection of GIM.69 However, high definition WLE alone seems to be infe-rior to image enhanced endoscopy. A meta-analysis including 10 studies confirmed that narrow band imaging(NBI) increased the detection of GIM by 32% compared with WLE.70 Blue light imaging(BLI, Fujifilm, Tokyo, Japan) is another form of narrow band width imaging that is similar to NBI.71 There are also data suggesting that newer technologies based on white light, such as linked colour imaging(LCI; Fujifilm) and texture and colour enhancement imaging(TXI; Olympus, Japan) may improve visi-bility of gastric lesions,72-74 not limited to GIM. LCI has been

Guideline

shown to increase the detection rate of gastric neoplastic lesions in RCTs.72 73 75 A prospective RCT in Singapore involving 90 patients showed that LCI significantly increased the absolute detection rate of CAG by 1.6% and GIM by 12.1% compared with WLE.76 Another multicentre prospective RCT of 1924 patients from China also showed that LCI had better accuracy(78.8% vs 68.4%) and shorter examination time in diagnosing EGC than WLE.75 Some studies also suggested that the use of magnifying endoscopy can predict the presence of CAG and GIM with an accuracy of up to 90%. Nevertheless, it requires a special magnifying endoscope and training, which may not be available in most centres. 78 79

Statement 10

APAGE recommends that the extent of chronic atrophic gastricitis and gastric intestinal metaplasia detected during endoscopy be objectively documented.

Quality of evidence: moderate

Strength of recommendation: Strong

Strongly agree 70%, agree 30%

The risk of development of gastric cancer depends on both the severity and extent of CAG and GIM. The estimated 5 year incidence for gastric cancer was 0.7% for mild CAG but up to 10% for severe CAG.80 For GIM, the risk was reported as 5.3%for atrial GIM but 9.8% for GIM involving the atrum and corpus.81 Hence the extent of CAG and GIM detected during endoscopy should be objectively documented. The OLGA and OLGIM scoring systems were developed as histopathological reporting frameworks for CAG and GIM that could be easily understood and prognosticate the risk of developing gastric cancer.They are based on a systematic biopsy protocol for docu-mentation of disease extent and use a visual analogue scale for severity assessment(more details in statement 15).

Three endoscopic classification systems have been vali-dated against the gold standard of histology, including the Kimura-Takemoto classification of CAG,82 the Kyoto classifi-cation system83 and the endoscopic grading of gastric intestinal

metaplasia(EGGIM)(table 1 and figure 2A-2D).84 In partic-ular, the Kyoto classification and EGGIM have been validated against OLGA and OLGIM systems.85 EGGIM is based on image enhanced endoscopy, whereas the other two are based on WLE. A systematic review reported that a Kyoto classifica-tion score of≥4 might indicate an increased risk of developing gastric cancer(OR 7.3, 95%CI 3.6 to 14.7).86 EGGIM can be used to assess a patient's risk by the endoscopic assessment of GIM in the intrum anisisura, and in the corpus with the use of high definition endoscopes with NBI(or by extension, BLI)function. For the diagnosis of OLGIM stages III-IV, sensitivity,specificity and positive likelihood ratio were 9%, 95% and 16.5,respectively, by using a cut-off value of>4.84 In a multicentre Japanese observational study, OLGIM stages III-IV(OR 2.8,95%CI 1.5 to 5.3), high EGGIM score(OR 1.8, 95%CI 1.0 to 3.1) and open-type Kimura-Takemoto(OR 2.5, 95%CI 1.4 to 4.5) had significant associations with gastric cancer risk.85 Apart from NBI, recent data have also supported the use of an LCI based EGGIM system,88 which may have some advantages(eg,reducing the number of biopsy pieces) over NBI based systems for risk stratification. However, it must be acknowledged that these endoscopic scoring systems may not work as well in non-expert hands and there are a lack of data regarding validation in real world practice.

Statement 11

APAGE recommends that if biopsies are to be considered for histopathological diagnosis of chronic atrophic gastritis and gastric intestinal metaplasia, biopsies from the intran/incisura and corpus should be obtained separately following a system-atic protocol to allow histopathological staging, while targeted biopsies should be obtained separately for lesions suspicious for advanced pathology.

Quality of evidence: low

Strength of recommendation: strong

Strongly agree 85%, agree 15%

Table 1 Descriptions of severity of gastric with different endoscopic classification systems for gastric

|Kimura-Takemoto classification of chronic atrophic gastritis ${}^{82}$|Kyoto classification System ${}^{83}$|Endoscopic grading of gastric intestinal metaplasia ${}^{84}$|LCI-EGGIM ${}^{87.88}$| |---|---|---|---| |Extent of atrophic gastritis described in terms of C1,C2,C3,01,O2 and O3, with C1 being|Atrophy|Sites assessed:|0,no GIM(ie,PIM change observed under| |of C1,C2,C3,01,O2 and O3, with C1 being|None,C1(0)|Antrum|LCI);| |limited to antrum and O3 being very extensive involving atrum and all walls of corpus.|C2 and C3(1) 01-03(2)|Lesser curve Greater|1,focal GIM(ie,≤30% PIM range observed under gastroscopy);| ||Intestinal metaplasia|Incursia|2,extensive IM(ie,>30% PIM change observed under gastroscopy).| ||None(0)||observed under gastroscopy).| |C1:Atrophy is limited to the antrum|Antrum(1)||| |C2:Atrophy is limited to the minor area of the|Corpus and antrum(2)|Corpus|| |lesser curvature of the body|Enlarged folds|Lesser curve|The PIM range in the lesser and greater| |C3:Atrophy exists in the major area of the|Absence(0)|Greater curve|curvature of the gastric antrum, incisura| |lesser curvature of the body but does not|Presence(1)|Scoring:|and the lesser and greater curvature of| |extend beyond the cardia|Nodularity|No GIM:0|the gastric corpus was evaluated; so the| |O1:Atrophy extends to the fundus over the|Absence(0)|≤30% GIM:1|total score is 10 points| |cardia.Atrophic border of the body lies between|Presence(1)|>>30% GIM:2|| |the lesser curvature and anterior wall|Diffuse redness|Range of score:0-10|| |O2:Atrophy border of the body lies on the|None(0)|Cut-off score for diagnosis of OLGIM III/|| |anterior wall|Mild(with regular arrangement of|IV:>4|| |O3:Atrophy is widespread with the border|collecting venues(1)||| |between the anterior wall and greater curvature|Severe(2)||| ||Kyoto score(0-8): score>4 may indicate increased risk for gastric cancer||| |||||

Guideline

We acknowledge that there are differences in practice within Asia, as well as differences in expertise and resources available, in terms of obtaining biopsies for histology. It must be remembered that although the data on EGGIM are promising, there remains a need for further real world validation. Under most circumstances,there is still a need for histopathological assessment and confir-mation of premalignant conditions, particularly in the absence of endoscopic expertise or diagnostic certainty.899 In addition,objective histopathological confirmation of focal DYS or EGC is required as part of pretreatment confirmation. The Updated Sydney System facilitates a consistent approach to map out the extent of CAG and GIM.91 A minimum of five biopsies should be obtained with samples from antrum/incisura and corpus placed in separately labelled containers. Any suspicious areas should also be described and biopsied separately. 9192 Incisura biopsy is suggested because it has been shown to increase the number of cases diagnosed in more advanced stages of CAG and GIM,93 94 although admittedly this observation is not universal.95 A real world retrospective study demonstrated that routine adherence to a systematic protocol increased the detection rates of prema-lignant conditions, including CAG and GIM.96 Such data have prompted published international guidelines and reviews to consistently advocate for such a systematic approach. 4897

Statement 12

APAGE recommends that the presence of chronic atrophic gastritis and gastric intestinal metaplasia should prompt a dili-gent examination for the concomitant presence of neoplastic lesions.

Quality of evidence: moderate

Strength of recommendation: strong

Strongly agree 85%, agree 15%

While CAG and GIM are associated with an increased risk of gastric neoplasia, the presence of extensive GIM may partially obscure focal neoplastic lesions. It is important to be cognisant that at the index endoscopy, there may already be concomitant gastric neoplasia(including DYS and gastric cancer) and hence a careful endoscopic examination of the gastric mucosa is crucial.

Statement 13

The presence of any suspicious focal neoplastic lesion on white light endoscopy should be described using the updated Paris classi=cation and further characterised with high definition,image enhanced endoscopy, preferably with magnifying/near focus observation and targeted biopsies obtained for histopatho-logical con=rmation.

Quality of evidence: moderate

Strength of recommendation: Strong

Strongly agree 45%, agree 45%, neutral 10%

The updated Paris classification serves as an important means of documenting the morphology of detected focal neoplasia in a consistent manner.98 This will facilitate communication between healthcare providers and, importantly, it also provides an esti-mate of the risk of submucosal invasion of cancer.98 High resolu-tion image enhanced endoscopy has been shown to be useful in characterising focal lesions and differentiating between EGC and non-cancer(figure 2E, 2F).

For EGC, the diagnostic criteria for the vessel plus surface classification system using magnifying endoscopy with NBI(ME-NBI) are irregular microvascular patterns with a demarcation line.99 A meta-analysis that examined 20 studies involving 7770 patients and 7917 lesions reported a pooled sensitivity for ME-NBI for

diagnosing EGC of 0.86(95% CI 0.80 to 0.90) and specificity of 0.92(95% CI 0.86 to 0.96). ${}^{100}$ The use of BLI has demonstrated comparable performance with NBI. ${}^{101}$ ${}^{102}$ The overall diagnostic performance for EGC using near focus NBI(NF-NBI) was an accuracy of 87.7%, sensitivity 60.7%, specificity 93.1%, positive predictive value 63.8% and negative predictive value 92.2%.103 A recent phase II RCT compared the third generation NBI with the newer TXI, and high definition WLE. Gastric neoplasia detection rates in the NBI, TXI and WLE groups were 7.3%,5.0% and 5.6%, respectively.104 The Magnifying Endoscopy Simple Diagnostic Algorithm for Gastric Cancer(MESDA-G)was jointly devised by the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association and the WEO as a unified international algorithm for magnifying endoscopy diagnosis of EGC.105 After a focal lesion is detected by WLE, the presence of a demarcation line is first assessed. The lesion is then examined in greater detail with narrow band width imaging,combined with magnification.

It is, however, important to note that many of these diagnostic criteria were developed and validated based on the Japanese clas-sification system, where lesions pathologically defined as high grade dysplasia in the west are typically classified as mucosal adenocarcinoma, regardless of invasion. This distinction and its implications for practice in the wider Asia Pacific region are discussed further in statement 16.

Statement 14

APAGE recommends that pathology reports standardise the description of intestinal metaplasia: to be quanti=ed for each site as mild, moderate and severe. The presence of gastric atrophy in oxycosmic uosa should be assessed where feasible.

Quality of evidence: low

Strength of recommendation: Strong

Strongly agree 45%, agree 45%, neutral 10%

The presence of CAG and GIM(including complete or incom-plete subtypes) are important and should be reported in all pathology reports of gastric biopsies. Quantifying the severity is also of prognostic relevance as the extent and severity of the find-ings have an impact on the risk of developing gastric neoplasia.By convention, the grading of severity for CAG and GIM is defined as none(0%), mild(1-30%), moderate(31-60%) and severe(>60% involvement of the biopsy specimen). ${}^{106}$ Subclas-sification of GIM into complete and incomplete is encouraged when feasible, given its higher association with gastric cancer risk.24 Pseudopyloric metaplasia, which marks chronic injury and a reparative response in the stomach, typically arises in the oxyntic mucosa of the gastric body, may also be present and should be documented when identified. It must be noted that while the interobserver agreement for GIM is high, it is more variable and can be low for CAG.91 108 109

Statement 15

APAGE recommends that if gastric biopsies are obtained by a mapping protocol, histopathological staging by OLGA/OLGIM can be used to stratify the risk for gastric cancer progression.

Quality of evidence: moderate

Strength of recommendation: Strong

Strongly agree 40%, agree 55%, neutral 5%

The OLGA system was developed to establish a reporting framework for gastric atrophy that is easily understood by clinicians and provides prognostic information.92 The OLGA system uses the biopsy sampling protocol and visual analogue scale recommended in the updated Sydney system.91 Atrophy

Guideline

severity for antrum/incisura and corpus is scored as 0(no atrophy),1(mild),2(moderate) or 3(severe), within the corre-sponding anatomic locations(antrum/incisura and corpus). The overall antrum/incisura score and overall corpus score are then combined to provide the OLGA stage(stages I-IV), with stages III and IV shown to be predictive for the development of gastric neoplastic lesions.92

Similarly, the OLGIM system was developed to evaluate the severity and extent of GIM on gastric mapping biopsies from the antrum/incisura and corpus in a similar fashion. Stages III and IV were found to be predictive for gastric neoplastic lesions.110 The prognostic values of both OLGA3111112 and OLGIM32 have since been validated in longitudinal studies and a meta-analysis. A Singapore study(n=2980) showed increased early gastric neoplasia risk in patients with GIM(adjusted HR 5.36;95% CI 1.51 to 19.0), particularly in OLGIM stages III-IV(HR 20.7; 95%CI 5.04 to 85.6).32 In a Japanese multicentre obser-vational study, OLGIM stages III-IV were also associated with a higher cancer risk(OR 2.8; 95% CI 1.5 to 5.3).85 OLGIM is favoured over OLGA due to better interobserver agreement 9110 and is endorsed by ESGE(MAPS II-III), Academy of Medicine,Singapore(AMS) and British Society of Gastroenterology.891113

However, we recognise that OLGA/OLGIM may not be feasible in all Asian countries due to lack of availability of expertise or resources, or a predominant focus on endoscopic diagnosis. Hence this statement does not mandate histology for diagnosis, but rather recommends that if histopathological assessment is performed, it should follow validated systems, such as OLGA/OLGIM.

Statement 16

APAGE recommends that dysplasia be graded on a two tiered system as low grade and high grade dysplasia, as recommended in the latest WHO classi=cation system. However, APAGE also accepts the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association classi=cation system for the classification of high-grade dysplasia in appro-priate settings.

Quality of evidence: low

Strength of recommendation: strong

Strongly agree 40%, agree 55%, neutral 5%

According to the WHO classification system, gastric DYS is defined as an unequivocal neoplastic lesion without evidence of stromal invasion. Currently, DYS is graded dichotomously as low or high grade.113 In a large cohort study from the Netherlands with 92250 patients, de Vries et al reported that the annual incidence of gastric cancer was 0.1% for patients with CAG,0.25% for GIM, 0.6% for low grade dysplasia(LGD) and 6%for high grade dysplasia(HGD) within 5 years after diagnosis. ${}^{114}$ Notably, within 1,5 and 10 years of follow-up after initial diag-nosis, gastric cancer was diagnosed in 0.3%, 0.6% and 0.8% of patients with CAG;0.7%,1.29% and 1.89% of patients with GIM;2.1%,3.1% and 3.9% of patients with LGD; and 24.9%,29.5%and 32.7% of patients with HGD.114 It is worth noting that the study did not exclude gastric cancers diagnosed within the first year of identifying CAG, GIM or DYS. Thus the percentages reported in the study included some prevalent gastric cancers in addition to incident cases.

Notably, there are differences in the diagnostic criteria of superficial gastric neoplastic lesions between the Japanese and western pathologists. Lesions diagnosed as HGD by western pathologists are considered adenocarcinoma by the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association classification based on nuclear and structural atypia, regardless of the presence of

invasion.115 116 The pathological criteria adopted by Japan(and South Korea) allow them to correlate better with endo-scopically identifiable neoplastic lesions. However, most Asia Pacific countries adhere to their own or international guidelines(such as the WHO criteria) for pathological reporting standards which have implications for training,laboratory accreditation and oncological management. For instance, a single centre observational study from China reported their long term experience with a three tier clas-sification system for gastric dysplasia (mild, moderate or severe), which was based on architectural distortion,nuclear atypia and glandular arrangement. This histopathological framework was also shown to correlate with increasing risk of malignant transformation across the severity spectrum.Howile differences exist, both lamina propria and muscularis mucosae invasion are diagnosed as invasive adenocarcinoma and staged pathologically as pT1a cancer. Irrespective of the differences in diagnostic categories, the approach to treat-ment is the same, in that resection is indicated and endo-scopic resection is preferred when feasible.117

Statement 17

In the absence of formal OLGA and OLGIM staging, advanced stage chronic atrophic gastricitis/gastric intestinal metaplasia may be indicated by the presence of marked and extensive chronic atrophic gastricitis/gastric intestinal metaplasia in multiple biop-sies, or incomplete subtype gastric intestinal metaplasia.

Quality of evidence: moderate

Strength of recommendation: Strong

Strongly agree 70%, agree 25%, neutral 5%

Although OLGA and OLGIM staging systems are preferred for comprehensive risk assessment, 92,110 routine implemen-tation is limited by the need for multiple biopsies and expert pathology. Other easily assessable risk factors include the extent/severity of CAG and GIM, incomplete GIM subtype,smoking(>20 pack years), persistent H pylori infection and a family history of gastric cancer.118 A systematic review of 12 cohort studies(four in Asia) found that incomplete GIM carried a significantly higher cancer risk than complete GIM(relative risk(RR) 5.16; 95% CI 3.28 to 8.12).119 However,this subtype based classification does not reflect the extent/severity of GIM.

As an alternative, the endoscopic grading system EGGIM evaluates GIM across five gastric regions using NBI. Studies from Portugal, Italy, Japan and China showed that high EGGIM scores correlated with increased gastric cancer risk,84 85 87 120 and LCI-EGGIM may offer an advantage for detection. ${}^{87}$ However, the routine application of EGGIM by less experienced endoscopists requires further evaluation.

Part 3. Endoscopic surveillance

Statement 18

Endoscopic surveillance is recommended for patients with moderate to advanced stages of chronic atrophic gastricitis and gastric intestinal meta-gastric intestinal meta-plasia, as well as patients with non-advanced chronic atrophic gastric transitis and gastric intestinal meta-plasia who have additional risk factors for gastric cancer.

Quality of evidence: low

Strength of recommendation: weak(Conditional)

Strongly agree 75%, agree 25%

Endoscopic screening and surveillance are widely implemented in Asia due to high H pylori prevalence and elevated gastric cancer risk. Although non-invasive tests

Guideline

 Figure 3 Recommendations for endoscopic surveillance according to the staging of gastric premalignant conditions. CAG, chronic atrophic gastritis;EGGIM, endoscopic grading of gastric intestinal metaplasia; GIM, gastric intestinal metaplasia; HGD, high grade dysplasia; LGD, low grade dysplasia;OLGA, operative link on gastritis assessment; OLGIM, operative link on gastric intestinal metaplasia.

(eg, pepsinogen) are preferred for risk identification, they lack accuracy in predicting EGC, particularly after H pylori eradication, as irreversible mucosal damage may persist and affect pepsinogen reliability.121-124 Direct endoscopic and histopathologic evaluations remain the most reliable for risk stratification. Surveillance is not routinely recom-mended for non-advanced CAG/GIM unless risk factors exist, such as poor baseline endoscopy, first degree family history, smoking, persistent H pylori or incomplete GIM(figure 3). ${}^{1213125}$ Despite the lack of RCTs comparing surveil-lance versus no surveillance, simulation studies suggest surveillance is cost effective in high risk populations. ${}^{126}$ Even in US populations, 5 year surveillance for incidentally detected GIM reduced gastric cancer incidence/mortality and was cost effective. ${}^{127}$ Nonetheless, due to assumptions and variability in parameter inputs within cost effectiveness simulation models, the strength of the recommendation may vary by region.

Statement 19

For patients with advanced stage chronic atrophic gastritis and gastric intestinal metaplasia(OLGA/OLGIM III/IV), endoscopic surveillance every 2 years is recommended

Quality of evidence: low

Strength of recommendation: weak(Conditional)

Strongly agree 55%, agree 40%, neutral 5%

The primary goal of endoscopic surveillance is to detect EGC or DYS at a curable stage. In Japan and South Korea,national policies recommend upper endoscopic screening starting at age 40-50 years, regardless of H pylori status or premalignant conditions.128 129 The screening interval is generally based on an estimated 2 year dwelling time, which reflects the window of opportunity to detect EGC before it progresses to an advanced stage.129 This dwelling time,derived from the prevalence-to-incidence ratio, is consistent

with observations from routine clinical practice in Asia.Moreover, geographic location does not appear to influence the progression rate from advanced premalignant conditions to gastric cancer, or from EGC to advanced disease.

Patients with OLGA/OLGIM stages III-IV are at increased risk of gastric cancer, with similar progression rates reported globally.101 Although RCTs are lacking, we recom-mend a 2 year surveillance interval for these high risk indi-viduals, primarily based on cost effectiveness analyses and in alignment with policies implemented in high incidence Asian countries.13 15 129 This interval, which is more inten-sive than the 3 year interval recommended by other interna-tional guidelines for endoscopic surveillance,8-11 is intended to balance the increased likelihood of early detection with resource efficiency. In South Korea, universal biennial endoscopic screening was found to be cost effective, partly due to lower procedure costs.130 In Japan, biennial surveil-lance following H pylori eradication was also cost effective,taking into account the residual risk of gastric cancer.131 In the US, a cost effectiveness analysis stratified by race and ethnicity found that endoscopy with mapping biopsies and biennial surveillance for advanced premalignant conditions remained cost effective among Asians.132 However, we acknowledge that if future evidence shows a longer interval provides comparable effectiveness in reducing gastric cancer mortality, the surveillance interval could be lengthened to improve cost-efficiency.

Statement 20

For patients with intermediate stage chronic atrophic gastritis and gastric intestinal metaplasia(OLGA/OLGIM stage II),endoscopic surveillance every 3 years is suggested. Different surveillance intervals may be considered depending on the popu-lation risk and available resources.

Quality of evidence: low

Guideline

Strength of recommendation: weak(Conditional)

Strongly agree 65%, agree 30%, neutral 5%

Evidence regarding the increased risk of gastric cancer in individuals with intermediate stage CAG and GIM(OLGA/OLGIM stage II) is limited.89 12 For patients in this cate-gory, surveillance every 3 years may be considered, but supporting evidence remains insufficient, and risk assess-ment should be individualised, particularly when OLGA/OLGIM is not available(figure 3). A cohort study from Singapore which involved mainly Chinese individuals aged≥50 years demonstrated a stepwise increase in the risk of early gastric neoplasia(ie, HGD and gastric adenocarci-noma), with incidence rates of 12.5 per 1000 person years in the no GIM group, 21.5 in OLGM I, 108.8 in OLGM II and 543.8 in OLGM III-IV. Notably, the intermediate cate-gory(OLGIM II) accounted for approximately a quarter of subsequent cases of early gastric neoplasia.32 These results implied that patients with intermediate stage CAG and GIM within a high risk population may benefit from endoscopic surveillance after considering individual factors, such as poor quality baseline endoscopy, first degree family history of gastric cancer, smoking, persistent H pylori infection or the presence of incomplete-type GIM. However, it may not apply to regions with lower cancer incidences. A long term follow-up study in Italy found an incidence of gastric cancer of 1.48(95% CI 0.48 to 4.58) per 1000 person years for OLGA II patients.133 It is important to note that this recom-mendation also may not apply to patients with autoimmune gastritis, that are at least OLGA/OLGIM stage II134 and could have distinct malignant potential, including increased risk of neuroendocrine tumours, but is outside the scope of our recommendation.

Statement 21

For patients with mild chronic atrophic gastric and gastric intestinal metaplasia(OLGA/OLGIM stage I), endoscopic surveillance may not be justi=ed but can be considered based on individual and population risks, as well as resources available.

Quality of evidence: low

Strength of recommendation: weak(Conditional)

Strongly agree 60%, agree 40%

In patients with mild CAG or GIM(OLGA/OLGIM stage I), routine surveillance is generally not recommended unless additional risk factors are present. This is primarily because mild CAG or GIM is commonly observed, the risk of developing gastric cancer is low and routine endoscopic surveillance is not cost effective in most countries unless the population's gastric cancer risk is high or the individual has an elevated risk(eg, family history of gastric cancer).Additionally, the progression rate is relatively slower, and risk factors associated with histopathological progres-sion,32 such as persistent H pylori infection and lifestyle risk factors,124 135 can often be treated or modified after the endoscopic examination through interventions like H pylori eradication and lifestyle changes.121 136 137 However, this should not be interpreted as there being no gastric cancer risk for these patients.138 Histopathological grading can also be influenced by factors such as biopsy location, limited number of samples and the patchy distribution of premalig-nant conditions, as well as variability in histopathological interpretations.90 101 With many uncertainties, clinical deci-sions should therefore consider both individual and popula-tion level risks, as well as the available resources.

Part 4. Management

Statement 22A

APAGE recommends endoscopic resection of visible lesions concerning for, or histopathologically confirmed to be, dysplasia,with the goal being en bloc R0 resection.

Quality of evidence: low

Strength of recommendation: Strong

Strongly agree 80%, agree 20%

Statement 22B

In cases where the biopsy report shows dysplasia but no focal lesions are identi=ed on the repeat high quality endoscopy(so-called non-visible dysplasia), referral to an endoscopist with experience of endoscopic detection and intervention is recom-mended. Surveillance endoscopy should be performed every 6 months for patients with resected high grade dysplasia and annually for low grade dysplasia, for a minimum duration of 5 years, with relaxed intervals but ongoing surveillance thereafter.

Quality of Evidence: low

Strength of recommendation: weak(Conditional)

Strongly agree 80%, agree 20%

DYS is clinically significant, being associated with synchro-nous gastric cancer in nearly 10% of cases and an increased risk of progression to gastric cancer.139-141 For visible focal gastric lesions with DYS, endoscopic en bloc resection is recommended,as it also allows for proper histopathological assessment. There-fore, en bloc resection is necessary even for LGD to ensure thorough evaluation and management. For lesions≤15mm, cap assisted endoscopic mucosal resection is generally effective and straightforward, while for lesions>15mm, endoscopic submu-cosal dissection is preferred due to its superior en bloc resec-tion and lower recurrence rates, despite its greater complexity and higher risks related to the procedure, such as bleeding and perforation.142-144 Specifically for endoscopic submucosal dissection, the MAPS III guidelines recommend endoscopic submucosal dissection for differentiated lesions staged as dysplastic or intramuscdal carcinoma(of any size if not ulcerated and<30mm if ulcerated),11 which follows the latest Japanese recommendation.145

In cases where HGD or LGD is detected incidentally from random biopsies, but no focal lesions are found on repeat high quality endoscopy, ongoing surveillance is needed.146 A single centre study from China showed that during a median follow-up of 4.2 years, 51.4% of patients with baseline mild-to-moderate DYS showed no detectable DYS.147 Within 5 years of diagnosis,the annual incidence rate of advanced neoplasia and gastric cancer was 0.43% and 0.26%, respectively, which was much lower than previous reports.7 While the results of this single centre study should be interpreted with caution, it also highlights the role of repeated examination, preferably by expert endoscopists and patholo-gists. Advanced endoscopic techniques, such as image enhanced endoscopy, chromoendoscopy or AI assistance, have been shown to improve detection rates, revealing lesions missed in the initial examinations.64 148 Undetected and unresected DYS is associated with a substantially higher risk of progression to gastric cancer,highlighting the need for careful follow-up.14 Specifically,patients with resected HGD should undergo surveillance endoscopy every 6 months, while those with resected low grade DYS could be moni-tored annually. This frequent surveillance should continue for at least 5 years.147 In patients with indefinite for dysplasia, where the extent of cellular abnormality is unclear or insufficient to classify as LGD or HGD, a similar strategy of close surveillance and repeated histopathological assessment is recommended.89

Guideline

Statement 23

APAGE recommends test-and-treat for Helicobacter pylori in individuals with gastric premalignant conditions to reduce the risk of histopathological progression and gastric cancer

Quality of evidence: moderate

Strength of recommendation: strong

Strongly agree 85%, agree 15%

A recent meta-analysis of 11 RCTs ${}^{149}$ showed that H pylori eradication therapy reduced the risk of gastric cancer and gastric cancer related death by 36% and 22% among H pylori infected individuals without gastric neoplasia, respectively. The pooled results from some observational studies also showed consistent results.150 151 However, for patients with GIM, there was no significant benefit on gastric cancer risk(RR 0.7 6; 95% CI 0.36 to 1.61), which is consistent with other systematic reviews and meta-analyses.153 154 In contrast, gastric cancer risk was still reduced by 48% after H pylori eradication therapy among those with gastric neoplasia undergoing endoscopic mucosal resection who were likely having concurrent premalignant changes.

Histopathological progression of GIM is defined as(1)progression to DYS or non-cardia gastric cancer or(2) increase in histopathological score in terms of Correa's cascade, OLGA or OLGIM. Correa's precancerous cascade can be categorised into six stages, from normal to non-atrophic gastric sutifocal atrophic gastricitis, GIM, DYS and gastric cancer.52 22 155 156 Mera et al reported that the histopathological score increased by an average of 0.20 units per year(95%CI 0.12 to 0.28) in indi-viduals with persistent H pylori infection.156 In a meta-analysis conducted within AGA technical review, the RR of histopatho-logical progression after H pylori eradication for all patients in terms of Correa's histopathological score was 0.91(95% CI 0.83 to 1.00).152 However, for those with GIM, the RR was 1.17(95% CI1.01 to 1.36).152

On the other hand, histopathological regression of GIM is defined as(1) regression to normal mucosa, chronic gastric in CAG or C(2) decrease in histopathological score stage.157 According to the study by Mera et al, H pylori eradication was associated with a progressive decline in the score. At the 6 year follow-up, the score for those subjects was 0.13 less than base-line(95%CI 0.11 to 0.15) while at 12 years the score was 0.59 less than baseline(95% CI 0.51 to 0.67).155 The Shandong Inter-ventional Trial158 159 reported the outcome in patients with GIM,showing an RR of 1.56(95% CI 1.03 to 2.33). Another meta-analysis showed that in terms of regression in CAG and GIM,the pooled OR from four CRTs was 2.61(95% CI 1.41 to 4.81)and 2.61(95% CI 1.66 to 4.11), respectively.153 Notably, some meta-analyses153 154 only observed the regression of premalig-nant conditions in studies with follow-up periods longer than 5 years.

In view of the rising prevalence of antibiotic resistance of H pylori, ${}^{160}$ successful H pylori eradication should be confirmed by preferably a non-invasive test(either 13C urea breath test or faecal antigen test). Endoscopy for biopsy can be considered when there is a concomitant indication(eg, follow-up for gastric ulcer).

Statement 24

APAGE recommends tend-and-treat for Helicobacter pylori infection for individuals with=rst degree relatives diagnosed with gastric cancer. Endoscopic screening for detecting both H pylori infection and gastric premalignant conditions and/or cancer can be considered.

Quality of evidence: high

Strength of recommendation: Strong

Strongly agree 70%, agree 30%

Germline pathogenic variants are closely associated with the risk of gastric cancer161 and familial aggregation of gastric cancer occurs in approximately 10% of cases.162 A meta-analysis showed that among first degree relatives of patients with gastric cancer, the OR of H pylori infection, CAG and GIM were 1.93(95% CI 1.42 to 2.61), 2.20(95% CI 1.27 to 3.82) and 1.98(95% CI 1.36 to 2.88), respectively.163 When compared with those without a family history of gastric cancer, the pooled RR of progression from GIM to gastric cancer among those with a family history of gastric cancer was 4.53(95% CI 1.33 to 15.46).156).152

A test-and-treat strategy for H pylori in individuals with first degree relatives diagnosed with gastric cancer is a proactive approach to reduce the risk of developing gastric cancer. Various international and Chinese guidelines9121 129 164 recommend H pylori screening among individuals at high gastric cancer risk(including those with a family history or first degree relatives having gastric cancer). Familial based testing may also be consid-ered, 125 165 particularly in regions with a high prevalence of H pylori infection. A meta-analysis of 12 studies from different countries(including nine from China) showed a nearly three-fold higher H pylori eradication success rate when comparing a whole family test-and-treatment strategy with a single patient treatment strategy, and a 70% lower rate of recurrence was noted in the former strategy.

Results from a cluster RCT found a beneficial effect of H pylori treatment, particularly for those aged 25-45 years, leading to a 27% decrease in the risk of developing gastric cancer.135 A nationwide population based study showed that in patients with and without a family history of gastric cancer, early treatment of H pylori infection at a younger age could maximise gastric cancer prevention, the maximal benefit being observed among those who had H pylori eradication at age<45 years.167

In addition to H pylori screening, individuals with a family history of gastric cancer may also need endoscopic screening to detect gastric prealignant conditions and gastric cancer.121 The recommended starting age of endoscopy screening is 45-50 years 94 121 or 10 years earlier than the onset age of the first degree relative diagnosed with gastric cancer.

Statement 25

APAGE suggests against routine empirical use of proton pump inhibitors and potassium competitive acid blockers, particularly long term use, in individuals with gastric premalignant condi-tions in the absence of compelling indications.

Quality of evidence: low

Strongly agree 85%, agree 15%

A meta-analysis of six RCTs(n=1623) showed that use of proton pump inhibitors(PPIs) was associated with a higher risk of premalignant conditions when used for more than 12 months(RR 2.21; 95% CI 1.47 to 3.33). The RRs for CAG,GIM and DYS with PPI use were 1.50(95% CI 0.91 to 2.47),1.93(95% CI 1.03 to 3.63) and 7.73(95% CI 0.36 to 165.7),respectively.168 Another meta-analysis showed that the harmful effect of PPIs were limited to non-cardia gastric cancer(RR 2.38; 95%CI 1.90 to 2.98), but not cardia gastric cancer(RR 1.32;95% CI 0.84 to 2.03).169 A dose-response relationship was reported in a few studies. Abrahamji et al showed that a higher dose of omeprazole equivalents was associated with a higher risk of gastric cancer.170 Cheung et al recruited a cohort of H pylori

Guideline

erated individuals, showing that at least weekly use of PPIs was associated with a 2.44-fold higher risk of gastric cancer.171 Furthermore, H pylori infection, either current or past, was a more important determinant of gastric cancer risk than PPIs,possibly due to the development of H pylori induced premalig-nant conditions.171 172

While strong evidence from RCTs is still lacking, one RCT recruiting patients receiving aspirin or rivaroxaban who were assigned to either pantoprazole 40 mg daily or placebo did not reveal an increase in gastric cancer risk.173 However, aspirin is a known chemopreventive agent against many solid organ tumours, including gastric cancer, 174 175 and the PPI associated gastric cancer risk may be negated by concomitant aspirin use. ${}^{176}$ Moreover, the study investigated multiple outcomes, posing a risk of underpower for detecting gastric cancer occurrence.Since long term use of PPIs is associated with various potential side effects, 177 178 the indications for PPIs should be regularly reviewed and de-prescription of PPIs should be attempted when there is no indication. 179 180

Potassium competitive acid blockers, with a more potent gastric acid suppressive effect than PPIs, have also been shown to be associated with a nearly twofold higher gastric cancer risk in a population based cohort study of 54055 patients, with a duration and dose-response relation.181 We therefore advise a similar cautious approach for use of potassium competitive acid blockers, although strong evidence supporting this is lacking.

Statement 26

APAGE recommends against the routine use of non-Helicobacter pylori chemopreventive agents(including aspirin or cycloxy-genase-2 inhibitors) as primary prevention of gastric cancer in individuals with gastric premalignant conditions.

Quality of evidence: moderate

Strength of recommendation: strong

Strongly agree 65%, agree 35%

Meta-analyses showed that aspirin and NSAIDs were associ-ated with a lower gastric cancer risk in observational studies,while post hoc analysis of RCTs showed a trend favouring aspirin use.182 183 However, most studies did not report the status of gastric premalignant conditions and included a hetero-geneous population of both H pylori infected and non-infected individuals.

One meta-analysis of five studies found that COX-2 inhibitors reduced gastric cancer risk by 55%.184 Leung et al showed that rofecoxib did not regress GIM and its severity over 2 years in 213 H pylori eradicated individuals with GIM.185 It is noteworthy that rofecoxib was subsequently withdrawn from the market due to cardiovascular adverse events.186 On the other hand,another RCT showed that celecoxib use for 2 years could regress advanced gastric lesions in H pylori infected individuals, but not in H pylori eradicated subjects. ${}^{187}$ Given the uncertain benefits of NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors in regressing gastric prema-lignant conditions and cancer prevention, particularly among those with H pylori eradicated, and their side effects,188189 do not recommend NSAIDs or COX-2 inhibitors solely for gastric cancer prevention purposes.

We also do not recommend routine use of aspirin for chemo-prevention of gastric cancer. However, given its additional cardiovascular and cancer prevention benefits, the use of low dose aspirin should be individualised if other compelling indi-cations exist. A cohort study of H pylori eradicated individuals showed that aspirin users had seven fewer gastrointestinal cancer

related deaths but one more bleeding related death per 10000 person years than non-users.

Rebamipide, a mucosal protective agent, was shown in various RCTs to reduce the risks of GIM and low grade DYS,190 191 to improve the histopathologic grade of CAG and GIM in the antrum and to alleviate chronic inflammation in the lesser curva-ture of the corpus after H pylori eradication.192193 Moluodan, a compound prescription of Chinese herbal medicine, resulted in an 82.8% disappearance rate of DYS in a randomised, double blind, parallel controlled trial.194 However, the recommenda-tions for their routine use require further research.

Statement 27

APAGE does not recommend endoscopic treatment of gastric intestinal metaplasia, such as through endoscopic ablation or resection.

Quality of evidence: low

Strength of recommendation: Strong

Strongly agree 65%, agree 35%

Endoscopic ablation or resection is generally not recom-mended for eradication of GIM, especially because it is a multi-focal condition. As GIM is considered a field effect suggesting a higher risk of cancer development, we emphasise the importance of careful surveillance in patients with GIM while asserting that intervention should be reserved for cases of confirmed DYS.195 Furthermore, endoscopic therapies, such as ablation, have not been shown to be effective in eradicating GIM and may introduce potential risks. A study tested radiofrequency ablation for both GIM and LGD, finding that while it successfully eradicated DYS in all patients with LGD, GIM persisted in most cases.196 Endo-scopic resection carries potential complications, such as perfora-tion or bleeding, which can complicate further management.

Statement 28

APAGE recommends that healthcare providers counsel patients with gastric premalignant conditions to adopt a healthy lifestyle(including smoking cessation and a healthy diet, etc), as this can lower the risk of progression towards gastric cancer.

Quality of evidence: moderate

Strength of recommendation: strong

Strongly agree 40%, agree 55%, neutral 5%

Personal lifestyle choices are closely linked to the progression of gastric cancer. A prospective cohort study including 100 220 individuals found that an unfavourable lifestyle was associated with a twofold higher risk of gastric cancer.198 Even for those with a high genetic risk, a healthy lifestyle could help reduce the risk of gastric cancer by 47%.198 A summary of the manage-ment strategies for gastric premalignant conditions is shown in figure 4.

Smoking and alcohol

A recent meta-analysis showed that compared with never smokers, the pooled RR of gastric cancer for current and former smokers was 1.53(95% CI 1.44 to 1.62) and 1.30(95% CI 1.23 to 1.37), respectively. ${}^{199}$ In the Singapore Gastric Epidemiology and Molecular Genetics Programme prospective cohort, OLGIM II-IV patients who smoked≥20 pack years were associated with a 3.7-fold higher risk of early gastric neoplasia.32

The World Cancer Research Fund International Contin-uous Update Project highlights strong evidence that consuming three or more alcoholic drinks per day raises the risk of gastric cancer.200 201 A pooled analysis of 20 epidemiological studies showed that heavy drinkers(more than four to six drinks per

Guideline

Recommended

Test-and-treat for H. pylori infection in individuals with gastric premalignat ifory of gastric cancer

Adopt healthy lifestyle such as smoking cessation and healthy diet(e.g. low salt diet, fresh vegetables and fruits)

 diet, fresh vegetables and fruits)

 Figure 4 Management strategies for gastric premalignant conditions.

day) and very heavy drinkers(more than six drinks per day) had a 26% and 48% increase in gastric cancer risk, respectively.202 A Korean study of 202675 individuals showed that alcohol consumption was associated with both CAG and GIM in a dose-response manner.203

Dietary factors

The third expert report by the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research concluded that there was strong evidence linking salt preserved foods to gastric cancer.204 A meta-analysis involving 2076498 participants demonstrated that high salt intake was associated with a twofold higher risk of gastric cancer.205 Another meta-analysis revealed a trend favouring association between salted/salty foods and GIM(OR 1.68; 95% CI 0.98 to 2.90).206

The IARC classified processed meat as a group 1 carcinogen(carcinogenic to humans) and red meat as group 2A(probably carcinogenic to humans).43 A meta-analysis including 43 cohort and case-control studies found that a high intake of processed meat and red meat was associated with a 57% and 41% higher risk of gastric cancer, respectively. ${}^{207}$

A meta-analysis of 18 prospective studies indicated that increased consumption of fruits alone and in combination with vegetables was associated with a 13% and 25% lower risk of gastric cancer, respectively.208 On the other hand, the data regarding the effects of milk and dairy products on gastric cancer risk are limited and inconclusive.209 210 A meta-analysis of 60 studies showed a 52% increased risk of gastric cancer with the consumption of pickled foods.211 Another meta-analysis of 18 studies revealed fried food intake was associated with a 1.5-fold higher risk of gastric cancer.212

Physical activity and body mass index

A meta-analysis of 22 observational studies indicated that any form of physical activity, whether occupational, recreational or both, was linked to a 19% lower risk of gastric cancer. 213

NOT Recommended

Routine empirical use proton pump inhibitors or potassium competitive acid blockers in individuals with gastric premalignant conditions in the absence of compelling indications

Routine use of non-H. pylori chemopreventive agents(including aspirin and anti-oxidants)

Endoscopic ablation/resection of GIM

 A retrospective cohort study of 142832 Korean adults showed that compared with individuals with a body mass index of 18.5-22.9kg/m2, those with a body mass index of $>30kg/ m^{2}$ had a 1.48-fold higher risk of GIM, while those with a body mass index of at least 23 kg/m2 had at least 1.1-fold higher risk of CAG. ${}^{214}$

Antioxidant consumption

A meta-analysis of 20 RCTs involving the supplementation of beta-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E and selenium(total n=211818) revealed that antioxidant supplements overall did not significantly influence the risk of gastric cancer(RR 1.14;95%CI 0.97 to 1.33).215 While the Shandong Intervention Trial of China found no beneficial effects of either vitamins(C,E and selenium) or garlic(extract and oil) supplements for 7.3 years on gastric premalignant conditions, a beneficial effect was noted in terms of reduction of gastric cancer and cancer related mortality after 22.3 years of follow-up.216 Another large trial involving 29133 male smokers in Finland, the Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study, showed no significant effect of antioxidant supplementation on gastric cancer during and beyond the trial period.217 218 On the other hand, a meta-analysis of 13 studies suggested that a daily dose of 20-30 mg of folic acid for 3-6 months improved the patholog-ical changes associated with gastric premalignant conditions.Therefore, evidence is still conflicting to support the routine use of these antioxidant supplementations. Whether a differential effect of antioxidants exists between Asian and non-Asian popu-lations also requires further exploration.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

We acknowledge that some of the recommendations are based on limited quality evidence and necessitate expert opinions from the region. Specifically, there are no high quality data to support the recommended surveillance intervals, particularly in those with non-advanced premalignant conditions. We recommended

Guideline

Table 2 Comparison of Asian Pacific Association of Gastroenterology(APAGE) consensus with existing updated guidelines/recommendations

|2020,2021,2025 AGA|||||| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |guideline and CPUs|2025 ACG guideline 10|2025 ACG guideline 10|2025 MAPS III|2025 MAPS III|Statement 2025 APAGE consensus statement| |20254|Recommendation 9. In|Recommendation 31. Recommend|Recommendation 31.Recommendation 31. Recommend|Statement 19. For patients|| |Individuals with severe CAG and/or multifocal|individuals with GIM who are considered high risk|that patients with extensive endoscopic changes(IC3+ or EGGM|that patients with extensive endoscopic changes(C3+ or EGGM|with advanced stage CAG and|| |incomplete GIM are likely|for GC, suggest endoscopic|5+) or advanced histological stages|5+) or advanced histological stages|ndoscopic surveillance every 2 years|| |to benefit from endoscopic|surveillance at 3 year intervals.|surveillance at 3 year intervals.|of atrophic gastritis (svere CAG|or GIM and/or significant changes|| |to benefit from endoscopic|high risk groups include|or GIM and/or significant changes|or GIM and/or significant changes|or GIM and/or significant changes|| |to benefit, particularly if they have other risk factors|individuals with GIM and at least one of the following criteria:|individuals with GIM is close|with high quality endoscopy every|in both antrum and corpus, OLGA/|| |for GC(eg, family history).|first degree relative||0LGLIM III/IV) should be followed up||| |Endoscopic surveillance should|1. High risk GIM histology:|one|0LGLIM III/IV) should be followed up||| |be recognised that optimal surveillance intervals remain|1. High risk GIM histology:|including East Asian, Latino/a, Black and AIAN|with high quality endoscopy every||| |or longer intervals may be appropriate depending on individual risk assessment|15|Recommendation 10. In|||| |202012|Recommendation 2: Patients with GIM specifically at higher risk of gastric cancer include those with:|individuals with severe GIM or CAG in biopsies of the antrum or corpus, suggest endoscopic|changes(C3+ or EGGM 15+) or||| |▶ Incomplete vs complete GIM||or corpus, suggest endoscopic|||| |▶ Incomplete vs complete GIM||surveillance at 3 year intervals|||| |D|Extensive vs limited GIM||||| |D|Family history of gastric cancer||||| |Recommendation 3: Patients with GIM and high risk|||||| |stigmata, concerns about|||||| |completeness of baseline|||||| |endoscopy, and/or who are|||||| |at overall increased risk for gastric cancer may reasonably|||||| |elect for repeat endoscopy|||||| |within 1 year for risk stratification.|||||| |Thatification.|NA|NA|Recommendation 34. Recommend 30. Moderate CAG no surveillance endoscopy for|Statement 20. For patients with intermediate stage CAG and GIM (OLGA/OLGIM stage II), endoscopic surveillance every 3 years is|| |OLGA and OLGM II)|NG||patients with mild to moderate CAG or GIM restricted to the antrum, in the absence of endoscopic signs of extensive lesions or other risk factors (family history, incomplete fetal pylori infection).This group constitutes most individuals found in clinical practice|suggested. Different surveillance intervals may be considered depending on the population risk and available resources||

Continued

Guideline

Table 2 Continued

||2020,2021,2025 AGA guideline and CPUs|2025 ACG guideline 10|2025 MAPS III11|2025 APAGE consensus statement| |---|---|---|---|---| |Mild CAG and GIM (eg,OLGA and OLGL IM I)|2025 45° Mild AG and/or focal complete type GIM with at least one of the following: 1. family history of GC 2. persistent H pylori infection Then OGD surveillance should be considered every 3-5 years. Otherwise, no further OGDs for 2. gastric cancer screening/CAG- GIM surveillance advised|Recommendation 11. In individuals with low risk GIM or atrophy,ACG suggest against endoscopic surveillance. Low risk groups include 1. Complete type GIM, without evidence of incomplete GIM. 2. Complete GIM of focal anatomic extent that is confined to the antrum 3. None of the high risk clinical criteria listed in Recommendation 9 above 4.CAG which is mild in severity|Recommendation 34. Same as above Recommendation 35. Suggest that in patients with GIM at a single location but with a family history of GC, or with incomplete IM, or with persistent H pylori gastricitis, high quality endoscopic surveillance every 3 years may be considered|Statement 21. For patients with mild CAG and GIM (OLGA/OLGIM stage I),endoscopic surveillance may not be justified but can be considered based on individual and population risks, as well as resources available| |ACG,American College of Gastroenterology;AGA,American Gastroenterological Association;AlAN,American Indian and Alaska Native;APAGE,Asian Pacific Association of Gastroenterology;CAG,chronic atrophic gastricitis; CPU, clinical practice update;EGGIM,Endoscopic Grading of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia;ESGE/EHMSG/ESP,European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy/European Helicobacter and Microbiota Study Group/European Society of Pathology;GC,gastric cancer;GIM,gastric intestinal metaplasia;GPMC,gastric premalignant condition;HDWLE, high definition white light endoscopy;IE, image enhanced endoscopy;MAPS,management of epithelial precancerous conditions and early neoplasia of the stomach;NA,not available;OGD,oesophagogastroduodenoscopy;OLGA, operative link on gastricitis assessment;OLGIM, operative link on gastric intestinal metaplasia assessment.|||||

more frequent surveillance of 2 years for patients with OLGA/OLGIM stage III or IV, and 3 years for those with stage II disease. This is to a certain extent aligned with the screening interval of upper endoscopy in some East Asian countries which practise nationwide screening endoscopy and is supported by cost effectiveness studies. ${}^{130-132}$ Comparison with current inter-national guidelines and recommendations on risk stratification and surveillance intervals are shown in table 2. Specifically, there are some differences in the recommended surveillance intervals between the APAGE and the existing recommendations from the US and Europe. Compared with the MAPS III guideline, which establishes structured surveillance intervals based on OLGA/OLGIM staging, our recommendations also adopt a risk strati-fied framework but incorporate local practical adjustments that reflect existing regional gastric cancer screening practices and diagnostic capabilities. Conversely, the North American guide-lines focus more on individualised assessments, particularly for less advanced premalignant conditions.10 12 Moreover, unlike recent guidelines from Europe11 and the USA,10 our consensus did not cover other premalignant conditions, such as gastric polyps and autoimmune gastrysis. While we attempted to focus on H pylori associated gastric premalignant changes which are prevalent in this region, this omission represents a limitation of the present consensus, and future revisions and updates are needed to incorporate these different entities to achieve more comprehensive coverage.

Although we aim to harmonise surveillance strategies in Asia,we must admit that significant variations exist in endoscopic practices and healthcare delivery systems among Asian coun-tries. For example, in Japan and South Korea, nationwide gastric cancer screening programmes use endoscopy every 2 years,often without obtaining routine biopsies. Instead, their strategy relies on repeated examinations to identify suspicious lesions and detect neoplastic changes at an early stage. In contrast,some countries in the region lack adequate endoscopic infra-structures for surveillance, a standardised biopsy protocol and even expertise on endoscopic and histopathological diagnosis.These disparities may present a considerable challenge to the

implementation of a unified surveillance strategy across Asia and may highlight the necessity of a united call for further funding support and resources allocation to this topic. We also recog-nise the limitation in the composition of our panel members,as experts from certain high burden Asian countries were not represented(eg, Mongolia). Members also did not include Japa-nese pathologists, family physicians and primary care providers,which may not have adequately addressed the wider perspec-tives. Future consensus efforts should strive for more inclusive representation from across the Asia Pacific region with different specialties.

Further data are needed to quantify the optimal surveillance intervals for patients with different risk profiles. In particular,the use of genetic markers together with family history and other modifiable risk factors may further help to precisely risk stratify patients for personal surveillance. ${}^{161}$ Some other areas of future research are listed below.

The role of different new image enhanced endoscopy(eg,TXI and LCI) or AI assistance on the detection of gastric neoplastic lesions remains uncertain.

Studies are also needed to identify additional potential chemopreventive agents for individuals with premalignant conditions after H pylori infection, as these individuals are still at risk of developing gastric cancer.

Identification of novel non-invasive gastric mucosal biomarkers or molecular markers for risk stratification and surveillance of patients with gastric premalignant conditions.

A regional registry and clinical trial data to better inform the optimal surveillance intervals in patients with gastric prema-lignant conditions

CONCLUSIONS

This current consensus report provides the first systematic framework for the surveillance and management of gastric premalignant conditions, leveraging the best available evidence,to the Asia Pacific region. Based on current knowledge of gastric cancer risk stratification, diagnostic modalities and surveillance

Guideline

strategies, these recommendations aim to standardise and enhance early detection and intervention for this common and fatal cancer in Asia. Additionally, further refinement of risk strat-ification models, along with the availability of novel diagnostic and surveillance tools, is essential to improve the precision of recommendations with the goal of personalised risk stratification. While we acknowledge differences within Asian countries in terms of gastric cancer incidence, endoscopy practices and healthcare resources, our current recommendation could help to identify areas for future research and inform policy to address the knowledge gaps and disparities.

Author affiliations

Department of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

2Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Changi General Hospital,Singapore

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of California San Diego,La Jolla,California, USA

Jennifer Moreno Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Diego, CA, USA

Department of Gastroenterinal Oncology, Osaka International Cancer Institute,Osaka,Japan

State Key Laboratory of Holistic Integrative Management of Gastrointestinal

Cancers,Peik University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing,China

Department of Medicine, Yong Luo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore

Center of Excellence in Digestive Diseases, Gastroenterology Unit, Department of Medicine and Thailand Science Research and Innovation Fundamental Fund 2025,Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand

9Department of Internal Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City,Vetnam

10Center for Gastric Cancer, National Cancer Center Hospital, Goyang,S-ioka,The Republic of

1Department of Internal Medicine,Tokai University School of Medicine,Kanagawa,Japan

12Department of Gastroenterology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine,Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea(the Republic of)

1Endoscopy Center, Hano Medical University Hospital, Hano Vietnam

14Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an,China

15School of Translational Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

16Alfred Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Porto Comprehensive Cancer Center& RISE CI-IPO, University of Porto,Porto,Portugal

Department of Internal Medicine and Medical Research, National Taipei University Hospital,Taipei,Taiwan

Acknowledgements: This task force was commissioned by the Asia Pacific Association of Gastroenterology Council.The meeting logistics,including venue rental,was supported by the Olympus Hong Kong, which was not involved in any stage of the meeting or involved in any discussion of the consensus statements.

Collaborators NA.

Contributors WKL, YL, TLA- Y- CL and KSC were involved in the planning of the consensus clinical questions, drafting of the statements and writing of manuscript. All authors were involved in discussion and voting of statements have read, provided critical comments, edited and agreed on the final version of the manuscript.TKL and YL have provided logistic support for the consensus meeting and electronic voting system. WKL is the guarantor.

Competing interests WKL has received research funding from Takeka Hong Kong and speaker fees from AbbWe, Ferring and jansen. SS is a consultant for Red Hill Biopharma, Pathham Pharmaceuticals and third party consulting firms GLG and Guidepoint, SS is an unpaid advisory board member for lico genetics. NU has received honoraria for lectures from Olympus Medical Systems and Fujifil Medical HS has received funding from Tohso and honorarium from Astpheres Pharmacophem 2004. Otsuka Pharmaceutical Company. Otsuka Pharmaceutical Data:LTQ has received honorarium from Otsuka Pharmaceutical Company. None of the authors have received financial support from APAGE or Olympus.

Patient consent for publication Not applicable.

Ethics approval Not applicable.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMI; Publishing Group Limited(BMI) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those

of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations(including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines,terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or missions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Open access This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial(CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, reunit, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially,and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit it is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

ORCID iDs

Wai Keung Leung http://orcid.org/0000/0000-0002-5993-1059

Shaila Shah http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2049-9959

Ka Shing Cheung http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4838-378X

Noriya Udoed http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3029-9272

Wen-Qing Li http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8336-5552

Khay-Guan Yeho http://orcid.org/0000/0000-0002-7802-4606

Duc Trong Quach http://orcid.org/0000/0000-0003-0141-921X

II Ju Choi http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8339-9824

Hwoon-Yong Jung http://orcid.org/0000/0000-0003-1281-5859

Yi-Chia Lee http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8160-1216

REFERENCES

1 Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2024;74:229-63.

2 Thrifft AP,EI-Serag HB. Burden of Gastric Cancer. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020;18:534-42.

Seton RE,Al Hillam MN,Diab M,et al. Gastric cancer: a comprehensive review of current and future treatment strategies. Cancer Metastasis Rev 2020;39:1179-203.

4 Shah SC,Wang AY,Wallace MB,et al.AGA Clinical Practice Update On screening and Surveillance in Individuals at Increased Risk for Gastric Cancer in Health: Gastroenterology 2025;168:405-16.

5 Correa P,Piazuelo MB.The gastric precancerous cascade.J Dig Dis 2012;13:2-9.

Mülder D, Hahn Al, Huang RJ,et al. Prevalence of Gastric Precursor Lesions in Countries With Differential Gastric Cancer Burden: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2024;22:1605-17.

73 Ahn Al, Mülder DT, Huang RJ,et al.Global Progression Rates of Precursor Lesions for Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2025;23:1514-24.

Pimentel-NunPs,Pibano D,Marcos-Pinto R,et al. Management of epithelial precancerous conditions and lesions in the stomach(MAPS II):European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy(ESGE),European Helicobacter and Microbiota Study Group(EHMSG),European Society of Pathology(ESP),and Sociedade Portuguesa de Endoscopia Digestiva(SPEED) guideline update 2019. Endoscopy 2019;51:365-88.

9 Banks M, Graham D, Jansen M, et al. British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the diagnosis and management of patients at risk of gastric adenocarcinoma.Gut 2019;68:1545-75.

10 Morgan DR, Corral JE, Li D, et al. ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Gastric Premalignant Conditions. Am J Gastroenterol 2025;120:709-37.

11 Dinis-Ribeiro M, Libano A, Uchima H, et al. Management of epithelial precancerous conditions and early neoplasia of the stomach(MAPS III): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy(ESGE),European Helicobacter and Microbiota Study Group(EHMSG) and European Society of Pathology(ESP) Guideline update 2025.Endoscopy 2025;57:504-54.

12 Gupta S,Di L,ER Sahre B,et al.AGA Clinical Practice Guidelines on Management of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia. Gastroenterology 2020;158:693-702.

13 Namasivayam V,Koh CJ,Tsao S,et al.Academy of Medicine,Singapore clinical guideline on endoscopic surveillance and management of gastric premalignant lesions.Ann Acad Med Singap 2022;51:417-35.

14 Kang SJ,Kim JG,Moon HS,et al.Clinical Practice Guideline for Gastritis in Korea.J Korean Med Sci 2023;38:e115.

15 Kim I-H, Kang SJ, Choi W, et al. Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024:An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach(Update of 2022 Guideline). J Gastric Cancer 2025;25:5-114.

16 Guyatt G, Oxman AD, AkI E,et al.GRADE guidelines:1.Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:383-94.

17 Shibagaki K, Mishiro T., Fukuyama C,et al. Sporadic foveolar-type gastric adenoma with a raspberry-like appearance in Helicobacter pylar-paine: variate patients. Virchows Arch 2021;479:687-95.

18 Ueyama H,Yao T,Nakashima Y,et al. Gastric adenocarcinoma of fundic gland type(chiel component predominant type):proposal for a new entity of gastric adenocarcinoma Am J Surg Pathol 2010;34:609-19.

Guideline

19 Blair VR,McLeod M, Camero E,et al. Hereditary diffuse gastric cancer: updated clinical practice guidelines. Lancet Oncol 2020;21:e386-97.

20 Boland CR,Yurguelu MB,Mazra L,et al.A)elmaning gastric cancer risk in Lynch syndrome: controversies and recommendations. Fam Cancer 2022;21:75-8.

21 Orgler E, Dabsch S, Malfertheiner P,et al.Amointuremiss Gatrats; Update and New Perspectives in Therapeutic Management. Curr Treat Options Gastro and 2023:21:64-77.

22 Correa P, Haenszel W, Cuello C,et al. A model for gastric cancer epidemiology.Lancet 1975;2:58-60.

23Rugge M, Capelleo LG, Cappelleso R,et al. Precancerous lesions in the stomach:From biology to clinical patient management. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2013;207:255-67.

24 Shah SC,Gawron AJ, Mustafa RA, et al. Histologic Subtyping of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia: Overview and Considerations for Clinical Practice. Gastroenterology 2010;158:745-750.

25 Sugano K, Moss SF, Kuipers EJ. Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia: Real Culprit or Innocent Bystander as a Precancancer Condition for Gaxcir Cancer? Gastroenterology 2023;165:1352-66.

26 Graham DZ,DY WOU.Zy. Guft by association: intestinal metaplasia does not progress to gastric cancer. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2018;34:58:445.

27 Huang KK, Ma H, Chong RHH,et al. Spatiotemporal genomic profiling of intestinal metaplasia reveals clonal dynamics of gastric cancer progression. Cancer Cell 2023;41:2019-37.

28 Takeuchi C,Yamashita S,Liu Y-Y,et al. Precancerous nature of intestinal metlasapia with increased chance of conversion and accelerated DNA methylation. Gut 2024;73:255-67.

29 Yue SCK,Tong Yu,Si HC,et al. Divergentine lineage trajectories and genetic landscapes in human gastric intestinal metaplasia organs associated with early neoplastic progression. Gut 2025;74:522-38.

30 Akbar M,Tabri R, Kardhe S, et al. Gastric cancer in patients with gastric atrophy and intestinal metaplasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2019;14:e0219865.

13Rugge M, de Boni M, Pennelli G, et al. Gastratis OLG-shaga and gastric cancer risk: a twelve-year clinico-pathological follow-up study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2010;31:1104-11.

32 Lee MWI,Zhu E Sivastava S,et al. Severty of gastric intestinal metaplasia predicts the risk of gastric cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study(GCEP).Gut 2022;71:854-63.

33 Aoki K, Kihale PE, Wuenzuan Y,et al. Comparison of prevalence of chronic atrophic gastritis in Japan, China,Tanzania, and the Dominopican Republic. Ann Epidemiol 2005;15:598-606.

34 Park YH,Kim N. Review of gastric arthritis and intestinal metaplasia as a premalignant lesion of gastric cancer. J Cancer Prev 2015;20:25-40.

35 UI YJ,Engu F,Wu CY et al. Prevalence and temporal trend of gastric neoplastic lesions in Asia: A systematic review with meta-analysis. United Eur Gastroenterol J 2024;12:139-51.

36 Jin X, Zhou Q, Yu E, B. al. Effect of detection in different resolution endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal mucosal lesions. Surg Endosc 2024;38:5903-13.

37 Ro TH, Mathew MA, Misra S. Value of screening endoscopic in evaluation of esophageal, gastric and colon cancer. World J Gastroenterol 2015;21:9693-706.

38 Quach DT,Le HM,Hiyama T,et al. Relationship between endoscopic and histologic gastric atrophy and intestinal metaplasia. Helicobacter 2013;18:151-7.

Singh N, Ghshakal C.UCal use of Helicobacter vidiol for infection in gastric cancer:An Asian enignma.W/GJ 2006;12:1346.

40 Misa V. Pandey R. Misa SP. Helicobacter vaylor and gastric cancer: Indian enigma.WJING 2014;20:1503.

41 Yamaoka Y. Mechanisms of disease: Helicobacter pyloric valuations. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepool:2010;7:269-41.

42 Zhong C, Li K,Ni-BJ-W,et al. Sodium intake, salt taste and gastric cancer risk according to Helicobacter pylori infection, smoking, histological type and tumor site in China. Asian Pac J Cancer Pcur 2012;13:2481-4.

43 Bouvard V, Loomis D, Guyton KZ,et al.Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat. Lancot Oncol 2015;16:1599-600.

44 Song J,HiK Y,Ne al. J,High Salt Intake Is Sammated by Atrophic Gstratis with Intestinal Metaplasia. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers& prevention: a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research. Cosporedors by the American Society of Preventive Oncology 2017;26:1133-8.

45 LiF,Chan RLY,Lu L,et al.Cigarette smoking and gastrointestinal diseases: the causal relationship and underlying molecular mechanisms(reint). Int Mol Med 2014;34:372-80.

46 Machado JC,Figueiredo C,Canedo P,et al.Aproinflammatory genetic profile increases the risk for chronic atrophic gastric and gastric carcinoma.Gastroenterology 2003;125:364-71.

47 Jonitakis P, Kupcinskas L, Kupcinskas J. Molecular Alterations in Gastritic Intestimation Metaplasia. Int J Mol Sci 2021;22:7578.

48 Leung WK,Chan MC,To K-F,et al.H. pylorici Genotypes and Cytokine Gene Polymorphisms Influence the Development of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia in a Chinese Population. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:714-20.

49 Genta RM,Turner KO, Sonenberg A. Demographic and socioeconomic influences on Helicobacter lpyrotis gastric its and its pre-neoplastic lesions amongst US residents Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2017;46:322-30.

50 Sun D,Lei Xia,C et al.,Sociodemographic disparities in gastric cancer and the gastric precancerous cascade: A population-based study. Lancet Reg Health West Pac 2022;23:100347.

51 Atkins L, Benedict EB. Correlation of Gross Gastroscopic Findings with Gastroscopic Biopsiny in Gstratis. ENJ. Med 1956;254:641-4.

52 Carpenter HA,Talley NJ.Gastroscopy is incomplete without biopsy: Clinical relevance of distinguishing gastropathy from gastritis. Gastroenterology 1995;108:917-24.

53 Monroy,H Vargas,J,Giasnovic E,et al. Use of N-acetylysteine plus simethicone to improve mucosal visibility during upper Gl endoscopy: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2018;87:986-93.

5A nele JR,James S,Callaghan J,et al. Premedication with N-acetylcysteine and simethicone improves mucosal visualization during gastroscopy: a randomized,controlled, endoscopist-blinded study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013;25:778-83.

55 Liu X,Guan CT,Xue LY,et al. Effect of premedication on lesion detection rate and visualization of the mucosa during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a multicenter large sample randomized controlled double-blind study. Surg Endosc 2018;32:3548-56.

56 Nagu S,Paras S, Lau et al. AGA Clinical Practice Update on High-Quality Upper Endoscopy: Expert Review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2024;22:933-43.

7e JH,Tan JR,Lau LIF,et al. Longer examination time improves detection of gastric cancer during diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015;13:480-7.

8 Park:Jiu,PM,iao, Lee,et al. Longer Observation Time Increases Proportion of Neoplasms Detected by Esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Gastroenterology 2017;153:460-9.

9 Kawamura T, Wada H, Sakiyama N, et al. Examination time as a quality indicator of screening upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for asymptomatic examinees. Dig Endosc 2017;29:569-75.

6 Bisschops R, Areia M, Coron E, et al. Performance measures for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy(ESGE)Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2016;48:843-64.

61 Pimenta-Méro AL, Monteiro-Soares M, Libánio D,et al.Missing rate for gastric cancer during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;28:1041-9.

92 Gao K.The endoscopic diagnosis of early gastric cancer.Ann Gastroenterol 2015;26:11-22.

63 Emura A Sma R, Arantes V, et al. Principles and practice to facilitate complete photodumentation of the upper gastrointestinal tract: World Endoscopy Organization position state. Dig Endosc 2020;32:168-79.

45 Liu He, X. Liu M, et al. Evaluation of the effects of an artificial intelligence system on endoscopy quality and preliminary testing of its performance in detecting early gastric cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy 2021;53:1199-207.

5 Shi Y,Fan H,Li L,et al.The value of machine learning approaches in the diagnosis of early gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Onc 2024:22:40.

66K Eang, Oroshu A, Nadkarni GN,et al. Deep Learning and Gastric Cancer:Systematic Review of Al-Asisted Endoscopy. Diagnostics(Basel) 2023;13:3613.

67 Zhang Q,Chen Z,Chen C,et al.Training in Early Gastric Cancer Diagnosis Improves the Detection Rate of Early Gastric Cancer. Medicine(Baltimore) 2015;94:e384.

688 K,Ouedo M, Muto M, et al. Development of an E-learning System for the Endoscopic Diagnosis of Early Gastric Cancer: An International Multicenter Randomized Controlled Triobal.EBioMedicine 2016;9:140-7.

Panteris V.Kilnikopoulou S.,Lountou A,et al. Diagnostic capabilities of high-definition white light endoscopy for the diagnosis of gastric intestinal metaplasia and correlation with histologic and clinical data. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014;26:594-601.

70 Desai M,Boregova U,Srinivasan S,et al. Narrow band imaging for detection of gastric intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.J Gastroon Hepatol 2021;2038-46.

71 Dohi O,Seya M, Iwai N,et al. Endoscopic detection and diagnosis of gastric cancer using image-enhanced endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. DEN Open 2025;5:e418.

72 Ono S, Kawada K, Dohi O, et al. Linked color Imaging Focused on Neoplasm Detection in the Upper Gastrointestinal Tract: A Randomized Trial. Ann Intern Med 2021;174:18-24.

73 Gao J, Zhang X Meng, Q et al. Linked color Imaging Can Improve Detection Rate of Early Gastric Cancer in a High-Risk Population: A Multi-Center Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. Dig Dis Sci 2021;66:1212-9.

415 Kaai H, Iwnavi D, Hoi O, et al. Effect of texture and color enhancement imaging on the visibility of gastric tumors. Sci Rep 2024;14:19125.

75 Min M,Sun X,Bai J,et al. Diagnostic accuracy of linked colour imaging versus white light imaging for early gastric cancers: a prospective, multicentre, randomized controlled trial study. Ann Med 2022;54:3306-14.

Guideline

76 Wu CCH,Nasamivayav Li,WM J.et al.Aprospective randomized tandem gastroscopy pilot study of linked color imaging versus white light imaging for detection of upper gastrointestinal lesions. J Gastroenterol. Heptolol 2011;36:2562-72.

77Sobrino-Sossi,Teramoto-Matsubara O,Emura et al. Usefulness of optical enhancement endoscopy combined with magnification to improve detection of intestinal metaplasia in the stomach. Endos Int Open 2022;10:E441-7.

78 Nakanishi H, Doyama H, Ishikawa H, et al. Evaluation of an-e-learning system for diagnosis of gastric lesions using magnifying narrow-band imaging: a multicenter randomized controlled study. Endoscopy 2017;49:957-67.

97 Yagi K, Honda H, Yang JM,et al. Magnifying endoscopy in gasstrits of the corpus. Endoscopy 2005;37:66-60.

80 Shichiro S, Hirata Y,Nikura R,et al. Histologic intestinal metaplasia and endoscopic atrophy are predictors of gastric cancer development after Helicobacter pylorici eradication. Gaudering Endostor 2016;84,618-24.

81 Quach DT,Hiyama T,Gotoda T.Identifying high-risk individuals for gastric cancer surveillance from western and eastern and perspectives: Lessons to learn and possibility to develop an integrated approach for daily practice. World J. Gastroenterol 2019;25:3546-62.

82 Kimura K, Takemoto T. An Endoscopic Recognition of the Atrophic Border and its Significance in Chronic Sactific. Endoscopy 1969;1:87-97.

83 Kamada T,Haruma K,Inoue K,et al.Helicobacteri pylarction and endoscopic gastrits-tyos: Classification of straggits. Nihono Shokakibo Gakakkai Zasri 2015;112:982-93.

8 Eposito G, Pimentel-Nunes P,Angeleletti S,et al. Endoscopic grading of gastric intestinal metaplasia(EGIM): a multicenter validation study. Endoscopy 2019;51:515-21.

85 Kawamura M, Uedo N, Koike T, et al. Kyoto classification risk scoring system and endoscopic grading of gastric intestinal metlasia for gastric cancer. Asterpotic disease: Multiterc observation study in Japan. Dig Endosc 2022;34:508-16.

86 Zhang H,Yang X,Zhang X,et al.The significance of endoscopic Yko classification of gastritis in the gastric cancer risk assessment: A systematic review; 138 meta-analysis. Medicine(Baltimore) 2023;102:e33942.

87 Zhang G,Zheng Z,Leng J,et al. Gastric intestinal metlasia assessment between linked color imaging based on endoscopy and pathology. Scand J Gastroenterol 2021;56:103-10.

88 Zheng J, Zhang G, Gao et al. Linked color imaging-based endoscopic grading of gastric intestinal metlasia and histological gastric staging in the assessment of gastric cancer risk. Scand J Gastroenterol 2022;57:1374-80.

89 Rizuchans E,Kellaus F,Sartarlsai I,et al. Screening for Gastric Premaliant lesions with Narrow Band Imaging, White Light and Updated Sydney Protocol or Both? Dig Dis Sci 2013:58:1084-90.

Rugge M, Gena RM, Malfhertheer P, et al. RE.GA.IN: The real-world Gastris Initiative-updating the updates. Gut 2024;73:407-41.

110i DFson MG-Fentra M, Yardley HYJ et al. Classification and grading of gastrits. The updated Sydney System. International Workshop on the Histopathology of Gastrits,Houston 1994. Am J Surg Pathol 1996;20:1161-81.

9Rugge M, Megio A, Pennelli G. Anstirch stagnation in clinical practice: the OLGA staging system. Gut 2007;56:631-6.

93 Ferrari F, Ogata DC, Mello C de Role. of incursular angularis by schinus staging or risk assessment of gastric cancer. Arguenosterol 2023;60:478-89.

94 Isajse V,Ispiecnie-Karele J, Ianciauskas D,et al.The effect of incursia angular biopsy sampling on the assessment of gastric stages. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014;26:510-3.

95 Khomeri SG, Bordin DS, Khomeriki NM,et al. The Impact of the Angular Biosu by Detection of Staging and the Grading of Chronic Gastritis. Diagnostics(Basel)2023;13:2928.

96 Latorene G, Vargas II, Shah SC, et al. Implementation of the updated Sydney system bioprotz protocol improves the diagnostic yield of gastric granulastic conditions:Results from a real-world study. Gastroenterology Hepatologia 2024;47:793-803.

97 Spence AD,Cardwell CR, McMenamin UC,et al. Adenocractoma risk in gastric atrophy and intestinal metaplasia: a systematic review. BMC Gastroenterol 2017;17:157.

98 Endoscopic Classification Review Group. Update on the Paris Classification of Superfical Neoplastic lesions in the Digestart. Endoscopy 2005;37:570-8.

99 Yao K. Clinical Application of Magnifying Endoscopy with Narrow-Band Imaging in the Stomach. Clin Endos: 2015;48:481-90.

Zhu HM, Wang SY. Efficacy of magnifying endoscopy combined with narrowband imaging in detection of early gastric cancer: a systematic evaluation and meta-analysis. Am J Trans R.2014:26:488.78.

101 Dinis-Ribeiro M,Shah S,El-Serag H,et al.The road to unified approach to the management of patients with gastric intestinal metaplasia: a review of current guidelines. Gur 2024:73:1607-17.

102 Yoshifuku,YonamaY,Uoka S,et al.Clinical Usefulness of the VS Classification System Using Magnifying Endoscopy with Blue Laser Imaging for Early Gastric Cancer. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2017,36:174950.

103 Kakushima N, Yoshida N, Doyama H, et al. Near-focus magnification and second-generation narrow-band imaging for early gastric cancer in a randomized trial. J Gastroenterol 2020;55:1127-37.

104 Kadota,T Abe,S Ued nO et al.Comparison of Effective Imaging Modalities for Detecting Gastric Neoplasns: A Randomized 3-Arm Phase II Trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2024:119:2010-8.

105 Muto M, Yao K, Kaise M, et al. Magnifying endoscopy simple diagnostic algorithm for early gastric cancer(MESDA-G). Dig Endosc 2016;28:379-93.

106 Rugge M, Pennelli G, Pízloczi E, et al. Gastritis: the histology report. Digestive and liver disease: official journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver. 2011;43 Suppl 4:S373-84.

107 Goldenen JR. Pylicormatia, pseudopyloric metaplasia, ulcer-associated cell lineage and spasmolytic polypeptide-expressing metaplasia: reparative lineages in the gastrointestinal morphology. J Pathol 2018;245:132-7.

1084 Janer,Herrera-Goeperf et R, Mohar A,et al. Interobserver variability in application of the revised Sydney classification for gastritis. Hum Pathol 1999;30:1431-4.

109 Offerhans,GI,Price AB,Hao t,et al. Observer agreement on the grading of gastric atrophy. Histopathology 1999;34:320-5.

110 Capelle LG,Vries A,Haringsma J,et al.The staging of gastritis with the OLGA system by using intestinal metaplasia as an accurate alternative for atrophic gastritis.Gastrointest Endosc 2010;71:1150-8.

110 NaYS Kim,SGr,Cho S.Rik assessment of metachronous gastric cancer development using OLGA and OLGM systems after endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: a long-term follow-up study. Gastric Cancer 2023;26:298-306.

112 Yun CY,Kim N, Lee J,et al. Usefulness of OLGA and OLGM system not only for intestinal type but also for diffuse type of gastric cancer, and no interaction among the gastric cancer risk factors. Helicobacter 2018;23:e12542.

119 Ruggle M. Gastric dysplasia. In: WHO classification of tumours editorial board.Digestive system tumours, WHO classification of tumours. 5th edn. 1.IARC Publications,2019:71-5.

114 de Vries AC, van Grieken NCT, Loonan CWN,et al. Gastric cancer risk in patients with premalignant gastric lesions: a nationwide cohort study in the Netherlands.Gastroenterology 2008;34:945-52.

115 Schlemper RJ, Itabashi M, Kato Y, et al. Differences in diagnostic criteria for gastric carcinoma between Japanese and Western pathologists. Lancet 1997;349:1725-9.

116 Kimani,S.Yamada,Sakura,H.Casifusion and prospects for carcinogenesis of gastric adenoma and dysplasia: What is the correct answer currently? World J Gastroenterol 2022;28:8900-8.

117 Kato M. Diagnosis and therapies for gastric non-invasive neoplasia. W/G 2015;21:12513.

118 Altarou O,Davitrou P,Shah SC,et al.AGA Technical Review on Gastrim Intestinal Metaplasia-Epidemiology and Risk Factors. Gastroenterology 2020;158:732-44.

119 Du S,Yang,Fang,S et al.Gastric Cancer Risk of Intestinal Metaplasia Subtypes:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies. Clin Trans/ Gastroenterol 2021;12:e00402.

120 Marpos C,Brithio-Goncalves G,Libano D,et al.Endoscopic grading of gastric intestinal metaplasia on risk assessment for early gastric neoplasia: can we replace histology assessment also in the West? Gut 2020;69:1762-8.

1121 Liu-M, Melfartheiner P, Lee Y-C,et al. Screening and eradication of Helicobacter vifer for gastric cancer prevention: the Taipei global consensus.Gut 2020;69:2093-112.

122 Chang T,ChH,Wang-1,Chen S,S,et al. Mass eradication of Helicobacter pylori to reduce gastric cancer incidence and mortality: a long-term cohort study on Matsu Islands.Gut 2021;70:243-50.

123 Lei W,Y.-Lee J,Chuang S-L,et al.Eradicating Helicobacter pylori via 13C-urea urebath screening to prevent gastric cancer in indigenous communities: a population-based study and development of a family index-case method. Gut 2023;72:2231-40.

124 Lee Y,C-Chiang T-H,Chiu H,M et al. Screening for Helicobacter pylori to Prevent Gastric Cancer. A Pragmatic Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2024;332:1642-51.

125 Shah SC Piziau,Buzmo PJ,Eluis E,et al.AGA Clinical Practice Update on the Diagnosis and Management of Atrrophic Gastritis: Expert Review. Gastroenterology 2021;161:1325-32.

126 Canakis A,Pani E, Saumoy M,et al. Decision model analyses of upper endoscopy for gastric cancer screening and preneoplasia surveillance: a systematic review. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2020;13:1756284820941662.

127 ThIruevanden DRAM,Gupta S,Buller S,et al.The Clinical Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Resuffusion of Incidentally Detected Gastrid Intemaplasia: A Microsimulation Analysis: Lin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2024;22:51-61.

128 Jun JK,Choi KS,Lee HY,et al.Effectiveness of the Korean National Cancer Screening Program in Reducing Gastric Cancer Mortality. Gastroenterology 2017;152:139-218.

129 Hamashima C,Systematic Review Group and Guideline Development Group for Gastric Cancer Screening Guidelines. Update version of the Japanese Guidelines for Gastric Cancer Screening. J Clin Oncol 2018;48:673-83.

130 Bae,S,LH H,Er et H,et al.Cost Utility Analysis of National Cancer Screening Program for Gastric Cancer in Korea: A Markov Model Analysis. J Korean Med Sci 2025;40:e43.

113 Kowada A, Endoscopy is Cost-Effective for Gastric Cancer Screening After Successful Helicobacter loriudacion. Dig Dis Sci 2021;66:4220-6.

Guideline

132 Saumoy M, Schneider Y, Shen N, et al. Cost Effectiveness of Gastric Cancer Screening According to Race and Ethnicity. Gastroenterology 2018;155:648-60.

133 Rugge M,Gena MFAz, Farnan L,OL. AIGGA Stabilis staging for the Prediction of Gastric Cancer Risk: A Long-term Follow-up Study of 7436 Patients. Am J Gastroenterol 2018;113:1621-8.

Rugge M, Fassan M, Pizzi M, et al. Autoimune gastric histology: phenotype and OLGA staging. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2012;35:1460-6.

135 Pan K-F, Li W-Q, Zhang L, et al. Gastric cancer prevention by community eradication of Helicibater pyloric: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Nat Med 2024;30:3250-60.

136 Sugano K, Jack T. Kuipers, K. Elty G. et al. Kyo global consensus report on Helicobacter pylori saturates. Gut 2015;64:1353-67.

17 Plummer M, de Martel C, Vignat J,et al. Global burden of cancers attributable to infections in 2012: a synthetic analysis. Lancet Global Health 2016;4:e069-16.

138 Take S, Mizuno M, Ishikko J, et al. Risk of gastric cancer in the second decade of follow-up after Helicobacter pylarid. Eacartor L. Gastroenterol 2020;55:281-8.

138 Baek DH, Kim GH, GH Park, D.V et al. Gastric epithelial dyspacities: characteristics and long-term follow-up results after endoscopic resection according to morphological categorization. BcG. Gastroneroeter 2015;15:17.

120 Ghao X, Gue M, Hu Y,et al. How Commonly Is the Diagnosis of Gastric Low Grade Dyspia Upgraded following Endoscopic Resection? A Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE 2015;10:13699.

141 Kim Y-I, Park J,Kim BJ,et al.Risk of mechanstrous gastric neoplasmosis occurrence during intermediate-term follow-up period enderoscopic endosubic dissection for gastric dysplasia. Sci Rep 2020;10:6747.

142 Lian J,Chen S,Zhang Y,et al.A meta-analysis of endoscopic endoscopic dissection and EMR for early gastric cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;76:763-70.

141 Park Y,Cho E,Kang H-Y et al.The effectiveness and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection compared with endoscopic mucosal resection for early gastric cancer: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Surg Endosc 2011;25:2666-77-70.

T44 Moon Z.,Hao X,Hu M.,et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mosal resection for patients with early gastric cancer: meta-analysis. BJU{氧

145 Ono H, Yao K, Fujihiro, et al. Guidelines for endoscopic submosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection for early gastric cancer(Second edition). Dig Endos:2021:33-40.

146 Sung JK. Diagnosis and management of gastric dysplasia. Korean J Intern Med 2016;31:201-9.

17 Xiao S, Lu H, Xu Y et al. Long-Term Outcome of Gastrid Mild-Moderate Dysplasia: A Real-World Clinical Experience. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022;22:1259-68.

148 Rodriguez-Carrasco M, Esposito G, Libano B, alio D, image-enhanced endoscopy for gastric neuroplastic proteins and neoplastic lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2020;52:1048-65.

Ford AC, Yuan Y, Park J, et al. Eradication Therapy to Prevent Gastric Cancer in Helibacteryl pori-Positive Individuals: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Observational Studies. Gastroenterology 2025;169:261-76.

150 Correa P, Fontham ET, Bravo JC. Chemoproduction of Gastric Dyspasia: Randomized Trial of Antioxidant Supplements and Anti-Iehicobacter pylor Therapy. J. Natl Cancer Inst 2000:981-181.

151 Li D, Jiang S.-Fi, NY et al. Effect of Helicobacter pylori Dication eracy on the Incidence of Noncardia Gastrid Aencoradiona in a Large Diverse Population in the United States. Gastroenterology 2023;165:391-401.

152 Gawron AJ,Shu SC,Altaray O,et al.AGA Technical Review on Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia-Natural History and Clinical Outcomes. Gastroneterology 2015;208:150-73.51:

153 Han MY,Aslam A,Mihali AB,et al.Effectiveness of Helicobacter loyric eradication in preventing mechanistic cancer and preneoplastic lesions. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Gastroenteron Hepatol 2020;32:686-94.

154 Ford A, Yuan Y, Forman D, et al. Helicobacter loyric eradication for the premature ognostic neoplasia. Cochane Database Syst Rov2020;7CD005583.

155 Mera R, Fontham ETH, Bravo LE, et al. Long term follow up of patients treated for Helicobacter pluron infection. Gut 2005;54:1536-40.

156 Mera R,Bravo LE,Camargo MC,et al. Dynamics of Helicobacter pylor infection as a determinant of progression of gastric precancerous lesions: 16-year follow-up of an eradication trial. Gut 2018;67:129-46.

157 Cheng H-C,Yang Y,Jah,B.E.,al Evolution of the Corea's cascade steps: A long-term endoscopic surveillance among non-blepsurpa is gastric ulceration.Hyl vaporic irradiation. Fornos Med Asoc22; 122-400-10.

158 Gail MH, Youd W, Chang YS,et al. Factorial trial of three interventions to reduce the progression of precancerous gastric lesions in Shandong, China: design issues and initial data. Control Clin I998;19:352-69.

159 You W, Brown LM, Zhang L, et al. Randomized Double-Double Brial Factorial Trial of Three Treatments to Reduce the Prevalence of Precancerous Gastric Lossions. J. Natl Cancer Inst.2006;978-94:2008.

160 Savoldi A,Carrara E,Graham DY,et al.Prevalence of Antibiotic Resistance in Helicobacter vilar: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis in World Health Organization Regions. Gastroenterology 2018;15(1372-82.

161 Usui Y,Taniyama,Endo E,et al.Helicobacter pylori, Homologous-Recombination Genes, and Gastric Cancer N. Engl J Med 2023;388:1181-90.

162 Vecchi C, Negri E, Gentile A, et al. Family history and the risk of stomach and colorectal cancer. Cancer 1992;70:50-5.

163 Rokkas T,Sechopoulos P, Piastolas D,et al.Helicobacter pylori infection and gastric histology in first-degree negatives of gastric cancer patients: a meta-analysis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010;22:1128-33.

164 Li,PZ,Li Zing,Elu et al.Chinese national clinical practice guidelines on the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of early gastric cancer. Chin Med J 2024;137:887-908.

165 Ding S-Zu,Fü,Q.Hu H,et al. Chinese Consensus Report on Family-Based Helicobacter pylorl infection Control and Management(2021 Edition).Gut 2022;71:238-53.

166 Zhao J-Buan, Y.Lu X,Y.C et al. Whole family-based Helicobacter pylori eradication a is superior strategy to single-Infected patient treatment approach: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Helicobacter 2021;26:e12793.

Jun R6J, Van TMT, Song H,et al.Association between Age at Helicobacter pylori Edrication and the Risk of Gastric Cancer Stratified by Family History of Gastric Cancer:A. Nationale Population-Based Study. Cancers(Basel) 2023;15:1604.

LVg,FW,J Mao,L.et al. Whether long-term use of proton pump inhibitor increases the risk of precancerous lesions in the stomach: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine(Baltimore) 2023;102:e35062.

609 Poly TN, Lin S-My, S-Abd- S-Abul S,et al. Proton Pump Inhibitor Use and Risk of Gastric Cancer: Current Evidence from Epidemiological Studies and Critical Appraisal.Cancers(Basel) 2022;14:3052.

170 Abrahium D, McDonald Engard Schitzer ME,et al. Proton pump inhibitors and risk of gastric cancer: population-based cohort study.Gut 2022;71:16-24.

1171 Cheung KS, Leung WK. Long-term use of proton-pump inhibitors and risk of gastric cancer: a review of the current evidence. Ther Adv Gastroenterol 2019;12:175684819835411.

17Tiadrad B, Busuttil RA, Boussiotaus A. Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia: Challenges and the Opportunity for Precision Prevention. Cancers(Basel) 2023;15:3913.

173 Moeydi P, Eikeboom JW, Bosch J,et al. Safety of Proton Pump Inhibitors Based on a Large, Multi-Year, Randomized Trial of Patients Receiving Rivoxaban or Aspirin.Gastroenterology 2019;157:682-91.

1744 Algam, Rothwell PM. Effects of regular aspirin on long-term cancer incidence and metastasis: a systematic comparison of evidence from observational studies versus randomised trials. Lancet Oncol 2012;13:518-27.

17555512015111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

176 Cheung KS, Leung WK. Modification of gastric cancer risk associated with proton pump inhibitors by aspirin by Helicobacter pylori eradication. Oncotarget 2018;9:36891-1

1748 Mienad NMP. Adverse Effects Associated with Long-Term Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors,Chonm Med J 2023;59:115.

1780 Friedberg,DE Kim,L5,Yang Y.X.The Risks and Benefits of Long-term Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors: Event and Best Practice Advice Use from the American Gastroenterological Association. Gastroenterology 2017;152:706-15.

179 Sharika LG. Rerydms A, Pattison S,et al.Proton pump inhibitor use: systematic review of global trends and practices. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2023;79:1159-72.

1801089-Mangiron LE,Fisher DA,Saini SD.AGA Clinical Practice Update on De-Prescribing of Proton PumpIn inhibitors: Export Review. Gastroenterology 2022;162:1334-42.

181 Arai J, Miyawaki A, Aoki T, et al. Association Between Vonoprazan and the Risk of Gastric Cancer: Another Hilbert. Couserier pylor- Eradication. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2024;22:1217-25.

182 Yang,PZhou,Y Chen,B et al. Aspirin Use and the Risk of Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. Dig Dis Sci 2010:55:1533-9.

188 Y,ChE-C,Cheng H,Touch G-K,et al.Association Between Helicobacter pylori Erdication and Gastric Cancer Incidence: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Gastronenterology 2016;150:1113-24.

18146 Pong Wu R, Liu X, et al. Effects of Anti-inflammatory Drug Treatment in Gastric Cancer Prevention: an Update of a Meta-analysis.J Cancer 2016;7:2247-57.

Leung WK,Enq EK, Wang,FIK,et al.Effects of Long-term Rofecoxib on Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial. Clin Cancer Res 2006;12:4766-72.

186 Sibbald B. Rofockex(Vibox) voluntarily withdrawn from market. CMAJ 2004;171:1072-8.

187 Wong BCY,Zhang L,Ma J,et al.Effects of selective COX-2 inhibitor and Helicobacter pylar oxidation for adenocircus gastric lesions. Gut 2012;61:812-8.

1981NSEen,Yeomans ND,Somon DH,et al.Cardiovascular Safety of Celecloxib,Narobova, or bupfenro for Arithelial Nitritis N. Engl J Med 2016;375:2519-29.

189 Curtis F, E; Fuggle N, Shaw S, et al. Safety of Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitors in Osteoarithms: Outcomes of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Drugs Aging 2019;36:25-44.

190 Lee JS,Jeon SW,Lee HS,et al.Rebamipide for the Improvement of Gastric Atrophy and Intestinal Metaplasia: A Prospective, Randomized, Pilot Study. Dig Dis Sci 2022;67:2395-402.

Guideline

191 Han,Xiang K,Wang B,et al.Effect of Rebamipole on the Preemligant Progression of Chronic Gastritis: A Randomized Controlled Study. Clin Drug Investig 2015;33:655-73.

192 Kamada S,To Mato,Tokomi T,et al.Rebampimi improves chronic inflammation in the lesser curvature of the corpus after Helbampovic bacterium polary excitation: a multicenter.Stu.Bimed Res Int 2015;2015;865146.

193 Andreev DN, Maev IV, Dicheva DT. Efficiency of the Inclusion of Rebamipide in the Eradization Therapy for Helicobacter pylar infection: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Studies in JCM 2019;8:1498.

194 Zou Th,GQ YQ,Liu SD,et al.Effectiveness and safety of Moludanin in the treatment of precancerous lesions of gastric cancer: A randomized clinical trial. J Dig Dis 2024;25:27-35.

195 Whiting JL,Sigurdsson A, Rowlands DC. The long term results of endoscopic surveillance of premalignant gastric lesions. Gut 2002;50:378-81.

196 Leung WK,Tong DK,Heung SY,et al.Treatment of Gastric Metaplasia or Dysplasia by Endoscopic Radiofrequency Ablation: Pilot Study. Hepatogastroenterology 2015;62:748-51.

197 Zullo A, Manta R, De Francesco V, et al. Endoscubic unscosal dissection of gastric neoplastic lesions in Western countries: systematic review and meta-analysis.Eur J Gastroenterol Hospital:erel1-6.

198 Jin G,Lv J,Yang M,et al. Genetic risk,istic cancer gastric, and healthy lifestyle: a meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies and prospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2020;21:1378-86.

199 Rota M,Possenti I, Valsassina V, et al. Dose-response association between cigarette smoking and gastric cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastric Cancer 2024;27:197-209.

200 Kerr J,Anderson C,Lippman SM.Physical activity, sedentary behaviour, diet and cancer: an update and emerging new evidence. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:e457-71.

2011 FUND. Alcohol sindke the risk of cancer. 2018. Available: https://www.cwf.org/preventing-cancer/cancer-types/stomach-cancer!

2020 Ra tota, Melchucchi, Berticio P, et al. Alcohol consumption and gastric cancer-R- a pooled analysis within the StoP project consortium. Int J Cancer 2017;141:1950-62.

203 Kim,Khang Y,Ahn J,et al. Low levels of Alcohol Consumption and Risk of Intestinal Metaplasia: A Cohort Study.. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29:2633-41.

2014 Clinton SK,Giovannucci EL,Hursting SD.The World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research Third Experiment Report on Diet, Nutrition, Physical Activity,and Cancer: Impact and Future Directions. J Nutr 2020;150:663-71.

205 Ge5,Feng,XShen,1et al.Association between Habital Dietary Salt Intake and Risk of Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2012;2012:808120.

206 Dias-Neto M, Pintalhao M, Ferreira M, et al. Salt Intake and Risk of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Nutr Cancer 2010;62:133-47.

207 Kim SR,Kim K, Lee SA,et al.Effect of Red, Processed, and White Meat Consumption on the Risk of Gastric Cancer: An Overall and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis.Nutrients 2019;11:826.

208 NaemaK hemismashi, Safaeei E, Tutunchi H,et al.Fruit and vegetable intake in relation to gastric cancer risk: A comprehensive and updated systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of cohort studies. Front Nutr 2023;10:973171.

209 Wang S,Zhou M,El A,et al. Milk/dairy products consumption and gastric cancer: an update meta-analysis of epidemiological studies. Oncotarget 2018;9:7126-35.

210Tian S,Yu J,Kang W,et al.Association between Dairy Intake and Gastric Cancer:A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies. PLoS ONE 2014;9:e101728.

711 Ren-S,J.Kamvar F, Forman D,et al.Pickled food and risk of gastric cancer-a systematic review and meta-analysis of English and Chinese literature. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2012;21:905-15.

2123 Zhang,Song SS,Liu M,et al.Association of Fried Food Intake with Gastric Cancer Risk: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis of Case-Control Studies. Nutrients 2023;15:2982.

213 Psaltopoulou T, Ntananis-Stathopoulos I,Tzanninis I-G,et al. Physical Activity and Gastric Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin J Sport Med 2016;26:445-64.

214 Kim K,Chang Y,Ahn J,et al. Body Mass Index and Risk of Intestinal Metaplasia:A Cohort Study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2019;28:789-97.

215 Bjelakovic G,Nikolova D,Simonetti RG,et al.Antioxidant supplements for preventing gastrointestinal cancers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008;2008:CD004183.

1216 W-Q,Zhang J,Ya-L,J et al. Effects of Helicobacter pylar pution and vitamin and garlic supplementation on gastric cancer incidence and mortality: follow-up of a randomized intervention trial. BMJ 2019;366:15016.

211 Mallia N, Taylor PR, Vartiran M, et al. Effects of alpha-tocopherol and beta-carotene supplementation on gastric cancer incidence in male smokers(ATBC Study,Finland).Cancer Causes Control 2002;13:617-23.

218 Virtam J,Taylor PR, Kontto J,et al.Effects ofα-tocopherol andβ-carotene supplementation on cancer incidence and mortality:18-year postintervention follow-up of the Alpha-tocopherol,Beta-carotene Cancer Prevention Study.Int J Cancer 2014;135:178-85.

2121. Li,Ren E Li,W,et al. Use of folic acid supplementation to halt and even reverse the progression of gastric cancer conditions: a meta-analysis. BMC Gastroenterol 2022;22:370.