6959 Eus/cus of rectal lesions: fna or emr?

Abstract

EUS and catheter ultrasound (CUS) have been accurate in diagnosing and staging rectal and perirectal diseases. Fine needle aspiration (FNA) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) have been recently introduced. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy and limitations of FNA and EMR in assessing rectal and perirectal Diseases. Methods: Between January of 1998 and December of 1999, 23 patients were evaluated with EUS/CUS for rectal lesions. All patients were evaluated with CUS and standard EUS (Radial, Linear array or both). Results: A total of 23 patients (15 with mucosal and 8 with submucosal lesions) were identified. Table 1 and table 2 show the EUS/CUS results B= Benign; M=malignant; ND= non-diagnostic; EMR= Endoscopic mucosal resection; *= Nodular lesions: Tubular adenoma; hyperplastic polyp(2); inflammatory nodules; normal colonic mucosa. Patients were divided into 2 groups: Group 1 consisted of 15 patients with mucosal lesions. Group 2 consisted of 8 patients with SM lesions. The results of EUS/CUS were correlated with FNA and EMR if available. Conclusions: 1- FNA was accurate in assessing benign mucosal lesions. 2-FNA was accurate in diagnosing and staging malignancy in mucosal lesions. 3- EMR can be performed in limited mucosal and submucosal carcinoids. 4- EUS/CUS and FNA was as accurate as EMR. 5- Complications may occur in recto-vaginal cystic lesions. EUS and catheter ultrasound (CUS) have been accurate in diagnosing and staging rectal and perirectal diseases. Fine needle aspiration (FNA) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) have been recently introduced. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy and limitations of FNA and EMR in assessing rectal and perirectal Diseases. Methods: Between January of 1998 and December of 1999, 23 patients were evaluated with EUS/CUS for rectal lesions. All patients were evaluated with CUS and standard EUS (Radial, Linear array or both). Results: A total of 23 patients (15 with mucosal and 8 with submucosal lesions) were identified. Table 1 and table 2 show the EUS/CUS results B= Benign; M=malignant; ND= non-diagnostic; EMR= Endoscopic mucosal resection; *= Nodular lesions: Tubular adenoma; hyperplastic polyp(2); inflammatory nodules; normal colonic mucosa. Patients were divided into 2 groups: Group 1 consisted of 15 patients with mucosal lesions. Group 2 consisted of 8 patients with SM lesions. The results of EUS/CUS were correlated with FNA and EMR if available. Conclusions: 1- FNA was accurate in assessing benign mucosal lesions. 2-FNA was accurate in diagnosing and staging malignancy in mucosal lesions. 3- EMR can be performed in limited mucosal and submucosal carcinoids. 4- EUS/CUS and FNA was as accurate as EMR. 5- Complications may occur in recto-vaginal cystic lesions.