Accuracy Of Endoscopic Ultrasonography Research Articles

Linear-array Endoscopic Ultrasound and Narrow-Banding Imaging Measure the Invasion Depth of Nonpedunculated Rectal Lesions with Comparable Accuracy based on a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Linear-array endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and narrow-banding imaging (NBI) are both used to estimate the invasion depth of nonpedunculated rectal lesions (NPRLs). However, it is unclear which procedure is more accurate. This randomized controlled trial aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of linear EUS and NBI for estimating the invasion depth of NPRLs. This study is a single-center, randomized, tandem trial. Eligible patients with NPRLs were randomly assigned to A group (Assessment with EUS followed by NBI) or B group (Assessment with NBI followed by EUS). The invasion depth of each lesion was independently measured by each procedure and categorized as mucosal to slight submucosal (M-SMs, invasion depth <1000 μm) or deep submucosal (SMd, invasion depth ≥1000 μm) invasion, with postoperative pathology as standard measurement. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy, and secondary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, and procedure time. 86 patients with NPRLs were enrolled and 79 patients were finally analyzed, including 39 cases in the A group and 40 cases in the B group. Comparable diagnostic accuracies were observed between EUS and NBI (96.2% vs. 93.7%, P = 0.625). EUS identified lesions with deep submucosal invasion with 81.8% sensitivity, while that of NBI was 63.6% (P = 0.500). The specificity of both EUS and NBI was 98.5%. The procedure time was also similar between EUS and NBI (5.90 ± 3.44 vs. 6.4 ± 3.94 minutes, P = 0.450). Furthermore, the combined use of EUS and NBI did not improve diagnostic accuracy compared to EUS or NBI alone (94.9% vs 96.2% vs 93.7%, P = 0.333). Linear EUS and NBI measure the invasion depth of NPRLs with comparable accuracy. The combination of the two methods does not improve the diagnostic accuracy. Single NBI should be preferred, considering its simplicity and convenience in clinical practice.

Basic Principles and Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Diagnosis and Differentiation of Pancreatic Cancer from Other Pancreatic Lesions: A Comprehensive Review of Endoscopic Ultrasound for Pancreatic Cancer.

Pancreatic cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Pancreatic lesions consist of both neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions and often pose a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge due to similar clinical and radiological features. In recent years, pancreatic lesions have been discovered more frequently as incidental findings due to the increased utilization and widespread availability of abdominal cross-sectional imaging. Therefore, it becomes imperative to establish an early and appropriate diagnosis with meticulous differentiation in an attempt to balance unnecessary treatment of benign pancreatic lesions and missing the opportunity for early intervention in malignant lesions. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become an important diagnostic modality for the identification and risk stratification of pancreatic lesions due to its ability to provide detailed imaging and acquisition of tissue samples for analysis with the help of fine-needle aspiration/biopsy. The recent development of EUS-based technology, including contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound, real-time elastography-endoscopic ultrasound, miniature probe ultrasound, confocal laser endomicroscopy, and the application of artificial intelligence has significantly augmented the diagnostic accuracy of EUS as it enables better evaluation of the number, location, dimension, wall thickness, and contents of these lesions. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the role of the different types of EUS available for the diagnosis and differentiation of pancreatic cancer from other pancreatic lesions while discussing their key strengths and important limitations.

Establishment and validation of a risk score model based on EUS: assessment of lymph node metastasis in early gastric cancer

Lymph node metastasis significantly affects the prognosis of early gastric cancer patients. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) plays a crucial role in the preoperative assessment of early gastric cancer. This study evaluated the efficacy of EUS in identifying lymph node metastasis in early gastric cancer patients and developed a risk score model to aid in choosing the best treatment options. We retrospectively analyzed the effectiveness of EUS for detecting lymph node metastasis in early gastric cancer patients. A risk score model for predicting lymph node metastasis preoperatively was created using independent risk factors identified through binary logistic regression analysis and subsequently validated. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated for both the development and validation cohorts. The overall accuracy of EUS in identifying lymph node metastasis was 85.3%, although its sensitivity (29.2%) and positive predictive value (38.7%) were relatively low. Patients were categorized based on preoperative risk factors for lymph node metastasis, including tumor size ≥20 mm, lymph nodes ≥10 mm, BMI ≥24 kg/m2, and lymph node metastasis on CT scans. A 7-point risk score model was developed to assess the likelihood of lymph node metastasis. The areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) for the development and validation sets were 0.842 and 0.837, respectively, with sensitivities of 64% and 79%, respectively. We developed a practical risk score model based on preoperative factors to help EUS predict lymph node metastasis in early gastric cancer patients, guiding the selection of optimal treatment approaches for these patients.

Diagnostic value of endoscopic ultrasound in pelvic masses with bowel involvement.

The diagnostic ability of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for intestinal infiltration by pelvic masses has aroused considerable interest in many oncological settings. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of EUS in predicting colorectal invasion in patients with pelvic masses and compare its accuracy with that of other imaging methods, namely pelvic MRI and abdominal computed tomography (CT), in predicting intestinal involvement in patients with histologically confirmed colorectal invasion. A hundred and eighty-four female patients with histologically confirmed benign or malignant pelvic masses were enrolled in a retrospective-prospective study. All patients underwent EUS, pelvic MRI, and one or more of abdominal CT, transvaginal sonography, and colonoscopy examinations before surgery. The surgical and pathological results were used as the gold standard to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of EUS for colorectal invasion of pelvic masses. This study included 184 patients who underwent surgery, with the time between EUS and surgery ranging from 1 to 309 (mean, 13.2) days. The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of EUS for benign and malignant pelvic masses infiltrating the intestine were 83.3, 97.8, 99.1, and 66.2%, respectively. The overall diagnostic accuracy was 87.0%. EUS is a simple, noninvasive, reliable, and accurate technique for the preoperative diagnosis of pelvic masses infiltrating the intestine. The authors recommend the use of this technology by gynecologists, as well as its incorporation into the preoperative diagnostic process to determine the most suitable surgical method. This would help in avoiding unexpected situations and unnecessary resource wastage during surgery.

Value of quantitative microsurface structure analysis for evaluating the invasion depth of type 0-II early gastric cancer.

The microsurface structure reflects the degree of damage to the glands, which is related to the invasion depth of early gastric cancer. To evaluate the diagnostic value of quantitative microsurface structure analysis for estimating the invasion depth of early gastric cancer. White-light imaging and narrow-band imaging (NBI) endoscopy were used to visualize the lesions of the included patients. The area ratio and depth-predicting score (DPS) of each patient were calculated; meanwhile, each lesion was examined by endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). Ninety-three patients were included between 2016 and 2019. Microsurface structure is related to the histological differentiation and progression of early gastric cancer. The receiver operating characteristic curve showed that when an area ratio of 80.3% was used as a cut-off value for distinguishing mucosal (M) and submucosal (SM) type 0-II gastric cancers, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 82.9%, 80.2%, and 91.6%, respectively. The accuracies for distinguishing M/SM differentiated and undifferentiated early gastric cancers were 87.4% and 84.8%, respectively. The accuracy of EUS for distinguishing M/SM early gastric cancer was 74.9%. DPS can only distinguish M-SM1 (SM infiltration <500 μm)/SM (SM infiltration ≥500 μm) with an accuracy of 83.8%. The accuracy of using area ratio for distinguishing 0-II early gastric cancers was better than those of using DPS and EUS (P < 0.05). Quantitative analysis of microsurface structure can be performed to assess M/SM type 0-II gastric cancer and is expected to be effective for judging the invasion depth of gastric cancer.

Accuracy of clinical staging for intramural (T2) gastric cancer: Survival outcomes following upfront surgical resection compared to risk of overtreatment with neoadjuvant therapy

BackgroundCurrently, patients with T1 gastric cancers undergo upfront resection while those with loco-regional disease often are recommended for systemic therapy. Over-staging by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), specifically in T2 disease, introduces the risk of overtreatment with chemotherapy without the benefit of a confirmed pathological stage. This risk of overtreatment compared to the risk of recurrence after upfront surgery must be weighed in this group. MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed patients with gastric cancer who underwent upfront resection between 2010–2020 at our institution. Patients were excluded if they received preoperative systemic therapy or radiation. EUS clinical staging and pathological staging were reconciled for accuracy. Recurrence-free survival and overall survival was calculated for the T2 intramural group. Survival was confirmed by chart review and utilization of the Social Security Death Index. Results134 patients were included. EUS over-staged 20/37 (54%) of patients defined as having clinical T2 (cT2). Lymph node involvement (cN+) as determined by EUS without biopsy was accurate in 1/9 (11%) when compared to final pathology. In total, 22 cases were confirmed as intramural disease (T2) on final pathology. Six patients with T2 disease (18%) experienced recurrence. With a median follow-up of 32 months, no patients experienced mortality at five years. ConclusionsClinical staging by EUS introduces the risk of over-staging for patients with T2 gastric cancer. Upfront surgery for these individuals demonstrated encouraging recurrence-free and overall survival. Patients with cT2 gastric cancers should be selectively evaluated for benefits of upfront resection, given risk of over-treated without a survival benefit. SynopsisClinical over-staging with endoscopic ultrasound introduces the risk of overtreatment with systemic chemotherapy especially in patients with T2 disease. In this retrospective review, we report the accuracy of EUS in patients with pT2 gastric cancer who underwent upfront resection as well as the recurrence and survival outcomes.

Endoscopic ultrasonography-related diagnostic accuracy and clinical significance on small rectal neuroendocrine neoplasms.

This research aimed to examine the diagnostic accuracy and clinical significance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in the context of small rectal neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs). A total of 108 patients with rectal subepithelial lesions (SELs) with a diameter of < 20 mm were included in the analysis. The diagnosis and depth assessment of EUS was compared to the histology findings. The prevalence of NENs in rectal SELs was 78.7% (85/108). The sensitivity of EUS in detecting rectal NENs was 98.9% (84/85), while the specificity was 52.2% (12/23). Overall, the diagnostic accuracy of EUS in identifying rectal NENs was 88.9% (96/108). The overall accuracy rate for EUS in assessing the depth of invasion in rectal NENs was 92.9% (78/84). Therefore, EUS demonstrates reasonable diagnostic accuracy in detecting small rectal NENs, with good sensitivity but inferior specificity. EUS may also assist physicians in assessing the depth of invasion in small rectal NENs before endoscopic excision.

Endoscopic Ultrasound to Identify the Actual Cause of Idiopathic Acute Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review.

Idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP) presents a diagnostic challenge and refers to cases where the cause of acute pancreatitis remains uncertain despite a comprehensive diagnostic evaluation. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has emerged as a valuable tool in the diagnostic workup of IAP. This review explores the pivotal role of EUS in detecting the actual cause of IAP and assessing its accuracy, timing, safety, and future technological improvement. In this review, we investigate the role of EUS in identifying the actual cause of IAP by examining the available literature. We aim to assess possible existing evidence regarding EUS accuracy, timing, and safety and explore potential trends of future technological improvements in EUS for diagnostic purposes. Following PRISMA guidelines, 60 pertinent studies were selected and analysed. EUS emerges as a crucial diagnostic tool, particularly when conventional imaging fails. It can offer intricate visualization of the pancreas, biliary system, and adjacent structures. Microlithiasis, biliary sludge, chronic pancreatitis, and small pancreatic tumors seem to be much more accurately identified with EUS in the setting of IAP. The optimal timing for EUS is post-resolution of the acute phase of the disease. With a low rate of complications, EUS poses minimal safety concerns. EUS-guided interventions, including fine-needle aspiration, collection drainage, and biopsies, aid in the cytological analysis. With high diagnostic accuracy, safety, and therapeutic potential, EUS is able to improve patient outcomes when managing IAP. Further refinement of EUS techniques and cost-effectiveness assessment of EUS-guided approaches need to be explored in multicentre prospective studies. This review underscores EUS as a transformative tool in unraveling IAP's enigma and advancing diagnostic and therapeutic strategies.

FDG PET/CT and Endoscopic Ultrasound for Preoperative T-Staging of Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performances of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and FDG PET/CT in the preoperative T-staging of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) and determine whether their innovative coordination achieves better prediction. In total, 100 patients diagnosed with ESCC, 57 without (CRT[-]sub) and 43 with (CRT[+]sub) neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, undergoing EUS and FDG PET/CT, followed by surgical resection of the tumor, were included in this analysis. EUS classified T-stages based on the depth of primary tumor invasion, and FDG PET/CT used thresholded maximal standardized uptake value (SUVmax) classifications. By employing pathology results as the reference standard, we assessed the accuracy of EUS and FDG PET/CT, evaluated their concordance using the κ statistic, and conducted a comparative analysis between the two modalities through McNemar's chi-square test. FDG PET/CT had higher overall accuracy than EUS (for CRT[-]sub: 71.9%, κ = 0.56 vs. 56.1%, κ = 0.31, p = 0.06; for CRT[+]sub: 65.1%, κ = 0.50 vs. 18.6%, κ = 0.05, p < 0.01) in predicting pT- and ypT-stage. Our proposed method of incorporating both FDG PET/CT and EUS information could achieve higher accuracies in differentiating between early and locally advanced disease in the CRT[-]sub group (82.5%) and determining residual viable tumor in the CRT[+]sub group (83.7%) than FDG PET/CT or EUS alone. FDG PET/CT had a better diagnostic ability than EUS to predict the (y)pT-stage of ESCC. Our complementary method, which combines the advantages of both imaging modalities, can deliver higher accuracy for clinical applications of ESCC.

Endoscopic ultrasound artificial intelligence-assisted for prediction of gastrointestinal stromal tumors diagnosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Subepithelial lesions (SELs) are gastrointestinal tumors with heterogeneous malignant potential. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is the leading method for evaluation, but without histopathological analysis, precise differentiation of SEL risk is limited. Artificial intelligence (AI) is a promising aid for the diagnosis of gastrointestinal lesions in the absence of histopathology. To determine the diagnostic accuracy of AI-assisted EUS in diagnosing SELs, especially lesions originating from the muscularis propria layer. Electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched. Patients of any sex and > 18 years, with SELs assessed by EUS AI-assisted, with previous histopathological diagnosis, and presented sufficient data values which were extracted to construct a 2 × 2 table. The reference standard was histopathology. The primary outcome was the accuracy of AI for gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). Secondary outcomes were AI-assisted EUS diagnosis for GIST vs gastrointestinal leiomyoma (GIL), the diagnostic performance of experienced endoscopists for GIST, and GIST vs GIL. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values were calculated. The corresponding summary receiver operating characteristic curve and post-test probability were also analyzed. Eight retrospective studies with a total of 2355 patients and 44154 images were included in this meta-analysis. The AI-assisted EUS for GIST diagnosis showed a sensitivity of 92% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89-0.95; P < 0.01), specificity of 80% (95%CI: 0.75-0.85; P < 0.01), and area under the curve (AUC) of 0.949. For diagnosis of GIST vs GIL by AI-assisted EUS, specificity was 90% (95%CI: 0.88-0.95; P = 0.02) and AUC of 0.966. The experienced endoscopists' values were sensitivity of 72% (95%CI: 0.67-0.76; P < 0.01), specificity of 70% (95%CI: 0.64-0.76; P < 0.01), and AUC of 0.777 for GIST. Evaluating GIST vs GIL, the experts achieved a sensitivity of 73% (95%CI: 0.65-0.80; P < 0.01) and an AUC of 0.819. AI-assisted EUS has high diagnostic accuracy for fourth-layer SELs, especially for GIST, demonstrating superiority compared to experienced endoscopists' and improving their diagnostic performance in the absence of invasive procedures.

Diagnostic Performance of Endoscopic Ultrasonography with Water-Filled Balloon Method for Superficial Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is a commonly used tool for preoperative depth diagnosis of superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Probing EUS using the water-filled balloon method is a simple and safe examination. The aim of this study was to clarify the diagnostic performance of EUS with the water-filled balloon method for superficial ESCC compared to magnifying narrow-band imaging (ME-NBI). We retrospectively examined 403 lesions in 393 consecutive patients diagnosed with ESCC and evaluated them with ME-NBI and EUS. Clinicopathological findings were collected, and the accuracy of the preoperative diagnosis was compared between ME-NBI and EUS-B. EUS examiners were not blinded to prior ME-NBI results, and EUS results may have been influenced by ME-NBI results. The pathological tumor depth of the EP/LPM in 152 lesions, MM/SM1 in 130 lesions, and deep submucosa (SM2/SM3) in 121 lesions was examined. The proportion of total lesions with an accurate diagnosis was significantly higher in EUS than in ME-NBI (67.7% versus 62.0%, P = 0.015). When analyzed by clinical depth diagnosis using ME-NBI, the proportion of lesions with an accurate diagnosis was significantly higher for EUS in MM/SM1 (55.7% versus 46.1%, P = 0.033). The sensitivity was significantly higher in EUS for SM2/SM3 lesions (76.0% versus 54.5%, P < 0.001). The accuracy and specificity of EUS, which differentiate MM/SM1 from EP/LPM or SM2/SM3, were significantly higher than those of ME-NBI. The median endoscopic ultrasonography procedure time was approximately 6.5min. EUS with the water-filled balloon method is a safe and straightforward method that can be performed on lesions clinically diagnosed as MM/SM1 using ME-NBI. We retrospectively reviewed lesions in patients diagnosed with ESCC and evaluated them using magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging (ME-NBI) and endoscopic ultrasound using the water-filled balloon method (EUS-B). We conclude that EUS-B can increase the diagnostic accuracy.

Quality indicators of endoscopic ultrasound in the pancreatobiliary system: a brief review of current guidelines.

Since its development, the use of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in the pancreas and the biliary tract has become increasingly important. The accuracy of EUS varies depending on the experience of the endoscopist. Hence, quality control measures using appropriate indicators are required to reduce these variations. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy have announced the EUS quality indicators. Here, we reviewed the quality indicators of the EUS procedure in the current published guidelines.

Preoperative EUS vs. PET-CT Evaluation of Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy for Esophagogastric Cancer and Its Correlation with Survival.

The objective of our study was to investigate whether Endoscopic Ultrasonography (EUS) and Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography (PET-CT) restaging can predict survival in upper gastrointestinal tract adenocarcinomas and to assess their accuracy when compared to pathology. We conducted a retrospective study on all patients who underwent EUS for staging of gastric or esophago-gastric junction adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2021. EUS and PET-CT were performed, and preoperative TNM restaging was conducted using both procedures within 21 days prior to surgery. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. A total of 185 patients (74.7% male) were included in the study. The accuracy of EUS for distinguishing between T1-T2 and T3-T4 tumors after neoadjuvant therapy was 66.7% (95% CI: 50.3-77.8%), and for N staging, the accuracy was 70.8% (95% CI: 51.8-81.8%). Regarding PET-CT, the accuracy for N positivity was 60.4% (95% CI: 46.3-73%). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a significant correlation between positive lymph nodes on restaging EUS and PET-CT with DFS. Multivariate COX regression analysis identified N restaging with EUS and PET-CT, as well as the Charlson comorbidity index, as correlated factors with DFS. Positive lymph nodes on EUS and PET-CT were predictors of OS. In multivariate Cox regression analysis, the independent risk factors for OS were found to be the Charlson comorbidity index, T response by EUS, and male sex. Both EUS and PET-CT are valuable tools for determining the preoperative stage of esophago-gastric cancer. Both techniques can predict survival, with preoperative N staging and response to neoadjuvant therapy assessed by EUS being the main predictors.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Endoscopic Ultrasonography in Selecting Patients for Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Early Gastrointestinal Neoplasms.

Tumor invasion depth and lymph node metastasis determine the prognosis of gastrointestinal (GI) neoplasms. GI neoplasms limited to mucosa (m1 or m2) and superficial submucosa (sm1) can be treated effectively with minimally invasive endoscopic therapy, while the deep invasion of the submucosa (sm2 or sm3) is associated with lymph node metastasis, and surgical resection is required. Correct staging is therefore crucial for preoperative evaluation and planning. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) can be used to detect the depth of invasion due to its close proximity to the lesion. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS, when compared to conventional endoscopic staging, is debated as it can under- or overstage the lesion. We aim in this study to determine if EUS can accurately differentiate mucosal from submucosal GI neoplasms to select patients with early GI lesions for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) or surgery. From March 2014 to February 2022, 293 patients with early superficial GI neoplasms were admitted to our endoscopic unit for EUS staging. To evaluate the accuracy of EUS, we compared the preoperative EUS findings with the definitive histopathologic findings on the resected specimen. Overall, 242 of 293 lesions were correctly staged by EUS (82.59%). In the evaluation of submucosal invasion or deeper, EUS understaged 38 of 293 (12.96%) and overstaged 13 of 293 (4.43%) lesions. EUS has excellent accuracy in staging superficial GI neoplasms; its use is highly recommended before ESD since it can also detect lymph node metastases around the lesions, thus changing the indication from ESD to surgery.

The role of rectal endoscopic ultrasonography plus fine needle aspirartion and fine needle biopsy in pelvic masses.

The diagnostic role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) of pelvic masses has not been well established. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of EUS plus FNA/FNB in suspected local recurrence of pelvic masses. All consecutive patients with a history of lower gastrointestinal and pelvic mass undergone EUS-FNA/FNB were included in the study. In total 34 patients who underwent EUS-guided FNA or FNB of a perirectal mass were enrolled. The sampled lesion was a mass in 22 patients (64.7%) and a lymph node in 10 patients (29.4%). The univariate logistic regression analysis for diagnostic accuracy showed lesion size as a significant predictor of diagnostic accuracy [odds ratio (OR), 1.61; 1.08-2.27; P = 0.02]. Diagnostic sensitivity was 100% (71.5-100%) with EUS-FNB and 75% (34.9-96.8%) with EUS-FNA ( P = 0.12); specificity was 100% in both groups ( P = 1.0). Sample adequacy was 94.1% in the whole cohort, with 20/20 adequacy rate (100%) in the EUS-FNB group and 12/14 (85.7%) in the EUS-FNA group ( P = 0.28). This is the first study demonstrating the diagnostic yield of EUS plus FNA/FNB in patients with pelvic masses comparing the two needles. Our results highlight the relevance of this technique, especially in undefined masses during oncological follow-up.

Efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound in the evaluation of small gastrointestinal stromal tumors.

BACKGROUNDGastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) with a diameter of < 2 cm are called small GISTs. Currently, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is widely used as a regular follow-up method for GISTs, which can also provide a preliminary basis for judging the malignancy potential of lesions. However, there are no studies on the accuracy of EUS to assess the malignant potential of small GISTs.AIMTo evaluate the efficacy of EUS in the diagnosis and risk assessment of small GISTs.METHODSWe collected data from patients with small GISTs who were admitted to Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University between October 2014 and July 2019. The accurate diagnosis and risk classifications of patients were based on the pathological assessment according to the modified National Institute of Health criteria after endoscopic resection or laparoscopic surgery. Preoperative EUS features (marginal irregularity, cystic changes, homogeneity, ulceration, and strong echogenic foci) were retrospectively analyzed. The assessment results based on EUS features were compared with the pathological features.RESULTSA total of 256 patients (69 men and 187 women) were enrolled. Pathological results included 232, 16, 7, and 1 very low-, low-, intermediate-, and high-risk cases, respectively. The most frequent tumor location was the gastric fundus (78.1%), and mitoses were calculated as > 5/50 high power field in 8 (3.1%) patients. Marginal irregularity, ulceration, strong echo foci, and heterogeneity were detected in 1 (0.4%), 2 (0.8%), 22 (8.6%), and 67 (65.1%) patients, respectively. However, cystic changes were not detected. Tumor size was positively correlated with the mitotic index (P < 0.001). Receiver operating curve analysis identified 1.48 cm as the best cut-off value to predict malignant potential (95% confidence interval: 0.824–0.956). EUS heterogeneity with tumor diameters > 1.48 cm was associated with higher risk classification (P < 0.05).CONCLUSIONSmall GISTs (diameters > 1.48 cm) with positive EUS features should receive intensive surveillance or undergo endoscopic surgery. EUS and dissection are efficient diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for small GISTs.

S1125 Utility and Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound for Suspected Early Esophageal Cancer

Introduction: Accurate clinical staging of esophageal cancer is vital in selecting appropriate treatment options. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has been determined to be an accurate imaging modality for esophageal cancer staging, differentiating superficial lesions from deep lesions. Despite being accurate, utilization of EUS in apparent early-stage cancer remains controversial. The current study aims to assess the utility of EUS for early-stage esophageal cancer and whether endoscopic features of esophageal malignancy can help direct the optimal management of the cancer. Methods: This was a retrospective study of patients who underwent pre-resection EUS after a diagnosis of esophageal cancer at a tertiary medical center. 50 patients met inclusion criteria for this study. Patient clinical data, initial EGD/biopsy, EUS, and final resection pathology reports were extracted from chart review and statistical analysis was performed to determine the accuracy of EUS and associations of endoscopic findings with deeper invasion. Results: EUS T stage was concordant with histological T stage in 74% of patients (37/50). In determining sub-mucosal involvement (T1a vs T1b), EUS had a specificity of 85% and sensitivity of 53.8%. EUS had an overall accuracy of 72.7% in identifying sub-mucosal invasion in T1 cancers. Prominent lymph nodes on EUS and tumor size >2 cm on visual inspection were significantly associated with deeper invasion of cancer on histology with p-values < 0.01. Barrett’s morphology was significantly associated with superficial cancers with a p-value < 0.01. EUS affected management from EMR/ESD to esophagectomy in 9.4% of patient with Barrett’s morphology and 6.7% of patients with tumor size < 2cm. In patients without any endoscopic findings suggestive of deep invasion, EUS identified deeper cancer and changed management in < 7% of cases. Conclusion: For assessing deeper invasion (T2, T3 and T4), EUS has been substantiated as a significantly effective tool. In staging T1b lesions, EUS was reasonably specific in ruling out sub-mucosal invasion; however, it had relatively poor sensitivity in identifying sub-mucosal invasion. Additionally, data validated endoscopic features suggesting superficial cancers including a tumor size < 2cm and the presence of Barrett’s morphology. In patients with these findings suggesting superficial cancer, EUS rarely identified a deep cancer that warranted a change in management.

The factors influencing the accuracy of pre-operative endoscopic ultrasonography assessment in endoscopic treatments for gastrointestinal tumors.

This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the factors influencing the accuracy of Endoscopic Ultrasonography (EUS) as a preoperative assessment for gastrointestinal tumors. A total of 261 patients with 264 gastrointestinal tumors were enrolled in the study. The parameters of the gastrointestinal lesions examined under EUS and their pathology were recorded and analyzed. The accuracy of EUS for detecting intramucosal lesions and subepithelial lesions (SELs) were 83.6% and 91.4%, respectively. One hundred and ninety-four (73.5%) lesions originated from the mucous layer, as determined by pre-operation EUS examinations. The accuracy of EUS in predicting the correct T stage for intramucosal lesions in the gastric region, esophagus, and colorectum was 77%, 71.8%, and 84.6%, respectively. According to the Paris endoscopic classification, the distribution of macroscopic patterns was different between the EUS-pathology conformity and nonconformity groups (p=0.018). In the nonconformity group, 48.6% of erosive lesions were classified as 0-IIc, 0-IIa + IIc, 0-IIc + IIa or 0-III macroscopic patterns compared with 26% patients in the conformity group (p=0.025). Univariate analyses demonstrated that ulcerative lesions (OR=7.516, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 2.574-21.952, p < 0.001), location at the cardia of the stomach (OR=3.619, 95%CI 1.076-12.168, p=0.038), malignant tumor (OR=2.920, 95%CI 1.339-6.368, p=0.007) were significantly associated with EUS inaccuracy. Multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that ulcer was an independent risk factor associated with EUS inaccuracy, with odds ratios of 5.094 (95% CI: 1.641-15.807, p=0.005). Our findings suggested that EUS is a reliable and easy-to-use diagnostic tool in decision-making regarding appropriate endoscopic treatment for gastrointestinal tumors. However, the diagnostic accuracy of EUS appeared questionable in the presence of ulceration.

Study of preoperative diagnostic modalities in Chinese patients with superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUNDEndoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and magnifying endoscopy (ME) reliably determine indications for endoscopic resection in patients with superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SESCC). ME is widely accepted for predicting the invasion depth of superficial esophageal cancer with satisfying accuracy. However, the addition of EUS is controversial.AIMTo evaluate the diagnostic efficiency of ME vs EUS for invasion depth prediction and investigate the influencing factors in patients with SESCC to determine the best diagnostic model in China.METHODSWe retrospectively analyzed patients with suspected SESCC who completed both ME and EUS and then underwent endoscopic or surgical resection at Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center between January 2018 and December 2021. We evaluated and compared the diagnostic efficiency of EUS and ME according to histological results, and investigated the influencing factors.RESULTSWe included 152 lesions from 144 patients in this study. The diagnostic accuracies of ME and EUS in differentiating invasion depth were not significantly different (73.0% and 66.4%, P = 0.24); both demonstrated moderate consistency with the pathological results (ME: kappa = 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48-0.68, P < 0.01; EUS: kappa = 0.46, 95%CI: 0.34-0.57, P < 0.01). ME was significantly more accurate in the diagnosis of high-grade intraepithelial (HGIN) or carcinoma in situ (odds ratio [OR] = 3.62, 95%CI: 1.43-9.16, P = 0.007) subgroups. Using a miniature probe rather than conventional EUS can improve the accuracy of lesion depth determination (82.3% vs 49.3%, P < 0.01). Less than a quarter of circumferential occupation and application of a miniature probe were independent risk factors for the accuracy of tumor invasion depth as assessed by EUS (< 1/4 circumferential occupation: OR = 3.07, 95%CI: 1.04-9.10; application of a miniature probe: OR = 5.28, 95%CI: 2.41-11.59, P < 0.01). Of the 41 lesions (41/152, 27.0%) that were misdiagnosed by ME, 24 were corrected by EUS (24/41, 58.5%). CONCLUSIONPreoperative diagnosis of SESCC should be conducted endoscopically using white light and magnification. In China, EUS can be added after obtaining patient consent. Use of a high-frequency miniature probe or miniature probe combined with conventional EUS is preferable.

Role of endoscopic ultrasound in evaluation of patients with missed common bile duct stones

BACKGROUNDCholedocholithiasis develops in up to 20% of patients with gall bladder stones. The challenge in diagnosis usually occurs with small stones that may be missed by magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP). Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is accurate in detecting common bile duct (CBD) stones missed by MRCP, especially the small ones or those impacted at the distal CBD or the papillary region. AIMTo evaluate the accuracy of EUS in detecting CBD stones missed by MRCP. METHODSPatients with an intermediate likelihood of choledocholithiasis according to ESGE guidelines and those with acute pancreatitis of undetermined cause were included. The presence of choledocholithiasis was evaluated by MRCP and EUS, and then results were confirmed by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The sensitivity and specificity of EUS and MRCP were compared regarding the presence of stones, the size, and the number of detected stones. RESULTSNinety out of 100 involved patients had choledocholithiasis, while ten patients were excluded as they had pancreatic or gall bladder masses during EUS examination. In choledocholithiasis patients, the mean age was 52.37 ± 14.64 years, and 52.2% were males. Most patients had biliary obstruction (74.4%), while only 23 (25.6%) patients had unexplained pancreatitis. The overall prevalence of choledocholithiasis was 83.3% by EUS, 41.1% by MRCP, and 74.4% by ERCP. Also, the number and size of CBD stones could be detected accurately in 78.2% and 75.6% by EUS and 41.1% and 70.3% by MRCP, respectively. The sensitivity of EUS was higher than that of MRCP (98.51% vs 55.22%), and their predictive value was statistically different (P < 0.001). Combination of both tools raised the sensitivity to 97.22% and specificity to 100%. CONCLUSIONEUS could be a useful tool in assessing patients with suspected choledocholithiasis especially if combined with MRCP. However, its usefulness depends on its availability and the experience of the local centers.