Diagnosis Of Gastric Subepithelial Tumors Research Articles

Advancements in the Diagnosis of Gastric Subepithelial Tumors.

A diagnosis of subepithelial tumors (SETs) is sometimes difficult due to the existence of overlying mucosa on the lesions, which hampers optical diagnosis by conventional endoscopy and tissue sampling with standard biopsy forceps. Imaging modalities, by using computed tomography and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) are mandatory to noninvasively collect the target’s information and to opt candidates for further evaluation. Particularly, EUS is an indispensable diagnostic modality for assessing the lesions precisely and evaluating the possibility of malignancy. The diagnostic ability of EUS appears increased by the combined use of contrast-enhancement or elastography. Histology is the gold standard for obtaining the final diagnosis. Tissue sampling requires special techniques to break the mucosal barrier. Although EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is commonly applied, mucosal cutting biopsy and mucosal incision-assisted biopsy are comparable methods to definitively obtain tissues from the exposed surface of lesions and seem more useful than EUS-FNA for small SETs. Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have a potential to drastically change the diagnostic strategy for SETs. Development and establishment of noninvasive methods including AI-assisted diagnosis are expected to provide an alternative to invasive, histological diagnosis.

Reasons for Diagnostic Failure in Forty-Five Consecutive Mucosal Cutting Biopsy Examinations of Gastric Subepithelial Tumors.

Background/Aims:Mucosal cutting biopsy (MCB) is useful for the histopathological diagnosis of gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs). However, there is little information on cases in which MCB did not establish a diagnosis. In the current study, we aimed to investigate the characteristics of cases in which MCB was unsuccessful. Methods:Cases in which MCB was used to histopathologically diagnose gastric SETs at Kobe University Hospital between August 2012 and October 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Results:Forty-five cases in which MCB was used to diagnose 43 gastric SETs in 43 patients were analyzed. The median tumor size was 20 mm (range, 8–50 mm). Pathological examinations resulted in definitive and suspected diagnoses and no diagnosis in 29 (gastrointestinal stromal tumor: n=17, leiomyoma: n=7, aberrant pancreas: n=3, others: n=2), 6, and 10 cases, respectively. Failure to expose the tumor according to retrospective examinations of endoscopic images was significantly associated with no diagnosis. Other possible explanations included a less elevated tumor, biopsy of the surrounding field instead of the tumor due to the mobility, and poor endoscope maneuverability due to the tumor being close to the cardia. Conclusions:Clear exposure of gastric SETs during MCB may improve the diagnostic rate of such examinations.

Diagnosis of Gastric Subepithelial Tumors Using Endoscopic Ultrasonography or Abdominopelvic Computed Tomography: Which is Better?

Diagnosis of Gastric Subepithelial Tumors Using Endoscopic Ultrasonography or Abdominopelvic Computed Tomography: Which is Better?

Utility of EUS elastography in the diagnosis of gastric subepithelial tumors: a pilot study (with video)

EUS elastography is a real-time imaging technique that analyzes tissue elasticity. The aim of this study was to investigate the applicability of quantitative EUS elastography in the differential diagnosis of gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs). We prospectively registered 41 consecutive patients with gastric SETs and measured their strain ratios with EUS elastography. The strain ratios of gastric SETs were compared with the histopathologic diagnosis. Thirty-one patients (mean age, 51.4 ± 12.6 years) were included in the analysis. The mean size of the SETs was 2.3 ± 0.7 cm. Lipomas had the lowest strain ratio of 1.6 (1.1-2.0), followed by leiomyomas 6.0 (2.0-29.0), ectopic pancreas 11.8 (1.7-29.3), gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) 51.1 (29.0-67.0), and schwannomas 62.0. With a cut-off value of 22.7, EUS elastography could differentiate GISTs from leiomyomas with sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 94.1%, respectively (P= .001; 95% confidence interval, 0.979-1.000). EUS elastography could be a promising diagnostic adjunct for the assessment of gastric SETs, especially in differentiating GISTs from leiomyomas.

Comparison of the Diagnostic Ability of Endoscopic Ultrasonography and Abdominopelvic Computed Tomography in the Diagnosis of Gastric Subepithelial Tumors.

Background/AimsEndoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is the most efficient imaging modality for gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs). However, abdominopelvic computed tomography (APCT) has other advantages in evaluating the characteristics, local extension, or invasion of SETs to adjacent organs. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic ability of EUS and APCT based on surgical histopathology results. MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed data from 53 patients who underwent both EUS and APCT before laparoscopic wedge resection for gastric SETs from January 2010 to December 2017 at a single institution. On the basis of histopathology results, we assessed the diagnostic ability of the 2 tests. ResultsThe overall accuracy of EUS and APCT was 64.2% and 50.9%, respectively. In particular, the accuracy of EUS vs. APCT for the diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), leiomyomas, and ectopic pancreas was 83.9% vs. 74.2%, 37.5% vs. 0.0%, and 57.1% vs. 14.3%, respectively. Most of the incorrect diagnoses with EUS involved hypoechoic lesions originating in the fourth echolayer, with the most common misdiagnosed lesions being GISTs mistaken for leiomyomas and vice versa. ConclusionsAPCT showed a lower overall accuracy than EUS; however, APCT remains a useful modality for malignant/potentially malignant gastric SETs.

Video Comment on Ming-Ming Zhang et al.

Ming-Ming Zhang et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy for diagnosis of gastric subepithelial tumors: a pilot study

Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging of a plexiform angiomyxoid myofibroblastic tumor: a case report

BackgroundPlexiform angiomyxoid myofibroblastic tumor (PAMT) is a very rare mesenchymal tumor of the stomach. Here we report a case of pathologically confirmed PAMT with an unique cyst formation.Case presentationA 55-year-old male with a 10-year history of a gastric subepithelial tumor underwent computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Two cysts were observed in the tumor, and the cyst wall showed moderately high intensity on T2-weighted images compared with the gastric wall. On dynamic study, the cyst wall showed a gradual enhancement pattern, and prominent enhancement was observed in the delayed phase. Laparoscopic partial gastric resection was performed, and a pathological diagnosis of PAMT was rendered.ConclusionWe present a rare case of gastric PAMT, which was uniquely presented as cysts. One of the cysts in the tumor had an epithelial wall lining, which had never been reported before in gastric mesenchymal tumor, in addition to partial glandular structure. We reviewed our case, focusing on radiologic-pathologic correlation, and suggested hypothesis of cyst formation. According to our findings, PAMT with cyst formation would be included of differential diagnosis of gastric subepithelial tumors.

Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided single-incision needle knife biopsy for gastric subepithelial tumors: comparison with resected specimens.

Several techniques are recommended for the histologic diagnosis of gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs). The purpose of our study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield and safety of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided single-incision needle knife (SINK) biopsy for the diagnosis of gastric SETs. A retrospective review of patients who received biopsy for gastric SETs from August 2012 to May 2015 was conducted. Patients who received endoscopic ultrasonography and were found to have a SET originating from the muscularis propria of the stomach were included in the study. The aim of our study was to investigate the safety and diagnostic yield of SINK biopsy for gastric SETs. A total of 31 patients received SINK biopsy for SETs. The diagnostic yield of SINK biopsy was 87% (95% CI 75-100%), and the diagnostic accuracy was 89% (95% CI 74-105%). The sensitivity of SINK biopsy to identify gastrointestinal stromal tumors was 83% (95% CI 52-98%); the specificity was 100% (95% CI 59-100%); the positive predictive value was 100% (95% CI 69-100%); and the negative predictive value was 78% (95% CI 40-97%). There were no procedure-related adverse events during and after procedure. The use of SINK biopsy technique in patients with SETs is a good diagnostic tool with high diagnostic yield and accuracy. The method is simple, safe, and associated with few complications.

EUS-guided 22-gauge fine needle biopsy for the diagnosis of gastric subepithelial tumors larger than 2 cm

Objective. EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) was introduced to obtain tissue cores. However, data on the efficacy of EUS-FNB for the diagnosis of gastric subepithelial tumors (SET) are limited. This study was aimed to determine the tissue acquisition and diagnostic yield of EUS-FNB using a novel 22-gauge FNB needle. Material and methods. Between May 2012 and February 2014, we retrieved data on 78 consecutive patients who underwent 22-gauge EUS-FNB for tissue sampling of gastric SET larger than 2 cm. Relevant tumor and EUS-related parameters were reviewed retrospectively. Results. The median tumor diameter was 2.8 cm and tumors were punctured successfully in 77 SET (98.7%). EUS-FNB was diagnostic in 81.8% of SET (63/77), by obtaining core biopsy tissue in 96.8% (61/63) and aspirates in 27.0% (17/63). FNB specimens permitted immunostaining for the diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) in 30 SET (47.6%), 20 leiomyomas (31.7%), and 3 schwannomas (4.8%). Diagnoses could be made without immunostaining in 10 SET (15.9%). Tissue adequacy was optimal in 85.7% of FNB specimens by endosonographers’ on-site visual evaluation. Endosonographers’ evaluation of tissue adequacy was the only factor significantly associated with a higher diagnostic yield in univariate analysis. No adequate high-power fields for GIST risk stratification were available in FNB specimens. There was a single case of post-procedural bleeding (1.3%). Conclusion. EUS-FNB using 22-gauge needle obtains a high yield for the diagnosis of gastric SET ≥2 cm, mostly via core tissue acquisition. Endosonographers should pay careful attention to the adequacy of FNB specimens.

Accuracy of a scoring system for the differential diagnosis of common gastric subepithelial tumors based on endoscopic ultrasonography

We aimed to validate a new scoring system for the differential diagnosis of gastric subepithelial tumors (SET) based on endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) findings, and to determine its diagnostic yield for different gastric SET. Data of patients with gastric SET treated with endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection or surgical resection from April 2001 to October 2012 at the Soonchunhyang University Hospital (Bucheon, Korea) were retrospectively reviewed. Four variables, including location, shape, layer of origin and echogenicity of the tumor on EUS were used to validate the new scoring system. Among the 226 patients with gastric SET, 69 (30.5%) had gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST), 68 (30.1%) had ectopic pancreas and 35 (15.5%) had leiomyoma. Most GIST were located at the fundus and body (79.7%), whereas most leiomyomas were found at the cardia (80.0%). Ectopic pancreas was mostly found at the antrum (88.2%). GIST were mainly irregular and round in shape, while ectopic pancreas and lipoma were oval and leiomyomas were irregularly shaped on EUS. With a score range of 0-1 for leiomyoma, 2-3 for GIST, 4-6 for ectopic pancreas and 7-8 for lipoma, the sensitivity and specificity of the scoring system were 75.8% and 85.4% for GIST, 84.6% and 73.1% for ectopic pancreas, 75.9% and 99.5% for leiomyoma and 91.7% and 96.7% for lipoma, respectively. The new scoring system was simple and relatively useful for predicting the histology of gastric SET without acquiring tissues. Prospective studies with large sample sizes are needed in the future.

Su1549 EUS-Guided Needle Sampling for Gastric Subepithelial Tumors: Factors Associated With Higher Diagnostic Yield

EUS-guided sampling is an indispensible procedure for tissue diagnosis of gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs). Studies evaluating the factors associated with higher diagnostic yield of gastric SETs are limited.

A feasible modified biopsy method for tissue diagnosis of gastric subepithelial tumors

To evaluate the diagnostic yield and safety of a modified technique for the histological diagnosis of subepithelial tumors (SETs). A retrospective review of patients who underwent a modified technique for the histological diagnosis of gastric SETs, consisting of a mucosal incision with a fixed flexible snare (MIF) and deep-tissue biopsy under conventional endoscopic view, from January 2012 to January 2013 was performed. Eleven patients with gastric SETs 10-30 mm in diameter and originating from the third or fourth layer on endoscopic ultrasonography were included. The mean age was 59.8 (range, 45-76) years, and 5 patients were male. The mean size of the SETs was 21.8 (range, 11-30) mm. The number of biopsy specimens was 6.3 (range 5-8). The mean procedure time was 9.0 min (range, 4-17 min). The diagnostic yield of MIF biopsies was 90.9% (10/11). The histological diagnoses were leiomyoma (4/11, 36.4%), aberrant pancreas (3/11, 27.3%), gastrointestinal stromal tumors (2/11, 18.2%), an inflammatory fibrinoid tumor (1/11, 9.1%); one result was non-diagnostic (1/11, 9.1%). There were six mesenchymal tumors; the specimens obtained in each case were sufficient for an immunohistochemical diagnosis. There was no major bleeding, but one perforation occurred that was successfully controlled by endoscopic clipping. The MIF biopsy was simple to perform, safe, and required a shorter procedure time, with a high diagnostic yield for small SETs.

Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration (EUS-FNA) vs Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Trucut Biopsy (EUS-TNB) in the Diagnosis of Gastric Subepithelial Tumors. Definitive Results of a Prospective and Comparative Study

Background: The diagnosis of subepithelial tumors by EUS-FNA is often not possible by cytology due to the inadequacy of the samples. Immunohistochemistry, which is crucial for the exact diagnosis, requires a sample adequate enough to be performed. EUS-TNB could improve the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA in this indication by obtaining a tissue sample. Aim: To compare the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA with EUS-TNB in the diagnosis of gastric subepithelial tumors. Methods: Solid lesions > 2 cm in diameter located in the stomach in patients with no coagulopathy (Prothrombine time >50% and Platelet count >50.000) were included.