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

Diagnostic ability and adverse events of mucosal incision-assisted biopsy for gastric subepithelial tumors: Systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the diagnostic ability and examine the efficacy of countermeasures to adverse events of mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) for gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs).

METHODS

We performed a literature search and identified 533 relevant articles. Eleven articles, including 339 lesions, were ultimately used in the meta-analysis. The primary end-point was the pathological diagnostic rate of MIAB for gastric SETs, and the secondary end-point was the incidence of adverse events. The efficacy of acid secretion inhibitors in preventing postoperative bleeding and that of local injection before incision to prevent perforation were also examined.

RESULTS

Nine studies were conducted in Japan and two in South Korea, of which only two were prospective studies. The pooled pathological diagnostic rate of MIAB for gastric SETs was 87.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 80.2-94.0; I2 = 68.7%). The adverse event rate of the pooled population was 0.2% (95% CI 0-1.4; I2 = 0%). The acid secretion inhibitors significantly reduced postoperative bleeding (odds ratio 0.06, 95% CI 0.01-0.66, P = 0.02). Perforation occurred in 0% and 2.6% of the local and nonlocal injection cohorts, respectively, and the pathological diagnostic rates were 50% and 66.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

MIAB is a reliable technique with a favorable diagnostic rate and few adverse events. Acid secretion inhibitors may effectively prevent postoperative bleeding; however, the efficacy of local injection remains unclear. This technique could be an option for tissue sampling in gastric SETs.

Diagnostic yield of endoscopic and EUS-guided biopsy techniques in subepithelial lesions of the upper GI tract: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Obtaining adequate tissue samples in subepithelial lesions (SELs) remains challenging. Several biopsy techniques are available, but a systematic review including all available techniques to obtain a histologic diagnosis of SEL is lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield and adverse event rates of endoscopic biopsies, EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA), EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB) (EUS-FNB), and mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) for SELs in the upper GI tract.

METHODS

A search strategy in multiple databases was performed. The primary outcome was diagnostic yield, defined as the percentage of procedures in which histology was obtained and resulted in a definitive histopathologic diagnosis. Secondary outcome measures included reported procedure-related adverse events, which were graded according to the AGREE (Adverse Events in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy) classification.

RESULTS

A total of 94 original articles were included. Studies were classified per endoscopic technique to obtain histopathology. This resulted in 8 included studies for endoscopic biopsy methods, 55 studies for EUS-FNA, 33 studies for EUS-FNB, and 26 studies for MIAB. Pooled rates for diagnostic yield were 40.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 30.8-51.2) for endoscopic biopsy, 74.6% (95% CI, 69.9-78.7) for EUS-FNA, 84.2% (95% CI, 80.7-87.2) for EUS-FNB, and 88.2% (95% CI, 84.7-91.1) for MIAB. Reported procedure-related adverse events graded AGREE II or higher were 2.8% to 3.9% for endoscopic biopsies, 1.0% to 4.5% for EUS-FNA, .9% to 7.7% for EUS-FNB, and 1.9% to 7.9% for MIAB.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, MIAB and EUS-FNB seem to be most effective in terms of achieving a high diagnostic yield, with similar rates of adverse events.

Single-incision needle-knife biopsy for the diagnosis of GI subepithelial tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

A histologic diagnosis of GI subepithelial tumors (SETs) is important because of the malignant potential of these lesions. The current modalities of choice, including EUS-guided FNA and biopsy (EUS-FNA/FNB) have demonstrated suboptimal diagnostic success. Single-incision with needle-knife (SINK) biopsy has emerged as an alternative diagnostic approach to increase tissue acquisition and diagnostic success. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the technical success, diagnostic success, and adverse events of SINK biopsy.

METHODS

We searched multiple databases including PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Google Scholar from inception to July 2022. The primary outcomes assessed were the technical success and diagnostic success of SINK in GI SETs. The secondary outcomes assessed were adverse events and whether immunohistochemical analysis could be successfully performed on tissue samples obtained via SINK.

RESULTS

Seven studies with a total of 219 SINK biopsy procedures were included in this meta-analysis. The technical success rate was 98.1% (95% CI, 94.9%-99.3%; P = .000; I2 = .0%), and the diagnostic success rate was 87.9% (95% CI, 82.6%-91.7%; P = .000; I2 = .0%). The immunohistochemical success rate was 88.3% (95% CI, 78.7%-93.9%; P = .000; I2 = 3.5%). The rate of adverse events was 7.5% (95% CI, 4.3%-12.7%; P = .00; I2 = 7.2%), and bleeding was the most common adverse event.

CONCLUSION

SINK biopsy is a safe diagnostic procedure with a high technical and diagnostic success in patients with GI SET. Further randomized controlled trials and direct comparison studies are needed to validate these findings.

EUS-guided 22-gauge fine needle biopsy versus single-incision with needle knife for the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions: a randomized controlled trial

Background and study aims  EUS-FNA has suboptimal accuracy in diagnosing gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors (SETs). EUS-guided 22-gauge fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) and single-incision with needle knife (SINK) were proposed to increase accuracy of diagnosis. This study aimed to prospectively compare the diagnostic accuracy and safety of EUS-FNB with SINK in patients with upper gastrointestinal SETs. Patients and methods  All adult patients referred for EUS evaluation of upper gastrointestinal SETs ≥ 15 mm in size were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomized to undergo EUS-FNB or SINK. Lesions were sampled with a 22-gauge reverse beveled core needle in the EUS-FNB group and by a conventional needle-knife sphincterotome and biopsy forceps in the SINK group. Patients were blinded to the technique used. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, histological yield and procedure duration. Study enrollment was terminated early due to poor recruitment. Results  A total of 56 patients (31 male (55.37 %); mean age, 67.41 ± 12.70 years) were randomized to either EUS-FNB (n = 26) or SINK (n = 30). Technical success was 96.15 % and 96.66 %, respectively. The majority of lesions were gastrointestinal stromal tumors (51.78 %). No significant difference was found between EUS-FNB and SINK in terms of diagnostic accuracy for a malignant or benign disease (76 % vs. 89.28 %, respectively; P  = 0.278). The rate of adverse events (none severe) was also comparable (7.69 % vs. 10 %, respectively; P =  1.0) including two abdominal pain episodes in the EUS-FNB group compared to two delayed bleeding (one requiring hospitalization and radiologic embolization) and 1 abdominal pain in the SINK group. Conclusion  EUS-FNB and SINK are equally effective techniques for upper gastrointestinal SETs sampling. SINK can be associated with mild to moderate delayed bleeding.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection of gastric subepithelial tumors with the gFTRD-system: a prospective pilot study (RESET trial)

BACKGROUND

Gastric subepithelial tumors (SET) are rare and usually benign. However, up to 13% are malignant. Histology after conventional biopsy often is inconclusive. Surveillance endoscopies are the consequence in the majority of gastric SET cases. For SET arising from deeper layers endoscopic resection (ER) with the standard techniques is difficult and associated with the risk of perforation. The RESET trial further evaluates feasibility, efficacy and safety of clip-assisted endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) for gastric SET using the novel gastric full-thickness-resection device (gFTRD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The RESET trial was initiated in March 2017 (NCT03096236) and designed as prospective observational multicenter pilot trial. Gastric SET up to 15 mm were included. Primary endpoint was technical success (complete enbloc resection). Secondary endpoints were R0 resection, full-thickness resection, adverse events and recurrency at 3-months follow-up. For resection we used the gFTRD (Ovesco Endoscopy, Tübingen, Germany).

RESULTS

29 patients underwent gastric EFTR. Histology prior EFTR after conventional biopsy could define histological tumor type in only 31.2%. Primary endpoint was reached in 89.7%. Histology of the full-thickness-resection specimen could define histological tumor type in 100%. 76% of all SET could be resected histologically complete (R0) and a full-thickness-resection specimen could be obtained in 65.5%. In 31% periprocedural minor bleeding was observed and managed endoscopically. Follow-up was available in 79.3% (OTSC detachment in 78.3%, OTSC in position in 21.7%). No signs of residual or recurrent tumors were observed after 3 months.

CONCLUSION

EFTR of gastric SET with gFTRD is feasible and safe. EFTR allows a definite histological diagnosis (including sufficient risk stratification in case of GIST or NET) in contrast to conventional biopsy. R0-resection is possible in most cases and might obviate the need for further surveillance endoscopies for selected patients.