Comparison between endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy and bite-on-bite jumbo biopsy for sampling of subepithelial lesions

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided bite-on-bite biopsy and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the diagnosis of gastric tumors with negative malignant endoscopy biopsies: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Specific types of gastric tumors, including gastric linitis plastica and lymphoma, may cause extensive deep-layer infiltration, impeding an accurate diagnosis with endoscopic biopsy. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided bite-on-bite biopsy and EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in diagnosing gastric malignancies with negative endoscopic biopsies.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed suspicious malignant gastric lesion cases in our hospital from October 2017 to August 2023. Clinical manifestations, radiographical examinations, endoscopic examinations, histopathological results, and therapeutic strategies were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

Forty malignant gastric tumor cases with negative endoscopic biopsies were incorporated into our study. EUS-guided bite-on-bite biopsy was performed in 16 cases exclusively, whereas 17 patients received EUS-FNA exclusively, and seven patients underwent both simultaneously. Among the 23 patients who received the EUS-guided bite-on-bite biopsy, 22 (95.7%) were diagnosed with malignancies. Among the 24 patients who received EUS-FNA, a total of 19 cases with malignancies (79.2%) were confirmed by EUS-FNA (p = 0.11): 13 gastric adenocarcinomas, five metastatic malignancies, and one malignant stromal tumor. No adverse events were observed in any of the cases.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-guided bite-on-bite biopsy and EUS-FNA possess their advantages and disadvantages. EUS-guided bite-on-bite biopsy could serve as a reliable diagnostic method for shallow lesions with negative malignant endoscopic biopsies.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the first-choice procedure for obtaining pathological tissue samples from gastrointestinal (GI) subepithelial lesions (SELs). However, its diagnostic accuracy is lower than that for pancreatic masses owing to puncture difficulty and the need for immunostaining for definitive diagnosis. The advent of fine-needle biopsy needles, which have become well known in recent years, improves the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA for GI SELs. The forward-viewing echoendoscope and rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) have also helped to improve diagnostic accuracy. Furthermore, in facilities where ROSE is not available, endosonographers perform a macroscopic on-site evaluation. With these procedural innovations, EUS-FNA is now performed aggressively even for SELs smaller than 20 mm. The incidence of procedure-related adverse events such as bleeding and infection is low, and thus, EUS-FNA can be safely performed to diagnose SELs.

Comparative diagnostic yield of different endoscopic techniques for tissue sampling of upper gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence on the comparative diagnostic performance of endoscopic tissue sampling techniques for subepithelial lesions. We performed a systematic review with network meta-analysis to compare these techniques.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the sample adequacy and diagnostic accuracy of bite-on-bite biopsy, mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB), endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), and EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB). Results were expressed as relative risk (RR) and 95%CI.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs were identified. EUS-FNB was significantly superior to EUS-FNA in terms of sample adequacy (RR 1.20 [95%CI 1.05-1.45]), whereas none of the other techniques significantly outperformed EUS-FNA. Additionally, bite-on-bite biopsy was significantly inferior to EUS-FNB (RR 0.55 [95%CI 0.33-0.98]). Overall, EUS-FNB appeared to be the best technique (surface under cumulative ranking [SUCRA] score 0.90) followed by MIAB (SUCRA 0.83), whereas bite-on-bite biopsy showed the poorest performance. When considering lesions <20 mm, MIAB, but not EUS-FNB, showed significantly higher accuracy rates compared with EUS-FNA (RR 1.68 [95%CI 1.02-2.88]). Overall, MIAB ranked as the best intervention for lesions <20 mm (SUCRA score 0.86 for adequacy and 0.91 for accuracy), with EUS-FNB only slightly superior to EUS-FNA. When rapid on-site cytological evaluation (ROSE) was available, no difference between EUS-FNB, EUS-FNA, and MIAB was observed.

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNB and MIAB appeared to provide better performance, whereas bite-on-bite sampling was significantly inferior to the other techniques. MIAB seemed to be the best option for smaller lesions, whereas EUS-FNA remained competitive when ROSE was available.

Endoscopic Ultrasound Advanced Techniques for Diagnosis of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumours

Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors (GISTs) are subepithelial lesions (SELs) that commonly develop in the gastrointestinal tract. GISTs, unlike other SELs, can exhibit malignant behavior, so differential diagnosis is critical to the decision-making process. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is considered the most accurate imaging method for diagnosing and differentiating SELs in the gastrointestinal tract by assessing the lesions precisely and evaluating their malignant risk. Due to their overlapping imaging characteristics, endosonographers may have difficulty distinguishing GISTs from other SELs using conventional EUS alone, and the collection of tissue samples from these lesions may be technically challenging. Even though it appears to be less effective in the case of smaller lesions, histology is now the gold standard for achieving a final diagnosis and avoiding unnecessary and invasive treatment for benign SELs. The use of enhanced EUS modalities and elastography has improved the diagnostic ability of EUS. Furthermore, recent advancements in artificial intelligence systems that use EUS images have allowed them to distinguish GISTs from other SELs, thereby improving their diagnostic accuracy.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for protruding Helicobacter pylori-negative mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma of the stomach: a case report

Gastric mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphomas have various endoscopic appearances. We report a case of Helicobacter pylori-negative gastric MALT lymphoma with a protruding morphology similar to that of submucosal tumors. A 51-year-old man with a protruding tumor in the gastric cardia was referred to our hospital. Biopsy specimens showed no malignant epithelial tumors or lymphoid hyperplasia. Endoscopic submucosal dissection was performed and the patient was diagnosed with gastric MALT lymphoma. Lymphoma cells were present in the lamina propria mucosae and the submucosa under the non-atrophic fundic gland mucosa, with a feature of homogenous and monotonous growths, which was speculated to have resulted in a protruding morphology similar to that of submucosal tumors. Endoscopic submucosal dissection can be an alternative diagnostic option for gastric MALT lymphoma when the initial pathological diagnosis based on biopsy specimens is difficult.

Mucosal incision-assisted biopsy versus endoscopic ultrasound-assisted tissue acquisition for subepithelial lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) for tissue acquisition (TA) from subepithelial lesions (SELs) is emerging as an alternative to endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided TA. Only a limited number of studies compared the diagnostic utility of MIAB and EUS for upper gastrointestinal (GI) SELs; therefore, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search from January 2020 to January 2022 was performed to compare the diagnostic accuracy and safety of MIAB and EUS-guided TA for upper GI SELs.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled technical success rate (risk ratio [RR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89-1.04) and procedural time (mean difference=-4.53 seconds; 95% CI, -22.38 to 13.31] were comparable between both the groups. The overall chance of obtaining a positive diagnostic yield was lower with EUS than with MIAB for all lesions (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.98) but comparable when using a fine-needle biopsy needle (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.83-1.04). The positive diagnostic yield of MIAB was higher for lesions <20 mm (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63-0.89). Six studies reported no adverse events.

CONCLUSION

MIAB can be considered an effective alternative to EUS-guided TA for upper GI SELs without an increased risk of adverse events.