Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and trucut biopsy in the diagnosis of gastric stromal tumors: a randomized crossover study

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.

Hallmarks and novel insights for gastrointestinal stromal tumors: A bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

Due to the increasing recognition of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST), novel insights have appeared in both preclinical and clinical research and begun to reshape the field. This study aims to map the research landscape through bibliometric analysis and provide a brief overview for the future of the GIST field.

METHODS

We searched the Web of Science Core Collection without publication data restrictions for GISTs and performed a bibliometric analysis with CiteSpace and VOSviewer software.

RESULTS

In sum, 5,911 of 13,776 records were included, and these studies were published in 948 journals and written by 24,965 authors from 4,633 institutions in 100 countries. Referring to published reviews and bibliometric analysis, we classified the future trends in four groups. In epidemiological study, precise incidence and clinicopathological features in different regions and races might become potential hotspots. Novel therapy, such as drugs, modified strategies, radioligand therapy, was persistent hotspots in GIST fields, and ctDNA-guided diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment might meet future clinical needs. The debate over serosa surgery vs. mucosa surgery will remain active for a long time in GIST surgery, and function reserve surgery, biology-based surgery will play an important role in future. Moreover, rare GIST type, like NF-1-associated GIST, Carney triads and SDH mutant GIST, need more studies in pathogenesis and genetic mutation to provide appropriate treatment for this orphan GIST patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Potential hotspots in future GIST trends might involve epidemiology, agents, resection therapy and rare type GIST, moreover, researchers could pay more attention in these four fields.

Laparoscopic resection for gastric schwannoma larger than 30 mm with long-term outcomes

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Laparoscopic resection has been reported as effective and safe for gastric schwannoma (GS) in the form of case reports. However, study on laparoscopic surgery in patients with GS larger than 30 mm has been rarely reported. To this end, the present study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic resection for the treatment of GS larger than 30 mm and its long-term outcomes.

METHODS

This is a retrospective case series study of patients with GS larger than 30 mm who underwent laparoscopic resection at our hospital between January 2014 and December 2020. Clinical pathology, surgical and follow-up data were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 10 patients with a mean age of 51.6 years were included. Seven tumors were located in gastric body, 2 in antrum and 1 in fundus. Laparoscopic gastric wedge resection was performed in 7 patients, while laparoscopic gastric local resection was performed in 3 patients. All patients achieved complete resection. The mean operation time was 112.6 ± 34.3 min, and the mean postoperative hospital stay was 13.8 ± 5.1 days. Postoperative gastroplegia occurred in 2 patients and was treated with conservative therapy. No recurrence, metastasis or residue was found during the follow-up of mean 45.1 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic resection is a safe and effective method for treating GS larger than 30 mm with favorable long-term follow-up outcomes. Laparoscopic resection may be considered as the first-line treatment for GS larger than 30 mm.

Gastric defect closure after endoscopic full-thickness resection: the closing while dissecting technique

BACKGROUND

Complete closure of gastric wall defects is critical following endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and clinical outcome of a new endoscopic method: closing while dissecting.

METHODS

Twenty-seven patients who underwent EFTR were retrospectively analyzed between January 2020 and March 2021. Gastric defects resulting from EFTR were closed using the "interrupted-close during dissection" technique with endoclips. Tumor characteristics, en bloc resection rates, and postoperative adverse events were evaluated.

RESULTS

All submucosal tumors were successfully resected and complete resection was histologically confirmed. The mean maximal tumor diameter was 1.3 cm (ranging from 0.8 to 3.0 cm). The majority of these tumors were gastrointestinal stromal tumors (n = 20), Leiomyoma (n = 3), schwannomas (n = 2), others included fibroma (n = 1) and neurogenic tumor (n = 1). There were no cases of hemorrhage, peritonitis, or delayed perforation. Four patients complained of slight abdominal pain, but no hyperpyrexia or serious elevated white blood cell count was detected in the first 24 h after treatment. All wounds were healed on follow-up endoscopy 3 months after the procedure. The mean follow-up duration was 8.5 months (ranging from 3 to 17) and no tumor recurrences were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The feasibility and safety of this interrupted-close during dissection approach allows for clinical applications in EFTR of gastric submucosal tumors.

Efficacy of ultrasound endoscopy with artificial intelligence for the differential diagnosis of non-gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are common subepithelial lesions (SELs) and require treatment considering their malignant potential. We recently developed an endoscopic ultrasound-based artificial intelligence (EUS-AI) system to differentiate GISTs from non-GISTs in gastric SELs, which were used to train the system. We assessed whether the EUS-AI system designed for diagnosing gastric GISTs could be applied to non-gastric GISTs. Between January 2015 and January 2021, 52 patients with non-gastric SELs (esophagus, n = 15; duodenum, n = 26; colon, n = 11) were enrolled. The ability of EUS-AI to differentiate GISTs from non-GISTs in non-gastric SELs was examined. The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of EUS-AI for discriminating GISTs from non-GISTs in non-gastric SELs were 94.4%, 100%, and 86.1%, respectively, with an area under the curve of 0.98 based on the cutoff value set using the Youden index. In the subanalysis, the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of EUS-AI were highest in the esophagus (100%, 100%, 100%; duodenum, 96.2%, 100%, 0%; colon, 90.9%, 100%, 0%); the cutoff values were determined using the Youden index or the value determined using stomach cases. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-AI increased as lesion size increased, regardless of lesion location. EUS-AI based on gastric SELs had good diagnostic ability for non-gastric GISTs.

A Gastroenterologist's Approach to the Diagnosis and Management of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are the most common mesenchymal tumors of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. These tumors have been shown to harbor oncogenic mutations of the c-kit tyrosine kinase receptor or platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha (PDGFRA). Immunohistochemical analysis of GISTs allows for the differentiation of these tumors from other mesenchymal tumors of the GI tract such as leiomyomas and leiomyosarcomas. All GISTs have the potential to behave in a malignant fashion. Tumor location, size, and mitotic index are factors used to predict the risk of malignant behavior. Endoscopy and endoscopic ultrasound play a critical role in the diagnosis of GISTs and can yield important information to further risk-stratify tumors and determine management. This article provides a gastroenterologist's perspective on the diagnosis and management of GISTs.

Comparison of diagnostic performances of slow-pull suction and standard suction in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy for gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors

Background/Aims

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is integral to the diagnosis of gastrointestinal (GI) subepithelial tumors (SETs). The impact of different EUS-FNB tissue sampling techniques on specimen adequacy and diagnostic accuracy in SETs has not been fully evaluated. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic outcomes of slow-pull (SP) and standard suction (SS) in patients with GI SETs.

Methods

In this retrospective comparative study, 54 patients were enrolled. Medical records were reviewed for location and size of the target lesion, FNB needle type/size, technical order, specimen adequacy, diagnostic yield, and adverse events. The acquisition rate of adequate specimens and diagnostic accuracy were compared according to EUS-FNB techniques.

Results

The mean lesion size was 42.6±36.4 mm, and most patients were diagnosed with GI stromal tumor (75.9%). The overall diagnostic accuracies of the SP and SS techniques were 83.3% and 81.5%, respectively (p=0.800). The rates of obtaining adequate core tissue were 79.6% and 75.9%, respectively (p=0.799). No significant clinical factors affected the rate of obtaining adequate core tissue, including lesion location and size, FNB needle size, and final diagnosis.

Conclusions

SP and SS had comparable diagnostic accuracies and adequate core tissue acquisition for GI SETs via EUS-FNB.

How to Approach Submucosal Lesions in the Gastrointestinal Tract: Different Ideas between China and USA

Between 2019 and 2020, the author Gao pursued advanced endoscopic training at the University of Mississippi Medical Center in the USA. She experienced certain different ideas between the East (China) and the West (USA) in terms of endoscopic approach to the submucosal tumors (SMTs) or lesions in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. In the West (USA), when SMTs are found on gastroscopy, the main goal of endoscopists is to obtain a tissue diagnosis through endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration or biopsy (EUS-FNA or FNB) or single incision needle-knife biopsy (SINK); if immunohistochemical tests confirmed the GISTs, the first-line treatment is local surgery, that is, diagnosis before treatment, whereas in China, SMTs will be completely resected with endoscopic technology for those with no lymph node metastasis or extremely low risk of lymph node metastasis. There may not be pathological tissue at first, that is, treatment before diagnosis.

Prediction of Gastric Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors before Operation: A Retrospective Analysis of Gastric Subepithelial Tumors

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), leiomyomas, and schwannomas are the most common gastric subepithelial tumors (GSETs) with similar endoscopic findings. Preoperative prediction of GSETs is difficult. This study analyzed and predicted GSET diagnosis through a retrospective review of 395 patients who underwent surgical resection of GISTs, leiomyomas, and schwannomas measuring 2–10 cm. GSETs were divided by size (group 2–5, >2 and ≤5 cm; group 5–10, >5 and ≤10 cm) for analysis. Demographics, clinical symptoms, and images were analyzed. A recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) was used to identify optimal classifications for specific GSET diagnoses. GIST patients were relatively older than other patients. Both groups had higher proportions of UGI bleeding, lower hemoglobin (Hb) levels, and a higher ratio of necrosis on their computed tomography (CT) scans. The RPA tree showed that (a) age ≤ 55, Hb ≥ 10.7, and CT necrosis; (b) age ≤ 55 and Hb < 10.7; (c) age >55 and Hb < 12.9; and (d) age >55 and CT hetero-/homogeneity can predict high GIST risk in group 2–5. Positive or negative CT necrosis, with age >55, can predict high GIST risk in group 5–10. GIST patients were older and presented with low Hb levels and tumor necrosis. In RPA, the accuracy reached 85% and 89% in groups 2–5 and 5–10, respectively.

The Pathologic Confirmation in Subepithelial Tumors

Background/Aims: Subepithelial tumors (SETs) are small, mostly asymptomatic lesions with normal overlying mucosa, usually identified incidentally on endoscopy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the pathologic diagnosis of SETs, and to assess the diagnostic yield and impact of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) biopsy on the management of patients with SETs.Materials and Methods: We included 52 subepithelial lesions in this study during the study period. Inclusion criteria included size of the SET >2 cm, and a gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) that cannot be excluded using EUS. We performed an endoscopic biopsy of each SET using the ESD technique.Results: The mean diameter of the lesions was 24.15±6.0 mm. The diagnostic yield of this method was 96.15%. Among the 52 participants, 45 were located in the stomach, four in the esophagus, and three in the duodenum. The pathologic diagnoses included: 17 leiomyomas, 13 GISTs, 11 ectopic pancreases, two carcinomas, two inflammatory fibroid polyps, two Brunner’s gland hyperplasia, two lipomas, one glomus tumor, and two remained undiagnosed. The mean duration of the procedure was 13.44±2.41 minutes. Three complications were associated with the procedure.Conclusions: Deep biopsy via ESD is useful in determining the histopathologic nature of SETs. This method minimizes the need for unnecessary surgery in benign SETs.

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.

Multicenter analysis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors in inner Mongolia of China: A study of 804 cases

INTRODUCTION

To analyze the clinicopathological characteristics, immunohistochemistry, genotyping and prognosis of patients in the multicenter GIST data in Inner Mongolia, China.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was performed on GIST data from January 2013 to January 2018 in Inner Mongolia. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the clinical characteristics of GIST patients. The Chi-square test was performed on the modified NIH criteria by age distribution, and Kaplan-Merie method was used for survival analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 804 patients were included in the GIST database in Inner Mongolia, with a male to female ratio of 1.1102:1. The most common location was the gastric (465). Mitotic count ≤5/50HPFs was found in 67.3 % patients. There were 276 patients with tumor diameter of 2-5 cm and 354 patients with tumor diameter of 5.1-10 cm.The modified NIH criteria was mainly of intermediate risk (210) and high risk (342). The recurrence and metastasis of patients were related to the tumor location, mitotic index, tumor size, and modified NIH criteria. All patients were followed up for 1-10 years, in which 63.1 % of them were followed up for at least three years. The 3-year survival rates of patients with modified NIH criteria of very low risk, low risk, intermediate risk, and high risk were 100 %, 100 %, 100 %, and 96.3 %, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of GIST in middle-aged and elder people in Inner Mongolia is high, and the long-term prognosis of patients after surgical treatment is good, which can objectively reflect the incidence, diagnosis and treatment of GIST in Inner Mongolia.

Performance of a new flexible 19 G EUS needle in pancreatic solid lesions located in the head and uncinate process: A prospective multicenter study

Background and study aims  The poor flexibility of large-bore EUS needles often leads to technical failure when sampling from the duodenum. The aim of this study was to evaluate the technical and diagnostic performances of a new Menghini tip 19G nitinol EUS needle for sampling pancreatic solid lesions in the head and uncinate process. Patients and methods  This was a European prospective multicenter single-arm study. A maximum of four passes were allowed. In case of failure, different needles were permitted. Results  We included 75 patients (51 % males) with lesions in the head (n = 68; 91 %) and uncinate process (n = 7; 9 %) (mean size: 33 ± 12 mm; number of passes: 1.8 ± 0.9). Technical success was seen in 71 of 75 (94.7 %). Diagnostic rates were 89.3 % (67/75) and 94.4 % (67/71) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analysis, respectively. In the eight cases with failure, diagnosis was obtained with another needle (n = 4), from another lesion (n = 3) or with follow-up (n = 1). A histological sample was obtained in 64 patients (ITT 85.3 % and PP 90 %) and immunohistochemistry was successfully performed in 13 of 15 lesions in which it was required. No differences between rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) and non-ROSE groups were observed regarding diagnostic success (87.5 % vs 91 %, P  = 0.582) and diagnosis at the first pass (70 % vs 81 %, P  = 0.289). Number of passes was lower in the ROSE group (1.4 + 0.9 vs 2.2 + 0.7, P  < 0.001). One adverse event was recorded (1.3 %) consisting in a duodenal perforation after a single session EUS-ERCP. Conclusions  The new nitinol Menghini tip 19G EUS needle showed high technical diagnostic success in safely sampling solid lesions in the head and uncinate process of the pancreas.

Gastric Adenocarcinoma Arising from Heterotopic Pancreas Presenting as Gastric Outlet Obstruction 10 Years after the First Diagnosis

Gastric heterotopic pancreas is a relatively uncommon incidental finding. On the other hand, the presentation of gastric adenocarcinoma arising from a heterotopic pancreas is rare. This paper reports a case of gastric adenocarcinoma arising from a heterotopic pancreas that presented as a gastric outlet obstruction 10 years after the initial diagnosis of a suspicious submucosal tumor. Endoscopy revealed a pyloric stricture with prepyloric wall thickening and a complete gastric outlet obstruction. Abdominal and pelvic computed tomography exposed a severely distended gastric lumen at the antrum with heterogeneously enhancing circumferential wall thickening in the prepyloric antrum and pylorus. Because conservative treatment was ineffective and a malignancy could not be excluded, laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy with a gastrojejunostomy was performed for histological confirmation and treatment. The histopathology diagnosis was advanced gastric carcinoma arising from heterotopic pancreatic tissue.

Outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic resection of gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions: a single-center retrospective cohort study

Background

Endoscopic resection (ER) is an emerging therapeutic alternative for subepithelial gastrointestinal lesions (SELs). We aimed to determine whether size, layer of origin, and histology based on endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and EUS-guided sampling (EUS-GS) influenced the outcomes and selection of patients for ER.

Methods

We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent EUS, EUS-GS and resection of SELs from 2012-2019. Two pathologists reviewed the histology and layer of origin of all resected specimens, serving as the criterion for EUS accuracy.

Results

Seventy-three patients were included, of whom 59 (81%) were gastric SELs. Per EUS, median lesion size was 21 mm (interquartile range 15-32), and 63 (86%) originated from the 4th layer. The overall accuracy of EUS and EUS-GS in predicting the layer of origin and histology was 88% (95% confidence interval [CI] 77-94%) and 96% (95%CI 87-98%), respectively. Based on EUS, 18 (25%) patients were referred for ER, 5 (7%) to laparoscopic-endoscopic cooperative surgery, and 50 (68%) to surgery. Size >20 mm was associated with the type of resection approach (P=0.005), while layer of origin and histology were not (P=0.06 and P=0.09, respectively). When SELs were inaccurately classified (n=4) there were no adverse events or revision of the resection approach.

Conclusions

EUS plays an important role in the outcome of resection approach for SELs, with size significantly influencing the selection for ER. In patients undergoing ER, no revised resections were needed when EUS was inaccurate.

Current status of the diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal schwannoma

Gastrointestinal schwannoma is a rare, slow-growing and benign tumor that mostly originates in the Auerbach myenteric nerve plexus in the gastrointestinal tract. The clinical manifestations may be associated with the location, size, differentiation type, and degree of malignancy of the tumor. Endoscopy, ultrasound and imaging examinations serve an important auxiliary role in the clinical identification, diagnosis and differential diagnosis of lesions; assessment of risk; and preparation for surgery. S-100 positivity is a hallmark of schwannoma. CD34, CD117, discovered on GIST-1, P53, ALK, β-catenin, smooth muscle actin and Desmin negativity are helpful for the identification of other gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Surgical removal of the tumor is the main treatment for schwannoma. Benign gastrointestinal schwannoma has a good prognosis without recurrence and metastasis; malignant transformation is extremely rare and has a poor prognosis.

Efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound with artificial intelligence for the diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors

BACKGROUND

Although endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is reported to be suitable for determining the layer from which subepithelial lesions (SELs) originate, it is difficult to distinguish gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) from non-GIST using only EUS images. If artificial intelligence (AI) can be used for the diagnosis of SELs, it should provide several benefits, including objectivity, simplicity, and quickness. In this pilot study, we propose an AI diagnostic system for SELs and evaluate its efficacy.

METHODS

Thirty sets each of EUS images with SELs ≥ 20 mm or < 20 mm were prepared for diagnosis by an EUS diagnostic system with AI (EUS-AI) and three EUS experts. The EUS-AI and EUS experts diagnosed the SELs using solely the EUS images. The concordance rates of the EUS-AI and EUS experts' diagnoses were compared with the pathological findings of the SELs.

RESULTS

The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for SELs < 20 mm were 86.3, 86.3, and 62.5%, respectively for the EUS-AI, and 73.3, 68.2, and 87.5%, respectively, for the EUS experts. In contrast, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for SELs ≥ 20 mm were 90.0, 91.7, and 83.3%, respectively, for the EUS-AI, and 53.3, 50.0, and 83.3%, respectively, for the EUS experts. The area under the curve for the diagnostic yield of the EUS-AI for SELs ≥ 20 mm (0.965) was significantly higher than that (0.684) of the EUS experts (P = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

EUS-AI had a good diagnostic yield for SELs ≥ 20 mm. EUS-AI has potential as a good option for the diagnosis of SELs.

Endoscopic diagnosis and management of gastric subepithelial lesions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this manuscript is to provide an in-depth review of gastric subepithelial lesions (SELs) and describe the current approach to endoscopic diagnosis and management of these lesions.

RECENT FINDINGS

Gastric SELs are a relatively frequent finding on routine endoscopy (incidence 0.2-3%). A systematic approach to diagnosis and management is key because many SELs are of little consequence, while others carry a high risk of malignant transformation. Because esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) cannot delineate depth of invasion or subepithelial appearance, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) should be considered a first-line modality. Recent data suggest EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (FNB) may be superior to traditional fine needle aspiration (FNA) for the diagnosis of gastric SELs due to its ability to obtain histologic specimens for immunohistochemical staining. Alternative techniques for tissue sampling (combined with simultaneous resection) include submucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), submucosal tunnelling with endoscopic resection (STER) or endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR).

SUMMARY

This review details the endoscopic diagnosis and management of gastric SELs. Although EUS-guided sampling remains a first-line strategy (preferably with FNB), recent techniques including ESD, STER and EFTR have the potential to provide additional diagnostic and therapeutic options.

EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling versus FNA in the diagnosis of subepithelial lesions: a large multicenter study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although conventional EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) has previously been considered first-line for sampling subepithelial lesions (SELs), variable accuracy has resulted in increased use of fine-needle biopsy (FNB) sampling to improve diagnostic yield. The primary aim of this study was to compare FNA versus FNB sampling for the diagnosis of SELs.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, retrospective study to evaluate the outcomes of EUS-FNA and EUS-guided FNB sampling (EUS-FNB) of SELs over a 3-year period. Demographics, lesion characteristics, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, number of needle passes, diagnostic adequacy of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), cell block accuracy, and adverse events were analyzed. Subgroup analyses were performed comparing FNA versus FNB sampling by location and diagnostic yield with or without ROSE. Multivariable logistic regression was also performed.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-nine patients with SELs (115 FNA and 114 FNB sampling) underwent EUS-guided sampling. Mean patient age was 60.86 ± 12.84 years. Most lesions were gastric in location (75.55%) and from the fourth layer (71.18%). Cell block for FNB sampling required fewer passes to achieve conclusive diagnosis (2.94 ± 1.09 vs 3.55 ± 1.55; P = .003). The number of passes was not different for ROSE adequacy (P = .167). Immunohistochemistry was more able to be successfully performed in more FNB sampling samples (69.30% vs 40.00%; P < .001). Overall, sensitivity and accuracy were superior for FNB sampling versus FNA (79.41% vs 51.92% [P = .001] and 88.03% vs 77.19% [P = .030], respectively). On subgroup analysis, sensitivity and accuracy of FNB sampling alone was superior to FNA + ROSE (79.03% vs 46.67% [P = .001] and 87.25% vs 68.00% [P = .024], respectively). There was no significant difference in diagnostic yield of FNB sampling alone versus FNB sampling + ROSE (P > .05). Multivariate analysis showed no predictors associated with accuracy. One minor adverse event was reported in the FNA group.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNB was superior to EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of SELs. EUS-FNB was also superior to EUS-FNA alone and EUS-FNA + ROSE. These results suggest EUS-FNB should be considered a first-line modality and may suggest a reduced role for ROSE in the diagnosis of SELs. However, a large randomized controlled trial is required to confirm our findings.

Clinical Characteristics and Surgical Management of Gastrointestinal Schwannomas

Objectives

Schwannomas are tumors arising from Schwan cells of the neural sheath. Gastrointestinal schwannomas (GS) are rare and easily confused with a heterogeneous group of neuroectodermal or mesenchymal neoplasms. The aim of the present study is to analyze the clinicopathological features, surgical management methods, and long-term prognoses of GS patients.

Methods

Between August 2004 and July 2019, 51 patients with GS were treated at the Peking Union Medical College Hospital. The medical records were reviewed retrospectively. A database containing demographic characteristics, clinical symptoms, imaging tests, operation details, pathological results, and prognoses was constructed and analyzed.

Results

GS accounted for 2.0% of all schwannomas. The cohort comprised 19 men (37.3%) and 32 women (62.7%). The mean age was 55.7 ± 11.4 years. The most common symptom was abdominal pain (29.4%). Twenty-seven patients (52.9%) were asymptomatic and diagnosed incidentally. The most common tumor location of GS was the stomach (90.2%). S-100 had the highest positive rate (100%) in immunohistochemical staining. Forty-six patients (90.2%) were followed-up at a mean period of 49.5 ± 41.4 months. Forty-four patients (95.7%) survived without tumor, 1 patient survived with tumor, and 1 patient died. The 5-year cumulative overall survival rate and cumulative disease-free survival rate were 97.5% and 95.2%, respectively.

Conclusion

GS are rare gastrointestinal tumors with favorable prognoses after surgical resection. Stomach is the most common site. Definitive diagnosis is determined by postoperative pathology. S-100 expression has diagnostic significance.

Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors of the Small Intestine: Progress in Diagnosis and Treatment Research

In recent years, the diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) of the small intestine have been a hot topic due to their rarity and non-specific clinical manifestations. With the development of gene and imaging technology, surgery, and molecular targeted drugs, the diagnosis and treatment of GISTs have achieved great success. For a long time, radical resection was prioritized to treat GISTs of the small intestine. At present, preoperative tumor staging is a novel treatment for unresectable malignant tumors. In addition, karyokinesis exponent is the sole independent predictor of progression-free survival of GISTs. The DNA, miRNA, and protein of exosomes have also been found to be biomarkers with prognostic implications. The research on the treatment of GISTs has become a focus in the era of precision medicine, ushering in the use of standardized, normalized, and individualized treatment.

Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma Mimicking Gastric Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor: A Case Report

The presentation of submucosal gastric cancer, especially signet ring cell carcinoma, is rare. The submucosal tumor (SMT) is covered with normal mucosa, and confirmation is difficult through endoscopic biopsy; thus, histologic diagnosis is important to determine the appropriate treatment method. Here, we report a case of gastric signet ring cell carcinoma mimicking gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). A 2-cm-sized SMT suspected of being a GIST on preoperative endoscopic ultrasonography and computed tomography was suspected to be cancerous during surgery. The frozen diagnosis of the resected mass (obtained via wedge resection) showed a carcinoma with signet ring feature, and additional frozen diagnosis of one enlarged lymph node revealed metastatic cancer. Therefore, subtotal gastrectomy with lymph node dissection was performed. This case report suggests that preoperative histologic diagnosis of high-risk SMT might be useful, although the tumor had typical features of GIST on preoperative imaging. Overall, if a tumor is suspected of being a gastric carcinoma during surgery and the differential diagnosis between gastric carcinoma and GIST is uncertain, a careful surgical approach should be considered to account for the possibility of adenocarcinoma.

In vivo real-time diagnosis of endoscopic ultrasound-guided needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy in gastric subepithelial lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The effect of real-time analysis of needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (nCLE) for gastric subepithelial lesions (SELs) on the diagnostic value is unclear. The study aimed to investigate the diagnostic efficacy of real-time nCLE for gastric SELs and to assess the technical aspects and safety of real-time nCLE.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with gastric SELs ≥ 1 cm were prospectively investigated by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), followed by nCLE. During EUS-nCLE, real-time nCLE diagnosis was made by an expert endoscopist. The procedure-relative adverse events were assessed and recorded. One-month washout period later, nCLE videos were reviewed off-line by the same endoscopist. The nCLE diagnoses were compared with corresponding pathological results. Additionally, image quality and interobserver agreements for the criteria were evaluated by three experienced endomicroscopists.

RESULTS

Except for one failing to be punctured, 60 patients completed EUS-nCLE procedures successfully. Real-time nCLE had high diagnostic accuracies of ≥ 88.3% for gastric SELs. There were no significant differences between real-time and off-line nCLE diagnoses for gastric SELs (P > 0.05). The overall accuracy of real-time nCLE for diagnosis of gastric SELs was 86.7%. There were no procedure-relative adverse events occurred. In addition, the mean image quality score was 3.6 (1 = poor and 5 = excellent). The interobserver agreement was "almost perfect" for ectopic pancreas and "substantial" for gastrointestinal stromal tumor, leiomyoma, and carcinoma.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic ultrasound-nCLE could provide in vivo real-time diagnostic imaging with a high diagnostic accuracy. Meanwhile, real-time nCLE was feasible and had a satisfactory safety profile.

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.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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).

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS elastography could be a promising diagnostic adjunct for the assessment of gastric SETs, especially in differentiating GISTs from leiomyomas.

Comparison between two types of needles for Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine aspiration biopsy of pancreatic and upper gastrointestinal masses

BACKGROUND

EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) has long been the main method for sampling pancreatic lesions. Recently, the method of fine-needle biopsy (FNB) was introduced in practice, allowing for the acquisition of tissue cores while aspirating the lesion. We hereby report our experience with a new FNB needle compared with the standard FNA needle.

METHODS

Retrospective data from our department were collected on patients who underwent FNB using the Acquire EUS-FNB needle (Boston Scientific, Massachusetts) and FNA using the EchoTip Ultra EUS-FNA Needle (Cook Medical, Indiana) between January 2017 and February 2018. The cases were reviewed independently by two cytopathologists and evaluated for the presence of cell block or core tissue material, adequacy for potential ancillary testing, and number of passes.

RESULTS

The number of passes ranged from 1 to 16, with a mean of 5.52 ± 3.74 in the FNA group, and from 1 to 6, with a mean of 2.74 ± 1.11 passes in the FNB group (P < .0001). Tissue cores were present in 87.23% of the FNB needle samples. A cell block was adequate in 36.36% of cases using the FNA needle. The diagnostic yield as well as the adequacy for ancillary testing were significantly different between the two groups (P = .0001). The tumor size, location and patients' demographics were not statistically significant between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Compared with the conventional needle, the new FNB needle was associated with a lower number of passes and a better yield for histological material.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy of gastric schwannoma: Cytomorphologic features and diagnostic pitfalls

Schwannoma rarely occurs in the stomach. We present a case of gastric schwannoma, which was initially evaluated by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) biopsy and confirmed by surgical resection. The patient was a 57-years-old woman with history of dyspepsia, who was found to have a large submucosal mass in the stomach. EUS-FNA showed scant spindle cells with abundant lymphocytes. The spindle cells were immunoreactive with S100, while negative for CD117, desmin, and CD34. The lymphocytes were mixed B-cells and T-cells. Immunostaining, flow cytometry, and molecular testing showed no evidence of B-cell lymphoma. The diagnosis of gastric schwannoma was confirmed by histopathological evaluation of the resected tumor. Gastric schwannoma has unique features of mixed spindle cells and lymphocytes. The tumor should be differentiated from other gastric mesenchymal tumors, and lymphoproliferative disorder is a pitfall.

Fine-needle biopsy is superior to fine-needle aspiration of suspected gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a large multicenter study

Background and study aims  There are numerous studies published on the diagnostic yield of the new fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles in pancreas masses. However, there are limited studies in suspected gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST lesions). The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of a new fork-tip FNB needle. Patients and methods  This was a multicenter retrospective study of consecutive patients from prospectively maintained databases comparing endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) versus endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNB (EUS-FNB) using the fork-tip needle. Outcomes measured were cytopathology yield (ability to obtain tissue for analysis of cytology), ability to analyze the tissue for immunohistochemistry (IHC yield), and diagnostic yield (ability to provide a definitive diagnosis). Results  A total of 147 patients were included in the study of which 101 underwent EUS-FNB and 46 patients underwent EUS-FNA. Median lesion size in each group was similar (21 mm vs 25 mm, P  = 0.25). Cytopathology yield, IHC yield, and diagnostic yield were 92 % vs 46 % ( P  = 0.001), 89 % vs 41 % ( P  = 0.001), and 89 % vs 37 % ( P  = 0.001) between the FNB and FNA groups, respectively. Median number of passes was the same between the two groups at 3.5. Conclusion  EUS-FNB is superior to EUS-FNA for diagnostic yield of suspected GIST lesions. This should be confirmed with a prospective study.

Endosonography-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration versus "Key-Hole Biopsy" in the diagnostics of upper gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors. A prospective randomized interventional study

BACKGROUND

The management and prognosis of subepithelial tumors (SETs) of the upper gastrointestinal tract depend on the correct preoperative evaluation, including tissue diagnosis in selected cases. Several methods providing deep tissue sampling for cytological and/or histological examinations have been described but their diagnostic yield and precise position in the diagnostic algorithm remain to be established. This prospective randomized study aims to compare the Endosonography-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration (EUS-FNA) to Key-Hole Biopsy (KHB) in cytological or histological diagnostics of upper gastrointestinal SETs.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study was conducted in a single tertiary endoscopy center in Ostrava, Czech Republic between November 2010 and October 2015. Patients with endoscopically detected SETs of the upper gastrointestinal tract with a diameter ≥ 2 cm, were randomized to either the EUS-FNA with 22G needle, or to the Key Hole biopsy (forceps biopsy through mucosal incision) groups. The main study outcomes were success rate of tissue diagnostics and, in the cases of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumours (GIST), possibility of determining mitotic activity. A cross-over examination was performed in situations where the first method had failed.

RESULTS

A total of 46 consecutive patients were randomized. Of these, 24 (52%) and 22 (48%) were randomized to EUS-FNA group and KHB arm, respectively. 5 SETs (11%) were detected in the esophagus, 40 (87%) in the stomach and 1 (2%) in the duodenum. The definitive diagnosis was established by the first sampling method in 42 (91%) patients, including 22 (92%) in the EUS-FNA group and 20 (91%) in the KHB group (P=0.999), and after a cross-over in another 3 (7%) patients. The most prevalent SET was GIST (70%). Although some mitotic activity could be observed in 11 patients, the mitotic index could be diagnosed in none of them. Of a total of 20 surgically treated patients, preoperative and postoperative tissue diagnosis corresponded in 19/20 (95%) cases, including 100% in FNA group and 91% in KHB group (P=0.999). No adverse events of tissue sampling occurred in the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Deep tissue sampling by EUS-FNA and KHB are equally effective in the diagnostics of SETs of the upper gastrointestinal tract ≥ 2 cm. However, neither EUS-FNA nor KHB provided adequate tissue sample to determine mitotic index.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02025244).

Efficacy of Mucosal Cutting Biopsy for the Histopathological Diagnosis of Gastric Submucosal Tumors

Background

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors occur frequently. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is performed commonly for diagnosis. However, the success rate of histological diagnosis is insufficient when the submucosal tumor (SMT) is small. Recently, another technique, mucosal cutting biopsy (MCB) has been reported. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MCB.

Method

Between January 2012 and August 2018, MCB and EUS-FNA were performed 16 and 31 times for diagnosing gastric SMT. The diagnostic rate, the rate of successful immunohistochemistry, and the safety were reviewed. Difficult locations for EUS-FNA were also evaluated.

Results

The mean SMT sizes measured on MCB and EUS-FNA were 21.2 and 36.2 mm. The diagnostic rates of MCB and EUS-FNA were almost the same (88 vs. 81%), but successful immunohistochemistry was significantly higher in the MCB group (93 vs. 59%, p = 0.03). In the subgroup of SMTs < 20 mm, the successful histological diagnosis rate from EUS-FNA was relatively low. There were no complications. Failures of EUS-FNA were more frequent in the middle third of the stomach.

Conclusions

MCB was an effective procedure for diagnosing gastric SMT, especially in the case of small SMTs located at the middle third of the stomach.

EUS-guided tissue sampling with a 20-gauge core biopsy needle for the characterization of gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions: A multicenter study

Background and Objective:

A new 20-gauge (G) biopsy needle with a core-trap technology has been developed with a large core size and enhanced flexibility. The aim of this multicenter study was to determine the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) with the new 20G needle in diagnosing subepithelial lesions (SELs).

Materials and Methods:

Retrospectively collected data from consecutive patients with SELs undergoing EUS-FNB with the 20G needle at five centers were analyzed.

Results:

A total of 50 SELs were included. The mean lesion size was 43.1 ± 17.5 mm. The lesion locations were esophagus (n = 1), stomach (n = 37), distal duodenum (n = 5), rectum (n = 6), and colon (n = 1). The procedure was technically feasible in all patients. Definitive diagnosis with full histological assessment including immunohistochemistry was obtained in 88% (44/50) of the patients. Considering malignant versus benign lesions, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 85% (95% confidence interval [CI] 70.2–94.3), 100% (95% CI 58.7%–100%), 100% (95% CI 85.1%–100%), and 62.5 (95% CI 27.7–84.8), respectively. No major complications requiring additional care have been observed.

Conclusions:

In this multicenter study, we found that EUS-FNB with the new 20G core needle is an effective and safe method for the diagnosis of SELs with a high rate of producing adequate histological material and high diagnostic accuracy even from difficult-to-approach anatomical locations.

Characterization of subepithelial lesions of the stomach and esophagus by contrast-enhanced EUS: A retrospective study

Background and Objectives:

Subepithelial lesions (SELs) of the upper part of the digestive tract are rare, and it can be difficult to characterize them. Recently, contrast-enhanced endosonography (EUS) and elastometry have been reported as useful adjuncts to EUS and EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in cases of pancreatic mass and lymph node involvement. The aim of this retrospective analysis was to evaluate whether contrast-enhanced EUS can discriminate benign submucosal lesions from malignant ones. We describe our retrospective experience using the contrast agent SonoVue^® (Bracco Imaging, Milan, Italy) in an attempt to increase the diagnostic yield.

Patients and Methods:

Between May 2011 and September 2014, 14 patients (5 men, 9 women; median age 64 years, range 31–80 years) with SELs of the stomach or esophagus underwent EUS with SonoVue^® (low mechanical index). There were 3 esophageal lesions and 11 gastric lesions. Mean size of the lesions was 30 mm (range 11–50 mm). They were discovered after anemia (n = 5), dysphagia (n = 1), and pain (n = 4) and during follow-up for resected gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) (n = 1) and a standard upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (n = 3). On endoscopic sonograms, 10 of these lesions were hypoechoic and located in the fourth layer (muscularis), and 4 were in the second or third layer (mucosa and submucosa). Contrast enhancement was assessed in the early phase (after several seconds) and late phase (>30 seconds); a final diagnosis was made based on the findings of EUS-FNA using a 19-gauge ProCore (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN) (n = 9) or 22-gauge FNA system (Cook Medical) (n = 1), the resected specimen (n = 3), or deep biopsy (n = 1). Different immunostaining was used in the pathologic studies (RNA was analyzed later using the C-kit, CD-117, CD-34, desmin, DOG-1, α-smooth actin, caldesmon, PS-100, and Ki-67 antibodies).

Results:

Final diagnoses were leiomyoma (n = 4), GIST (n = 5), schwannoma (n = 1), inflammatory tumor of Helvig (n = 1), pancreas rest (n = 2), and fibrosis (n = 1). No complications occurred. All 5 GISTs showed enhancement in the early and late phases, whereas the 8 remaining lesions did not show any enhancement. Only 1 leiomyoma showed heterogeneous enhancement.

Limitations:

The monocentric and retrospective study design and small number of patients.

Conclusions:

In cases of SELs of the stomach or esophagus, SonoVue^® could be a complementary tool to endosonography to differentiate GISTs (early and clear enhancement) from other SELs (few or no enhancement), such as leiomyomas or pancreatic rest. These results are similar to those of the few, small studies published on this topic, but more studies with a larger number of patients are needed to confirm these findings.

Feasibility of a 20-gauge ProCore needle in EUS-guided subepithelial tumor sampling: a prospective multicenter study

Background

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) may facilitate tissue acquisition for a definitive diagnosis of gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors (SETs). This study aimed to determine the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNB using a novel 20-gauge ProCore needle with a coiled sheath in tissue sampling of gastrointestinal SETs.

Methods

Between July 2016 and February 2017, 39 patients with gastrointestinal SETs were prospectively recruited from six university hospitals in Korea. Hypoechoic SETs ≥2 cm in size and originating from the submucosal and/or muscularis propria layer under EUS were eligible. This study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02884154).

Results

A total of 36 patients were included in the final analyses. EUS-FNB was diagnostic in 88.9% of SETs. Tissue adequacy was judged as optimal in 97.2% of FNB specimens according to on-site visual evaluation by endosonographers, and in 88.9% of specimens according to pathologists. A macroscopically optimal core sample was obtained with two needle passes in 94.4% of cases. Technical failure rate was encountered in two cases (5.6%) after two needle passes. There were two cases (5.6%) of bleeding, which was managed endoscopically.

Conclusions

EUS-FNB using a 20-gauge ProCore needle is a technically feasible and effective modality for histopathologic diagnosis of gastrointestinal SETs, providing adequate core samples with fewer needle passes;ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02884154.

A Novel Method of Diagnosing Aberrant Pancreas: Needle-based Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy

Aberrant pancreas is defined as pancreatic tissue present outside of the pancreas and is often found incidentally during esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Obtaining sufficient tissue to differentiate aberrant pancreas from other subepithelial lesions is sometimes difficult. Due to the lack of a definitive diagnosis, patients often undergo unnecessary surgery. We herein report the first case of aberrant pancreas in which the concomitant use of needle-based probe confocal laser endomicroscopy and fine-needle aspiration supported the final diagnosis. Needle-based probe confocal laser endomicroscopy provides a real-time in vivo histopathology evaluation and may be a feasible means of diagnosing aberrant pancreas.

EUS-FNA WITH 19 OR 22 GAUGES NEEDLES FOR GASTRIC SUBEPITHELIAL LESIONS OF THE MUSCLE LAYER

Background:

Tissue diagnosis is required for gastric subepithelial lesions for differential diagnosis of GISTs. However, there has not been consensus about the best needle for EUS-guided sampling of these lesions.

Aim:

To evaluate the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA for gastric subepithelial lesions of the proper muscle layer with large-bore 19 gauge needles.

Methods:

A prospectively maintained database was retrospectively reviewed to identify consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNA with 19 and 22 gauge needles for gastric subepithelial lesions of the fourth endosonographic layer in a tertiary care referral center. EUS-FNA was performed by the same endosonographer, using the fanning technique, without on-site cytopathologist. Specimens were analysed through cell blocks by the same pathologist. Procedure results were categorized into diagnostic, defined as enough material for histopathology and immunohistochemistry, or nondiagnostic.

Results:

Eighty-nine patients (mean age: 59 years, 77% women) underwent 92 EUS-FNA with 19 (75) or 22 (17) gauge needles. Mean lesion size was 22.6 mm. Overall diagnostic yield was 88%. The diagnostic yield of 19 gauge was higher than that of 22 gauge needle (92%x70.6%; p=0.0410), and similar for lesions >2 cm and <2 cm (93.7%x90.7%; p=0.9563). The best performance for 19 gauge needles was obtained performing <3 needle passes. Complication rate was 2.8%.

Conclusions:

Diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA with 19 gauge needles is 92% for gastric subepithelial lesions of the proper muscle layer. It is safe and highly valuable for differentiation between GIST and leiomyoma, no matter the size of the lesion.

A promising Forcep Strip Method for gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors originating from the muscularis propria

BACKGROUND

Subepithelial tumors (SETs) originating from the muscularis propria layer are unlikely to be resected completely and safely. We developed the Forcep Strip Method (FSM) for the resection of SETs in the stomach.

AIMS

This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of the FSM.

METHODS

Endoscopic SET resection using electrical forceps was performed in 11 consecutive patients with clinical indications for lesion removal. Following injection around the tumor, the adjacent mucosa or submucosa was grasped with the hot forceps and pulled away to form a "tent". The tumor was dissected from the muscularis propria layer and carefully removed using coagulating forceps.

RESULTS

The FSM was successful in 10 of the 11 patients in the series; one patient required surgery due to respiratory depression during the procedure. The complete resection rate was 100% and no major complications including bleeding and perforation occurred. Mean procedure time was 39.3 ± 14.7 min, mean hospitalization time was 5.0 ± 1.2 days, and mean tumor size was 17.1 ± 4.7 mm.

CONCLUSION

FSM was found to be an easy, safe, and effective procedure for the treatment of gastric SETs originating from the muscularis propria layer.

Randomized crossover trial comparing EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration with EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy for gastric subepithelial tumors

AIM

The purpose of this study is to compare the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for gastric subepithelial tumors (SET).

METHODS

Patients diagnosed SET derived from fourth layer of the stomach were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned to undergo both EUS-FNA using standard needle and EUS-FNB using a core biopsy needle alternatively to the same lesion a total of four times per session. The specimen was carefully examined for the presence of a macroscopic visible core, appearing as threadlike yellowish or bloody pieces of tissue and blinded histocytologic analyses were conducted. For spindle cell lesions by hematoxylin and eosin staining (H&E) on histologic evaluation, immunohistochemical staining was performed in all cases to confirm the pathological diagnosis.

RESULTS

A total of 23 patients were enrolled and underwent paired EUS-FNA and -FNB sampling. The diagnostic rate due to immunohistochemical staining was 73.9% and 91.3%, respectively (P = .120). The rate of obtaining specimens with a macroscopic yellowish core and only a bloody core among the tissue specimens were respectively 43.5% and 52.2% for EUS-FNA and 69.6% and 30.4% for EUS-FNB. The diagnostic rate for a yellowish core (84.6%) and a bloody core (84.2%, P = .971) did not differ significantly.

CONCLUSION

Both techniques were equivalently safe and successful in terms of a high diagnostic yield for gastric SET. And the tissue that can be immunohistochemically stained is present even in the specimens that appear to be a macroscopically bloody core.

Comparison of FNA and fine-needle biopsy for EUS-guided sampling of suspected GI stromal tumors

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Subepithelial lesions are found in about 1% of all EGD procedures, and GI stromal tumors are a type of subepithelial lesion commonly encountered. Although the majority of subepithelial lesions are benign, GI stromal tumors have malignant potential, making a definitive diagnosis important. Currently, the criterion standard for the diagnosis of GI stromal tumors is EUS-directed FNA (EUS-FNA). The definitive diagnosis of GI stromal tumors relies on immunohistochemical staining, which depends on enough tissue being submitted to the pathologist. Achieving adequate tissue acquisition from suspected GI stromal tumors by EUS-FNA remains a limitation. Advancements in needle design, however, have improved tissue acquisition and therefore may improve the definitive diagnosis of GI stromal tumors by EUS-FNA. The goal of this study is to compare a fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needle (SharkCore, Medtronics) with FNA needles in definitively diagnosing suspected GI stromal tumors.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, single-center study of consecutive patients with suspected GI stromal tumors by EUS characterization who underwent EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB.

RESULTS

A total of 106 patients (53 men, mean [± standard deviation {SD}] age 62.19 ± 16.33 years) were included in the study undergoing EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB of suspected GI stromal tumors. The needle size that was used most often was 22 gauge in both groups. The average size of the lesions was 27.68 ± 15.70 mm; 71.7% of lesions were located in stomach, 19.8% in the esophagus, 5.7% in the duodenum, and 2.8% in the rectosigmoid colon. Ninety-one patients underwent EUS-FNA and 15 patients underwent EUS-FNB. Adequate tissue was procured, allowing immunohistochemical staining in 59 (64.8%) patients in the FNA group and 15 (100%) patients in the FNB group; P = .006. A diagnosis was reached by immunohistochemical staining in 48 (52.7%) patients in the FNA group and 13 (86.7%) patients in the FNB group; P = .01. Tissue was insufficient to make a cytologic diagnosis in 22 (24.2%) patients in the FNA group compared with none in the FNB group; P = .03. Adequate tissue was procured on the first pass of the FNB needle in the majority of patients (83.3%), whereas only 23.5% of patients had adequate tissue on the first pass by the FNA needle, with a median of 3 passes; P = .00. Tissue was insufficient to perform immunohistochemical staining, and thus a diagnosis could not be confirmed before surgery in 8 of the 34 surgical patients in the FNA group. Ten of 15 patients in the EUS-FNB group underwent surgery, all of whom were correctly diagnosed by FNB. There were no reported immediate adverse events or technical difficulties in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNB by using a SharkCore needle for suspected GI stromal tumors is technically similar and equally safe as FNA, with better tissue acquisition, which was achieved with fewer needle passes and an improved diagnostic yield by immunohistochemical staining.

Characterizing gastrointestinal stromal tumors and evaluating neoadjuvant imatinib by sequencing of endoscopic ultrasound-biopsies

AIM

To evaluate endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biopsies for the pretreatment characterization of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) to personalize the management of patients.

METHODS

All patients with lesions suspected to be GIST who were referred for EUS-sampling at a tertiary Swedish center were eligible for inclusion 2006-2015. During the observational study phase (2006-2011), routine fine-needle-aspiration (EUS-FNA) was performed. In 2012-2015, we converted to an interventional, randomized protocol with dual sampling EUS-FNA and fine-needle-biopsy-sampling (EUS-FNB) for all lesions. c-KIT- and DOG-1-immunostaining was attempted in all samples and a manual count of the Ki-67-index was performed. FNB-sampled tissue and the resected specimens were subjected to Sanger sequencing of the KIT and platelet-derived growth factor alpha (PDGFRA) genes.

RESULTS

In all, 64 unique patients with GIST were included, and of these, 38 were subjected to pretreatment dual sampling. EUS-FNB had a higher diagnostic sensitivity when compared head-to-head with EUS-FNA (98% vs 58%, P < 0.001) and was more adequate for Ki-67-indexing (Ki-67_EUS) (92% vs 40%, P < 0.001). Sequencing of EUS-biopsies was successful in 43/44 (98%) patients, and the mutation profiles (KIT-mutation 73%, PDGFRA-mutation 18%, wild-type 7%) were fully congruent with those detected in the corresponding resected specimens. In imatinib-naïve patients, the Ki-67_EUS was comparable with the Ki-67-index in the corresponding surgical specimens (Ki-67_SURG) (2.7% vs 2.9%, P = 0.68). In patients treated with neoadjuvant imatinib who also carried mutations indicating sensitivity, the Ki-67_EUS was higher than the Ki-67_SURG (2.5% vs 0.2%, P = 0.005), with a significant reduction in the Ki-67-index of -91.5% (95%CI: -82.4 to -96.0, P = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

EUS-guided biopsy sampling is accurate for the pretreatment diagnosis and characterization of GISTs and allows the prediction and evaluation of tumor response to neoadjuvant imatinib therapy.

High clinical impact and diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided biopsy sampling of subepithelial lesions: a prospective, comparative study

Background

In a tertiary center setting we aimed to study the diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of EUS-guided biopsy sampling (EUS-FNB) with a reverse bevel needle compared with that of fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in the work-up of subepithelial lesions (SEL).

Methods

All patients presenting with SELs referred for EUS-guided sampling were prospectively included in 2012–2015. After randomization of the first pass modality, dual sampling with both EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA was performed in each lesion. Outcome measures in an intention-to-diagnose analysis were the diagnostic accuracy, technical failures, and adverse events. The clinical impact was measured as the performance of additional diagnostic procedures post-EUS and the rate of unwarranted resections compared with a reference cohort of SELs sampled in the same institution 2006–2011.

Results

In 70 dual sampling procedures of unique lesions (size: 6–220 mm) the diagnostic sensitivity for malignancy and the overall accuracy of EUS-FNB was superior to EUS-FNA compared head-to-head (90 vs 52%, and 83 vs 49%, both p < 0.001). The adverse event rate of EUS-FNB was low (1.2%). EUS-FNB in 2012–2015 had a positive clinical impact in comparison with the reference cohort demonstrated by less cases referred for an additional diagnostic procedure, 12/83 (14%) vs 39/73 (53%), p < 0.001, and fewer unwarranted resections in cases subjected to surgery, 3/48 (6%) vs 12/35 (34%), p = 0.001.

Conclusions

EUS-FNB with a reverse bevel needle is safe and superior to EUS-FNA in providing a conclusive diagnosis of subepithelial lesions. This biopsy sampling approach facilitates a rational clinical management and accurate treatment.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00464-017-5808-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Comparison of submucosal tunneling biopsy versus EUS-guided FNA for gastric subepithelial lesions: a prospective study with crossover design

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) for gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions (SELs) has limited diagnostic accuracy due to technical problems and small lesion size. We previously reported a novel submucosal tunneling biopsy (STB) technique for sampling SELs. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic ability and safety of STB compared to that of FNA for SELs.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study was a non-randomized, prospective comparative study with crossover design in patients with endoluminal gastric SELs. Forty-three patients, including 29 cases with lesions < 2 cm were enrolled. A crossover design with 2 intervention stages (Group A: FNA followed by STB for 23 SELs, Group B: STB followed by FNA for 20 SELs) was implemented. The primary outcome was the diagnostic yield (DY). Secondary outcomes were technical success rate, procedure time, complication rate, and sample quality.

RESULTS

The DY of STB was significantly higher than that of FNA (100 % vs. 34.8 %; P  < 0.0001) in group A, including 100 % in overall STB. The technical success rate of STB was significantly higher than that of FNA (100 % vs. 56.5 %; P  = 0.0006), whereas the median procedure time of STB was significantly longer than that of FNA (37 minutes vs. 18 minutes; P  < 0.0001). The median specimen area of STB samples was markedly larger than that of FNA samples (5.54 mm 2 vs. 0.69 mm 2 ; P  < 0.001). No complications occurred in either method.

CONCLUSIONS

 STB had significantly superior diagnostic ability and a more adequate sample quality than FNA for endoluminal gastric SELs, indicating the suitability of STB for small SELs.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN 000006754.

Endoscopic submucosal resection of gastric subepithelial lesions smaller than 20 mm: a comparison of saline solution-assisted snare and cap band mucosectomy techniques

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Application of endoscopic submucosal resection (ESMR) in the management of gastric subepithelial lesions (GSLs) less than 20 mm is gradually increasing because it allows diagnosis and treatment at the same operative session. In this study, we compare and evaluate the benefits of ESMR with an endoscopic cap band mucosectomy technique or saline solution-assisted snare technique in GSLs smaller than 20 mm.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database used at 2 academic tertiary care centers. A total of 63 patients (34 females, mean age 52 years) with endoscopically resected GSLs were included in this study.

RESULTS

The mean tumor size determined by EUS was 12.3 mm (range, 5-20 mm). Sixty-seven percent of the GSLs were localized in the antrum in all groups. The endoscopic cap band mucosectomy technique was used to resect 32 (50.8%) GSLs, whereas 31 (49.2%) were resected with the saline solution-assisted snare technique. The en bloc resection rates were 97% for the saline solution-assisted snare technique and 100% for the endoscopic cap band mucosectomy. Intraoperative bleeding occurred in 1 of 31 patients (3.2%) when ESMR was performed with the saline solution-assisted snare technique. Postoperative bleeding was seen in 1 of 32 patients (3.1%) who underwent the endoscopic cap band mucosectomy technique.

CONCLUSIONS

In GSLs smaller than 20 mm, ESMR with saline solution-assisted snare or endoscopic cap band mucosectomy techniques is safe, the adverse event rate is low, accurate diagnosis is achieved, and treatment with en bloc resection is provided in a single session. Given similar success and adverse event rates, saline solution-assisted ESMR may be the preferred technique because of its lower cost advantages.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been used to remove submucosal tumors. However, with regard to the potential malignant behavior of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), whether ESD can be recommended for treatment is still controversial. Therefore, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of ESD for removal of GISTs in the muscularis propria (MP) layer and to assess the possible risk factors for a gastric-wall defect (GWD).

METHODS

For 168 GISTs located in the MP layer from 168 consecutive patients, the baseline information, complications, and therapeutic outcomes were recorded. Subsequently, risk factors for a GWD were analyzed.

RESULTS

Most GISTs (106/168) were located in the fundus of the stomach. Tumor shapes in 154 patients (91.7%) were regular, and the median size of the tumor was 1.5 (range 0.5-6.0) cm. The en bloc resection rate was 100% and the median procedure time was 46.5 (33-181) min. A GWD was observed in 71 patients (42.3%) and delayed bleeding occurred in 2 patients (1.2%), and they were treated by clips. A total of 117 patients with a GIST were at very low risk, 37 patients were at low risk, and 14 patients were at mild risk. No local recurrences or distant metastases were observed during a median follow-up of 25 (6-67) months. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses identified the tumor type to be an independent risk factor for a GWD during ESD (odds ratio 29.82, 95% confidence interval 10.87-81.80, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

ESD is a safe and feasible method for gastric GISTs, especially for tumor types A and B. Endoscopic ultrasound can aid evaluation of the tumor type before ESD, which is an independent risk factor correlated with a GWD upon ESD.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling of small subepithelial tumors of the upper gastrointestinal tract with a 22-gauge core biopsy needle

Background and study aims The optimal approach to small subepithelial tumors (SETs) of the upper gastrointestinal tract remains inconclusive. The aim of this study was to evaluate endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for less invasive tissue sampling of small SETs of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Patients and methods In this prospective observational study patients with small ( ≤ 3 cm) SETs of the upper gastrointestinal tract were eligible and underwent EUS-FNB with a 22-gauge core biopsy needle. The main outcome measure was the diagnostic yield. The number of obtained core biopsies was also assessed. Results Twenty patients were included. The mean SET size was 16 mm (range 10 - 27 mm). EUS-FNB was technically feasible in all cases and no complications were observed. The diagnostic yield was 75 %. Core biopsy specimens were obtained in only 25 % of cases. Conclusion EUS-FNB with a 22-gauge core biopsy needle of small SETs can achieve a definite diagnosis in the majority of cases. However, because core samples cannot regularly be obtained, EUS-FNB seems not to be convincingly superior to standard EUS-FNA in this setting.

Optimizing EUS-guided liver biopsy sampling: comprehensive assessment of needle types and tissue acquisition techniques

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EUS-guided liver biopsy sampling using FNA and, more recently, fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles has been reported with discrepant diagnostic accuracy, in part due to differences in methodology. We aimed to compare liver histologic yields of 4 EUS-based needles and 2 percutaneous needles to identify optimal number of needle passes and suction.

METHODS

Six needle types were tested on human cadaveric tissue: one 19G FNA needle, one existing 19G FNB needle, one novel 19G FNB needle, one 22G FNB needle, and two 18G percutaneous needles (18G1 and 18G2). Two needle excursion patterns (1 vs 3 fanning passes) were performed on all EUS needles. Primary outcome was number of portal tracts. Secondary outcomes were degree of fragmentation and specimen adequacy. Pairwise comparisons were performed using t tests, with a 2-sided P < .05 considered to be significant. Multivariable regression analysis was performed.

RESULTS

In total, 288 liver biopsy samplings (48 per needle type) were performed. The novel 19G FNB needle had significantly increased mean portal tracts compared with all needle types. The 22G FNB needle had significantly increased portal tracts compared with the 18G1 needle (3.8 vs 2.5, P < .001) and was not statistically different from the 18G2 needle (3.8 vs 3.5, P = .68). FNB needles (P < .001) and 3 fanning passes (P ≤ .001) were independent predictors of the number of portal tracts.

CONCLUSIONS

A novel 19G EUS-guided liver biopsy needle provides superior histologic yield compared with 18G percutaneous needles and existing 19G FNA and core needles. Moreover, the 22G FNB needle may be adequate for liver biopsy sampling. Investigations are underway to determine whether these results can be replicated in a clinical setting.