Are endoscopic ultrasonography imaging characteristics reliable for the diagnosis of small upper gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions?

Total removal of a large esophageal schwannoma by submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection: A case report and review of literature

BACKGROUND

Primary schwannoma is a rare submucosal tumor of the esophagus, which is most often benign, and surgery is the only effective treatment. So far, only a few cases have been reported. Herein, we reported a single case diagnosed with primary esophageal schwannoma that was totally removed by submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection (STER).

CASE SUMMARY

A 62-year-old man presented to the hospital with a history of resection of a malignant gastric tumor and mild dysphagia. Endoscopic examination revealed a large submucosal elevated lesion in the esophagus 25-30 cm from the incisors. Endoscopic ultrasonography detected a 45 mm × 35 mm × 31 mm hypoechoic lesion; chest computed tomography showed a mass of approximately 55 mm × 35 mm × 29 mm. A preliminary examination showed features suggestive of a stromal tumor. Pathological findings indicated esophageal schwannoma. Next, STER alone was performed to completely resect the mass, and the patient recovered well post-surgery. Afterward, the patient was discharged and showed no tumor recurrence at 33 mo of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic resection is still an effective treatment for large esophageal schwannomas (> 30 mm) under meticulous morphological evaluation.

ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Gastrointestinal Subepithelial Lesions

Subepithelial lesions (SEL) of the GI tract represent a mix of benign and potentially malignant entities including tumors, cysts, or extraluminal structures causing extrinsic compression of the gastrointestinal wall. SEL can occur anywhere along the GI tract and are frequently incidental findings encountered during endoscopy or cross-sectional imaging. This clinical guideline of the American College of Gastroenterology was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation process and is intended to suggest preferable approaches to a typical patient with a SEL based on the currently available published literature. Among the recommendations, we suggest endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with tissue acquisition to improve diagnostic accuracy in the identification of solid nonlipomatous SEL and EUS fine-needle biopsy alone or EUS fine-needle aspiration with rapid on-site evaluation sampling of solid SEL. There is insufficient evidence to recommend surveillance vs resection of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) <2 cm in size. Owing to their malignant potential, we suggest resection of gastric GIST >2 cm and all nongastric GIST. When exercising clinical judgment, particularly when statements are conditional suggestions and/or treatments pose significant risks, health-care providers should incorporate this guideline with patient-specific preferences, medical comorbidities, and overall health status to arrive at a patient-centered approach.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for proximal duodenal subepithelial lesions: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been used to remove subepithelial lesions (SELs) in recent years; however, duodenal ESD is associated with high rates of immediate or delayed bleeding and perforation. Whether ESD can be recommended for the treatment of duodenal SELs remains controversial. Therefore, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of ESD for duodenal SELs.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study in 62 patients (62 lesions) who underwent ESD for duodenal SELs between January 2012 and December 2020. The therapeutic outcomes from ESD for duodenal SELs and procedure-related complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

En bloc resection and complete resection rates associated with duodenal ESD were 90.3% and 100%, respectively; four patients had a positive microscopic margin on pathologic examination. The median procedure time was 45 min (range 20-106 min). During the procedure, two patients received emergency surgery for uncontrolled bleeding and perforation, respectively. After the procedure, delayed bleeding occurred in three patients (4.8%), which was successfully managed by clipping, and delayed perforation occurred in two patients (3.2%) and needed emergency surgery. Risk factors related to complications were analyzed. Lesion size was found to be significantly associated with the complications (P = 0.028). No recurrences were detected, and no distant metastasis was observed in any patient during a median follow-up period of 45.5 months (range, 6-103 months).

CONCLUSION

Duodenal ESD is relatively safe and feasible for duodenal SELs, especially for lesions no more than 2 cm in size.

Safety and efficacy of surgical and endoscopic resection in the treatment of duodenal subepithelial lesions

BACKGROUND

Duodenal subepithelial lesions (D-SELs) are rare and their resection is challenging. Unfortunately, data on surgical and endoscopic resection of D-SELs are scarce. This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of surgical resection and endoscopic resection (ER) for D-SELs.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed clinical data of patients with non-ampullary D-SELs who underwent ER or surgery and compared the outcomes between ER and surgery with no/low-risk SELs over 15 mm from March 2010 to August 2020. Clinicopathologic findings, procedure-related parameters, and follow-up data were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 107 patients (108 lesions) were enrolled; 52 patients (53 lesions) received ER and 55 patients (55 lesions) received surgery. In ER group, en bloc resection rate and R0 resection rate were 94 and 89%, respectively. Major adverse events rate was 6%. One (2%) patient experienced local recurrence. In surgery group, R0 resection was achieved in all cases. Major adverse events rate was 20%. Recurrence rate and distant metastases rate were 4 and 8%, respectively. One (2%) patient died from septicemia during follow-up. Thirty-three patients in each group were enrolled in the comparison. There were no significant differences in age, sex, lesion size and location (P > 0.05). More histologically GISTs and muscularis propria-originated lesions were treated by surgery (P < 0.05). ER was significantly associated with a shorter operation time, shorter hospital stay, lower cost, less estimated blood loss, and lower major adverse events rate compared to the surgery group (P < 0.05). However, R0 resection rate, mortality, recurrence rate, and metastases rate were not significant different (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

ER is an effective and safe treatment modality for selected patients with non-ampullary D-SELs by expert endoscopists. Surgery is a radical method for D-SELs that should be reserved for D-SELs not amenable to ER.

Thoracoscopic resection of a large lower esophageal schwannoma: A case report and review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Esophageal schwannomas originating from Schwann cells are extremely rare esophageal tumors. They commonly occur in the upper and middle esophagus but less frequently in the lower esophagus. Herein, we report a rare case of a large lower esophageal schwannoma misdiagnosed as a leiomyoma. We also present a brief literature review on lower esophageal schwannomas.

CASE SUMMARY

A 62-year-old man presented with severe dysphagia lasting 6 mo. A barium esophagogram showed that the lower esophagus was compressed within approximately 5.5 cm. Endoscopy revealed the presence of a large submucosal protuberant lesion in the esophagus at a distance of 32-38 cm from the incisors. Endoscopic ultrasound findings demonstrated a 4.5 cm × 5.0 cm hypoechoic lesion. Chest computed tomography revealed a mass of size approximately 53 mm × 39 mm × 50 mm. Initial tests revealed features indicative of leiomyoma. After multidisciplinary discussions, the patient underwent a video-assisted thoracoscopic partial esophagectomy. Further investigation involving immunohistochemical examination confirming palisading spindle cells as positive for S100 and Sox10 led to the final diagnosis of a lower esophageal schwannoma. There was no tumor recurrence or metastasis during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The final diagnosis of esophageal schwannoma requires histopathological and immunohistochemical examination. The early appropriate surgery favors a remarkable prognosis.

Endoscopic resection of benign esophageal schwannoma: Three case reports and review of literature

BACKGROUND

Esophageal schwannomas are uncommon esophageal submucosal benign tumors and are usually treated with surgery.

CASE SUMMARY

Here, we report three cases of middle/lower thoracic esophageal schwannoma treated successfully with endoscopic resection. These lesions were misdiagnosed as leiomyoma on preoperative imaging. During the endoscopic resection of such tumors, there is a risk of esophageal perforation due to their deep location. If possible, submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection should be used.

CONCLUSION

For larger schwannomas, endoscopy combined with thoracoscopy can be considered for en bloc resection. We performed a mini literature review in order to present the current status of diagnosis and treatment for esophageal schwannoma.

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.

Evaluation of Upper Endoscopic and Endoscopic Ultrasound Features in the Differential Diagnosis of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors and Leiomyomas in the Upper Gastrointestinal Tract

Background

Differentiation between benign and malignant subepithelial lesions (SELs) in the upper gastrointestinal tract (UGT) leads to far-reaching clinical consequences. An accurate diagnosis can be challenging because of the insufficient diagnostic yield of upper endoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and different types of biopsy.

Aim

Our aim was to reveal the efficacy of upper endoscopic and EUS features for the differential diagnosis of hypoechogenic SELs (gastrointestinal stromal tumors [GISTs] and leiomyomas) in the UGT.

Materials and Methods

The research covers a case series study of 27 hypoechogenic SELs in the UGT between 2012 and 2015 at Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Klinikos. Upper endoscopic and EUS features of SELs were recorded. In order to standardize the diagnostic approach to GISTs and leiomyomas, we assigned scores for seven upper endoscopic and EUS features.

Results

The mean total scores in the GIST group were significantly higher than those in the leiomyoma group: 3.25 ± 1.71 and 0.53 ± 0.83 (p < 0.0001), respectively. Increment by one score increased the odds ratio for GIST 5.87 times (95% CI 1.63-21.11; p = 0.007). The total score demonstrated very good discriminatory features of GISTs against leiomyomas (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.94 [0.86-1]). The cutoff value of 1.5 total score indicated 83.3% sensitivity and 93.3% specificity in diagnosing GISTs.

Conclusions

Upper endoscopy and EUS are useful methods in making a definite diagnosis of SELs. Their diagnostic accuracy for the differential diagnosis of GISTs and leiomyomas is sufficient.

Clinical course of suspected small gastrointestinal stromal tumors in the stomach

BACKGROUND

Gastric subepithelial lesions are frequently encountered during endoscopic examinations, and the majority of them are small and asymptomatic. Among these lesions, gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are the major concern for patients and clinicians owing to their malignant potentials. Although previous guidelines suggested periodic surveillance for such small (≤ 20 mm) lesions, several patients and clinicians have still requested or prescribed repeated examinations or radical resection, posing extra medical burdens and risks.

AIM

To describe the clinical course of suspected small gastric GISTs and provide further evidence for surveillance strategy for tumor therapy.

METHODS

This single-center, retrospective study was conducted at West China Hospital, Sichuan University. Consecutive patients with suspected small gastric GISTs were reviewed from November 2004 to November 2018. GIST was suspected according to endoscopic ultrasonography features: hypoechoic lesions from muscularis propria or muscularis mucosa. Eligible patients with suspected small (≤ 20 mm) GISTs were included for analysis. Patients' demographic data, lesions' characteristics, and follow-up medical records were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 383 patients (male/female, 121/262; mean age, 54 years) with 410 suspected small gastric GISTs (1 lesion in 362 patients, 2 lesions in 16, 3 lesions in 4, and 4 lesions in 1) were included for analysis. The most common location was gastric fundus (56.6%), followed by body (29.0%), cardia (12.2%), and antrum (2.2%). After a median follow-up of 28 mo (interquartile range, 16-48; range, 3-156), 402 lesions (98.0%) showed no changes in size, and size of 8 lesions (2.0%) was increased (mean increment, 10 mm). Of the 8 lesions with size increment, endoscopic or surgical resection was performed in 6 patients (5 GISTs and 1 leiomyoma). For other 2 remaining patients, unroofing biopsy or endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration was carried out (2 GISTs), while no further change in size was noted over a period of 62-64 mo.

CONCLUSION

The majority of suspected small (≤ 20 mm) gastric GISTs had no size increment during follow-up. Regular endoscopic follow-up without pathological diagnosis may be highly helpful for such small gastric subepithelial lesions.

Microscopic tumor spread beyond (echo)endoscopically determined tumor borders in esophageal cancer

OBJECTIVE

The microscopic tumor spread (MS) beyond the macroscopic tumor borders of esophageal tumors is crucial for determining the clinical target volume (CTV) in radiotherapy. The question arises whether current voluminous CTV margins of 3-5 cm around the macroscopic gross tumor volume (GTV) to account for MS are still accurate when fiducial markers are used for GTV determination. We aimed to pathologically validate the use of fiducial markers placed on the (echo)endoscopically determined tumor border (EDTB) as a surrogate for macroscopic tumor borders and to analyse the MS beyond EDTBs.

METHODS

Thirty-three consecutive esophageal cancer patients treated with neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy after (echo)endoscopic fiducial marker implantation at cranial and caudal EDTB were included in this study. Fiducial marker positions were detected in the surgical specimens under CT guidance and demarcated with beads, and subsequently analysed for macroscopic tumor spread and MS beyond the demarcations. A logistic regression analysis was performed to determine predicting factors for MS beyond EDTB.

RESULTS

A total of 60 EDTBs were examined in 32 patients. In 50% of patients no or only partial regression of tumor in response to therapy (≥Mandard 3) or higher was seen (i.e., residual tumor group) and included for MS analysis. None had macroscopic tumor spread beyond EDTBs. In the residual tumor group, only 20 and 21% of the cranial and caudal EDTBs were crossed with a maximum of 9 mm and 16 mm MS, respectively. This MS was corrected for each individual determined contraction rate (mean: 93%). Presence of MS beyond EDTB was significantly associated with initial tumor length (p = 0.028).

CONCLUSION

Our results validate the use of fiducial markers on EDTB as a surrogate for macroscopic tumor and indicate that CTV margins around the GTV to compensate for MS along the esophageal wall can be limited to 1-1.5 cm, when the GTV is determined with fiducial markers.

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.

Subepithelial esophageal tumors: a single-center review of resected and surveilled lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Subepithelial esophageal tumors (SETs) are frequent incidental findings. Although symptomatic tumors are surgically or endoscopically resected, there is no consensus on the management of asymptomatic esophageal leiomyomas.

METHODS

Appropriate International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes followed by medical record review were used to identify patients with SETs from January 1992 to March 2017, with abstraction of basic demographics, surveillance intervals, and mortality. Patients were contacted to complete a phone questionnaire to assess follow-up as well as the validated Brief Esophageal Dysphagia Questionnaire (BEDQ).

RESULTS

Eighty-four leiomyomas, 5 leiomyosarcomas, 13 GI stromal tumors (GISTs), and 4 granular cell tumors were found. Among patients with leiomyomas, 58 (69%) were resected and 26 (31%) were followed under surveillance. Resected esophageal leiomyomas were larger than those under surveillance (49.7 mm vs 17.9 mm, P < .003). Esophageal leiomyoma growth during surveillance was only .5 mm over a mean 70-month follow-up (range, 4-288). No malignant transformation was seen, and only 2 patients required subsequent resection. The phone survey was completed by 35 patients and revealed minimal symptom burden, with only 2 patients (15%) under esophageal leiomyoma surveillance reporting symptoms (BEDQ score ≥10) over a mean 96.7-month follow-up. EUS had high diagnostic accuracy with a positive predictive value of 68% and a negative predictive value of 100% for leiomyomas or GISTs compared with surgical pathology.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy in resected SETs. Esophageal leiomyomas demonstrate minimal growth or symptomatic progression. Therefore, long-term EUS surveillance of small asymptomatic esophageal leiomyomas may be unnecessary.

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.

The Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in the Diagnostic Assessment of Subepithelial Lesions of the Upper Gastrointestinal Tract

INTRODUCTION

The identification of subepithelial lesions is a relatively frequent finding at endoscopy however their natural history is not well known. Our aim was to analyze the role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in the diagnostic approach of subepithelial lesions of the upper gastrointestinal tract.

METHODS

Retrospective study which included 324 patients undergoing upper radial EUS for evaluation of subepithelial lesions from 2008 to 2014. The EUS features, presumptive diagnosis and management decision were analyzed.

RESULTS

324 patients included, 60% with gastric subepithelial lesions, 28% oesophageal and 12% from the duodenum. Based on EUS features the presumptive diagnosis was: 25% gastrointestinal stromal tumor, 21% lipoma, 19% leiomyoma, 17% pancreatic rest, 7% submucosa cysts, 1% granular cell tumors, 1% carcinoids, 1% mucosa lesions and 8% not defined. After EUS the suggested approach was no follow-up in 45%, follow-up with re-examination with EUS in 35% and additional tissue sampling or endoscopic/surgical resection in 20%. The latter was based on EUS features of risk at the diagnosis (53%), such as size ≥2 cm, hypoechogenicity, heterogeneity, lobulation, calcifications, cystic component and regional adenopathies; impossibility to define a presumptive diagnosis (39%) or EUS features change at follow-up (8%). The combination of multiple features correlated with a higher probability of this recommended strategy (p < 0.001), in 100% when 4 or more features were present. Among the 33 patients who underwent fine needle aspiration, in 66% the result was inconclusive. During follow-up, none of the patients who were managed with surveillance radial EUS presented complications.

CONCLUSION

EUS is the method of choice in the study of subepithelial lesions of the upper gastrointestinal tract, in most cases defining a diagnosis. The need for a definitive diagnosis or therapeutic approaches can be based on ultrasound risk features, presented, in the majority, at presentation. This study shows that EUS is capable of safely and accurately define those subepithelial lesions that can be managed only with surveillance ultrasound while waiting for better results with fine needle aspiration.

Endoscopic Ultrasonography in the Diagnosis of Gastric Subepithelial Lesions

Subepithelial lesions occasionally found in the stomach of patients undergoing endoscopy may be either benign lesions or tumors with malignant potential. They may also appear due to extrinsic compression. Discrimination of gastric subepithelial lesions begins with meticulous endoscopic examination for size, shape, color, mobility, consistency, and appearance of the overlying mucosa. Accurate diagnosis can be achieved with endoscopic ultrasonography, which provides useful information on the exact size, layer-of-origin, and characteristic morphologic features to support a definitive diagnosis. Endoscopic ultrasonography also aids in the prediction of malignant potential, especially in gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Features of subepithelial lesions identified on endoscopic ultrasonography can be used to determine whether further diagnostic procedures such as endoscopic resection, fine needle aspiration, or core biopsy are required. Endoscopic ultrasonography is a valuable tool for diagnosis and clinical decision making during follow-up of gastric subepithelial lesions.

Value of oral gastric ultrasound contrast agent in diagnosis of gastric submucosal lesions

AIM: To assess the value of oral gastric ultrasound contrast agent in the diagnosis of gastric submucosal lesions.

METHODS: Two hundred and eighty-five patients who were diagnosed with gastric submucosal lesions and treated at the First Affiliated Hospital of Huzhou Teachers College from February 2005 to February 2015 were included. The patients initially underwent ordinary ultrasonic examination, and then the patients were given an oral gastric ultrasound contrast agent to undergo ultrasonic examination again. Ultrasonic examination results were compared with surgical results.

RESULTS: There were many types of gastric lesions, with gastric cyst (127 cases), leiomyoma (58 cases), and ectopic pancreas (46 cases) being the top three. Ultrasonic imaging with an oral gastric ultrasound contrast agent had a significantly higher accuracy in diagnosing gastric cyst, leiomyoma, stromal tumor, ectopic pancreas, gastric varices, inflammatory mucosal hyperplasia, lipoma, and chamber oppression than ordinary ultrasound (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION: Oral gastric ultrasound contrast agent can help improve the accuracy of ultrasound in the diagnosis of gastric submucosal lesions.

Ligation-assisted endoscopic enucleation for the diagnosis and resection of small gastrointestinal tumors originating from the muscularis propria: a preliminary study

BACKGROUND

Ligation-assisted endoscopic enucleation (EE-L) was developed for the pathological diagnosis and resection of small gastrointestinal tumors originating from the muscularis propria. The technique combines endoscopic band ligation and endoscopic enucleation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EE-L in the diagnosis and resection of gastrointestinal tumors originating from the muscularis propria.

METHODS

A total of 43 patients were eligible for inclusion in this study from June 2009 to June 2011. Endoscopic ligation was first performed to force the tumor to assume a polypoid form with a pseudostalk. EE-L was then performed until the tumor was completely enucleated from the muscularis propria. Wound closure was performed using clips and adhesive tissue.

RESULTS

All 43 tumors were completely enucleated. The mean enucleation time was 7.2 minutes (range, 5-11 minutes). No perforation, massive hemorrhage, or peritonitis requiring further endoscopic or surgical intervention occurred. Histopathology, 19 lesions were identified as gastrointestinal stromal tumors and 24 lesions were identified as leiomyomas. The mean follow-up time was 20.4 months (range, 14-38 months). No recurrence has occurred during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

EE-L appears to be a safe, effective, and relatively simple method for the histologic diagnosis and removal of small gastrointestinal tumors originating from the muscularis propria.