Lesion size determines diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA with onsite cytopathologic evaluation for upper gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions

Automatically optimized radiomics modeling system for small gastric submucosal tumor (<2 cm) discrimination based on EUS images

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The clinical management of small gastric submucosal tumors (SMTs) (<2 cm) faces a non-negligible challenge because of the lack of guideline consensus and effective diagnostic tools. This article develops an automatically optimized radiomics modeling system (AORMS) based on EUS images to diagnose and evaluate SMTs.

METHODS

A total of 205 patients with EUS images of small gastric SMTs (<2 cm) were retrospectively enrolled in the development phase of AORMS for the diagnosis and the risk stratification of GI stromal tumor (GIST). A total of 178 patients with images from different centers were prospectively enrolled in the independent testing phase. The performance of AORMS was compared to that of endoscopists in the development set and evaluated in the independent testing set.

RESULTS

AORMS demonstrated an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.762 for the diagnosis of GIST and 0.734 for the risk stratification of GIST, respectively. In the independent testing set, AORMS achieved an AUC of 0.770 and 0.750 for the diagnosis and risk stratification of small GISTs, respectively. In comparison, the AUCs of 5 experienced endoscopists ranged from 0.501 to 0.608 for diagnosing GIST and from 0.562 to 0.748 for risk stratification. AORMS outperformed experienced endoscopists by more than 20% in diagnosing GIST.

CONCLUSIONS

AORMS implements automatic parameter selection, which enhances its robustness and clinical applicability. It has demonstrated good performance in the diagnosis and risk stratification of GISTs, which could aid endoscopists in the diagnosis of small gastric SMTs (<2 cm).

Feasibility and clinical value of linear endoscopic ultrasonography imaging in the lower gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions

Linear endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has been extensively utilized as a novel diagnostic and therapeutic modality across various fields. However, there have been relatively few studies focusing on lower gastrointestinal lesions. The aim of our study was to investigate the feasibility, safety and clinical value of linear EUS in the lower gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions. This was a retrospective study involving patients with lower gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions diagnosed by linear EUS from August 2019 to April 2023 at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University. The data, including basic clinical information, linear EUS features, technical success rate, complications, and follow-up, were retrospectively collected and analyzed. A total of 69 patients with lower gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions underwent examination by linear EUS. Excluding the rectum, the technical success rate of linear EUS was 90.6% (29/32). Apart from the 7 patients whose diagnosis remained unknown, 3 patients with no abnormal EUS findings, and 3 patients failed the procedure, 56 patients were included in the final diagnostic performance analysis. The most common locations of the lesions were the rectum (37/56, 66.1%) and sigmoid colon (7/56, 12.5%). Based on endoscopy findings and pathological results, the most prevalent types of subepithelial lesions in the lower gastrointestinal tract were neuroendocrine tumor (NET) (12/56, 20.3%), lipoma (8/56, 13.6%) and extraluminal compression (8/56, 13.6%). The majority of lesions ranged in diameter from 1 to 3 cm (χ2 = 18.750, p < 0.001). After undergoing linear EUS examination, 36 patients received EUS-FNA (3/36), biopsy (5/36), endoscopic resection (25/36), or surgical excision (3/36) respectively. The pathological results of 29 patients were entirely consistent with the diagnosis made using linear EUS, with an 80.6% (29/36) diagnostic accuracy rate. Follow-up indicated that the lesions remained unchanged within 6-36 months. All patients tolerated the procedure well without any complications. In conclusion, linear EUS demonstrates technical feasibility, safety, and a high diagnostic accuracy for subepithelial lesions in the lower gastrointestinal tract.

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.

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.

Comparison of 22G Fork-Tip and Franseen Needles and Usefulness of Contrast-Enhanced Endoscopic Ultrasound for Diagnosis of Upper Gastrointestinal Subepithelial Lesions

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) is less accurate in obtaining samples from gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions (SELs) ≤2 cm than from pancreatic cancers. The present study compared the usefulness of 22G Fork-tip and Franseen needles for EUS-TA and assessed the ability of contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS (CH-EUS) to diagnose SELs ≤2 cm. Fifty-seven patients who underwent EUS-TA for SELs ≤2 cm were evaluated. The primary endpoint was to compare the rate of acquisition of sufficient samples by these two needles. Secondary endpoints included technical success rate, adverse events, numbers of needle passes, and diagnostic ability of CH-EUS for SELs. Of the 57 included patients, 23 and 34 underwent EUS-TA with Fork-tip and Franseen needles, respectively. Technical success rates were 100% with both needles and adverse events occurred in zero (0%) and one (2.9%) patient with Fork-tip and Franseen needles, respectively. The rate of adequate sample acquisition was significantly higher using Fork-tip than Franseen needles (96% vs. 74%; p = 0.038). The hyper- or iso-vascular pattern on CH-EUS correlated significantly with a diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (p < 0.001). EUS-TA with Fork-tip needles were superior to EUS-TA with Franseen needles in acquiring sufficient samples and CH-EUS was also useful for the diagnosis of SELs ≤2 cm.

Efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound in the evaluation of small gastrointestinal stromal tumors

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) with a diameter of < 2 cm are called small GISTs. Currently, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is widely used as a regular follow-up method for GISTs, which can also provide a preliminary basis for judging the malignancy potential of lesions. However, there are no studies on the accuracy of EUS to assess the malignant potential of small GISTs.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of EUS in the diagnosis and risk assessment of small GISTs.

METHODS

We collected data from patients with small GISTs who were admitted to Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University between October 2014 and July 2019. The accurate diagnosis and risk classifications of patients were based on the pathological assessment according to the modified National Institute of Health criteria after endoscopic resection or laparoscopic surgery. Preoperative EUS features (marginal irregularity, cystic changes, homogeneity, ulceration, and strong echogenic foci) were retrospectively analyzed. The assessment results based on EUS features were compared with the pathological features.

RESULTS

A total of 256 patients (69 men and 187 women) were enrolled. Pathological results included 232, 16, 7, and 1 very low-, low-, intermediate-, and high-risk cases, respectively. The most frequent tumor location was the gastric fundus (78.1%), and mitoses were calculated as > 5/50 high power field in 8 (3.1%) patients. Marginal irregularity, ulceration, strong echo foci, and heterogeneity were detected in 1 (0.4%), 2 (0.8%), 22 (8.6%), and 67 (65.1%) patients, respectively. However, cystic changes were not detected. Tumor size was positively correlated with the mitotic index (P < 0.001). Receiver operating curve analysis identified 1.48 cm as the best cut-off value to predict malignant potential (95% confidence interval: 0.824–0.956). EUS heterogeneity with tumor diameters > 1.48 cm was associated with higher risk classification (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Small GISTs (diameters > 1.48 cm) with positive EUS features should receive intensive surveillance or undergo endoscopic surgery. EUS and dissection are efficient diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for small GISTs.

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

Background/Aims

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

The Diagnosis of Small Gastrointestinal Subepithelial Lesions by Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration and Biopsy

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has been widely accepted in the diagnosis of all types of tumors, especially pancreatic tumors, lymph nodes, and subepithelial lesions (SELs). One reason is that the examination can provide a detailed observation, with tissue samples being immediately obtained by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). Many SELs are detected incidentally during endoscopic examinations without symptoms. Most SELs are mesenchymal tumors originating from the fourth layer, such as gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), leiomyomas, and schwannomas. GISTs are potentially malignant. Surgical treatment is recommended for localized GISTs of ≥20 mm. However, the indications for the diagnosis and follow-up of GISTs of <20 mm in size are controversial. There are several reports on the rapid progression or metastasis of small GISTs. Therefore, it is important to determine whether a SEL is a GIST or not. The main diagnostic method is EUS-FNA. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) using a new biopsy needle has been reported to obtain larger tissue samples. Additionally, various biopsy methods have been reported to have a high diagnostic rate for small GISTs. In local gastric SELs, regardless of the tumor size, EUS can be performed first; then, EUS-FNA/B or various biopsy methods can be used to obtain tissue samples for decision-making in relation to therapy and the follow-up period.

An analysis of research biopsy core variability from over 5000 prospectively collected core samples

Factors correlated with biopsy tissue adequacy and the prevalence of within-biopsy variability were evaluated. Totally, 1149 research biopsies were performed on 686 patients from which 5090 cores were assessed. Biopsy cores were reviewed for malignant percentage (estimated percentage of cells in the core that were malignant) and malignant area (estimated area occupied by malignant cells). Linear mixed models and generalized linear mixed models were used for the analysis. A total of 641 (55.8%) biopsies contained a core with <10% malignant percentage (inadequate core). The chance of an inadequate core was not influenced by core order, though the malignant area decreased with each consecutive core (p < 0.001). Younger age, bone biopsy location, appendiceal tumor pathology, and responding/stable disease prior to biopsy increased the odds of a biopsy containing zero adequate cores. Within-biopsy variability in core adequacy is prevalent and suggests the need for histological tumor quality assessment of each core in order to optimize translational analyses.

Role of endoscopic ultrasonography for differential diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal submucosal lesions

OBJECTIVE

To determine the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal submucosal lesions (SMLs).

METHODS

This was a retrospective study involving patients diagnosed with SMLs using EUS and confirmed by histopathology from November 2014 to December 2020 at The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University.

RESULTS

A total of 231 patients with SMLs were examined by EUS. Histologically, 107 lesions were stromal tumors, and 75 lesions were leiomyomas. Stromal tumors were mainly located in the stomach (89.7%), and leiomyomas were predominantly seen in the esophagus (69.3%). The diagnostic accuracy of EUS for stromal tumors and leiomyomas was 80.4% and 68.0%, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy was highest for lesions located in the muscularis mucosa. The mean diameter of stromal tumors measured using EUS was significantly larger than that of leiomyomas (21.89 mm vs. 12.35 mm, p < 0.001). Stromal tumors and leiomyomas originated mainly from the muscularis propria (94.4%) and the muscularis mucosa (56.0%), respectively. Compared with the very low-risk and low-risk groups of stromal tumors according to the National Institute of Health guidelines, the intermediate-risk and high-risk groups were more likely to have a lesion > 3 cm (p < 0.001) and a surface ulcer (p < 0.01) identified by EUS.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS has good diagnostic value for the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal SMLs based on the lesion size and the muscle layer of origin. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS lesions is related to the origin, and the diagnostic accuracy is greatest in the mucosal muscularis layer. Stromal tumors > 3 cm and a surface ulcer on EUS are likely to be intermediate or high risk for invasion.

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.

Macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) of specimens from solid lesions acquired during EUS-FNB: multicenter study and comparison between needle gauges

Background and study aims  The standard method for obtaining samples during endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is fine-needle aspiration (FNA), the accuracy of which can be affected by the presence of a cytopathologist in endoscopy room (rapid on-site evaluation [ROSE]). With the introduction of fine-needle biopsy (FNB), macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) of a acquired specimen has been proposed. Only a few studies have evaluated the role of MOSE and in all except one, a 19G needle was used. Our primary aim was to evaluate the diagnostic yield and accuracy of MOSE with different needle sizes and the secondary aim was to identify factors influencing the yield of MOSE. Patients and methods  Data from patients who underwent EUS-FNB for solid lesions, with MOSE evaluation of the specimen, were collected in six endoscopic referral centers. Results  A total of 378 patients (145 F and 233 M) were enrolled. Needles sizes used during the procedures were 20G (42 %), 22G (45 %), and 25G (13 %). The median number of needle passes was two (IQR 2-3). The overall diagnostic yield of MOSE was of 90 % (confidence interval [CI] 86 %-92 %). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, variables independently associated with the diagnostic yield of MOSE were a larger needle diameter (20G vs. 25G, OR 11.64, 95 %CI 3.5-38.71; 22G vs. 25G, OR 6.20, 95 %CI 2.41-15.90) and three of more needle passes (OR 3.39, 95 %CI 1.38-8.31). Conclusions  MOSE showed high diagnostic yield and accuracy. Its yield was further increased if performed with a large size FNB needles and more than two passes.

Spindle cell neoplasms of the upper gastrointestinal tract, hepatobiliary tract, and pancreas by fine needle aspiration: A single institutional experience of 15 years with follow-up data

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of spindle cell neoplasms (SCN) of the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract, hepatobiliary tract, and pancreas detected by fine needle aspiration (FNA) is challenging. We describe a single-center experience of these samples with follow-up data and characterization of the morphologic findings.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed pathology records for all FNAs diagnostic for or suggestive of SCN on esophagus, stomach, small bowel, liver, and pancreas in a 15 year period. All cases with at least 6 month follow-up were included. Surgical material (biopsy or resection) was the diagnostic gold standard. All FNAs with subsequent surgical specimens were reviewed and assessed for cellularity, architectural features, and nuclear features.

RESULTS

In 15 years, 5101 FNAs of the upper GI tract, hepatobiliary tract, and pancreas were performed. SCN was diagnosed in 98 (2%) patients. Seventy-two patients had definitive pathologic diagnoses: 68 were neoplastic and four were non-neoplastic. Cytomorphologic review in relationship to final diagnosis revealed three statistically significant features: low cellularity favors a benign process (P = .00544), epithelioid nuclear morphology favors malignancy (P = .00278), and identification of perinuclear vacuoles favors a diagnosis of GIST over non-GIST SCN (P = .04236).

CONCLUSIONS

Among cases with follow-up, final pathologic diagnoses were SCN in 94% of cases diagnosed as SCN on FNA of upper GI, hepatobiliary tract, and pancreas. Although some cytomorphologic criteria are more suggestive of malignancy, arriving at a specific diagnosis relies on collaboration of clinical, radiologic, cytomorphologic, and immunohistochemical data.

A multi-class scoring system based on CT features for preoperative prediction in gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors

Our study aimed to establish and validate a multi-class scoring system for preoperative gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) risk stratifications based on CT features. 150 gastric GIST patients who underwent contrast-enhanced CT examination and surgical resection from hospital 1 were retrospectively analyzed as the training cohort, and 61 patients from hospitals 2 and 3 were included as the validation cohort. A model was established by logistic regression analysis and weighted to be a scoring model. A calibration test, area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), and cutoff points were determined for the score model. The model was also divided into three score ranges for convenient clinical evaluation. Five CT features were included in the score model, including tumor size (4 points), ill-defined margin (6 points), intratumoral enlarged vessels (5 points), heterogeneous enhancement pattern (4 points), and exophytic or mixed growth pattern (2 points). Then, based on the calibration results, performance was merely assessed as very low and high* risk. The AUCs of the score model for very low risk and high* risk were 0.973 and 0.977, and the cutoff points were 3 points (97.30%, 93.81%) and 7 points (92.19%, 94.19%), respectively. In the validation cohort, the AUCs were 0.912 and 0.972, and the cutoff values were 3 points (92.31%, 85.42%) and 5 points (100%, 87.88%), respectively. The model was stratified into 3 ranges: 0-3 points for very low risk, 4-8 points for low risk, and 9-21 points for high* risk. A concise and practical score system for gastric GISTs risk stratification was proposed.

A multivariate prediction model for high malignancy potential gastric GI stromal tumors before endoscopic resection

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic resection is becoming an option in the management of gastric GI stromal tumors (GISTs). Although no consensus has been reached, patients with high malignancy potential GISTs are generally considered to be surgical candidates. However, no systematic preoperative evaluation strategy has yet been developed. The current study was performed to develop a preoperative multivariate model to predict the malignant potential of gastric GISTs.

METHODS

This study consisted of 2 stages. First, a multivariate prediction model for gastric GISTs smaller than 5 cm was developed using a multivariate logistic regression analysis in a retrospective cohort. Next, the prediction model was validated further in a validation cohort of gastric GISTs.

RESULTS

In the developing stage, 275 patients were included. The multivariate analysis demonstrated that independent risk factors for high malignancy potential gastric GISTs smaller than 5 cm were tumor size ≥2 cm (according to cutoff value), an irregular tumor shape, and mucosal ulceration (P < .05). Based on accordant regression coefficients, 3 risk factors were weighted with point values: 1 point for mucosal ulceration, 2 points for an irregular tumor shape, and 3 points for tumor size ≥2 cm. In the validation stage, 186 patients were included. The area under the curve of the prediction model was .80 (95% confidence interval, .73-.85), which was significantly higher than that of tumor size alone (P = .034).

CONCLUSIONS

The independent risk factors for high malignancy potential gastric GISTs smaller than 5 cm were tumor size larger than 2 cm, an irregular tumor shape, and mucosal ulceration. These factors could be used to predict malignancy potential of gastric GISTs in a simple combination.

Clinical efficacy and safety of mucosal incision-assisted biopsy for the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and biopsy (EUS-FNA/FNB) has been traditionally used for making a tissue diagnosis. Several newer techniques are emerging as a viable alternative to EUS-FNA/FNB, including mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB), with a view to increasing the diagnostic yield for upper gastrointestinal (GI) subepithelial tumors (SETs). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to describe the overall diagnostic yield of MIAB for upper GI SETs.

Methods

Multiple electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and Google Scholar) and conference abstracts were comprehensively searched. The primary outcome of our meta-analysis was the overall diagnostic yield of the MIAB. The secondary outcome was to study complications in terms of perforation and clinically significant bleeding. The meta-analysis was performed using a DerSimonian and Laird random-effect model.

Results

Seven studies were included in the final meta-analysis, reporting a total of 159 patients (male 86, female 73) with a mean age of 58 years. The overall pooled diagnostic yield of MIAB was 89% (95% confidence interval [CI] 82.65-93.51, I ²=0.00). Histologically, GI stromal tumor was the reported diagnosis in 38.62% (95%CI 22.29-56.24, I ²=77.51%) of tumors, followed by leiomyoma 25% (95%CI 18.02-32.62, I ²=4.42%). The overall rate of clinically significant bleeding following the procedure was 5.03% (95%CI 0.36-12.86, I ²=57.43%) and no perforations were reported.

Conclusions

MIAB is a safe and effective technique for the diagnosis of upper GI SETs and can be considered as a viable alternative to EUS-FNA/FNB. MIAB can be performed during routine endoscopy and no advanced equipment is required.

Diagnostic yield of deep biopsy via endoscopic submucosal dissection for the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:

Conventionally, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and biopsy (EUS-FNA)/EUS-FNB) has been used for tissue diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal (GI) subepithelial tumors (SETs). However, deep biopsy (DB) via endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is emerging as an alternative technique, given the inadequate tissue sampling with EUS-FNA/EUS-FNB. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to report the overall diagnostic yield of DB via ESD for upper GI SETs.

Methods:

PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases were searched to identify studies (from commencement to Oct 2017) that reported the DB via ESD technique for diagnosis of upper GI SETs. The primary outcome of interest was the method’s overall diagnostic yield and the secondary outcome was to the occurrence of complications. The meta-analysis was performed using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model.

Results:

A total of 7 studies, comprising 209 patients with a mean age of 57.3 years, were included in the final meta-analysis. The overall pooled diagnostic yield of DB via ESD for upper GI SETs was 95% (95% confidence interval [CI] 84.91-99.98, I²=78.2%). Overall, pooled outcomes of major bleeding and perforation in our meta-analysis was noted in 0.07% (95%CI 0.00-2.32, I²=0%) and 0% (95%CI 0.00-1.70, I²=0%) respectively. Data regarding major bleeding and perforation rates were not reported in 2 studies. Substantial heterogeneity was observed in our meta-analysis.

Conclusion:

DB via ESD is an effective and safe procedure for diagnosing upper GI SETs. Further multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed to validate these findings.