Literature DB >> 20226456

Diagnostic utility of EUS-guided FNA in patients with gastric submucosal tumors.

Mohamed A Mekky1, Kenji Yamao, Akira Sawaki, Nobumasa Mizuno, Kazuo Hara, Mohamed A Nafeh, Ashraf M Osman, Takashi Koshikawa, Yasushi Yatabe, Vikram Bhatia.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Submucosal tumors (SMTs) comprise both benign and malignant lesions, and most of the gastric lesions tend to be malignant. The addition of EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) has the potential to improve this distinction, but published series are limited.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the yield of EUS-FNA in gastric SMTs with referral to a criterion standard final diagnosis.
DESIGN: Retrospective study.
SETTING: Tertiary-care referral center. PATIENTS: This study involved 141 consecutive patients with gastric SMTs, who underwent EUS-FNA from January 2000 to December 2008. Immunohistochemical staining with c-kit, CD34, actin, and S-100 antibodies was done if a spindle cell tumor was found. Based on FNA sample adequacy, and whether a specific diagnosis could be established, EUS-FNA results were categorized as diagnostic, suggestive, or nondiagnostic. The criterion standards for final diagnosis were the surgical histopathological results or the follow-up course for malignant, inoperable cases. INTERVENTION: EUS-FNA. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA and factors related to sampling adequacy for cytological and immunohistochemical evaluation.
RESULTS: A total of 141 patients (52% female, mean age 56.7 years) underwent EUS-FNA (range 1-5 passes). The overall results of EUS-FNA were diagnostic, suggestive, and nondiagnostic in 43.3%, 39%, and 17.7% of cases, respectively. Adequate specimens were obtained in 83% of cases, and 69 cases (48.9%) had a definitive final diagnosis. The most common gastric SMT was GI stromal tumor (59.5%). EUS-FNA results were 95.6% accurate (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.5%-99%) for the final diagnosis and 94.2% (95% CI, 85.6%-98.1%) accurate for differentiating potentially malignant lesions. A heterogeneous echo pattern was the only independent predictor for sampling adequacy (adjusted odds ratio 6.15; P = .002). There were no procedure-related complications. LIMITATIONS: Possibility of selection bias.
CONCLUSION: EUS-FNA is an accurate method for diagnosis of gastric SMTs and for differentiating malignant lesions. 2010 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20226456     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2009.11.044

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  97 in total

Review 1.  Endoscopic management of gastrointestinal stromal tumors.

Authors:  Vinay Chandrasekhara; Gregory G Ginsberg
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2011-12

2.  Aberrant I-123 MIBG uptake in a gastrointestinal stromal tumour.

Authors:  David van Dellen; Otilia Maria Mitu-Pretorian; Titus Augustine
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2012-01-10

3.  Gastric linitis plastica due to signet-ring cell carcinoma with Krukenberg tumors diagnosed by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration.

Authors:  Takeshi Okamoto; Hidekazu Suzuki; Katsuyuki Fukuda
Journal:  Clin J Gastroenterol       Date:  2021-03-19

4.  Diagnostic efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided needle sampling for upper gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Xiao-Cen Zhang; Quan-Lin Li; Yong-Fu Yu; Li-Qing Yao; Mei-Dong Xu; Yi-Qun Zhang; Yun-Shi Zhong; Wei-Feng Chen; Ping-Hong Zhou
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-08-27       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Endoscopic ultrasonography of duodenal aberrant pancreas: comparison with histology after endoscopic resection.

Authors:  Takashi Watanabe; Kunihiko Aoyagi; Yoshitaka Tomioka; Hideki Ishibashi; Satoshi Nimura; Shotaro Sakisaka
Journal:  J Med Ultrason (2001)       Date:  2014-11-22       Impact factor: 1.314

6.  Endoscopic ultrasound-guided Trucut biopsy of gastrointestinal mesenchymal tumor.

Authors:  John DeWitt; Robert E Emerson; Stuart Sherman; Mohammad Al-Haddad; Lee McHenry; Gregory A Cote; Julia K Leblanc
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-12-24       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  A feasible modified biopsy method for tissue diagnosis of gastric subepithelial tumors.

Authors:  Jung Ho Kim; Jun-Won Chung; Minsu Ha; Min Young Rim; Jong Joon Lee; Jungsuk An; Yoon Jae Kim; Kyoung Oh Kim; Kwang An Kwon; Dong Kyun Park; Yeon Suk Kim; Duck Joo Choi
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-08-07       Impact factor: 5.742

8.  EUS-guided fine needle aspiration of gastrointestinal stromal tumors: the GIST of the matter.

Authors:  Vinay Chandrasekhara; Nuzhat A Ahmad
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 9.  Hybrid natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery in gastric subepithelial tumors.

Authors:  Jun Heo; Seong Woo Jeon
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2013-09-16

10.  Gastric schwannomas revisited: has precise preoperative diagnosis become feasible?

Authors:  Shinichi Fujiwara; Kiyokazu Nakajima; Toshirou Nishida; Tsuyoshi Takahashi; Yukinori Kurokawa; Makoto Yamasaki; Hiroshi Miyata; Shuji Takiguchi; Masaki Mori; Yuichiro Doki
Journal:  Gastric Cancer       Date:  2012-08-21       Impact factor: 7.370

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.