OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to describe the imaging and clinicopathologic characteristics of esophageal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) and to emphasize the features that differentiate esophageal GISTs from esophageal leiomyomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A pathology database search identified all surgically resected or biopsied esophageal GISTs, esophageal leiomyomas, and esophageal leiomyosarcomas from 1994 to 2012. Esophageal GISTs were included only if imaging studies (including CT, fluoroscopic, or (18)F-FDG PET/CT scans) and clinical data were available. RESULTS: Nineteen esophageal mesenchymal tumors were identified, including eight esophageal GISTs (42%), 10 esophageal leiomyomas (53%), and one esophageal leiomyosarcoma (5%). Four patients (50%) with esophageal GIST had symptoms, including dysphagia in three (38%), cough in one (13%), and chest pain in one (13%). One esophageal GIST appeared on barium study as a smooth submucosal mass. All esophageal GISTs appeared on CT as well-marginated predominantly distal lesions, isoattenuating to muscle, that moderately enhanced after IV contrast agent administration. Compared with esophageal leiomyomas, esophageal GISTs tended to be more distal, larger, and more heterogeneous and showed greater IV enhancement on CT. All esophageal GISTs showed marked avidity (mean maximum standardized uptake value, 16) on PET scans. All esophageal GISTs were positive for c-KIT (a cell-surface transmembrane tyrosine kinase also known as CD117) and CD34. On histopathology, six esophageal GISTs (75%) were of the spindle pattern and two (25%) were of a mixed spindle and epithelioid pattern. Five esophageal GISTs had exon 11 mutations (with imatinib sensitivity). Clinical outcome correlated with treatment strategy (resection plus adjuvant therapy or resection alone) rather than risk stratification. CONCLUSION: Esophageal GISTs are unusual but clinically important mesenchymal neoplasms. Although esophageal GISTs and esophageal leiomyomas had overlapping imaging features, esophageal GISTs tended to be more distal, larger, more heterogeneous, and more enhancing on CT and were markedly FDG avid on PET. Given their malignant potential, esophageal GISTs should be included in the differential diagnosis of intramural esophageal neoplasms.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to describe the imaging and clinicopathologic characteristics of esophageal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) and to emphasize the features that differentiate esophageal GISTs from esophageal leiomyomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A pathology database search identified all surgically resected or biopsied esophageal GISTs, esophageal leiomyomas, and esophageal leiomyosarcomas from 1994 to 2012. Esophageal GISTs were included only if imaging studies (including CT, fluoroscopic, or (18)F-FDG PET/CT scans) and clinical data were available. RESULTS: Nineteen esophageal mesenchymal tumors were identified, including eight esophageal GISTs (42%), 10 esophageal leiomyomas (53%), and one esophageal leiomyosarcoma (5%). Four patients (50%) with esophageal GIST had symptoms, including dysphagia in three (38%), cough in one (13%), and chest pain in one (13%). One esophageal GIST appeared on barium study as a smooth submucosal mass. All esophageal GISTs appeared on CT as well-marginated predominantly distal lesions, isoattenuating to muscle, that moderately enhanced after IV contrast agent administration. Compared with esophageal leiomyomas, esophageal GISTs tended to be more distal, larger, and more heterogeneous and showed greater IV enhancement on CT. All esophageal GISTs showed marked avidity (mean maximum standardized uptake value, 16) on PET scans. All esophageal GISTs were positive for c-KIT (a cell-surface transmembrane tyrosine kinase also known as CD117) and CD34. On histopathology, six esophageal GISTs (75%) were of the spindle pattern and two (25%) were of a mixed spindle and epithelioid pattern. Five esophageal GISTs had exon 11 mutations (with imatinib sensitivity). Clinical outcome correlated with treatment strategy (resection plus adjuvant therapy or resection alone) rather than risk stratification. CONCLUSION: Esophageal GISTs are unusual but clinically important mesenchymal neoplasms. Although esophageal GISTs and esophageal leiomyomas had overlapping imaging features, esophageal GISTs tended to be more distal, larger, more heterogeneous, and more enhancing on CT and were markedly FDG avid on PET. Given their malignant potential, esophageal GISTs should be included in the differential diagnosis of intramural esophageal neoplasms.
Authors: J A Crosby; C N Catton; A Davis; J Couture; B O'Sullivan; R Kandel; C J Swallow Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2001 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Guy J C Burkill; Mohammed Badran; Omar Al-Muderis; J Meirion Thomas; Ian R Judson; Cyril Fisher; Eleanor C Moskovic Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: A B Shinagare; K A Zukotynski; K M Krajewski; J P Jagannathan; J Butrynski; J L Hornick; N H Ramaiya Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2012-04-27 Impact factor: 3.909
Authors: Andrew M Briggler; Rondell P Graham; Gustavo F Westin; Andrew L Folpe; Dawn E Jaroszewski; Scott H Okuno; Thorvardur R Halfdanarson Journal: J Gastrointest Oncol Date: 2018-08