BACKGROUND/AIMS: To evaluate the yields and utility of 19-gauge (G) Trucut biopsy (TCB) versus 22 G fine needle aspiration (FNA) for diagnosing gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs). METHODS: We retrieved data for 152 patients with a gastric SET larger than 2 cm who had undergone endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided 19 G TCB (n=90) or 22 G FNA (n=62). Relevant clinical, tumor-specific, and EUS procedural information was reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS: A specific diagnosis was made for 76 gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) and 51 non-GIST SETs. The diagnostic yield of TCB was greater than that of FNA (77.8% vs. 38.7%, p<0.001). The percentage of non-diagnostic specimens (suspicious and insufficient) was significantly lower in the TCB group (6.7% and 15.5%, respectively) than in the FNA group (22.6% and 38.7%, respectively; both p<0.001). TCB accurately diagnosed 90.9% of GISTs and 81.1% of non-GIST SETs, whereas FNA accurately diagnosed 68.8% of GISTs and 14.3% of non-GIST SETs. There were nine technical failures with TCB, and the rate of adverse events did not differ between the groups (TCB vs. FNA, 3.3% vs. 8.1%; p=0.27). CONCLUSIONS: Nineteen-gauge TCB is safe and highly valuable for diagnosing gastric SETs larger than 2 cm if technical failure can be avoided.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: To evaluate the yields and utility of 19-gauge (G) Trucut biopsy (TCB) versus 22 G fine needle aspiration (FNA) for diagnosing gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs). METHODS: We retrieved data for 152 patients with a gastric SET larger than 2 cm who had undergone endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided 19 G TCB (n=90) or 22 G FNA (n=62). Relevant clinical, tumor-specific, and EUS procedural information was reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS: A specific diagnosis was made for 76 gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) and 51 non-GIST SETs. The diagnostic yield of TCB was greater than that of FNA (77.8% vs. 38.7%, p<0.001). The percentage of non-diagnostic specimens (suspicious and insufficient) was significantly lower in the TCB group (6.7% and 15.5%, respectively) than in the FNA group (22.6% and 38.7%, respectively; both p<0.001). TCB accurately diagnosed 90.9% of GISTs and 81.1% of non-GIST SETs, whereas FNA accurately diagnosed 68.8% of GISTs and 14.3% of non-GIST SETs. There were nine technical failures with TCB, and the rate of adverse events did not differ between the groups (TCB vs. FNA, 3.3% vs. 8.1%; p=0.27). CONCLUSIONS: Nineteen-gauge TCB is safe and highly valuable for diagnosing gastric SETs larger than 2 cm if technical failure can be avoided.
Authors: Christopher D M Fletcher; Jules J Berman; Christopher Corless; Fred Gorstein; Jerzy Lasota; B Jack Longley; Markku Miettinen; Timothy J O'Leary; Helen Remotti; Brian P Rubin; Barry Shmookler; Leslie H Sobin; Sharon W Weiss Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Diogo T H de Moura; Thomas R McCarty; Pichamol Jirapinyo; Igor B Ribeiro; Victor K Flumignan; Fedaa Najdawai; Marvin Ryou; Linda S Lee; Christopher C Thompson Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2020-02-25 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Muhammad Ali Khan; Ian S Grimm; Bilal Ali; Richard Nollan; Claudio Tombazzi; Mohammad Kashif Ismail; Todd H Baron Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2017-05
Authors: Christoph Schlag; Christoph Menzel; Manuela Götzberger; Simon Nennstiel; Peter Klare; Stefan Wagenpfeil; Roland M Schmid; Gregor Weirich; Stefan von Delius Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2017-03