Literature DB >> 29243411

Randomized crossover trial comparing EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration with EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy for gastric subepithelial tumors.

Tomohisa Iwai1, Mitsuhiro Kida1, Hiroshi Imaizumi1, Shiro Miyazawa1, Kosuke Okuwaki1, Hiroshi Yamauchi1, Toru Kaneko1, Rikiya Hasegawa1, Eiji Miyata1, Wasaburo Koizumi1.   

Abstract

AIM: The purpose of this study is to compare the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for gastric subepithelial tumors (SET).
METHODS: Patients diagnosed SET derived from fourth layer of the stomach were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned to undergo both EUS-FNA using standard needle and EUS-FNB using a core biopsy needle alternatively to the same lesion a total of four times per session. The specimen was carefully examined for the presence of a macroscopic visible core, appearing as threadlike yellowish or bloody pieces of tissue and blinded histocytologic analyses were conducted. For spindle cell lesions by hematoxylin and eosin staining (H&E) on histologic evaluation, immunohistochemical staining was performed in all cases to confirm the pathological diagnosis.
RESULTS: A total of 23 patients were enrolled and underwent paired EUS-FNA and -FNB sampling. The diagnostic rate due to immunohistochemical staining was 73.9% and 91.3%, respectively (P = .120). The rate of obtaining specimens with a macroscopic yellowish core and only a bloody core among the tissue specimens were respectively 43.5% and 52.2% for EUS-FNA and 69.6% and 30.4% for EUS-FNB. The diagnostic rate for a yellowish core (84.6%) and a bloody core (84.2%, P = .971) did not differ significantly.
CONCLUSION: Both techniques were equivalently safe and successful in terms of a high diagnostic yield for gastric SET. And the tissue that can be immunohistochemically stained is present even in the specimens that appear to be a macroscopically bloody core.
© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ProCore needle; endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration; endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy; subepithelial tumors

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29243411     DOI: 10.1002/dc.23872

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diagn Cytopathol        ISSN: 1097-0339            Impact factor:   1.582


  6 in total

1.  EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling versus FNA in the diagnosis of subepithelial lesions: a large multicenter study.

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

2.  Focal pyloric hypertrophy in adults: a diagnostic pitfall-a case report and review of the literature.

Authors:  Zeynep Bayramoğlu; İbrahim Cumhur Başsorgun; Betül Ünal; Mete Akın; Gülsüm Özlem Elpek
Journal:  Clin J Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-07-26

Review 3.  Advancements in the Diagnosis of Gastric Subepithelial Tumors.

Authors:  Osamu Goto; Mitsuru Kaise; Katsuhiko Iwakiri
Journal:  Gut Liver       Date:  2022-05-15       Impact factor: 4.519

Review 4.  The Diagnosis of Small Gastrointestinal Subepithelial Lesions by Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration and Biopsy.

Authors:  Masanari Sekine; Takeharu Asano; Hirosato Mashima
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-25

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

Authors:  Amaninder Dhaliwal; Sindhura Kolli; Banreet Singh Dhindsa; Harmeet Singh Mashiana; Neil Bhogal; Ishfaq Bhat; Shailender Singh; Douglas G Adler
Journal:  Ann Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-11-29

Review 6.  Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration vs fine needle biopsy for pancreatic masses, subepithelial lesions, and lymph nodes.

Authors:  Irving Levine; Arvind J Trindade
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2021-07-14       Impact factor: 5.742

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.