| Literature DB >> 30327668 |
Eun Young Park1, Dong Hoon Baek1, Gwang Ha Kim1, Bong Eun Lee1, So-Jeong Lee2, Do Youn Park2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic gastric anisakiasis is a rare, usually asymptomatic, and difficult to diagnose infection incidentally discovered during endoscopy, resembling a subepithelial tumor (SET). Because its endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) findings are not established, it is occasionally misdiagnosed as gastrointestinal mesenchymal tumors and removed by endoscopic or surgical resection. We aimed to assess the characteristic EUS findings of chronic gastric anisakiasis and the clinical course during follow-up.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30327668 PMCID: PMC6171207 DOI: 10.1155/2018/8562792
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract ISSN: 1687-6121 Impact factor: 2.260
Figure 1A case of chronic gastric anisakiasis histopathologically confirmed after surgical resection. (a) Endoscopy shows a subepithelial tumor-like lesion in the greater curvature of the gastric antrum. (b) On endoscopic ultrasonography, the lesion is a heterogeneously hypoechoic lesion in the submucosal layer. Hyperechoic tubular structures are seen inside the lesion (arrow). (c) Histopathological features of the resected specimen. Ill-defined granulomatous inflammation with marked eosinophil infiltration is seen in the submucosa (hematoxylin and eosin stain, ×40). Inside the granulomatous inflammation, the degenerated anisakiasis larva is observed (boxed area, hematoxylin and eosin stain, ×400).
Clinicopathologic and endosonographic features in 28 patients with chronic gastric anisakiasis.
| Case | Sex | Age (years) | Location | Gross shape∗ | Erosion | EUS features | Eosinophil no. on endoscopic biopsy† | Size on follow-up endoscopy | Follow-up period (months) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Size (mm) | Growth pattern | Layer | Echogenicity | Homogeneity | Border | Hyperechoic tubular structures | |||||||||
| 1 | M | 27 | Middle | I | − | 7 | Mural | 3 | Hypoechoic | Heterogeneous | Distinct | + | N-P | Decreased | 1 |
| 2 | M | 41 | Upper | I | − | 3 | Mural | 3 | Hypoechoic | Heterogeneous | Distinct | + | 41 | Subsided | 26 |
| 3 | M | 43 | Middle | I | + | 9 | Mural | 3 | Hypoechoic | Heterogeneous | Indistinct | + | 37 | Decreased | 1 |
| 4 | M | 49 | Middle | I | + | 25 | Intraluminal | 2 | Hypoechoic | Homogeneous | Indistinct | − | 22 | Subsided | 32 |
| 5 | M | 51 | Middle | I | − | 17 | Mural | 3 | Hypoechoic | Heterogeneous | Indistinct | + | 64 | Subsided | 9 |
| 6 | M | 53 | Middle | I | − | 5 | Mural | 3 | Hypoechoic | Homogeneous | Indistinct | − | 5 | Decreased | 5 |
| 7 | M | 58 | Middle | I | − | 10 | Mural | 3 | Hypoechoic | Heterogeneous | Distinct | + | 45 | Subsided | 9 |
| 8 | M | 71 | Middle | I | + | 7 | Mural | 2, 3 | Hypoechoic | Heterogeneous | Indistinct | + | 18 | Subsided | 9 |
| 9 | F | 25 | Upper | I | − | 7 | Mural | 3 | Hypoechoic | Heterogeneous | Indistinct | − | 30 | Same | 22 |
| 10 | F | 42 | Lower | I | − | 11 | Mural | 2 | Hypoechoic | Homogeneous | Distinct | − | 107 | Same | 13 |
| 11 | F | 45 | Middle | I | + | 17 | Mural | 3, 4 | Hypoechoic | Heterogeneous | Indistinct | + | 500 | Subsided | 6 |
| 12 | F | 47 | Middle | I | − | 6 | Mural | 3 | Hypoechoic | Homogeneous | Distinct | + | 12 | Subsided | 14 |
| 13 | F | 49 | Middle | I | − | 7 | Intraluminal | 3, 4 | Hypoechoic | Heterogeneous | Indistinct | + | N-P | Subsided | 12 |
| 14 | F | 49 | Middle | II | + | 15 | Mural | 3, 4 | Hyperechoic | Heterogeneous | Indistinct | + | 56 | Subsided | 8 |
| 15 | F | 52 | Middle | I | + | 7 | Mural | 3 | Hypoechoic | Heterogeneous | Indistinct | + | 15 | Subsided | 18 |
| 16 | F | 52 | Middle | I | + | 6 | Mural | 3 | Hypoechoic | Heterogeneous | Distinct | + | 20 | Decreased | 1 |
| 17 | F | 53 | Upper | I | − | 9 | Intraluminal | 3 | Hypoechoic | Heterogeneous | Distinct | + | N-P | Subsided | 53 |
| 18 | F | 53 | Middle | I | − | 11 | Mural | 3 | Hypoechoic | Heterogeneous | Indistinct | + | 73 | Subsided | 7 |
| 19 | F | 55 | Middle | I | − | 16 | Mural | 3 | Hypoechoic | Heterogeneous | Distinct | + | 90 | Decreased | 3 |
| 20 | F | 57 | Upper | I | + | 8 | Mural | 2, 3 | Hypoechoic | Homogeneous | Indistinct | − | 370 | Subsided | 1 |
| 21 | F | 59 | Upper | I | + | 4 | Mural | 3, 4 | Hypoechoic | Heterogeneous | Distinct | + | N-P | Decreased | 55 |
| 22 | F | 59 | Middle | I | − | 6 | Mural | 3 | Hypoechoic | Heterogeneous | Indistinct | + | N-P | Subsided | 11 |
| 23 | F | 62 | Upper | I | − | 7 | Mural | 3 | Hypoechoic | Heterogeneous | Distinct | + | N-P | Decreased | 1 |
| 24 | F | 64 | Middle | I | − | 12 | Mural | 3 | Hypoechoic | Heterogeneous | Distinct | − | N-P | Decreased | 1 |
| 25 | F | 66 | Middle | I | − | 11 | Mural | 3, 4 | Hypoechoic | Heterogeneous | Indistinct | + | 5 | Decreased | 1 |
| 26 | F | 66 | Middle | I | − | 13 | Mural | 3, 4 | Hypoechoic | Heterogeneous | Indistinct | + | 25 | Subsided | 15 |
| 27 | F | 75 | Middle | I | − | 8 | Intraluminal | 2 | Hypoechoic | Homogeneous | Indistinct | + | 55 | Decreased | 1 |
| 28 | F | 76 | Upper | I | + | 8 | Intraluminal | 3 | Hypoechoic | Heterogeneous | Indistinct | + | 11 | Subsided | 19 |
∗By Yamada classification [6]. †Per high-power field. N-P: not performed.
Summary of endosonographic features of chronic anisakiasis.
| EUS features |
|
|---|---|
| Median size, mm (range) | 8 (3–25) |
| Growth pattern | |
| Intraluminal | 5 (18) |
| Mural | 23 (82) |
| Layer | |
| Second layer | 3 (11) |
| Second and third layers | 2 (7) |
| Third layer | 17 (61) |
| Third and fourth layers | 6 (21) |
| Echogenicity | |
| Hypoechoic | 27 (96) |
| Hyperechoic | 1 (4) |
| Homogeneity | |
| Homogenous | 6 (21) |
| Heterogeneous | 22 (79) |
| Border | |
| Indistinct | 17 (61) |
| Distinct | 11 (39) |
| Hyperechoic tubular structure | |
| Present | 22 (79) |
| Absent | 6 (21) |
Figure 2A representative case of chronic gastric anisakiasis (case 11). (a) Initial endoscopy shows a subepithelial tumor-like lesion in the lesser curvature of the gastric midbody. (b) On endoscopic ultrasonography, the lesion is a heterogeneously hypoechoic lesion in the submucosal and muscularis propria layers. Hyperechoic tubular structures are seen inside the lesion (arrow). (c) Endoscopic biopsy reveals increased eosinophil infiltration (hematoxylin and eosin stain, ×400). (d) Follow-up endoscopy performed 6 months later shows that the lesion has subsided completely.