Gastric subepithelial masses: evaluation of multidetector CT (multiplanar reconstruction and virtual gastroscopy) versus endoscopic ultrasonography

ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Gastrointestinal Subepithelial Lesions

Subepithelial lesions (SEL) of the GI tract represent a mix of benign and potentially malignant entities including tumors, cysts, or extraluminal structures causing extrinsic compression of the gastrointestinal wall. SEL can occur anywhere along the GI tract and are frequently incidental findings encountered during endoscopy or cross-sectional imaging. This clinical guideline of the American College of Gastroenterology was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation process and is intended to suggest preferable approaches to a typical patient with a SEL based on the currently available published literature. Among the recommendations, we suggest endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with tissue acquisition to improve diagnostic accuracy in the identification of solid nonlipomatous SEL and EUS fine-needle biopsy alone or EUS fine-needle aspiration with rapid on-site evaluation sampling of solid SEL. There is insufficient evidence to recommend surveillance vs resection of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) <2 cm in size. Owing to their malignant potential, we suggest resection of gastric GIST >2 cm and all nongastric GIST. When exercising clinical judgment, particularly when statements are conditional suggestions and/or treatments pose significant risks, health-care providers should incorporate this guideline with patient-specific preferences, medical comorbidities, and overall health status to arrive at a patient-centered approach.

Application of Endoscopic Ultrasound Combined with Multislice Spiral CT in Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients with Gastrointestinal Eminence Lesions

Objective

To evaluate the application of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) combined with multislice spiral CT (MSCT) in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with gastric eminence lesions.

Methods

A total of 160 patients with gastric eminence lesions enrolled in our hospital from June 2018 to June 2021 were included and received EUS and MSCT. The results of the two examinations and the postoperative pathological results were compared.

Results

The common pathological types of gastric eminence lesions include polyps and stromal tumors, with the most common sites of lesions in the gastric antrum, followed by the fundus of the stomach and the gastric body. Gastric eminence lesions mostly originate from the mucosal layer and muscularis mucosa, accounting for 83.13% of the total. With pathological results as the gold standard, the detection rate of MSCT was 90.63%, and that of EUS was 78.13%. With the joint diagnosis as a reference, the receiver operating curve (ROC) revealed a higher diagnostic efficiency of MSCT and EUS.

Conclusion

The accuracy of MSCT in the diagnosis of gastric eminence lesions is significantly higher than that of EUS, both of which can offer useful guidance for the choice of endoscopic treatment methods. The combination of MSCT and EUS examination before endoscopic gastroscopy may provide a better treatment efficacy on gastric protruding lesions with high safety.

Endoscopic management of subepithelial lesions including neuroendocrine neoplasms: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

1: ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) as the best tool to characterize subepithelial lesion (SEL) features (size, location, originating layer, echogenicity, shape), but EUS alone is not able to distinguish among all types of SEL.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE suggests providing tissue diagnosis for all SELs with features suggestive of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) if they are of size > 20 mm, or have high risk stigmata, or require surgical resection or oncological treatment.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) or mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) equally for tissue diagnosis of SELs ≥ 20 mm in size.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends against surveillance of asymptomatic gastrointestinal (GI) tract leiomyomas, lipomas, heterotopic pancreas, granular cell tumors, schwannomas, and glomus tumors, if the diagnosis is clear.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 5: ESGE suggests surveillance of asymptomatic esophageal and gastric SELs without definite diagnosis, with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) at 3-6 months, and then at 2-3-year intervals for lesions < 10 mm in size, and at 1-2-year intervals for lesions 10-20 mm in size. For asymptomatic SELs > 20 mm in size that are not resected, ESGE suggests surveillance with EGD plus EUS at 6 months and then at 6-12-month intervals.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends endoscopic resection for type 1 gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms (g-NENs) if they grow larger than 10 mm. The choice of resection technique should depend on size, depth of invasion, and location in the stomach.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7: ESGE suggests considering removal of histologically proven gastric GISTs smaller than 20 mm as an alternative to surveillance. The decision to resect should be discussed in a multidisciplinary meeting. The choice of technique should depend on size, location, and local expertise.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 8: ESGE suggests that, to avoid unnecessary follow-up, endoscopic resection is an option for gastric SELs smaller than 20 mm and of unknown histology after failure of attempts to obtain diagnosis.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 9: ESGE recommends basing the surveillance strategy on the type and completeness of resection. After curative resection of benign SELs no follow-up is advised, except for type 1 gastric NEN for which surveillance at 1-2 years is advised.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 10: For lower or upper GI NEN with a positive or indeterminate margin at resection, ESGE recommends repeating endoscopy at 3-6 months and another attempt at endoscopic resection in the case of residual disease.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Gastric submucosal lesion caused by an embedded fish bone: A case report

BACKGROUND

Submucosal tumors (SMTs) refer to elevated lesions that originate from the layers below the mucosa of the digestive tract, including the muscularis, submucosa and muscularis propria. With the development and application of endoscopy and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), the detection rate of SMTs has increased significantly in recent years. Various diseases can lead to SMTs. However, a foreign body embedded in the gastric antrum showing clinical manifestations of a SMT is rare.

CASE SUMMARY

We report the case of a 47-year-old woman, who presented with upper abdominal discomfort for one year, and was subsequently diagnosed with a gastric submucosal lesion caused by an embedded foreign body by EUS and computed tomography. Considering the size and potential complications of this lesion, endoscopic full-thickness resection was performed to achieve full resection in our endoscopy center. A fish bone was found in the lesion during the operation, and was successfully removed, and the defect was later closed with endoscopic purse-string sutures.

CONCLUSION

This case report highlights the management strategies of SMTs, the importance of being familiar with diagnostic methods related to submucosal lesions, and being able to conduct effective treatment when this rare condition is highly suspected.

Insight into gastrointestinal heterotopic pancreas: imaging evaluation and differential diagnosis

Heterotopic pancreas (HP) is an uncommon congenital abnormality in the developmental process of the pancreas, with gastrointestinal heterotopic pancreas (GHP) being the most common HP. The clinical manifestations of GHP may have variable patterns of presentation, dictated by both the anatomic location and the functional ability of the lesion. The most common imaging modality in detecting GHP is computed tomography (CT), while gastrointestinal barium fluoroscopy, endoscopic ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are also applied. The density and enhancement patterns of GHP are consistent with histological classifications. GHP with a predominantly acinar tissue component manifests homogeneous and marked enhancement on CT images, whereas a predominantly ductal GHP presents heterogeneous and mild enhancement. On MRI, the appearance and signal intensity of GHP were paralleled to the normal pancreas on all sequences and were characterized by T1-weighted high signal and early marked enhancement. This article provides a comprehensive review of the histopathology, clinical manifestations, imaging features of various modalities, and differential diagnosis of GHP. It is hoped that this review will improve clinicians' knowledge of GHP and aid in accurate preoperative diagnosis, thereby reducing the misdiagnosis rate.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection in treatment of small gastric stromal tumors: A state-of-the-art review

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors can occur in any part of the gastrointestinal tract, but gastric stromal tumors (GSTs) are the most common. All GSTs have the potential to become malignant, and these can be divided into four different grades by risk from low to high: Very low risk, low risk, medium risk, and high risk. Current guidelines all recommend early complete excision of GSTs larger than 2 cm in diameter. However, it is not clear whether small GSTs (sGSTs, i.e., those smaller than 2 cm in diameter) should be treated as early as possible. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends that endoscopic ultrasonography-guided (EUS-guided) fine-needle aspiration biopsy and imaging (computed tomography or magnetic-resonance imaging) be used to assess cancer risk for sGSTs detected by gastroscopy to determine treatment. When EUS indicates a higher risk of tumor, surgical resection is recommended. There are some questions on whether sGSTs also require early treatment. Many studies have shown that endoscopic treatment of GSTs with diameters of 2-5 cm is very effective. We here address whether endoscopic therapy is also suitable for sGSTs. In this paper, we try to explain three questions: (1) Does sGST require treatment? (2) Is digestive endoscopy a safe and effective means of treating sGST? and (3) When sGSTs are at different sites and depths, which endoscopic treatment method is more suitable?

Application of ultrasound in the diagnosis of gastrointestinal tumors

Gastrointestinal tumors are common tumors in the digestive system. Early diagnosis of gastrointestinal tumors is the key to improve prognosis and curative effect of patients with tumors. Compared with other methods of examination and diagnosis, ultrasound examination has the advantages of simple operation, non-invasive, economical, and repeatable operation. With the advancement of ultrasound technology and the development of ultrasound contrast agents, ultrasound examination is more and more applied to gastrointestinal examination. Ultrasound cannot only observe the gastrointestinal wall, but also evaluate the surrounding lesions and metastases, as well as preoperative analysis and postoperative follow-up of gastrointestinal tumors. We reviewed the diagnostic applications of ultrasound in gastrointestinal tumors.

Comparison of the Diagnostic Ability of Endoscopic Ultrasonography and Abdominopelvic Computed Tomography in the Diagnosis of Gastric Subepithelial Tumors

Background/Aims

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is the most efficient imaging modality for gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs). However, abdominopelvic computed tomography (APCT) has other advantages in evaluating the characteristics, local extension, or invasion of SETs to adjacent organs. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic ability of EUS and APCT based on surgical histopathology results.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed data from 53 patients who underwent both EUS and APCT before laparoscopic wedge resection for gastric SETs from January 2010 to December 2017 at a single institution. On the basis of histopathology results, we assessed the diagnostic ability of the 2 tests.

Results

The overall accuracy of EUS and APCT was 64.2% and 50.9%, respectively. In particular, the accuracy of EUS vs. APCT for the diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), leiomyomas, and ectopic pancreas was 83.9% vs. 74.2%, 37.5% vs. 0.0%, and 57.1% vs. 14.3%, respectively. Most of the incorrect diagnoses with EUS involved hypoechoic lesions originating in the fourth echolayer, with the most common misdiagnosed lesions being GISTs mistaken for leiomyomas and vice versa.

Conclusions

APCT showed a lower overall accuracy than EUS; however, APCT remains a useful modality for malignant/potentially malignant gastric SETs.

Effect of the degree of gastric filling on the measured thickness of advanced gastric cancer by computed tomography

Imaging of gastric cancer thickness is closely associated with the depth of tumor invasion, which provides guidance for clinical staging and assists the evaluation of the effects of adjuvant therapy. However, it is unclear whether the measurement of thickness is affected by the degree of gastric filling, and its accuracy and reliability are under-reported. The present study aimed to investigate the influence of the degree of gastric filling on the measurement of gastric cancer thickness. A total of 38 patients with advanced gastric cancer who underwent enhanced abdominal computed tomography (CT) scanning at the Department of CT and MR in The Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University (Shijiazhuang, China) between July and September 2016 were recruited, consisting of 21 newly diagnosed cases and 17 follow-up cases following non-surgical treatments. Plain scanning (prior to filling) and enhanced scanning in venous phase (following filling) were performed. Axial CT images prior to and following filling of the normal part of gastric wall and the lesions were compared. The same procedure was repeated on these participants 1 month later by the same radiologist, and the results were compared with those obtained previously. Normal gastric wall thickness prior to and following gastric filling was significantly different (all P<0.001) with the most substantial changes observed at the greater curvature. Lesion thickness prior to and following filling was similar in newly diagnosed patients, but significantly different in patients for re-examination (P<0.05). The two thickness measurements in the same patients were consistent. The measured thickness of gastric cancer in newly diagnosed patients was relatively stable, and could be used as an indicator in baseline CT examination. Maintaining a similar degree of gastric filling during re-examination could aid the accurate evaluation of treatment efficacy.

Diagnostic performance of stomach CT compared with endoscopic ultrasonography in diagnosing gastric subepithelial tumors

PURPOSE

To evaluate the diagnostic ability of multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) compared to endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) as a standard reference, and investigate the factors influencing the detection of small gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs) (<5 cm) on MDCT with stomach protocol.

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated 70 patients who were suspected with gastric SETs on esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), and underwent both EUS and computed tomographic (CT) scanning. EUS was performed by two gastroenterologists, and location, size, echotexture, echogenicity, and layer of origin were described when gastric SETs were detected on EUS. MDCTs were reviewed based on consensus of two radiologists blinded to the EUS result. Size, location, enhancement pattern, and contour of the lesion detected on CT were described. We calculated the diagnostic ability of CT compared to EUS with respect to detection of gastric SETs, and investigated the factors influencing detection of SETs on CT. We also used receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve to obtain optimal cut-off size for predicting CT visibility of small SETs.

RESULTS

Of the 70 patients, who underwent both CT and EUS due to suspicious presence of SET on EGD, EUS detected 56 probable cases of SET and 14 cases of external compression. CT led to detection of 39 cases of SET out of the 56 cases. Sensitivity and specificity of CT was 69.6% and 100.0%, respectively. Positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of CT were 100.0% and 45.2%, respectively. There was a significant difference in mean size of CT-detected lesions compared to CT-invisible lesions (14.36 mm vs. 8.52 mm, p < 0.001), but no significant differences in terms of layer of origin and location between these two groups (p > 0.5) were observed. The ROC analysis revealed that the optimal cut-off value, also referred to prediction of CT visibility, was 10 mm. Out of 70 cases, 26 cases (37.14%) were identified as external compression or insignificant lesions such as lipoma, hemangioma, lymphangioma, or gastritis cystica on CT, and do not require regular follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Stomach CT shows good feasibility with respect to depiction of small SETs, especially in cases where size is larger than 10 mm. Henceforth, it is proposed that stomach CT would be a complimentary or problem-solving tool for SET in evaluating the presence of external compression and characterization of tumors.