Diagnosis of subepithelial tumors in the GI tract. Endoscopy, EUS, and histology: bronze, silver, and gold standard?

A rare case of adenocarcinoma of an ectopic pancreas: A case report

Introduction

Ectopic pancreas refers to the presence of pancreatic tissue in an unusual anatomical location that has neither anatomic nor vascular continuity with the pancreas. Adenocarcinoma of an ectopic pancreas is rare; only few cases have been described in the literature.

Presentation of case

We reported a 69-year-old man who was admitted to the emergency department with feculent vomiting lasting two days prior to presentation. Endoscopy revealed pyloric stenosis. Biopsies performed during gastroscopy were in keeping with duodenal cancer, while those performed during endoscopic ultrasound suggested a gastric tumor.

A subtotal gastrectomy was done because of results of the extemporaneous analysis and the suspicion of a gastric cancer. The final histopathological report revealed adenocarcinoma of an ectopic pancreas.

Discussion

Malignant transformation of an ectopic pancreas is very rare, and often occurs as an adenocarcinoma. A differential diagnosis of a gastric adenocarcinoma and a gastrointestinal stromal tumor is essential before treatment.

Outcome and a literature review of the pathology, prognosis, and treatment will be discussed.

Conclusion

Despite adenocarcinoma of an ectopic pancreas being rare, it should be considered as a differential diagnosis of submucosal tumors. The standard treatment for ectopic pancreatic adenocarcinoma is surgery, with a higher survival rate of 5 years compared to pancreatic cancer. Frozen section analysis is essential because it will give an idea on the origin of the neoplasia and allow adaptation of the surgical procedure.

•

This case report describes a case of adenocarcinoma of ectopic pancreas.

•

Malignant transformation of the aberrant pancreas is very rare.

•

Partial gastrectomy and duodenectomy of D1 was performed and sample sent for extemporaneous analysis.

•

The standard treatment for ectopic pancreatic adenocarcinoma is surgery.

Gastric subepithelial tumor: long-term natural history and risk factors for progression

BACKGROUND

Subepithelial tumors are often detected incidentally during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. However, their natural history and clinical management have yet to be clearly established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the natural history and risk factors for progression of gastric SETs.

METHODS

The study retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who were diagnosed with gastric SET using upper gastrointestinal endoscopy between January 2005 and December 2017. Tumor progression was defined by a ≥ 25% increase in diameter.

RESULTS

Among 3237 patients, 1859 underwent serial upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for more than six months. Endoscopic ultrasonography was further performed in 733 (39.43%) patients. Resection was performed in 73 (3.93%) patients. Tumor progressed in 138 (7.42%) patients over a mean follow-up period of 59.41 months (range, 5-215 months). In progressed tumors, the mean initial size was 15.01 mm (range, 2-50 mm) and the mean size increment was 12.86 mm (range, 3-50 mm). Large initial tumor size (OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 1.01-1.05), surface ulcer or erosion (OR: 2.47, 95% CI: 1.21-5.06), lobulated shape (OR: 3.76, 95% CI: 2.00-7.06), and middle-third location (OR: 1.65, 95% CI: 1.08-2.52) were significant risk factors for tumor progression. Large SETs had higher rates of progression and tended to grow faster than smaller tumors (r = 0.44, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of gastric SETs did not increase in size during the long-term follow-up. Serial endoscopy may be sufficient as a follow-up tool for small SETs with intact overlying mucosa without lobulated shape.

The Pathologic Confirmation in Subepithelial Tumors

Background/Aims: Subepithelial tumors (SETs) are small, mostly asymptomatic lesions with normal overlying mucosa, usually identified incidentally on endoscopy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the pathologic diagnosis of SETs, and to assess the diagnostic yield and impact of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) biopsy on the management of patients with SETs.Materials and Methods: We included 52 subepithelial lesions in this study during the study period. Inclusion criteria included size of the SET >2 cm, and a gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) that cannot be excluded using EUS. We performed an endoscopic biopsy of each SET using the ESD technique.Results: The mean diameter of the lesions was 24.15±6.0 mm. The diagnostic yield of this method was 96.15%. Among the 52 participants, 45 were located in the stomach, four in the esophagus, and three in the duodenum. The pathologic diagnoses included: 17 leiomyomas, 13 GISTs, 11 ectopic pancreases, two carcinomas, two inflammatory fibroid polyps, two Brunner’s gland hyperplasia, two lipomas, one glomus tumor, and two remained undiagnosed. The mean duration of the procedure was 13.44±2.41 minutes. Three complications were associated with the procedure.Conclusions: Deep biopsy via ESD is useful in determining the histopathologic nature of SETs. This method minimizes the need for unnecessary surgery in benign SETs.

Diagnostic yields of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle tissue acquisition according to the gastric location

The diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle tissue acquisition (EUS-FNTA) according to the gastric location of subepithelial tumors (SETs) has not been well established. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of EUS-FNTA for the diagnosis of gastric SETs according to tumor location.Thirty-three patients diagnosed with gastric SETs via EUS-FNTA from January 2016 to May 2018 were analyzed retrospectively. Patient demographics, diagnostic yields, and complications were evaluated.Nineteen patients (57.6%) were female, with a mean age of 57.7 years. Endoscopic ultrasound revealed a mean longitudinal diameter of 25.6 mm. The most common location of SETs was in the gastric body (n = 18, 54.5%), followed by cardia and fundus (n = 10, 30.3%), and antrum (n = 5, 15.2%). A 20-gauge biopsy needle was most frequently used (90.9%). The diagnostic yield was obtained in 23 patients (69.7%). The most common diagnosis was gastrointestinal stromal tumor (73.9%), followed by leiomyoma (17.4%). The diagnostic yield of SETs in gastric antrum (0/5, 0%) was significantly lower than that in the gastric body and cardia (23/28, 82.1%, P = .001). A case of immediate bleeding after EUS-FNTA occurred in 1 patient (3.0%) who recovered uneventfully. According to related literature, the overall diagnostic yield of SETs in gastric antrum was significantly lower than that in the gastric body, fundus, and cardia (29.7% vs 71.4%, P < .001, n = 191).EUS-FNTA is ineffective in the diagnosis of SETs in the gastric antrum. Although EUS-FNTA is an advanced diagnostic tool for gastric SETs, it is essential to develop more effective methods for the diagnosis of antral SETs.

Evaluation of Upper Endoscopic and Endoscopic Ultrasound Features in the Differential Diagnosis of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors and Leiomyomas in the Upper Gastrointestinal Tract

Background

Differentiation between benign and malignant subepithelial lesions (SELs) in the upper gastrointestinal tract (UGT) leads to far-reaching clinical consequences. An accurate diagnosis can be challenging because of the insufficient diagnostic yield of upper endoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and different types of biopsy.

Aim

Our aim was to reveal the efficacy of upper endoscopic and EUS features for the differential diagnosis of hypoechogenic SELs (gastrointestinal stromal tumors [GISTs] and leiomyomas) in the UGT.

Materials and Methods

The research covers a case series study of 27 hypoechogenic SELs in the UGT between 2012 and 2015 at Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Klinikos. Upper endoscopic and EUS features of SELs were recorded. In order to standardize the diagnostic approach to GISTs and leiomyomas, we assigned scores for seven upper endoscopic and EUS features.

Results

The mean total scores in the GIST group were significantly higher than those in the leiomyoma group: 3.25 ± 1.71 and 0.53 ± 0.83 (p < 0.0001), respectively. Increment by one score increased the odds ratio for GIST 5.87 times (95% CI 1.63-21.11; p = 0.007). The total score demonstrated very good discriminatory features of GISTs against leiomyomas (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.94 [0.86-1]). The cutoff value of 1.5 total score indicated 83.3% sensitivity and 93.3% specificity in diagnosing GISTs.

Conclusions

Upper endoscopy and EUS are useful methods in making a definite diagnosis of SELs. Their diagnostic accuracy for the differential diagnosis of GISTs and leiomyomas is sufficient.

Clinical course of suspected small gastrointestinal stromal tumors in the stomach

BACKGROUND

Gastric subepithelial lesions are frequently encountered during endoscopic examinations, and the majority of them are small and asymptomatic. Among these lesions, gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are the major concern for patients and clinicians owing to their malignant potentials. Although previous guidelines suggested periodic surveillance for such small (≤ 20 mm) lesions, several patients and clinicians have still requested or prescribed repeated examinations or radical resection, posing extra medical burdens and risks.

AIM

To describe the clinical course of suspected small gastric GISTs and provide further evidence for surveillance strategy for tumor therapy.

METHODS

This single-center, retrospective study was conducted at West China Hospital, Sichuan University. Consecutive patients with suspected small gastric GISTs were reviewed from November 2004 to November 2018. GIST was suspected according to endoscopic ultrasonography features: hypoechoic lesions from muscularis propria or muscularis mucosa. Eligible patients with suspected small (≤ 20 mm) GISTs were included for analysis. Patients’ demographic data, lesions’ characteristics, and follow-up medical records were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 383 patients (male/female, 121/262; mean age, 54 years) with 410 suspected small gastric GISTs (1 lesion in 362 patients, 2 lesions in 16, 3 lesions in 4, and 4 lesions in 1) were included for analysis. The most common location was gastric fundus (56.6%), followed by body (29.0%), cardia (12.2%), and antrum (2.2%). After a median follow-up of 28 mo (interquartile range, 16-48; range, 3-156), 402 lesions (98.0%) showed no changes in size, and size of 8 lesions (2.0%) was increased (mean increment, 10 mm). Of the 8 lesions with size increment, endoscopic or surgical resection was performed in 6 patients (5 GISTs and 1 leiomyoma). For other 2 remaining patients, unroofing biopsy or endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration was carried out (2 GISTs), while no further change in size was noted over a period of 62-64 mo.

CONCLUSION

The majority of suspected small (≤ 20 mm) gastric GISTs had no size increment during follow-up. Regular endoscopic follow-up without pathological diagnosis may be highly helpful for such small gastric subepithelial lesions.

Gastrointestinal hemorrhage caused by small intestinal benign tumors: 2 cases report

Gastrointestinal bleedings caused by small intestinal tumors are rare and difficult to diagnose because they are not easy to access to the conventional endoscopy. We report two cases, one of them from proximal jejunum and the other one from ileal intestine complicated by intussusception. The two cases were admitted in the emergency department for hematochezia and melena, the diagnosis was established by enhanced helical computed tomography angiography.

Endosonography-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration versus "Key-Hole Biopsy" in the diagnostics of upper gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors. A prospective randomized interventional study

BACKGROUND

The management and prognosis of subepithelial tumors (SETs) of the upper gastrointestinal tract depend on the correct preoperative evaluation, including tissue diagnosis in selected cases. Several methods providing deep tissue sampling for cytological and/or histological examinations have been described but their diagnostic yield and precise position in the diagnostic algorithm remain to be established. This prospective randomized study aims to compare the Endosonography-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration (EUS-FNA) to Key-Hole Biopsy (KHB) in cytological or histological diagnostics of upper gastrointestinal SETs.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study was conducted in a single tertiary endoscopy center in Ostrava, Czech Republic between November 2010 and October 2015. Patients with endoscopically detected SETs of the upper gastrointestinal tract with a diameter ≥ 2 cm, were randomized to either the EUS-FNA with 22G needle, or to the Key Hole biopsy (forceps biopsy through mucosal incision) groups. The main study outcomes were success rate of tissue diagnostics and, in the cases of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumours (GIST), possibility of determining mitotic activity. A cross-over examination was performed in situations where the first method had failed.

RESULTS

A total of 46 consecutive patients were randomized. Of these, 24 (52%) and 22 (48%) were randomized to EUS-FNA group and KHB arm, respectively. 5 SETs (11%) were detected in the esophagus, 40 (87%) in the stomach and 1 (2%) in the duodenum. The definitive diagnosis was established by the first sampling method in 42 (91%) patients, including 22 (92%) in the EUS-FNA group and 20 (91%) in the KHB group (P=0.999), and after a cross-over in another 3 (7%) patients. The most prevalent SET was GIST (70%). Although some mitotic activity could be observed in 11 patients, the mitotic index could be diagnosed in none of them. Of a total of 20 surgically treated patients, preoperative and postoperative tissue diagnosis corresponded in 19/20 (95%) cases, including 100% in FNA group and 91% in KHB group (P=0.999). No adverse events of tissue sampling occurred in the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Deep tissue sampling by EUS-FNA and KHB are equally effective in the diagnostics of SETs of the upper gastrointestinal tract ≥ 2 cm. However, neither EUS-FNA nor KHB provided adequate tissue sample to determine mitotic index.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02025244).

Giant gastric lipoma successfully removed by endoscopic submucosal dissection: case report and systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Gastric lipomas are rare adipose tumors that constitute less than 1% of gastric tumors. While lipomas generally do not need removal unless symptomatic, endoscopic resection has been proposed as safe for gastric lipomas smaller than 2 cm. Yet, there is no consensus on the optimal treatment method for larger lipomas. We report a case of a giant 7-cm gastric lipoma successfully removed by endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and systematically review the literature for gastric lipomas removed by ESD.

METHODS

Systematic review was conducted by searching PubMed and Scopus databases, up to 15 February 2018, using combinations of relevant terms.

RESULTS

We report a 55-year-old male with known gastroesophageal reflux disease and asthma, who sought medical attention due to chronic heartburn and asthma exacerbations. These symptoms were attributed to a large 7 cm × 3 cm gastric lipoma that caused gastric outlet obstruction. The lipoma was safely removed by ESD, allowing quick recovery and alleviation of symptoms. In our review, we identified 20 gastric lipomas treated with ESD, with 15 (75%) being 2 cm or larger. The average size of the lipomas was 4 cm (range: 1.2-9 cm). All lipomas were limited to the submucosa, with 80% of the tumors located in the antrum. Three lipomas were removed by submucosal tunneling. All tumors were successfully removed en bloc and no major complications were reported.

CONCLUSION

Our findings support the conclusion that ESD may be a safe alternative to conventional surgery for removal of large symptomatic gastric lipomas.

Spontaneous peeled ileal giant lipoma caused by lower gastrointestinal bleeding: A case report

RATIONALE

Gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors (SETs) with endoscopic features such as ulceration, a red color change, a peeled mucosal layer, and spontaneous bleeding could have malignant potential. However, we encountered a case of a lipoma that presented features different from the generally known features of gastrointestinal SETs. Therefore, we report an interesting rare case of a terminal ileal giant lipoma with a unique feature of spontaneous peeled ulceration on the surface on endoscopy that caused gastrointestinal bleeding.

PATIENT

An 82-year-old woman with a 1-week history of abdominal pain and hematochezia presented to our hospital.

DIAGNOSES

Ileocolonoscopy revealed a SET with a peeled surface and erythematous and ulcerative mucosal changes as well as exposed a submucosal mass at the terminal ileum. Macroscopically, the lesion appeared as a yellowish pedunculated polypoid mass measuring 3 × 2 cm with a peeled mucosal ulceration. Histopathological findings revealed a submucosal lipoma of the terminal ileum.

INTERVENTION

We thought that the endoscopic finding indicated malignant SETs or those with malignant potential rather than benign SETs. Therefore, the patient underwent an elective laparoscopic ileocecectomy.

LESSONS

We encountered a lipoma that did not present with the typical features of gastrointestinal SETs. Our findings suggest that clinicians should consider that benign SETs in the terminal ileum may present with various endoscopic findings similar to those of malignant SETs, which can cause fatal symptoms and signs.

Direct endoscopic biopsy for subepithelial tumor larger than 20 mm after removal of overlying mucosa

OBJECTIVE

An accurate diagnosis of a subepithelial tumor (SET) using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) without tissue acquisition is difficult. Treatment plan for a SET may be influenced by endoscopic tissue diagnosis. We aimed to clarify the clinical outcomes of direct endoscopic biopsy for SET after removal of the overlying mucosa.

METHODS

We evaluated the medical records of 15 patients. All patients underwent direct endoscopic biopsy for a SET larger than 20 mm (involving proper muscle layer) after removal of the overlying mucosa. The rate of achieving an accurate diagnosis and the treatment decision after the procedure were evaluated.

RESULTS

The patients' mean age was 55.1 ± 14.7 years. The patient population predominantly comprised men (9/15, 60%). The mean tumor size was 24.3 ± 7.8 mm. The mean biopsy number was 3.5 ± 1.7. No major complications occurred with the procedure. The mean procedure time was 15 ± 7.4 min. An accurate diagnosis was achieved in 93.3% of patients (14/15). The main pathological diagnoses after direct endoscopic SET biopsy were leiomyoma (33.3%, 5/15) and ectopic pancreas (33.3%, 5/15) followed by gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) (13.3%, 2/15) and schwannoma (13.3%, 2/15). The treatment plan was influenced by the result of biopsy in 80% of patients (9/15), and unnecessary surgical resection was avoided.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct endoscopic SET biopsy after removal of the overlying mucosa using an endoscopic conventional snare was a useful diagnostic tool with high diagnostic accuracy and low risk of complications.

Endoscopic resection for small esophageal submucosa tumor: Band ligation versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection

Because an esophageal submucosa tumor (SMT) may be malignant despite its small size, a safe endoscopic resection method is needed in some small SMTs. Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) may be simple, but incomplete pathologic resection margin status is common. We aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of 2 kinds of EMR techniques (conventional EMR and EMR with band ligation device) and to evaluate the factors associated with incomplete pathologic resection.We evaluated the medical records of 36 patients. All lesions were esophageal SMTs located in the submucosa or muscularis mucosa less than 10 mm in size by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). The clinical outcomes based on the endoscopic procedures and factors associated with incomplete pathologic resection were evaluated.The mean tumor size was 6.6 ± 4.1 mm. The overall en bloc and complete resection rates were 100% and 80.6%, respectively. No procedure-related complications, such as perforation and bleeding, were found. Univariate analysis showed that complete resection rates were higher in granular cell tumors than in leiomyomas (82.8% vs 17.2%, P = .029), tumors located in the submucosa layer than in the muscularis mucosa (96.6% vs 3.4%, P = .003), and in EMR with band ligation device than in conventional EMR (82.8% vs 17.2%, P < .001). Multivariate analysis showed that conventional EMR was the only significant factor associated with incomplete resection (OR, 35.594; 95% CI, 2.042-520.329; P = .014)EMR with a band ligation device is an effective and safe treatment method for small esophageal SMT.

Prevalence of Gastric Subepithelial Tumors in Korea: A Single Center Experience

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The incidental finding of gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors (SETs) is increasing with national cancer screening endoscopy. In a Swedish population, screening endoscopy found a prevalence of SETs of 0.36%. However, the prevalence of gastric SETs in Korean patients has not been described. Therefore, this study evaluated the prevalence of SETs of the stomach in a Korean patient population.

METHODS

We reviewed endoscopic reports of 11,712 subjects who underwent screening esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) at Hanyang University Hospital between July 2012 and June 2013.

RESULTS

Among 11,712 patients, 194 (1.7%) had SET of the stomach. Of these, 71 (prevalence, 0.6%) were male and 123 (prevalence, 1.1%) were female. When grouped by age, the prevalence of SET was as follows: 1.0% for patients in their twenties, 6.2% for those in their thirties, 19.1% for those in their forties, 33.0% for those in their fifties, 30.4% for those in their sixties, and 10.3% for those over 70 years of age.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall prevalence of gastric SET among healthy examinees was 1.7%. The prevalence of gastric SET increased with age and was higher in female.

The Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in the Diagnostic Assessment of Subepithelial Lesions of the Upper Gastrointestinal Tract

Introduction

The identification of subepithelial lesions is a relatively frequent finding at endoscopy however their natural history is not well known. Our aim was to analyze the role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in the diagnostic approach of subepithelial lesions of the upper gastrointestinal tract.

Methods

Retrospective study which included 324 patients undergoing upper radial EUS for evaluation of subepithelial lesions from 2008 to 2014. The EUS features, presumptive diagnosis and management decision were analyzed.

Results

324 patients included, 60% with gastric subepithelial lesions, 28% oesophageal and 12% from the duodenum. Based on EUS features the presumptive diagnosis was: 25% gastrointestinal stromal tumor, 21% lipoma, 19% leiomyoma, 17% pancreatic rest, 7% submucosa cysts, 1% granular cell tumors, 1% carcinoids, 1% mucosa lesions and 8% not defined. After EUS the suggested approach was no follow-up in 45%, follow-up with re-examination with EUS in 35% and additional tissue sampling or endoscopic/surgical resection in 20%. The latter was based on EUS features of risk at the diagnosis (53%), such as size ≥2 cm, hypoechogenicity, heterogeneity, lobulation, calcifications, cystic component and regional adenopathies; impossibility to define a presumptive diagnosis (39%) or EUS features change at follow-up (8%). The combination of multiple features correlated with a higher probability of this recommended strategy (p < 0.001), in 100% when 4 or more features were present. Among the 33 patients who underwent fine needle aspiration, in 66% the result was inconclusive. During follow-up, none of the patients who were managed with surveillance radial EUS presented complications.

Conclusion

EUS is the method of choice in the study of subepithelial lesions of the upper gastrointestinal tract, in most cases defining a diagnosis. The need for a definitive diagnosis or therapeutic approaches can be based on ultrasound risk features, presented, in the majority, at presentation. This study shows that EUS is capable of safely and accurately define those subepithelial lesions that can be managed only with surveillance ultrasound while waiting for better results with fine needle aspiration.

Advances in the Management of Upper Gastrointestinal Subepithelial Tumor: Pathologic Diagnosis Using Endoscopy without Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy

Until now, biopsy methods for subepithelial tumors (SETs) have focused on endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biopsy; however, these methods have several limitations. We devised a simple method for pathologic diagnosis of SETs. SETs are occasionally diagnosed during endoscopy, and lesions are generally small and asymptomatic. It can be challenging to decide on a management plan for large asymptomatic SETs. EUS imaging provides information regarding the size, layer, and echo pattern of the lesions. Patient management plans have traditionally been determined based on EUS images, whereby the endoscopist chooses to either monitor or remove the tumor. However, EUS alone cannot diagnose and evaluate upper gastrointestinal SETs with high accuracy. As sufficient tissue samples are required for the accurate diagnosis of SETs, EUS-guided biopsy techniques such as EUS fine-needle aspiration and trucut biopsy are currently used. However, these methods have a relatively low diagnostic accuracy and do not always provide information upon immunohistochemical staining. Endoscopists can easily detect a submucosal mass after creating an iatrogenic mucosal ulcer, after which tissue sampling is performed by using endoscopic biopsy. Furthermore, pathologic results can differentiate between benign and premalignant lesions. Here, we introduce a simple method for the pathologic diagnosis of SETs.

Can contrast-enhanced harmonic endosonography predict malignancy risk in gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors?

Background and Objectives:

Contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasound (CEH-EUS) is a novel technology that can identify subepithelial tumors (SETs) by detecting the degree of enhancement, but whether CEH-EUS can predict the malignancy risk of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) remains unclear. The aim of our study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of CEH-EUS and its ability to discriminate among SETs and predict the malignancy risk of GISTs.

Materials and Methods:

We retrospectively included patients with suspected subepithelial lesions who underwent CEH-EUS preoperatively. Thirty-five patients with histologically proven GISTs and benign neoplasms were enrolled in the study. The images of CEH-EUS were categorized in accordance with microvasculature, parenchymal perfusion, and nonenhancing spots. The diagnostic performance of CEH-EUS was evaluated by comparing these findings with the histological diagnosis.

Results:

When we divided the enrolled patients into high- and low-grade malignancy and benign groups, nonenhancing spots on CEH-EUS were found more frequently in the high-grade malignancy group (63.6%), followed by the low-grade malignancy (46.7%) and benign groups (25.7%) (P = 0.022). However, based on the statistical validity of the CEH-EUS findings for the discrimination of SETs, the sensitivity was 53.8% for diagnostic performance and 63.6% for prediction of malignancy risk of GISTs.

Conclusions:

From our study results, it is unclear whether CEH-EUS alone has a diagnostic role in the discrimination of SETs and the prediction of malignancy risk of GISTs. Further studies with larger samples from multiple centers and use of other imaging analysis modalities are needed.

Hybrid natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery in gastric subepithelial tumors

Diagnosis of gastric subepithelial tumor (SET) has shown a rapid increase worldwide. Although, until now, endoscopic ultrasound guided procedures such as fine needle aspiration have shown relatively high accuracy in diagnosis of SET, the most important modality for diagnosis and treatment of SETs is complete resection such as endoscopic or surgical resection. However, endoscopic resection or laparoscopic wedge resection alone also has some limitations. Endoscopic resection is difficult to perform in cases of gastric SET located within deep portion of the gastric layer or a relatively large (larger than 25 mm diameter). On the other hand, gastric SET in a difficult location, such as the gastroesophageal junction or pyloric ring is challenging for laparoscopic surgical resection. The hybrid natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) technique is a combined method, including the advantages of both laparoscopic resection and endoscopic resection for gastric SETs. This method may be performed safely with reasonable operation times, less bleeding, and adequate resection margin and regardless of tumor size. In particular, in the case of a difficult location for resection, such as the esophagogastric junction or pyloric ring, hybrid NOTES is currently believed to be an ideal treatment method.

Surgical treatment of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor

Gastrointestinal stromal tumor is the most common mesenchymal tumor in the gastrointestinal tract and is most frequently developed in the stomach in the form of submucosal tumor. The incidence of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor is estimated to be as high as 25% of the population when all small and asymptomatic tumors are included. Because gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor is not completely distinguished from other submucosal tumors, a surgical excisional biopsy is recommended for tumors >2 cm. The surgical principles of gastrointestinal stromal tumor are composed of an R0 resection with a normal mucosa margin, no systemic lymph node dissection, and avoidance of perforation, which results in peritoneal seeding even in cases with otherwise low risk profiles. Laparoscopic surgery has been indicated for gastrointestinal stromal tumors <5 cm, and the indication for laparoscopic surgery is expanded to larger tumors if the above mentioned surgical principles can be maintained. A simple exogastric resection and various transgastric resection techniques are used for gastrointestinal stromal tumors in favorable locations (the fundus, body, greater curvature side). For a lesion at the gastroesophageal junction in the posterior wall of the stomach, enucleation techniques have been tried preserve the organ's function. Those methods have a theoretical risk of seeding a ruptured tumor, but this risk has not been evaluated by well-designed clinical trials. While some clinical trials are still on-going, neoadjuvant imatinib is suggested when marginally unresectable or multiorgan resection is anticipated to reduce the extent of surgery and the chance of incomplete resection, rupture or bleeding.

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided diagnosis of subepithelial tumors

Subepithelial lesions are frequently discovered during routine endoscopic examinations. These lesions represent a wide spectrum of heterogeneous benign to malignant conditions. Most of these lesions are asymptomatic. There is no consensus regarding how to manage these lesions. Over the last 2 decades, the approach to these lesions has significantly improved owing to the introduction of endoscopic ultrasonography, fine-needle aspiration, immunohistochemical staining methods, and different treatment options. This article discusses the nature of subepithelial lesions, focusing on the most recent developments that use endoscopic ultrasonography to diagnose and manage these lesions.

Review of the pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management of type I gastric carcinoid tumor

Gastric carcinoid tumors comprise 7% of all gastrointestinal carcinoids and have significantly increased in incidence over the past few decades. Seventy to 80% of gastric carcinoids are type I, which usually are clinically asymptomatic and found incidentally at endoscopic evaluation for abdominal pain or anemia. In this review, advances in understanding the pathophysiology of type I gastric carcinoid are highlighted. In addition, various current diagnostic and treatment options are discussed. Although type I carcinoids generally hold a benign course, rigorous investigation is needed to ensure accurate diagnosis and optimal treatment. This includes appropriate diagnostic procedures and imaging and accurate staging of tumor. Tumor size, depth of invasion, presence of metastasis, and the tumor's gastrin dependency dictate treatment options. Appropriate treatments can consist of endoscopic resection, antrectomy, medical management, or frequent follow-up. This article provides a systematic method of evaluating and treating type I gastric carcinoid.

Upper endoscopy versus endosonography in differential diagnosis of gastrointestinal bulging

CONTEXT

The identification of a bulging covered by normal epithelium is a common finding during an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the endoscopic and endosonography findings in the differential diagnosis of the gastrointestinal bulging (subepithelial tumor or extrinsic compression).

METHOD

Patients referred by endosonography with bulging of upper gastrointestinal tract were studied retrospectively. The size, location, consistency and presumptive diagnosis were recorded at time of endoscopy and endosonography. Endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration was proposed in case of uncertain diagnose to increase diagnostic sensitivity.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-six patients (93 women) and mean age 62.5 years (10-87). One hundred fifty-three had subepithelial tumor and 23 had extrinsic compression as a final diagnosis. Endosonography had sensitivity, specificity and accuracy higher than those found by endoscopy for both diagnosis subepithelial tumor and extrinsic compression. Endoscopy and endosonography showed poor concordance (K = 0.13) for subepithelial tumor diagnosis and unsuitable agreement for diagnosis in extrinsic compression (K = 0.01). The endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration had sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of 75%, 72.4%, 80.5%, 65.6% and 74%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopy has high sensitivity and low specificity for subepithelial tumor and both are low for the extrinsic compression. Endoscopy is a good tool for diagnosis of the subepithelial tumors, but not to determine the cause of an extrinsic compression. The endosonography identifies the layer from which subepithelial tumor comes, obtain histological samples, and increasing the diagnostic accuracy.

[Incidental gastrointestinal subepithelial mass]

Incidental gastrointestinal subepithelial mass is increasing with national cancer screening endoscopy. Most of gastrointestinal subepithelial mass are small-sized and asymptomatic tumor with benign nature, but gastrointestinal stromal tumor should be ruled-out because of its malignant behavior. Although conventional endoscopy alone can differentiate the nature of subepithelial mass, more accurate diagnosis can be achieved with endoscopic ultrasonography and its guided biopsy. In this review, differential diagnosis and treatment strategy of incidental gastrointestinal subepithelial mass would be presented.

Diagnosis of subepithelial tumors in the upper gastrointestinal tract by endoscopic ultrasonography

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is the most accurate procedure for detecting and diagnosing subepithelial tumors, due to its higher sensitivity and specificity than other imaging modalities. EUS can characterize lesions by providing information on echogenic origin, size, borders, homogeneity, and the presence of echogenic or anechoic foci. Linear echoendoscopes, and recently also electronic radial echoendoscopes, can be used with color Doppler or power Doppler to assess the vascular signals from subepithelial masses, and thus permit the differentiation of vascular structures from cysts, as well as the assessment of the tumor blood supply. However, the diagnostic accuracy of EUS imaging alone has been shown to be low in subepithelial lesions with 3rd and 4th layers. It is also difficult to differentiate exactly between benign and malignant tumors and to gain an accurate picture of histology using EUS. On the other hands, EUS guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) can provide samples for cytologic or histologic analysis. Hypoechoic lesions of the 3rd and the 4th EUS layers, more than in 1 cm diameter are recommended, and histologic confirmation using endoscopic submucosal resection or EUS-FNA should be obtained when possible. Therefore, EUS-FNA plays an important role in the clinical management of subepithelial tumors. Furthermore improvements in endoscopic technology are expected to be more useful modalities in differential diagnosis and discrimination between benign and malignant subepithelial tumors.

Endoscopic enucleation for gastric subepithelial tumors originating in the muscularis propria layer

BACKGROUND

Subepithelial tumors (SETs) of the stomach are considered benign. However, they have the potential for malignant transformation, especially if they originate in the muscularis propria layer. This study aimed to determine the feasibility of endoscopic enucleation (EEN) for SETs in the muscularis propria layer and to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy and safety of EEN for SETs.

METHODS

A total of 65 lesions in 64 patients were eligible for inclusion in the study during the period between June 2006 and September 2009. En bloc enucleation using an insulated-tip knife and snare was attempted for removal of gastric SETs from the muscularis propria.

RESULTS

A total of 60 tumors were successfully resected by EEN (success rate, 92.3%). The mean tumor size, determined by endoscopic ultrasound, was 13.8 mm (range, 5-30 mm). A histologic diagnosis was obtained for 63 tumors (diagnostic yield, 96.9%), which was leiomyoma for 32 lesions, gastrointestinal stromal tumor for 26 tumors, and other for 5 tumors. The rate for complete resection in relation to the location of the lesion in the stomach was higher for the cardia, the mid/lower body (100%), and the high body (96%) than for the fundus (75%) or the antrum (50%, p=0.006). The rate of perforation was significantly higher for the fundus (50%) than for other locations (0% for the cardia and 4% for the high body) (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic enucleation of gastric SETs originating in the muscularis propria layer was a safe and effective method for the histologic diagnosis and removal of small gastric SETs, especially those located in the cardia and the high body of the stomach.

Endoscopic ligation and resection for the treatment of small EUS-suspected gastric GI stromal tumors

BACKGROUND

GI stromal tumors (GISTs), with their potential for malignant transformation, are usually treated by surgical intervention. Endoscopic treatment remains controversial.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate clinical outcomes associated with use of endoscopic ligation and resection for diagnosis and treatment of small EUS-suspected gastric GISTs.

DESIGN

Prospective case series.

SETTING

Academic medical center.

PATIENTS

Eight patients with submucosal gastric tumors <2 cm in diameter suspected to be GISTs.

INTERVENTIONS

Endoscopic ligation and resection.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Clinical/technical feasibility, success, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Seven patients with small EUS-suspected gastric GISTs were successfully treated by endoscopic ligation, with sloughing of residual tissue within 1 month. All were diagnosed pathologically with GISTs of low malignant potential. One additional patient required a second ligation to remove residual tumor, also diagnosed as a GIST with low malignant potential. No perforation, massive hemorrhage, or other complication requiring endoscopic or surgical intervention occurred.

LIMITATIONS

Small number of patients (n = 8) and limited follow-up; risk of microscopically positive margins, which limits application to lesions strongly suspected to be benign.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic ligation and resection shows promise as a safe and feasible technique to treat small EUS-suspected gastric GISTs. Controlled clinical trials with more subjects and longer follow-up are needed to confirm the value and limitations of this method.

Clinical course of subepithelial lesions detected on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

AIM: To evaluate the natural history of subepithelial lesions.

METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of 104 159 patients who underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy at the Center for Health Promotion of Samsung Medical Center between 1996 and 2003. Subepithelial lesions were detected in 795 patients (0.76%); 252 patients were followed using upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for 82.5 ± 29.2 mo (range, 12-160 mo; median, 84 mo; 1st quartile, 60 mo; 3rd quartile, 105 mo). The median interval of follow-up endoscopy was 12 mo (range, 6-105 mo; 1st quartile, 12 mo; 3rd quartile, 24 mo).

RESULTS: The mean patient age was 53 years (range, 22-80 years), and the male-to-female ratio was 2.36:1 (177/75). The lesion size at initial measurement averaged 8.9 mm (range, 2-25 mm; median, 8 mm; 1st quartile, 5 mm; 3rd quartile, 10 mm). Of the 252 lesions, 244 (96.8%) were unchanged and 8 (3.2%) were significantly increased in size (from 12.9 ± 6.0 to 21.2 ± 12.2 mm) after a mean interval of 59.1 ± 27.5 mo (range, 12-86 mo). Surgical resection of lesions was performed when the lesions were ≥ 3 cm in diameter. Two lesions were diagnosed as gastrointestinal stromal tumors with an intermediate or high risk of malignancy and one lesion was classified as a schwannoma.

CONCLUSION: Most small subepithelial lesions do not change as shown by endoscopic examination, and regular follow-up with endoscopy may be considered in small, subepithelial lesions, especially lesions < 1 cm in size.

Subepithelial mass lesions in the upper gastrointestinal tract

The finding of a mass lesion in the upper gastrointestinal tract at endoscopy with apparent normal overlying mucosa is common. The differential diagnosis of such lesions is broad and includes those of intramural or extramural origin. Endoscopic ultrasound provides accurate imaging of subepithelial mass lesions and characterizes them according to size, echogenicity, and origin including the histologic layer if the lesion is intramural which narrows the differential diagnosis. Endoscopic ultrasound allows a guided tissue sample to be obtained for histologic confirmation which is especially important for hypoechoic lesions arising from the 3rd or 4th echogenic layers. The purpose of this article is to review the diagnosis of the more common subepithelial mass lesions with an emphasis on endoscopic ultrasound and the subsequent management or monitoring.