Clinical impact of EUS-guided Trucut biopsy results on decision making for patients with gastric subepithelial tumors ≥ 2 cm in diameter

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the first-choice procedure for obtaining pathological tissue samples from gastrointestinal (GI) subepithelial lesions (SELs). However, its diagnostic accuracy is lower than that for pancreatic masses owing to puncture difficulty and the need for immunostaining for definitive diagnosis. The advent of fine-needle biopsy needles, which have become well known in recent years, improves the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA for GI SELs. The forward-viewing echoendoscope and rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) have also helped to improve diagnostic accuracy. Furthermore, in facilities where ROSE is not available, endosonographers perform a macroscopic on-site evaluation. With these procedural innovations, EUS-FNA is now performed aggressively even for SELs smaller than 20 mm. The incidence of procedure-related adverse events such as bleeding and infection is low, and thus, EUS-FNA can be safely performed to diagnose SELs.

Combination conventional endoscopy and endoscopic ultrasound can differentiate between esophageal granular cell tumors and leiomyomas

Esophageal leiomyomas and granular cell tumors (GCTs) are the 2 most common subepithelial tumors found in the esophagus. We attempted to differentiate the 2 tumors using endoscopic findings and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) features. Between December 2008 and June 2021, a total of 38 esophageal GCTs and 11 esophageal leiomyomas originating from the muscularis mucosa were selected. Clinical characteristics and endoscopic features were retrospectively reviewed. Although esophageal GCTs are mainly located in the lower third of the esophagus (81.6%), esophageal leiomyomas are mainly located in the upper third of the esophagus (45.5%). Broad-based (84.2%, P = .002) and whitish-to-yellowish color changes (97.4%, P < .001) are significant endoscopic features of esophageal GCTs. The echogenicity of esophageal leiomyoma was similar to that of proper muscle echogenicity. However, the echogenicity of esophageal GCTs was hyperechoic compared to that of the proper muscle layer (90.0% vs 9.1%, respectively, P < .001). EUS revealed a clearer hyperechoic epithelial lining in the esophageal leiomyoma than in esophageal GCTs (100% vs 26.7%, respectively, P < .001). The 5 endoscopic factors (location of the lower third, broad base, whitish-to-yellowish color, hyper-echogenic, and unclear demarcated hyperechoic epithelial line) were counted to differentiate esophageal GCTs from esophageal leiomyomas. Tumors with 3 or more endoscopic factors were all esophageal GCTs. The characteristic endoscopic and EUS features of esophageal GCTs were broad-based, whitish-to-yellowish colored subepithelial tumors located in the lower third of the esophagus and hyperechoic tumor with an unclear demarcated hyperechoic epithelial line. A combination of these features can predict esophageal GCTs before endoscopic resection.

Comparison of diagnostic performances of slow-pull suction and standard suction in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy for gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors

Background/Aims

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is integral to the diagnosis of gastrointestinal (GI) subepithelial tumors (SETs). The impact of different EUS-FNB tissue sampling techniques on specimen adequacy and diagnostic accuracy in SETs has not been fully evaluated. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic outcomes of slow-pull (SP) and standard suction (SS) in patients with GI SETs.

Methods

In this retrospective comparative study, 54 patients were enrolled. Medical records were reviewed for location and size of the target lesion, FNB needle type/size, technical order, specimen adequacy, diagnostic yield, and adverse events. The acquisition rate of adequate specimens and diagnostic accuracy were compared according to EUS-FNB techniques.

Results

The mean lesion size was 42.6±36.4 mm, and most patients were diagnosed with GI stromal tumor (75.9%). The overall diagnostic accuracies of the SP and SS techniques were 83.3% and 81.5%, respectively (p=0.800). The rates of obtaining adequate core tissue were 79.6% and 75.9%, respectively (p=0.799). No significant clinical factors affected the rate of obtaining adequate core tissue, including lesion location and size, FNB needle size, and final diagnosis.

Conclusions

SP and SS had comparable diagnostic accuracies and adequate core tissue acquisition for GI SETs via EUS-FNB.

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.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although conventional EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) has previously been considered first-line for sampling subepithelial lesions (SELs), variable accuracy has resulted in increased use of fine-needle biopsy (FNB) sampling to improve diagnostic yield. The primary aim of this study was to compare FNA versus FNB sampling for the diagnosis of SELs.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, retrospective study to evaluate the outcomes of EUS-FNA and EUS-guided FNB sampling (EUS-FNB) of SELs over a 3-year period. Demographics, lesion characteristics, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, number of needle passes, diagnostic adequacy of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), cell block accuracy, and adverse events were analyzed. Subgroup analyses were performed comparing FNA versus FNB sampling by location and diagnostic yield with or without ROSE. Multivariable logistic regression was also performed.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-nine patients with SELs (115 FNA and 114 FNB sampling) underwent EUS-guided sampling. Mean patient age was 60.86 ± 12.84 years. Most lesions were gastric in location (75.55%) and from the fourth layer (71.18%). Cell block for FNB sampling required fewer passes to achieve conclusive diagnosis (2.94 ± 1.09 vs 3.55 ± 1.55; P = .003). The number of passes was not different for ROSE adequacy (P = .167). Immunohistochemistry was more able to be successfully performed in more FNB sampling samples (69.30% vs 40.00%; P < .001). Overall, sensitivity and accuracy were superior for FNB sampling versus FNA (79.41% vs 51.92% [P = .001] and 88.03% vs 77.19% [P = .030], respectively). On subgroup analysis, sensitivity and accuracy of FNB sampling alone was superior to FNA + ROSE (79.03% vs 46.67% [P = .001] and 87.25% vs 68.00% [P = .024], respectively). There was no significant difference in diagnostic yield of FNB sampling alone versus FNB sampling + ROSE (P > .05). Multivariate analysis showed no predictors associated with accuracy. One minor adverse event was reported in the FNA group.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNB was superior to EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of SELs. EUS-FNB was also superior to EUS-FNA alone and EUS-FNA + ROSE. These results suggest EUS-FNB should be considered a first-line modality and may suggest a reduced role for ROSE in the diagnosis of SELs. However, a large randomized controlled trial is required to confirm our findings.

Comparison of the treatment outcomes of endoscopic and surgical resection of GI stromal tumors in the stomach: a propensity score-matched case-control study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic resection (ER) compared with surgical resection (SR) of gastric GI stromal tumors (GISTs).

METHODS

This study included 51 and 403 patients who underwent ER and SR, respectively, for ≤5 cm GISTs in the stomach between June 2005 and August 2017. After propensity score matching (1:1) using age, sex, tumor size, mitotic count, and comorbidities, the oncologic outcomes were compared with 48 patients each from ER and SR groups.

RESULTS

The ER group had significantly shorter hospital stay (4.4 ± 2.9 vs 6.6 ± 3.6 days, P < .001) and procedure time (38.3 ± 24.2 vs 66 ± 33.3 min, P < .001). The R0 resection rate was 62.7% in the ER group and 98.5% in the SR group. In the ER group, macroperforation occurred in 6 patients (11.8%) with a tumor located in the fundus (4/6, 66.7%) or body (2/6, 33.3%). All cases of perforation were cured with conservative treatment. In the SR group, postoperative adverse events such as stricture and leakage occurred in 7 patients (1.7%) with a tumor located in the antrum (4/7, 57.1%) or cardia (3/7, 42.9%). After matching, the overall mean follow-up period was 47.9 ± 37.8 months in the ER group and 41.3 ± 22.6 months in the SR group. No recurrence or distant metastasis occurred in either group during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

ER is an effective and safe therapeutic method that might be comparable with SR for treating small-sized (≤5 cm) gastric GISTs. Selecting the resection method according to the tumor location seems appropriate.

Comparison between fine-needle biopsy and fine-needle aspiration for EUS-guided sampling of subepithelial lesions: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is limited evidence on the diagnostic performance of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB) sampling in patients with subepithelial lesions. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare EUS-guided FNB sampling performance with FNA in patients with GI subepithelial lesions.

METHODS

A computerized bibliographic search on the main databases was performed through May 2019. The primary endpoint was sample adequacy. Secondary outcomes were diagnostic accuracy, histologic core procurement rate, and mean number of needle passes. Summary estimates were expressed in terms of odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Ten studies (including 6 randomized trials) with 669 patients were included. Pooled rates of adequate samples for FNB sampling were 94.9% (range, 92.3%-97.5%) and for FNA 80.6% (range, 71.4%-89.7%; OR, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.29-5.01; P = .007). When rapid on-site evaluation was available, no significant difference between the 2 techniques was observed. Optimal histologic core procurement rate was 89.7% (range, 84.5%-94.9%) with FNB sampling and 65% (range, 55.5%-74.6%) with FNA (OR, 3.27; 95% CI, 2.03-5.27; P < .0001). Diagnostic accuracy was significantly superior in patients undergoing FNB sampling (OR, 4.10; 95% CI, 2.48-6.79; P < .0001) with the need of a lower number of passes (mean difference, -.75; 95% CI, -1.20 to -.30; P = .001). Sensitivity analysis confirmed these findings in all subgroups tested. Very few adverse events were observed and did not impact on patient outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results speak clearly in favor of FNB sampling, which was found to outperform FNA in all diagnostic outcomes evaluated.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy of gastric schwannoma: Cytomorphologic features and diagnostic pitfalls

Schwannoma rarely occurs in the stomach. We present a case of gastric schwannoma, which was initially evaluated by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) biopsy and confirmed by surgical resection. The patient was a 57-years-old woman with history of dyspepsia, who was found to have a large submucosal mass in the stomach. EUS-FNA showed scant spindle cells with abundant lymphocytes. The spindle cells were immunoreactive with S100, while negative for CD117, desmin, and CD34. The lymphocytes were mixed B-cells and T-cells. Immunostaining, flow cytometry, and molecular testing showed no evidence of B-cell lymphoma. The diagnosis of gastric schwannoma was confirmed by histopathological evaluation of the resected tumor. Gastric schwannoma has unique features of mixed spindle cells and lymphocytes. The tumor should be differentiated from other gastric mesenchymal tumors, and lymphoproliferative disorder is a pitfall.

A multicenter evaluation of a new EUS core biopsy needle: Experience in 200 patients

Background and Objectives:

We present a multicenter study of a new endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) needle (Acquire, Boston Scientific, Natick, MA). The aim of the study was to analyze the needle's clinical performance when sampling solid lesions and to assess the safety of this device.

Methods:

We performed a multicenter retrospective study of patients undergoing EUS-FNB during July 1–November 15, 2016.

Results:

Two hundred patients (121 males and 79 females) underwent EUS-FNB of solid lesions with the Acquire needle. Lesions included solid pancreatic masses (n = 109), adenopathy (n = 45), submucosal lesions (n = 34), cholangiocarcinoma (n = 8), liver lesions (n = 6), and other (n = 8). Mean lesion size was 30.6 mm (range: 3–100 mm). The mean number of passes per target lesion was 3 (range: 1–7). Rapid onsite cytologic evaluation (ROSE) by a cytologist was performed in all cases. Tissue obtained by EUS-FNB was adequate for evaluation and diagnosis by ROSE in 197/200 cases (98.5%). Data regarding the presence or absence of a core of tissue obtained after EUS-FNB were available in 145/200 procedures. In 131/145 (90%) of cases, a core of tissue was obtained. Thirteen out of 200 patients (6.5%) underwent some form of repeat EUS-based tissue acquisition after EUS-FNB with the Acquire needle. There were no adverse events.

Conclusion:

Overall, this study showed a high rate of tissue adequacy and production of a tissue core with this device with no adverse events seen in 200 patients. Comparative studies of different FNB needles are warranted in the future to help identify which needle type and size is ideal in different clinical settings.

Concise review on the comparative efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration vs core biopsy in pancreatic masses, upper and lower gastrointestinal submucosal tumors

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration with or without biopsy (FNA/FNB) are the primary diagnostic tools for gastrointestinal submucosal tumors. EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is considered a first line diagnostic method for the characterization of pancreatic and upper gastrointestinal lesions, since it allows for the direct visualization of the collection of specimens for cytopathologic analysis. EUS-FNA is most effective and accurate when immediate cytologic assessment is permitted by the presence of a cytopathologist on site. Unfortunately, the accuracy and thus the diagnostic yield of collected specimens suffer without this immediate analysis. Recently, a EUS-FNB needle capable of obtaining core samples (fine needle biopsy, FNB) has been developed and has shown promising results. This new tool adds a new dimension to the diagnostic and therapeutic utility of this technique. The aim of the present review is to compare the efficacy of EUS-FNA to that afforded by EUS-FNB in the characterization of pancreatic masses and of upper and lower gastrointestinal submucosal tumors.

EUS-FNA WITH 19 OR 22 GAUGES NEEDLES FOR GASTRIC SUBEPITHELIAL LESIONS OF THE MUSCLE LAYER

Background:

Tissue diagnosis is required for gastric subepithelial lesions for differential diagnosis of GISTs. However, there has not been consensus about the best needle for EUS-guided sampling of these lesions.

Aim:

To evaluate the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA for gastric subepithelial lesions of the proper muscle layer with large-bore 19 gauge needles.

Methods:

A prospectively maintained database was retrospectively reviewed to identify consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNA with 19 and 22 gauge needles for gastric subepithelial lesions of the fourth endosonographic layer in a tertiary care referral center. EUS-FNA was performed by the same endosonographer, using the fanning technique, without on-site cytopathologist. Specimens were analysed through cell blocks by the same pathologist. Procedure results were categorized into diagnostic, defined as enough material for histopathology and immunohistochemistry, or nondiagnostic.

Results:

Eighty-nine patients (mean age: 59 years, 77% women) underwent 92 EUS-FNA with 19 (75) or 22 (17) gauge needles. Mean lesion size was 22.6 mm. Overall diagnostic yield was 88%. The diagnostic yield of 19 gauge was higher than that of 22 gauge needle (92%x70.6%; p=0.0410), and similar for lesions >2 cm and <2 cm (93.7%x90.7%; p=0.9563). The best performance for 19 gauge needles was obtained performing <3 needle passes. Complication rate was 2.8%.

Conclusions:

Diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA with 19 gauge needles is 92% for gastric subepithelial lesions of the proper muscle layer. It is safe and highly valuable for differentiation between GIST and leiomyoma, no matter the size of the lesion.

Safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection of large (≥3 cm) subepithelial tumors located in the cardia

BACKGROUND

Upper gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors (SETs) may harbor potential malignancy. Although it is well recognized that large SETs should be resected, the treatment strategy remains controversial. Compared to surgical resection, endoscopic resection has many advantages such as less invasive, shorter hospital stay, lower costs, and better quality of life. However, Endoscopic resection of large SETs in the cardia is challenging. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the treatment of such SETs.

METHODS

A total of 41 patients with large SETs (≥3 cm in diameter) located in the cardia were involved in the study. All patients underwent ESD. Data on therapeutic outcomes and follow-up were collected, for analysis of risk factors of complication rates.

RESULTS

The average tumor size was 4.7 ± 1.7 cm. The average procedure time was 69.3 ± 32.7 min and the average postoperative hospital stay was 3.5 ± 1.1 days. A total of 41 tumors were removed successfully, in which 35 were leiomyomas, three were gastrointestinal stromal tumors, two were lipomas, and one was gastritis cystica profunda. The en bloc resection rate was 90.2%, and was significantly higher for tumors with a round or oval shape (100%) than for those with an irregular shape (75.0%) (P < 0.05). Five patients experienced complications (12.2%), all of which were managed conservatively. The complication rates were significantly higher in patients with a tumor originating from the deep muscularis propria layer and demonstrating a trans-cardia growth pattern. No residual or tumor recurrence was observed and no stricture occurred during the follow-up period (average, 26.7 ± 18.4 months).

CONCLUSIONS

ESD is safe and effective to curatively remove most large SETs in the cardia, and may serve as an accurate histopathology measurement to direct future therapy.

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.

High clinical impact and diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided biopsy sampling of subepithelial lesions: a prospective, comparative study

Background

In a tertiary center setting we aimed to study the diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of EUS-guided biopsy sampling (EUS-FNB) with a reverse bevel needle compared with that of fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in the work-up of subepithelial lesions (SEL).

Methods

All patients presenting with SELs referred for EUS-guided sampling were prospectively included in 2012–2015. After randomization of the first pass modality, dual sampling with both EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA was performed in each lesion. Outcome measures in an intention-to-diagnose analysis were the diagnostic accuracy, technical failures, and adverse events. The clinical impact was measured as the performance of additional diagnostic procedures post-EUS and the rate of unwarranted resections compared with a reference cohort of SELs sampled in the same institution 2006–2011.

Results

In 70 dual sampling procedures of unique lesions (size: 6–220 mm) the diagnostic sensitivity for malignancy and the overall accuracy of EUS-FNB was superior to EUS-FNA compared head-to-head (90 vs 52%, and 83 vs 49%, both p < 0.001). The adverse event rate of EUS-FNB was low (1.2%). EUS-FNB in 2012–2015 had a positive clinical impact in comparison with the reference cohort demonstrated by less cases referred for an additional diagnostic procedure, 12/83 (14%) vs 39/73 (53%), p < 0.001, and fewer unwarranted resections in cases subjected to surgery, 3/48 (6%) vs 12/35 (34%), p = 0.001.

Conclusions

EUS-FNB with a reverse bevel needle is safe and superior to EUS-FNA in providing a conclusive diagnosis of subepithelial lesions. This biopsy sampling approach facilitates a rational clinical management and accurate treatment.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00464-017-5808-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided cutting of holes and deep biopsy for diagnosis of gastric infiltrative tumors and gastrointestinal submucosal tumors using a novel vertical diathermic loop

AIM

To report on a more accurate diagnostic possibility offered by endoscopic ultrasound-guided cutting of holes and deep biopsy (EUS-CHDB) for pathologic diagnosis of gastric infiltrative tumors and gastrointestinal submucosal tumors.

METHODS

Ten consecutive patients who were suspected of having gastric invasive tumors or gastrointestinal submucosal tumors underwent EUS-CHDB with a novel vertical diathermic loop. We reviewed their medical data and analysed the effectiveness and safety of this new method. The final diagnosis was based on the surgical pathology or clinical/imaging follow-up.

RESULTS

EUS-CHDB was performed successfully in all the ten patients. Neither severe haemorrhage nor perforation occurred in any patient. Among the ten patients, there were three cases of gastric linitis plastica, one case of gastric lymphoma, five cases of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), and only one case of chronic non-atrophic gastritis. That is, nine (90%) of the cases treated by EUS-CHDB showed positive findings.

CONCLUSION

EUS-CHDB may be a technically feasible and safe option for patients with gastric infiltrative tumors or gastrointestinal submucosal tumors. EUS-CHDB may be used as a remedial or even preferred biopsy method for submucosal lesions.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling of small subepithelial tumors of the upper gastrointestinal tract with a 22-gauge core biopsy needle

Background and study aims The optimal approach to small subepithelial tumors (SETs) of the upper gastrointestinal tract remains inconclusive. The aim of this study was to evaluate endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for less invasive tissue sampling of small SETs of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Patients and methods In this prospective observational study patients with small ( ≤ 3 cm) SETs of the upper gastrointestinal tract were eligible and underwent EUS-FNB with a 22-gauge core biopsy needle. The main outcome measure was the diagnostic yield. The number of obtained core biopsies was also assessed. Results Twenty patients were included. The mean SET size was 16 mm (range 10 - 27 mm). EUS-FNB was technically feasible in all cases and no complications were observed. The diagnostic yield was 75 %. Core biopsy specimens were obtained in only 25 % of cases. Conclusion EUS-FNB with a 22-gauge core biopsy needle of small SETs can achieve a definite diagnosis in the majority of cases. However, because core samples cannot regularly be obtained, EUS-FNB seems not to be convincingly superior to standard EUS-FNA in this setting.

Endoscopic ultrasound with tissue sampling is accurate in the diagnosis and subclassification of gastrointestinal spindle cell neoplasms

Background and Objectives:

Mesenchymal (spindle cell) neoplasms (SCN) of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract are an important subtype of subepithelial lesions that need subclassification to assess their malignant potential. Reported success rates of accurate subclassification with endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biopsies are variable. Our goal was to analyze our experience using EUS-guided TruCut biopsy (EUS-TCB) in the majority of patients.

Methods:

Retrospective analysis in patients who underwent EUS with biopsies for suspected SCN at our tertiary referral center between 2004 and 2013.

Results:

A total of 146 patients with suspected SCN underwent EUS with tissue acquisition. Thirteen patients were excluded from analysis because tissue acquisition established a definite diagnosis other than SCN. In the remaining 133 patients, tissue acquisition was diagnostic of SCN in 118 (88.7%) and nondiagnostic in 15 (11.3%). Subclassification based on immunohistochemistry (IHC) was possible in 109 of the 133 cases (81.9%). The final diagnosis was GI stromal tumor in 64, leiomyoma in 39, and schwannoma in 6 cases. The percentage of patients who were subclassified by the various EUS-guided techniques together was 72.18%, and the percentage of patients who were subclassified specifically with EUS-TCB was 61.65%. Tissue specimens that enabled a specific diagnosis based on histological or cytological characteristics in conjunctions with IHC were obtained with EUS core biopsy in 83 (TCB in 82 and ProCore needle biopsy in 1), fine-needle aspiration in 13, mucosal resection in 10, and forceps biopsies (bite-on-bite) in 3 cases.

Conclusion:

EUS with endoscopic tissue acquisition is accurate in the diagnosis and subclassification of SCN. In experienced hands, the EUS-TruCut needle is a valuable tool with a high success rate for this indication.

Efficacy of deep biopsy for subepithelial lesions in the upper gastrointestinal tract

Introduction

Accurate diagnosis of subepithelial lesions (SELs) in the gastrointestinal tract depends on a variety of methods: endoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound and different types of biopsy. Making an error-free diagnosis is vital for the subsequent application of an appropriate treatment.

Aim

To evaluate the efficacy of deep biopsy via the endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) technique for SELs in the upper gastrointestinal tract.

Material and methods

It was a case series study. Deep biopsy via the ESD technique was completed in 38 patients between November 2012 and October 2014. Thirty-eight SELs in the upper gastrointestinal tract of varying size (very small ≤ 1 cm, small 1–2 cm and large ≥ 2 cm) by means of the ESD technique after an incision with an electrosurgical knife of the overlying layers and revealing a small part of the lesion were biopsied under direct endoscopic view.

Results

Deep biopsy via the ESD technique was diagnostic in 28 of 38 patients (73.3%; 95% CI: 59.7–89.7%). The diagnostic yield for SELs with a clear endophytic shape increased to 91.3%. An evident endophytic appearance of a subepithelial lesion, the mean number of biopsied samples (6.65 ±1.36) and the total size in length of all samples per case (19.88 ±8.07 mm) were the main criteria influencing the positiveness of deep biopsy in the diagnostic group compared to the nondiagnostic one (p = 0.001; p = 0.025; p = 0.008).

Conclusions

Deep biopsy via the ESD technique is an effective and safe method for the diagnosis of SELs especially with a clear endophytic appearance in a large number of biopsied samples.

EUS-guided 22-gauge fine needle biopsy for the diagnosis of gastric subepithelial tumors larger than 2 cm

OBJECTIVE

EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) was introduced to obtain tissue cores. However, data on the efficacy of EUS-FNB for the diagnosis of gastric subepithelial tumors (SET) are limited. This study was aimed to determine the tissue acquisition and diagnostic yield of EUS-FNB using a novel 22-gauge FNB needle.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between May 2012 and February 2014, we retrieved data on 78 consecutive patients who underwent 22-gauge EUS-FNB for tissue sampling of gastric SET larger than 2 cm. Relevant tumor and EUS-related parameters were reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS

The median tumor diameter was 2.8 cm and tumors were punctured successfully in 77 SET (98.7%). EUS-FNB was diagnostic in 81.8% of SET (63/77), by obtaining core biopsy tissue in 96.8% (61/63) and aspirates in 27.0% (17/63). FNB specimens permitted immunostaining for the diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) in 30 SET (47.6%), 20 leiomyomas (31.7%), and 3 schwannomas (4.8%). Diagnoses could be made without immunostaining in 10 SET (15.9%). Tissue adequacy was optimal in 85.7% of FNB specimens by endosonographers' on-site visual evaluation. Endosonographers' evaluation of tissue adequacy was the only factor significantly associated with a higher diagnostic yield in univariate analysis. No adequate high-power fields for GIST risk stratification were available in FNB specimens. There was a single case of post-procedural bleeding (1.3%).

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNB using 22-gauge needle obtains a high yield for the diagnosis of gastric SET ≥2 cm, mostly via core tissue acquisition. Endosonographers should pay careful attention to the adequacy of FNB specimens.

Tissue diagnosis of GI subepithelial tumor only through Trucut biopsy under a forward-viewing endoscope: applicability as newer diagnostic modality

BACKGROUND

Trucut biopsy (TCB) has been proposed to overcome the limitations of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration for the pathologic diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal (GI) subepithelial tumor (SET); however, it can be difficult to perform because the Trucut biopsy needle is very stiff. Although technical failures have been reported with the use of TCB, recently the forward-viewing echoendoscope showed a high diagnostic accuracy. We hypothesized that TCB under a conventional forward-viewing endoscope can be applied with higher yield of tissue diagnosis.

METHODS

To evaluate the feasibility of TCB under a forward-looking endoscopy without cumbersome EUS guidance, we introduced a 19-gauge TCB needle into the working channel of a conventional upper endoscope in 27 patients with GI SET to make tissue diagnosis. Prospectively collected data were analyzed, including technical success rate, pathologic result, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients with GI SET (18 esophageal tumors and nine gastric tumors) underwent TCB under a forward-looking endoscope. All procedures were performed safely without any TCB-related complications. Subsequently, histopathology examination revealed gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) in three cases and leiomyomas in 21 cases. Histologic assessment was completed in 24 out of 27 patients (88.9 %) because tissue obtained from three patients, whose tumors were located in the stomach, was not sufficient for the pathologic diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

TCB using a conventional forward-viewing endoscope without EUS guidance provided an excellent pathologic diagnosis of upper GI SET.

EUS-guided FNA and FNB after on-site cytological evaluation in gastric subepithelial tumors

OBJECTIVE

Acquiring adequate tissue for immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis is important in the differential diagnosis of subepithelial tumors (SETs). In this study, we aimed to compare the diagnostic yield based on IHC analysis between endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) after on-site cytological evaluation for cellularity in gastric SETs.

METHODS

In 22 patients with gastric SETs, EUS-guided tissue sampling was performed on the same SET in a randomized sequence, with EUS-FNA followed by EUS-FNB, or vice versa. After on-site cytological evaluation for cellularity, the cytological and histological examinations were performed.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference in the median number of needle passes to obtain adequate cellularity in the on-site cytological evaluation (2.0 for EUS-FNA vs 1.0 for EUS-FNB, P = 0.008). The proportion of adequate cellularity on the first needle pass was significantly higher in the EUS-FNB than in the EUS-FNA group (68.2% vs 31.8%, P = 0.034). However, diagnosis based on IHC examination was established in 15 (68.2%) and 18 (81.8%) cases by EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB, respectively (P = 0.488).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNB decreases the number of needle passes to obtain adequate cellularity and yields a higher proportion of adequate cellularity during the first needle pass compared with EUS-FNA in gastric SETs. However, there was no significant difference in diagnostic yield with IHC stain between the two procedures after on-site cytological evaluation for adequate cellularity.

Differentiating gastrointestinal stromal tumors from gastric adenocarcinomas and normal mucosae using confocal Raman microspectroscopy

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are the most common mesenchymal neoplasms of the gastrointestinal tract, and gastric adenocarcinomas are a common cancer worldwide. To differentiate GISTs from adenocarcinomas is important because the surgical processes for both are different; the former excises the tumor with negative margins, while the latter requires radical gastrectomy with lymph node dissection. Endoscopy with biopsy is used to distinguish GISTs from adenocarcinomas; however, it may cause tumor bleeding in GISTs. We reported here the confocal Raman microspectroscopy as an effective tool to differentiate GISTs, adenocarcinomas, and normal mucosae. Of 119 patients enrolled in this study, 102 patients underwent gastrectomy (40 GISTs and 62 adenocarcinomas), and 17 patients with benign lesions were obtained as normal mucosae. Raman signals were integrated for 100 s for each spot on the specimen, and 5 to 10 spots, depending on the sample size, were chosen for each specimen. There were significant differences among those tissues as evidenced by different Raman signal responding to phospholipids and protein structures. The spectral data were further processed and analyzed by using principal component analysis. A two-dimensional plot demonstrated that GISTs, adenocarcinomas, and normal gastric mucosae could be effectively differentiated from each other.

Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided single-incision needle knife biopsy for gastric subepithelial tumors: comparison with resected specimens

BACKGROUND

Several techniques are recommended for the histologic diagnosis of gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs). The purpose of our study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield and safety of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided single-incision needle knife (SINK) biopsy for the diagnosis of gastric SETs.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who received biopsy for gastric SETs from August 2012 to May 2015 was conducted. Patients who received endoscopic ultrasonography and were found to have a SET originating from the muscularis propria of the stomach were included in the study. The aim of our study was to investigate the safety and diagnostic yield of SINK biopsy for gastric SETs.

RESULTS

A total of 31 patients received SINK biopsy for SETs. The diagnostic yield of SINK biopsy was 87 % (95 % CI 75-100 %), and the diagnostic accuracy was 89 % (95 % CI 74-105 %). The sensitivity of SINK biopsy to identify gastrointestinal stromal tumors was 83 % (95 % CI 52-98 %); the specificity was 100 % (95 % CI 59-100 %); the positive predictive value was 100 % (95 % CI 69-100 %); and the negative predictive value was 78 % (95 % CI 40-97 %). There were no procedure-related adverse events during and after procedure.

CONCLUSION

The use of SINK biopsy technique in patients with SETs is a good diagnostic tool with high diagnostic yield and accuracy. The method is simple, safe, and associated with few complications.

Role of Endoscopic Ultrasonography in Guiding Treatment Plans for Upper Gastrointestinal Subepithelial Tumors

Gastrointestinal (GI) subepithelial tumors (SETs) are usually observed incidentally by endoscopy and have diverse prognoses, varying from benign to potentially malignant. When a GI SET is suspected, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is the most accurate diagnostic method to differentiate it from extraluminal compression. To determine the nature of GI SETs, EUS is also the most accurate diagnostic method, and reveals the precise sonographic nature of the lesion. There are some SETs with typical EUS findings of GI SETs, but most hypoechoic lesions are difficult to diagnose based on EUS images alone. EUS is also helpful to determine GI wall involvement in SETs and optimal treatment methods. For the diagnosis of GI SETs, obtaining a proper specimen is essential. EUS-guided cytology or biopsy methods such as fine-needle aspiration, Tru-Cut biopsy, and the newly introduced fine-needle biopsy (FNB) provide good results. To increase the diagnostic yield for GI SETs, cytology with immunocytochemical staining is used for cytological interpretation, resulting in good diagnostic yields. Recently, EUS-FNB using cheese slicer technology has been introduced, and has been reported to provide good diagnostic results for GI SETs.

ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND IN THE EVALUATION OF UPPER SUBEPITHELIAL LESIONS

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound is considered the best imaging test for the diagnosis and evaluation of subepithelial lesions of the gastrointestinal tract.

OBJECTIVE

The present study aims to describe the endosonographic characteristics of upper gastric subepithelial lesions and our experience using endoscopic ultrasound for evaluation of such lesions.

METHODS

Retrospective data study of 342 patients who underwent endoscopic ultrasound evaluation of subepithelial lesions.

RESULTS

Lesions of the fourth layer were more common in the stomach (63.72%) than in the esophagus (44.68%) and duodenum (29.03%). In stomach, 81.1% of the lesions ≥2 cm, and 96.5% ≥3 cm, were from the fourth layer. Endosonographic signs that could be related to malignant behavior, such as irregular borders, echogenic foci, cystic spaces and/or size greater than 3 cm were identified in 34 (15.81%) lesions at the first endoscopic ultrasound evaluation. Endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle aspiration did the diagnosis in 21 (61.76%) patients who were submitted a puncture. Three (12.0%) lesions of 25 who were submitted to regular endoscopic ultrasound surveillance increased the size.

CONCLUSION

Stomach is the organ most affected with subepithelial lesions of the gastrointestinal tract and the fourth layer was the most common layer of origin. More than 80% of gastric subepithelial lesions from the fourth layer are ≥2 cm. Endoscopic ultrasound evaluation of subepithelial lesions has been very important for stratification into risk groups and to determine the best management.

Efficiency and safety of endoscopic resection in the management of subepithelial lesions of the stomach

BACKGROUND

Gastric subepithelial tumors represent a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge, given their histologic heterogeneity and potential malignant behavior.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this article is to evaluate the interest, efficiency and safety of endoscopic resection for subepithelial gastric lesions of size <20 mm.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center retrospective study in a tertiary care center.

RESULTS

A total of 33 lesions (10 malignant/23 benign lesions) were studied. Mean histological size was 14.5 mm. Nine EMR, 18 ESD and six hybrid resections were performed. A total of 93.9% lesions were resected in one piece. At six months' follow-up, complete and definitive resection was obtained in 96.7% of cases. A vertical resection was insufficient in four cases. One GIST needed a complementary surgical resection, one neuroendocrine tumor was successfully treated by a new ESD session and two pancreatic rests were not additionally treated given the benign character and the absence of residual tissue in endoscopic control after six months. There was only one severe adverse event (2.9%); one pneumoperitoneum with ESD, three bleeding with one ESD and two EMR, always treated conservatively or endoscopically.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic resection is safe and should be the procedure of choice for both diagnosis and definitive resection of subepithelial gastric lesions of size under 20 mm.

Diagnostic efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided needle sampling for upper gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

An increasing number of studies have been conducted on the use of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided needle sampling for upper gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions (SEL). However, reported diagnostic efficacy varies greatly.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize up current evidences on the diagnostic efficacy of EUS-guided needle sampling for upper GI SEL.

METHOD

A reproducible strategy was used to search four databases. Search results were evaluated for eligibility, and the quality of eligible studies was assessed by QUADAS-2. Pooled efficacy of EUS-guided needle sampling in upper GI SEL was calculated. Procedure-related complications, diagnostic errors, and independent factors related to a higher success rate were also recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies, comprising 978 attempts of EUS-guided needle sampling, were included in a meta-analysis. Pooled diagnostic rate of EUS-guided needle sampling was 59.9 %, with a heterogeneity I (2) of 55.2 %. Subgroup analysis showed no difference in diagnostic rate among fine needle aspiration (FNA), trucut needle biopsy (TCB), and fine needle biopsy (FNB), or among 19-, 22-, and 25-G needles. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression suggested that the cell block method might be correlated with a higher diagnostic rate. Few severe complications were reported. Diagnosis errors were rare.

CONCLUSION

EUS-guided needle sampling is a safe, but only moderately effective method for pathology diagnosis of upper GI SEL. Choice of FNA/TCB/FNB, or 19 G/22 G/25 G does not seem to alter the overall diagnostic rate.

Yields and Utility of Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided 19-Gauge Trucut Biopsy versus 22-Gauge Fine Needle Aspiration for Diagnosing Gastric Subepithelial Tumors

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.

Diagnosis of ectopic pancreas by endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration

AIM: To study the clinical, endoscopic, sonographic, and cytologic features of ectopic pancreas (EP).

METHODS: This was a retrospective study performed at an academic referral center including two hospitals. Institutional review board approval was obtained. Patients referred to the University Hospital or Denver Health Medical Center Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Lab for gastroduodenal subepithelial lesions (SEL) with a final diagnosis of EP between January 2009 and December 2013 were identified. Patients in this group were selected for the study if they underwent endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with fine-needle aspiration (FNA) or deep biopsy. A review of the medical record was performed specifically to review the following information: presenting symptoms, endoscopic and EUS findings, computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging findings, pathology results, procedure-related adverse events, and subsequent treatments after EUS-FNA. EUS with FNA or deep submucosal biopsy was performed in all patients on an outpatient basais by one of two physicians (Attwell A, Fukami N). Review of all subsequent clinic notes and operative reports was performed in order to determine follow-up and final diagnoses.

RESULTS: Between July 2009 and December 2013, 10 patients [3 males, 7 females, median age 52 (26-64) years] underwent EUS for a gastroduodenal SEL and were diagnosed with EP. One patient was symptomatic. Six (60%) lesions were in the antrum, 3 (30%) in the body, and 1 (10%) in the duodenum. A mucosal dimple was noted in 6 (60%). Mean lesion size was 17 (8-25) mm. Gastrointestinal wall involvement: muscularis mucosae, 10%; submucosa, 70%; muscularis propria, 60%; and serosa, 10%. Nine (90%) lesions were hypoechoic and 5 (50%) were homogenous. A duct was seen in 5 (50%). FNA was attempted in 9 (90%) and successful in 8 (80%) patients after 4 (2-6) passes. Cytology showed acini or ducts in 7 of 8 (88%). Superficial biopsies in 7 patients (70%) showed normal gastric mucosa. Deep endoscopic biopsies were taken in 2 patients and diagnostic in one. One patient (10%) developed pancreatitis after EUS-FNA. Two patients (20%) underwent surgery to relieve symptoms or confirm the diagnosis. The main limitation of the study was the fact that it was retrospective and performed at a single medical center.

CONCLUSION: EUS features of EP include antral location, mucosal dimple, location in layers 3-4, and lesional duct, and FNA or biopsy is accurate and effective.

Diagnostic value of endoscopic ultrasonography guided biopsy in large gastric folds

AIM: To compare the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) vs EUS-guided biopsy in the diagnosis of large gastric folds.

METHODS: Thirty-four patients with suspected large gastric folds who underwent EUS and EUS-guided biopsy from July 2011 to December 2013 were included. The diagnostic accuracy and safety of EUS-guided biopsy were evacuated according to the final results.

RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients were finally diagnosed. The overall accuracy rate of EUS-guided biopsy was 75.9%. Severe complications such as perforation and severe bleeding were not seen during and after the process of EUS-guided biopsy. Deep biopsy guided by EUS was easier to cause bleeding than large mucosal biopsy (P < 0.05). According to the characteristics of ultrasound imaging of each lesion, the diagnostic accuracy rate of EUS for gastric cancer was 69%, sensitivity 63.2%, and specificity 80.0%; accuracy 62.1%, sensitivity 25.0%, and specificity 76.2% for lymphoma.

CONCLUSION: EUS-guided biopsy is an effective diagnostic method for large gastric folds.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European society of gastrointestinal endoscopy technical guidelines

At present, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines on endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling are almost complete and express state of the art developments. However, future developments are anticipated. This editorial focuses on a few recently published papers with some additional information and on two important additional techniques, elastography and contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), which are mentioned, but not explained in detail in the current ESGE guidelines. Elastography and CEUS might be of importance in the near future to improve the biopsy techniques.

Comparison of 22-gauge aspiration needle with 22-gauge biopsy needle in endoscopic ultrasonography-guided subepithelial tumor sampling

OBJECTIVE. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) may facilitate tissue sampling for histopathological diagnosis of subepithelial tumors (SETs) in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. However, immunohistochemistry is not always feasible using EUS-FNA samples due to the low quality of specimens often obtained by aspiration. This study aimed to compare the use of 22-gauge (G) EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) with 22G EUS-FNA for core sampling used for histopathological examination, including immunohistochemistry, in patients with GI SETs. METHODS. Twenty-eight patients with GI SETs ≥2 cm in size were prospectively enrolled at five university hospitals in Korea between January and June 2013. They were randomized to undergo either EUS-FNB or EUS-FNA. RESULTS. A total of 22 patients was finally analyzed in this study: 10 and 12 patients underwent EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB, respectively. Compared to the EUS-FNA group, the EUS-FNB group had a significantly lower median number of needle passes to obtain macroscopically optimal core samples (4 vs. 2, p = 0.025); higher yield rates of macroscopically and histologically optimal core samples with three needle passes (30% vs. 92%, p = 0.006; 20% vs. 75%, p = 0.010, respectively); and a higher diagnostic sufficiency rate (20% vs. 75%, p = 0.010). No technical difficulties were encountered in either group. CONCLUSIONS. This study shows that EUS-FNB has a better ability to obtain histological core samples and a higher diagnostic sufficiency rate than EUS-FNA and that EUS-FNB is a feasible, safe, and preferable modality for adequate core sampling for histopathological diagnosis of GI SETs.

Beyond cytology: why and when does the oncologist require core tissue?

There are 2 main reasons why oncologists may require additional tissue and a histologic section in addition to cytopathology from FNA specimens: improved diagnostic accuracy and molecular characterization of tumors. Rather than mutually exclusive diagnostic procedures, EUS-FNA and EUS-CNB must be viewed as supplementary techniques and both approaches should be incorporated as essential tools in the current endoscopic armamentarium.

Techniques for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy

Although endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the method of choice to obtain samples to reach definitive diagnosis of lesions of the gastrointestinal tract and of adjacent organs, it cannot fully characterize certain neoplasms. The lack of cytology expertise has hindered the dissemination of EUS, limiting its widespread use. The obtainment of a tissue specimen through EUS fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) may overcome the limitations of EUS-FNA. EUS-FNB is expected to move the practice of EUS from cytology to histology, expanding the use of EUS and facilitating targeted therapies and monitoring of treatment response in a more biologically driven manner.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Fine Needle Aspiration versus Core Biopsy for the Diagnosis of Subepithelial Tumors

Subepithelial lesions are frequently encountered and remain a diagnostic challenge. Imaging of subepithelial lesions using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) can be helpful in narrowing the differential diagnosis of the lesion; however, definitive diagnosis typically requires tissue. Many methods for acquiring tissue exist including EUS-guided fine needle aspiration, Trucut biopsy, and fine needle biopsy. Obtaining adequate tissue is important for cytologic and histologic exams including immunohistochemical stains, thus a great deal of effort has been made to increase tissue acquisition in order to improve diagnostic yield in subepithelial lesions.

A feasible modified biopsy method for tissue diagnosis of gastric subepithelial tumors

AIM: To evaluate the diagnostic yield and safety of a modified technique for the histological diagnosis of subepithelial tumors (SETs).

METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who underwent a modified technique for the histological diagnosis of gastric SETs, consisting of a mucosal incision with a fixed flexible snare (MIF) and deep-tissue biopsy under conventional endoscopic view, from January 2012 to January 2013 was performed. Eleven patients with gastric SETs 10-30 mm in diameter and originating from the third or fourth layer on endoscopic ultrasonography were included.

RESULTS: The mean age was 59.8 (range, 45-76) years, and 5 patients were male. The mean size of the SETs was 21.8 (range, 11-30) mm. The number of biopsy specimens was 6.3 (range 5-8). The mean procedure time was 9.0 min (range, 4-17 min). The diagnostic yield of MIF biopsies was 90.9% (10/11). The histological diagnoses were leiomyoma (4/11, 36.4%), aberrant pancreas (3/11, 27.3%), gastrointestinal stromal tumors (2/11, 18.2%), an inflammatory fibrinoid tumor (1/11, 9.1%); one result was non-diagnostic (1/11, 9.1%). There were six mesenchymal tumors; the specimens obtained in each case were sufficient for an immunohistochemical diagnosis. There was no major bleeding, but one perforation occurred that was successfully controlled by endoscopic clipping.

CONCLUSION: The MIF biopsy was simple to perform, safe, and required a shorter procedure time, with a high diagnostic yield for small SETs.

Rapid on-site evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound core biopsy specimens has excellent specificity and positive predictive value for gastrointestinal lesions

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with fine needle aspiration (FNA) is a safe and effective way to sample lesions in the gastrointestinal tract. Rapid on-site specimen evaluation (ROSE) improves the accuracy of EUS-FNA. While data suggests that EUS with fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is effective, it remains unclear if ROSE is predictive of a final diagnosis when obtaining core specimens.

AIM

The aim of this study was to investigate the utility of ROSE in achieving a final diagnosis for EUS-FNB core specimens.

METHODS

We evaluated 60 consecutive patients referred for EUS guided sampling of lesions within or adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract. All patients underwent EUS-FNB to evaluate the additive value of ROSE to the diagnostic accuracy of specimens obtained using a core biopsy needle. EUS-FNA was also performed in a majority of cases.

RESULTS

EUS-FNB was feasible in all 60 cases; on-site specimen adequacy and final diagnostic accuracy was 58 % [95 % confidence intervals (CI) 45.1-71.2] and 83 % (95 % CI 71.9-91.5), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value of ROSE for core biopsies were 65, 100, 100, and 39 %, respectively. On-site adequacy and diagnostic accuracy for EUS-FNA was 38 % (95 % CI 22.2-53.5) and 63 % (95 % CI 50.1-75.8), respectively. There were no significant complications.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNB is safe, feasible, and effective. ROSE of the core biopsy provides excellent PPV; however, an inadequate ROSE appears to be of limited value. Further prospective studies are needed to assess the optimal handling and onsite processing of core specimens to determine whether ROSE is beneficial for EUS-FNB.

Intra-Abdominal Tuberculous Lymphadenitis Diagnosed Using an Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided ProCore Needle Biopsy

Intra-abdominal tuberculous lymphadenitis can mimic a variety of other abdominal disorders such as pancreatic cancer, metastatic lymph nodes, or lymphoma, which can make a proper diagnosis difficult. A correct diagnosis of intra-abdominal tuberculous lymphadenitis can lead to appropriate management. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided needle biopsy may be the procedure of choice for tissue acquisition when onsite cytopathology examination is unavailable because it is essential to obtain sufficient material suitable for the examination using an ancillary method, such as flow cytometry, molecular diagnosis, cytogenetics, or microbiological culture. We report a case of intra-abdominal tuberculous lymphadenitis diagnosed using an EUS-guided, 22-gauge histology new needle biopsy without an onsite cytopathology examination.

Diagnostic yield and safety of jumbo biopsy forceps in patients with subepithelial lesions of the upper and lower GI tract

BACKGROUND

EUS-FNA often fails to make a definitive diagnosis in the evaluation of subepithelial lesions. The addition of jumbo biopsy forceps has the potential to improve diagnostic yield, but published series are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the likelihood of definitive diagnosis for subepithelial lesions by using jumbo biopsy forceps during EUS examination.

DESIGN

Pooled retrospective analysis.

SETTING

6 tertiary referral centers.

PATIENTS

All patients having undergone EUS examination for a subepithelial lesion in which jumbo biopsy forceps were used for tissue acquisition.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Diagnostic yield of jumbo biopsy forceps use, complication rates, and comparison of diagnostic yield with that of EUS-FNA.

RESULTS

A total of 129 patients underwent EUS with jumbo biopsy forceps; 31 patients (24%) had simultaneous EUS-FNA. The lesion locations were stomach (n = 98), esophagus (n = 14), duodenum (n = 11), colon (n = 5), and jejunum (n = 1). The average lesion size was 14.9 mm ± 9.3 mm. Overall, definitive diagnosis was obtained in 87 of 129 patients (67.4%) by using either method. A definitive diagnosis was provided by jumbo biopsy forceps use in 76 of 129 patients (58.9%) and by FNA in 14 of 31 patients (45.1%) (P = .175). The results in third-layer lesions were definitive with jumbo biopsy forceps in 56 of 86 lesions (65.1%) and with FNA in 6 of 16 lesions (37.5%) (P = .047). For fourth-layer lesions, the results with jumbo biopsy forceps were definitive in 10 of 25 (40.0%) and with FNA in 8 of 14 (57.1%) (P = .330). Forty-five of 129 patients (34.9%) experienced significant bleeding after biopsy with jumbo forceps and required some form of endoscopic hemostasis.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective study.

CONCLUSIONS

Jumbo forceps are a useful tool for the definitive diagnosis of subepithelial lesions. The greatest benefit appears to be with third-layer (submucosal) lesions. The risk of bleeding is significant.