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

Second-look upper endoscopy as the initial approach to subepithelial lesions: a reassuring and reliable strategy

BACKGROUND

Although endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) plays a critical role in the management of subepithelial lesions (SEL) of upper gastrointestinal tract many can be classified solely by a thorough upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) which can reduce the burden of additional studies.

AIMS

Analyze the impact of a stepwise approach starting with a second-look UGE before the decision of EUS in patients referred to our center with suspected SEL.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study which included all adult patients referred to our center between 2015 and 2020 with suspected SEL.Second-look UGE evaluated the location, size, color, surface characteristics, movability and consistency of the SEL and bite-on-bite biopsies were performed. Decisions on SEL management and follow-up were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 193 SEL (190 patients) were included. At the index-UGE, stomach was the most frequent location (n = 115;59.6%). Most patients performed a second-look UGE (n = 180; 94.7%). A minority was oriented directly to EUS (n = 8;4.2%) or endoscopic resection (n = 2; 1.1%). In patients who underwent a second-look UGE, SEL were excluded in 25 (13.9%) and 21 (11.7%) did not need further work-up. The remaining patients were submitted to EUS (n = 88;48.9%), surveillance by UGE (n = 44; 24.4%) or endoscopic resection (n = 2; 1.1%).

CONCLUSION

Systematically performing a second-look UGE, in patients referred with suspected SEL, safely preclude the need for subsequent investigation in approximately one-fourth of the patients. As UGE is less invasive and more readily available, we suggest that a second-look UGE should be the initial approach in SEL management.

Coexistence of early gastric cancer and benign submucosal lesions mimic invasive cancer: a retrospective multicenter experience

OBJECTIVE

To present a study to identify the characteristics of coexisting early gastric cancer (EGC) and benign submucosal lesions, with the aim of reducing the adverse consequences of overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we searched the endoscopic databases of three tertiary centers. We screened of patients suspected of early gastric cancer submucosal infiltration by conventional endoscopy and ultimately selected for endoscopic submucosal dissection treatment after endoscopic ultrasonography and magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging examination. Patients with coexisting EGC and benign submucosal lesions in histological sections were included. Clinical data and endoscopic images were reviewed. To evaluate the precision of endoscopists' diagnoses for this type of lesion, eight endoscopists with different experiences were recruited to judge the infiltration depth of these lesions and analyze the accuracy rate.

RESULTS

We screened 520 patients and retrospectively identified 18 EGC patients with an invasive cancer-like morphology. The most common lesion site was the cardia (12/18, 66.67%). The coexisting submucosal lesions could be divided into solid (5/18, 27.78%) and cystic (13/18, 72.22%). The most common type of submucosal lesion was gastritis cystica profunda (12/18, 66.67%), whereas leiomyoma was the predominant submucosal solid lesion (3/18, 16.67%). Ten (55.56%) patients < underwent endoscopic ultrasonography; submucosal lesions were definitively diagnosed in 6 patients (60.00%). The accuracy of judgement of the infiltration depth was significantly lower in cases of coexistence of EGC with benign submucosal lesions (EGC-SML) than in EGC (38.50% versus 65.60%, P = 0.0167). The rate of over-diagnosis was significantly higher within the EGC-SML group compared to the EGC group (59.17% versus 10.83%, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

We should be aware of the coexistence of EGC and benign submucosal lesions, the most common of which is early cardiac-differentiated cancer with gastritis cystica profunda.

ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Gastrointestinal Subepithelial Lesions

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

Role of endoscopic ultrasonography for differential diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal submucosal lesions

OBJECTIVE

To determine the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal submucosal lesions (SMLs).

METHODS

This was a retrospective study involving patients diagnosed with SMLs using EUS and confirmed by histopathology from November 2014 to December 2020 at The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University.

RESULTS

A total of 231 patients with SMLs were examined by EUS. Histologically, 107 lesions were stromal tumors, and 75 lesions were leiomyomas. Stromal tumors were mainly located in the stomach (89.7%), and leiomyomas were predominantly seen in the esophagus (69.3%). The diagnostic accuracy of EUS for stromal tumors and leiomyomas was 80.4% and 68.0%, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy was highest for lesions located in the muscularis mucosa. The mean diameter of stromal tumors measured using EUS was significantly larger than that of leiomyomas (21.89 mm vs. 12.35 mm, p < 0.001). Stromal tumors and leiomyomas originated mainly from the muscularis propria (94.4%) and the muscularis mucosa (56.0%), respectively. Compared with the very low-risk and low-risk groups of stromal tumors according to the National Institute of Health guidelines, the intermediate-risk and high-risk groups were more likely to have a lesion > 3 cm (p < 0.001) and a surface ulcer (p < 0.01) identified by EUS.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS has good diagnostic value for the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal SMLs based on the lesion size and the muscle layer of origin. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS lesions is related to the origin, and the diagnostic accuracy is greatest in the mucosal muscularis layer. Stromal tumors > 3 cm and a surface ulcer on EUS are likely to be intermediate or high risk for invasion.

Endoscopic diagnosis and management of gastric subepithelial lesions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this manuscript is to provide an in-depth review of gastric subepithelial lesions (SELs) and describe the current approach to endoscopic diagnosis and management of these lesions.

RECENT FINDINGS

Gastric SELs are a relatively frequent finding on routine endoscopy (incidence 0.2-3%). A systematic approach to diagnosis and management is key because many SELs are of little consequence, while others carry a high risk of malignant transformation. Because esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) cannot delineate depth of invasion or subepithelial appearance, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) should be considered a first-line modality. Recent data suggest EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (FNB) may be superior to traditional fine needle aspiration (FNA) for the diagnosis of gastric SELs due to its ability to obtain histologic specimens for immunohistochemical staining. Alternative techniques for tissue sampling (combined with simultaneous resection) include submucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), submucosal tunnelling with endoscopic resection (STER) or endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR).

SUMMARY

This review details the endoscopic diagnosis and management of gastric SELs. Although EUS-guided sampling remains a first-line strategy (preferably with FNB), recent techniques including ESD, STER and EFTR have the potential to provide additional diagnostic and therapeutic options.

Evaluation and management of a pancreatic rest noted during pre-bariatric surgery screening endoscopy

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatic rest (PR) is an ectopic pancreatic lesion that is usually found incidentally on endoscopy or surgery. While most lesions do not have clinical significance, some patients are symptomatic and rarely, PR can predispose to malignancy. With the growing popularity of bariatric surgery, it has been unclear how to manage PR found on screening endoscopies, prior to bariatric surgery. Through review of the current literature, we propose an algorithm for clinicians to evaluate and manage PR found on screening endoscopies prior to bariatric surgery.

METHODS

We performed a literature search in PubMed pertaining to PR, clinical characteristics, risk of malignant transformation, endoscopic characteristics, histological descriptions, and resection techniques. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), we found 33 published articles from 2001 to 2019, including case reports, case series, retrospective cohorts, and a review paper.

RESULTS

PR is commonly found incidentally in the gastric antrum. Larger lesions have a higher risk of being symptomatic or predisposing to malignant transformation. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) can assist in the diagnosis of PR and guide resection technique. Certain histological characteristics, such as Heinrich class, grading of neoplasia, and genetic alterations, can determine malignancy risk of PR. Resection technique, either endoscopically or surgically, should be based on lesion size, depth of wall invasion, and the endoscopists' level of skill in endoscopic resection.

CONCLUSIONS

Proper evaluation and treatment of PR should be considered because of the risk for symptoms and malignant transformation. Symptomatic lesions and those at risk for malignant transformation should be considered for resection. EUS can guide the diagnosis and type of resection, either endoscopically through EMR or ESD or surgically through sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB).

Reliability of Endoscopic Ultrasound Using Miniprobes and Grayscale Histogram Analysis in Diagnosing Upper Gastrointestinal Subepithelial Lesions

Background

To assess the role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions (SELs) and to investigate EUS combined with a grayscale histogram analysis for the differentiation of leiomyomas and gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs).

Methods

A retrospective study of 709 patients with upper gastrointestinal SELs was conducted by EUS before endoscopic resection. The EUS findings of SELs and pathological results after endoscopic resection were compared. The EUS images of SELs, particularly, leiomyoma and GIST, were further analyzed via a grayscale histogram to differentiate between the two tumors.

Results

Of the 709 patients, 47 cases were pathologically undetermined. The diagnostic consistency of EUS with endoscopic resection was 88.2% (584/662), including 185 muscularis mucosa, 61 submucosa, and 338 muscularis propria, respectively. The diagnostic consistency of EUS with pathology was 80.1% (530/662). The gray value of GISTs was significantly higher than that of leiomyomas (58.9 ± 8.3 vs. 39.5 ± 5.9, t = 57.0, P < 0.0001). The standard deviation of leiomyomas was significantly lower than that of GISTs (20.6 ± 7.0 vs. 39.8 ± 9.3, t = 23.7, P < 0.0001). The grayscale histogram analysis of GISTs showed higher echo ultrasound, and the echo of leiomyoma was more uniform.

Conclusion

EUS is the preferred procedure for the evaluation of upper gastrointestinal SELs. EUS combined with a grayscale histogram analysis is an effective method for the differentiation of leiomyomas and GISTs.

Prospective comparative study of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle biopsy and unroofing biopsy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Adequate tissue acquisition is important in making treatment decisions for patients with upper gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors (SETs). This study aimed to compare the outcomes of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) with those of the unroofing biopsy technique.

METHODS

This study was a single-center, prospective comparative study conducted at Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine. A total of 39 patients with SETs ≥15 mm were enrolled between January 2016 and August 2017.

RESULTS

Of the 39 patients, 28 underwent biopsy with both techniques (4 underwent only unroofing and 7 underwent only EUS-FNB). Histological diagnosis was made with EUS-FNB in 64.3% and unroofing biopsy in 78.6% (p = 0.344), and immunohistochemical diagnosis was made with EUS-FNB in 46.4% and unroofing biopsy in 67.9% (p = 0.180). In the subgroup analysis (28 patients), there was no significant difference in diagnostic yield between the 2 methods The mean procedural time with EUS-FNB was shorter than that with unroofing biopsy (p < 0.001). The larger SET (≥ 20 mm) (p = 0.035) and satisfaction of procedure (p = 0.019) were positively associated with successful histological diagnosis by EUS-FNB.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in the histological diagnostic yield for SETs between the EUS-FNB and unroofing biopsy techniques (CinicalTrials.gov. identifier NCT02646241).