Impact of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy on the diagnosis of subepithelial tumors: A propensity score-matching analysis

Endoscopic resection in subepithelial lesions of the upper gastrointestinal tract: Experience at a tertiary referral hospital in The Netherlands

Background and study aims Histological confirmation of subepithelial lesions (SELs) in the upper gastrointestinal tract remains challenging. Endoscopic resection of SELs is increasingly used for its excellent diagnostic yield and opportunity to do away with continued surveillance. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the indications, success rates and complications of different endoscopic resection techniques for SELs at a large, tertiary referral hospital in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Patients and methods Data between October 2013 and December 2021 were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Main outcomes were R0-resection rate, en bloc resection rate, recurrence rate, and procedure-related adverse events (AEs) (Clavien-Dindo). Secondary outcomes were procedure time, need for surgical intervention, and clinical impact on patient management. Results A total of 58 patients were referred for endoscopic resection of upper gastrointestinal SELs. The median diameter of lesions was 20 mm (range 7-100 mm). Median follow-up time was 5 months (range 0.4-75.7). Forty-eight procedures (83%) were completed successfully leading to en bloc resection in 85% and R0-resection in 63%. Procedure-related AEs occurred in six patients (13%). Severe complications (CD grade 3a) were seen in three patients. The local recurrence rate for (pre)malignant diagnosis was 2%. Additional surgical intervention was needed in seven patients (15%). A total of 32 patients (67%) could be discharged from further surveillance after endoscopic resection. Conclusions Endoscopic resection is a safe and effective treatment for SELs and offers valuable information about undetermined SELs for which repeated sampling attempts have failed to provide adequate tissue for diagnosis.

Giant Brunner's gland hyperplasia of the duodenum successfully resected en bloc by endoscopic mucosal resection: A case report

BACKGROUND

Duodenal Brunner's gland hyperplasia (BGH) is a therapeutic target when complications such as bleeding or gastrointestinal obstruction occur or when malignancy cannot be ruled out. Herein, we present a case of large BGH treated with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR).

CASE SUMMARY

An 83-year-old woman presented at our hospital with dizziness. Blood tests revealed severe anemia, esophagogastroduodenoscopy showed a 6.5 cm lesion protruding from the anterior wall of the duodenal bulb, and biopsy revealed the presence of glandular epithelium. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) demonstrated relatively high echogenicity with a cystic component. The muscularis propria was slightly elevated at the base of the lesion. EMR was performed without complications. The formalin-fixed lesion size was 6 cm × 3.5 cm × 3 cm, showing nodular proliferation of non-dysplastic Brunner's glands compartmentalized by fibrous septa, confirming the diagnosis of BGH. Reports of EMR or hot snare polypectomy are rare for duodenal BGH > 6 cm. In this case, the choice of EMR was made by obtaining information on the base of the lesion as well as on the internal characteristics through EUS.

CONCLUSION

Large duodenal lesions with good endoscopic maneuverability and no evident muscular layer involvement on EUS may be resectable via EMR.

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.

Utility and advantage of the unroofing technique for gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors: A multicenter retrospective cohort study

Background and aim

Various techniques for direct biopsy from gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors (SETs) have been reported, although no standard method has been established. A common feature of these techniques is the removal of overlaying mucosa to enable direct biopsies from the SETs. These methods have been synthesized under the collective term "unroofing technique". We conducted a multicenter retrospective study to assess its efficacy and identify potential complications.

Methods

This study was conducted in 10 hospitals and involved all eligible patients who underwent unroofing techniques to obtain biopsies for gastrointestinal SETs between April 2015 and March 2021. The primary endpoint was the diagnostic accuracy of the unroofing technique, and the secondary endpoints were the incidence of adverse events and the factors contributing to the accurate diagnosis.

Results

The study included 61 patients with 61 gastrointestinal SETs. The median tumor size was 20 mm, and the median procedure time was 38 min, with 82% successful tumor exposure. The rate of pathological diagnosis was 72.1%. In 44 patients with a pathological diagnosis, two showed discrepancies with the postresection pathological diagnosis. No factors, including facility experience, organ, tumor size, or tumor exposure, significantly affected the diagnostic accuracy. There was one case of delayed bleeding and two cases of perforation.

Conclusion

The diagnostic yield of the unroofing technique was acceptable. The unroofing technique was beneficial regardless of institutional experience, organ, tumor size, or actual tumor exposure.

Comparison of 19G FNA Versus 22G FNB Needles for Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Sampling of Subepithelial Tumors: Is Bigger Better?

OBJECTIVES

To compare the diagnostic efficiency of 19G fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and 22G fine-needle biopsy (FNB) in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling for subepithelial tumors (SETs).

METHODS

The data of patients with SETs who underwent 19G FNA or 22G FNB were reviewed retrospectively in two tertiary hospitals. Tissue cores were assessed by macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE). Cytological or histological diagnosis were classified as definite, suspect, or no diagnosis.

RESULTS

Seventy five patients (mean age: 55 years, 44 males) underwent 19G EUS-FNA (31) or 22G EUS-FNB (44). The overall diagnostic yield was 82.7%. The rate of definite cytological diagnoses was 9.7% (3/31) in 19G and 13.6% (6/44) in 22G group (x2  = 1.520, P = .468). In terms of MOSE, 19G needle, requiring only two punctures, achieved a higher good tissue core rate than 22G group (100.0% [31/31] versus 84.1% [37/44], x2  = 5.440, P = .020]). For histological diagnosis, the 19G group achieved higher definite rate than the 22G group, 93.6% (29/31) versus 65.9% (29/44) (x2  = 7.957, P = .019) on the first puncture, 90.3% (28/31) versus 63.6% (28/44) (x2  = 7.139, P = .028) on the second puncture, 96.8% (30/31) versus 70.5% (31/44) (x2  = 7.319, P = .026) on both the first and second punctures, and 96.8% (30/31) versus 72.7% (32/44) (x2  = 7.538, P = .023) on all three punctures.

CONCLUSIONS

The 19G EUS-FNA requires only two punctures to achieve better tissue core quality by MOSE and yields a higher rate of histological diagnosis than 22G ProCore needle for SETs. The bigger 19G FNA needle seems to play an important role in the evaluation of SETs.

The Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Aspiration of Pelvic Lesions: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a potentially valuable tool for the diagnosis of pelvic lesions. The aim of this meta‑analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of pelvic lesions.

METHODS

We performed a computerized search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Science Citation Index, through March 2023. The main outcome measures examined in the meta-analysis were sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy.

RESULTS

We evaluated 22 trials that used surgical pathology or imaging follow-up results as the reference standard. The studies comprised 844 patients. The cumulative sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy were 94%, 100%, 100%, 89%, and 96%, respectively. In the subgroup analysis, the prospective studies revealed the cumulative sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy were 91%, 100%, 100%, 85%, and 93%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, we provide evidence that EUS-FNA is a qualitative diagnostic technique with high sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and accuracy. However, its NPV is slightly low, which does not exclude the risk of a missed diagnosis, and more randomized controlled trials or prospective studies are still needed in the future. EUS-FNA is effective and feasible for pelvic space-occupying lesions. This technique has high clinical application value for pelvic lesions.

Diagnostic performance of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle biopsy in upper gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors measuring 2-5 cm in size

BACKGROUND

Subepithelial tumors (SETs) in the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract are frequently discovered during upper endoscopy, and their management is determined based on size and histopathological diagnosis. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) in upper GI SETs of 2-5 cm in size.

METHODS

We included 63 patients who underwent EUS-FNB for upper GI SETs of 2-5 cm in size between January 2013 and February 2020. The diagnostic yield of EUS-FNB, ability of EUS-FNB in discriminating malignant from non-malignant lesions, and histopathological concordance between EUS-FNB specimens and resected specimens were evaluated.

RESULTS

Successful acquisition of macroscopic tissue cores was possible in all 63 cases, and the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNB was 92.1% (58/63). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of EUS-FNB in discriminating malignant from non-malignant lesions were 100% (95% confidence interval [CI] 85.3-100%), 87.8% (95% CI 79.9-87.8%), and 92.1% (95% CI 81.8-92.1%), respectively. Of the 26 SETs that were endoscopically or surgically resected after EUS-FNB, the histopathological concordance rate between the EUS-FNB specimens and resected specimens was 100% (24/24), except in two cases of inadequate results with EUS-FNB specimens.

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNB provides high diagnostic yield and high capability in discriminating malignant from non-malignant lesions in upper GI SETs of 2-5 cm in size.

Esophageal submucosal tumor diagnosed with EBUS-guided transbronchial mediastinal cryobiopsy: A case report

Cryobiopsy is advantageous for collecting larger specimens with minimum crushing compared to forceps biopsy and transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA), but it has not been widely used for mediastinal tumors. In this report, a leiomyoma of the thoracic esophagus was diagnosed with endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial mediastinal cryobiopsy (EBUS-cryo). An asymptomatic 49-year-old woman had a 2.6-cm sized submucosal tumor (SMT) of the esophagus adjacent to the trachea and left main bronchus. EBUS-TBNA and EBUS-guided intranodal forceps biopsy were performed, followed by EBUS-cryo. The biopsy forceps could not be inserted into the tumor, but the cryoprobe was smoothly inserted. EBUS-TBNA could not obtain enough spindle-shaped tumor cells for immunohistochemical staining, but EBUS-cryo provided sufficient specimens for diagnosing the leiomyoma. Adding EBUS-cryo to EBUS-TBNA has recently been reported to achieve high diagnostic yields for lymphomas, uncommon tumors, and benign diseases. EBUS-cryo seems a valid diagnostic option for esophageal SMTs that are difficult to diagnose with needles and forceps.

Clinical outcomes of endoscopic treatment for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a single-center study of 240 cases in China

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic resection (ER) gradually becomes an important treatment method for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ER of gastric GISTs.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 240 patients with gastric GISTs who underwent ER at Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology from January 2010 to December 2019. The clinicopathologic, endoscopic and follow-up data of the patients were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean maximum tumor diameter was 1.67 ± 1.00 cm (range 0.2-6.5 cm), of which 156 cases (65.00%) were small gastric GISTs (tumor diameter < 2 cm). A total of 43 patients (17.92%) had perioperative bleeding, including 40 cases (16.67%) of minor bleeding and three cases (1.25%) of major bleeding. Perioperative perforation occurred in 101 patients (42.08%), of which 51 patients (21.25%) were active perforation and 50 patients (20.83%) were passive perforation. The en bloc resection rate was 97.08% (233/240), and seven cases (2.92%) had piecemeal resection. There were three cases (1.92%) of small gastric GISTs at intermediate risk and one case (0.64%) at high risk. A total of 193 patients were followed up, and no tumor residual, recurrence or metastasis occurred within a median follow-up time of 30 months (range 1-127 months).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic treatment for gastric GISTs is safe and effective. Piecemeal resection does not seem to be related to the patient's prognosis. Endoscopic resection can be performed if patients are willing to remove small gastric GISTs.

Efficacy, Feasibility, and Safety of Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Biopsy for the Diagnosis of Gastrointestinal Subepithelial Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle biopsy (FNB) has become an efficient method for diagnosing gastrointestinal (GI) subepithelial lesions (SELs). However, recent guidelines have not regarded FNB as the primary strategy for diagnosing GI SELs. We performed this study to systematically measure the efficacy, feasibility, and safety of EUS-FNB in diagnosing GI SELs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Relevant studies were searched in PubMed and EMBASE and published after January 2015 were included. The overall rates of diagnostic yield, technical success, and adverse events were calculated as outcome measures. The Jadad scale and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to evaluate the quality of the trials, funnel plots and Egger's test were used to measure publication bias, and sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed to explore the variance of heterogeneity and sensitivity, respectively.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies analyzing 969 patients between 2015 and 2020 were included. Studies showed little change in sensitivity, and 13 were considered high quality. A certain degree of publication bias existed in the diagnostic accuracy rate. The overall rates of diagnostic yield, technical success, and adverse events were [85.69% (95% confidence interval (CI): 82.73-88.22, I2=41.8%), 98.83% (95% CI: 96.73-99.97, I2=54.3%), and 1.26% (95% CI: 0.35-2.54, I2=0.0%)]. No clinical influencing factors were identified in the subgroup analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNB is a promising technology with a relatively superior diagnostic yield, technical success, and security, which is an optimal option for the diagnosis of SELs.

The Diagnosis of Small Gastrointestinal Subepithelial Lesions by Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration and Biopsy

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has been widely accepted in the diagnosis of all types of tumors, especially pancreatic tumors, lymph nodes, and subepithelial lesions (SELs). One reason is that the examination can provide a detailed observation, with tissue samples being immediately obtained by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). Many SELs are detected incidentally during endoscopic examinations without symptoms. Most SELs are mesenchymal tumors originating from the fourth layer, such as gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), leiomyomas, and schwannomas. GISTs are potentially malignant. Surgical treatment is recommended for localized GISTs of ≥20 mm. However, the indications for the diagnosis and follow-up of GISTs of <20 mm in size are controversial. There are several reports on the rapid progression or metastasis of small GISTs. Therefore, it is important to determine whether a SEL is a GIST or not. The main diagnostic method is EUS-FNA. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) using a new biopsy needle has been reported to obtain larger tissue samples. Additionally, various biopsy methods have been reported to have a high diagnostic rate for small GISTs. In local gastric SELs, regardless of the tumor size, EUS can be performed first; then, EUS-FNA/B or various biopsy methods can be used to obtain tissue samples for decision-making in relation to therapy and the follow-up period.

Efficacy of the Franseen needle for diagnosing gastrointestinal submucosal lesions including small tumors

Background and Objectives:

Several studies have demonstrated that EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is useful for diagnosing gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions (GI SELs). However, there is limited evidence regarding the use of Franseen needles during EUS-FNB for patients with GI SELs. In addition, the optimal approach for diagnosing small SELs is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate whether EUS-FNB using a Franseen needle was effective for diagnosing GI SELs, including small lesions.

Methods:

Between January 2013 and January 2020, 150 consecutive patients with GI SELs underwent EUS-FNA/FNB to achieve a histological diagnosis. Eighty-six consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNB using a Franseen needle were compared to 64 patients who underwent EUS-FNA using a conventional needle.

Results:

The diagnostic yield was significantly higher using a Franseen needle than using a conventional needle (85% vs. 75%, P = 0.006). Furthermore, in cases with SELs that were <20 mm, the diagnostic yield was significantly higher using a Franseen needle than using a conventional needle (81% vs. 45%; P = 0.003). Multivariate analysis revealed that obtaining a sufficient diagnostic sample was independently predicted by Franseen needle use (adjusted odds ratio: 2.8, 95% confidence interval: 1.2–6.3; P = 0.01) and tumor size of >20 mm (adjusted odds ratio: 3.4, 95% confidence interval: 1.4–8.2; P = 0.006).

Conclusion:

Even when attempting to diagnose small GI SELs, EUS-FNB using a Franseen needle appears to provide a more efficient acquisition of true histological core tissue than using a conventional needle.

Usefulness of a Fork-Tip Needle in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy for Gastric Subepithelial Lesions

The sample adequacy and diagnostic accuracy of an endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for gastric subepithelial lesions (SELs) have been reported to be imperfect. To resolve these issues, a fork-tip needle as an EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needle has been developed. This study was conducted to evaluate the usefulness of a fork-tip needle in an EUS-FNB for gastric SELs. Seventy-nine patients who received an EUS-FNA or FNB using a fork-tip needle for gastric SELs were included in the study. The sample adequacy and diagnostic accuracy were compared between the EUS-FNB with the fork-tip needle group (fork-tip group, n = 13) and the EUS-FNA with FNA needle group (FNA group, n = 66). In addition, a multivariate analysis of the factors influencing diagnostic accuracy was conducted. Regarding sample adequacy, there was no significant difference between the groups (100% vs. 90.9%, respectively; p = 0.582). The diagnostic accuracy of the fork-tip group was numerically higher than that of the FNA group (92.3% vs. 81.8%, respectively; p = 0.682). In a multivariate analysis, the diagnostic accuracy was related to the tumor size and location of the SEL but not to the needle type. In conclusion, this study does not show statistical superiority, but suggests the useful potential of a fork-tip needle.

Localized gastric amyloidosis diagnosed by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration

A 49-year-old man was found to have an elevated lesion on esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for gastric cancer screening. This lesion had been noted in EGD 13 years earlier, but the patient had not received EGD since then. Endoscopy showed a relatively soft subepithelial lesion (SEL) in the gastric antrum. In addition, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) showed a 20-mm-sized, slightly non-uniform hypoechoic mass in the submucosa. Since the diagnosis could not be confirmed by mucosal biopsy, EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) was performed. Hematoxylin-eosin staining of EUS-FNA samples revealed deposition of acidophilic unstructured materials. The structure was positive on Congo red staining, and green polarized light was also observed under a polarizing microscope. Moreover, it was resistant to potassium permanganate reaction, negative for serum amyloid A protein, positive for anti-λ chain antibody, and negative for anti-κ chain, anti-amyloid A, anti-transthyretin, and anti-β2-microglobulin antibodies. Therefore, the lesion was diagnosed as AL-λ-type amyloidosis. No systemic amyloidosis findings were found; thus, the patient was finally diagnosed with localized gastric AL amyloidosis. If an SEL is seen without disease-specific endoscopic findings, amyloidosis should be included in the differential diagnosis, and EUS-FNA can contribute to obtaining tissue samples in such cases.

Comparison of fine-needle aspiration and fine-needle biopsy devices for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid lesions: a systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition is extensively used, but the optimal sampling device is still a matter of debate. We performed meta-analyses on studies comparing fine-needle aspiration (FNA) with fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles, and studies comparing different FNB needles.

METHODS

Online databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 50 cases with a suspected solid pancreatic or nonpancreatic lesion that compared FNA with FNB needles. Outcome measures included diagnostic accuracy, adequacy, number of passes, presence of tissue cores, and adverse events. We also performed meta-regression analysis on the effect of FNB design on diagnostic accuracy. Quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool.

RESULTS

18 RCTs comparing FNA with FNB needles were included. FNB provided a higher pooled diagnostic accuracy (87 % vs. 80 %; P = 0.02) and tissue core rate (80 % vs. 62 %; P = 0.002), and allowed diagnosis with fewer passes (P = 0.03), in both pancreatic and nonpancreatic lesions. A total of 93 studies were included comparing different FNB devices. Pooled diagnostic accuracy was higher for forward-facing bevel needles than for the reverse bevel needle. In this analysis, study quality was low and heterogeneity was high (I2  = 80 %).

CONCLUSION

FNB outperformed FNA when sampling pancreatic and nonpancreatic lesions. Forward-facing bevel FNB needles seemed to outperform the reverse bevel FNB needle, but the low quality of evidence prevents us from making strong recommendations on the optimal FNB design.

Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition Using a 20-Gauge Menghini Needle with a Lateral Forward Bevel and a 22-Gauge Franseen Needle: A Single-Center Large Cohort Study

Background/Aims

Several fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles are available for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition. However, there is disagreement on which type of needle has the best diagnostic yield. The aim of this study was to compare the performance and safety of two commonly used EUS-FNB needles.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNB between June 2016 and March 2020 in our hospital. Two types of needles were evaluated: a 20-gauge Menghini needle with a lateral forward bevel and a 22-gauge Franseen needle. Rapid on-site evaluation was performed in all the cases. A multivariate analysis was performed to clarify the negative predictive factors for obtaining a histological diagnosis. Propensity score matching was performed to compare the diagnostic yields of these two needles.

Results

We analyzed 666 patients and 690 lesions. The overall diagnostic rate of histology alone was 88.8%, and the overall adverse event rate was 1.5%. Transduodenal access and small lesions (≤2 cm) were identified as negative predictive factors for obtaining a histological diagnosis. After propensity score matching, 482 lesions were analyzed. The diagnostic accuracy rates of histology in the M and F needle groups were 89.2% and 88.8%, respectively (p=1.00).

Conclusions

Both the needles showed high diagnostic yield, and no significant difference in performance was observed between the two.

Utility of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for diagnosing small subepithelial lesions (< 20 mm)

AIM

Subepithelial lesions (SELs) are defined as being located under the mucosa. Presently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is commonly performed to diagnose SELs. With the development of new puncture needles, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB), which allows for the acquisition of large tissue samples, has been proposed. However, studies on EUS-FNB of SELs measuring < 20 mm have not yielded satisfactory results. Therefore, we aimed to assess the performance and usefulness of EUS-FNB of SELs measuring less than < 20 mm.

METHODS

The present study included 62 patients who underwent EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB for SELs at our hospital between January 2015 and March 2019. EUS-FNA was performed using fine-needle aspiration needles, and EUS-FNB was performed using fine-needle biopsy needles. These needles, which come in different shapes and diameters, were compared in terms of their usefulness in performing procedures for SELs measuring ≥ 20 mm and those measuring < 20 mm.

RESULTS

For SELs measuring ≥ 20 mm, the use of needles with a large diameter, such as 19 or 20 G, resulted in significantly improved diagnostic rates. For SELs measuring < 20 mm, the use of FNB needles showed significantly improved diagnostic rates, regardless of the size of the puncture needles.

CONCLUSION

Even when SELs are less than 20 mm, they might have malignant potential, and histological diagnosis may be desirable in some cases. EUS-FNB has an advantage over EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of SELs measuring < 20 mm.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pelvic lesions via the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract approaches

BACKGROUND

Combining upper and lower gastrointestinal tract (GI) approaches allows expansion of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) indications for pelvic lesions. The upper GI approach has been used for pelvic lesions around the level of the aortoiliac bifurcation in our institution. The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and safety of EUS-FNA for pelvic lesions via the upper and lower GI approaches.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNA for the pelvic lesion between January 2008 and December 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Pelvic lesions were defined as lesions located around and below the aortoiliac bifurcation level. The primary outcome was technical success rate, and the secondary outcomes were the diagnostic capability of EUS-FNA for malignancy and the safety.

RESULTS

EUS-FNA for pelvic lesions was performed in 49 patients: upper and lower GI approaches were used in 28 and 21 patients, respectively. The technical success rates were 91.8% (45/49) in all patients: 89.3% (25/28) and 95.2% (20/21) with the upper and lower GI approaches, respectively. Among patients who achieved technical success, the diagnostic accuracy for malignancy was 97.8% (44/45) in all patients: 100% (25/25) and 95.0% (19/20) with the upper and lower GI approaches, respectively. One (2.0%) patient developed an adverse event of sigmoid colon perforation.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNA for pelvic lesions via the upper and lower GI approaches was a safe, feasible, and effective method, although careful endoscopic manipulation is required to avoid perforation, especially with the lower GI approach. Further large-scale, well-designed studies are needed to validate our findings.

Efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound with artificial intelligence for the diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors

BACKGROUND

Although endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is reported to be suitable for determining the layer from which subepithelial lesions (SELs) originate, it is difficult to distinguish gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) from non-GIST using only EUS images. If artificial intelligence (AI) can be used for the diagnosis of SELs, it should provide several benefits, including objectivity, simplicity, and quickness. In this pilot study, we propose an AI diagnostic system for SELs and evaluate its efficacy.

METHODS

Thirty sets each of EUS images with SELs ≥ 20 mm or < 20 mm were prepared for diagnosis by an EUS diagnostic system with AI (EUS-AI) and three EUS experts. The EUS-AI and EUS experts diagnosed the SELs using solely the EUS images. The concordance rates of the EUS-AI and EUS experts' diagnoses were compared with the pathological findings of the SELs.

RESULTS

The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for SELs < 20 mm were 86.3, 86.3, and 62.5%, respectively for the EUS-AI, and 73.3, 68.2, and 87.5%, respectively, for the EUS experts. In contrast, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for SELs ≥ 20 mm were 90.0, 91.7, and 83.3%, respectively, for the EUS-AI, and 53.3, 50.0, and 83.3%, respectively, for the EUS experts. The area under the curve for the diagnostic yield of the EUS-AI for SELs ≥ 20 mm (0.965) was significantly higher than that (0.684) of the EUS experts (P = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

EUS-AI had a good diagnostic yield for SELs ≥ 20 mm. EUS-AI has potential as a good option for the diagnosis of SELs.

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.

Overlooked risk for needle tract seeding following endoscopic ultrasound-guided minimally invasive tissue acquisition

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided minimally invasive tissue acquisition can be performed by two approaches as follows: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). These have been evolved into leading approaches and widely used for the histological diagnosis of tumors in the gastrointestinal tract and adjacent organs. However, the role of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB in disease diagnosis and evaluation remains controversial. Although the incidence of surgery-associated complications remains low, the consequences of needle tract seeding can be serious or even life-threatening. Recently, increasing case reports of needle tract seeding are emerging, especially caused by EUS-FNA. This complication needs serious consideration. In the present work, we integrated these case reports and the related literature, and summarized the relevant cases and technical characteristics of needle tract seeding caused by EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB. Collectively, our findings provided valuable insights into the prevention and reduction of such serious complication.

Factors associated with diagnostic accuracy, technical success and adverse events of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is used to diagnose lesions within or adjacent to the digestive tract. However, there is no report on the overall diagnostic accuracy, technical success, and adverse events of FNB. The aims of this study were to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to comprehensively assess the diagnostic accuracy, technical success, and adverse events of FNB.

METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant articles published in English from January 1998 to May 2019 (No. CRD42019141647). Primary outcomes were EUS-FNB related diagnostic accuracy rate, technical success rate, and adverse event rate.

RESULTS

A total of 51 articles including 5330 patients met our criteria. The overall EUS-FNB related diagnostic accuracy rate, technical success rate, and adverse event rate was 90.82% [95% confidence interval (CI) 88.69-92.76%], 99.71% [95% CI 99.35-99.93%], and 0.59% [95% CI 0.29-1.0%], respectively. Biopsy with 22G needle could increase the diagnostic accuracy rate and technical success rate to 92.17% [95% CI 89.32-94.61%] and 99.88% [95% CI 99.64-99.99%], respectively, and decrease the adverse event to 0.37% [95% CI 0.08-0.87%]. Moreover, it showed that 22G needle was an independent factor associated with a higher diagnostic accuracy rate and technical success rate and a lower adverse event rate (P = 0.04, P < 0.001, and P = 0.04, respectively) by univariate and multivariate meta-regression analyses.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy is a feasible and safe procedure for lesions within or adjacent to the digestive tract. Biopsy using 22G needle could increase the diagnostic accuracy rate and technical success rate and decrease adverse event rate during the FNB procedure.

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.

Superiority of mucosal incision-assisted biopsy over ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in diagnosing small gastric subepithelial lesions: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Gastric subepithelial lesions, including gastrointestinal stromal tumors, are often found during routine gastroscopy. While endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNAB) has been the gold standard for diagnosing gastric subepithelial lesions, alternative open biopsy procedures, such as mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) has been reported useful. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of MIAB for the diagnosis of gastric SELs compared with EUS-FNAB.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed medical records of 177 consecutive patients with gastric SELs who underwent either MIAB or EUS-FNAB at five hospitals in Japan between January 2010 and January 2018. Diagnostic yield, procedural time, and adverse event rates for the two procedures were evaluated before and after propensity-score matching.

RESULTS

No major procedure-related adverse events were observed in either group. Both procedures yielded highly-accurate diagnoses once large enough samples were obtained; however, such successful sampling was more often accomplished by MIAB than by EUS-FNAB, especially for small SELs. As a result, MIAB provided better diagnostic yields for SELs smaller than 20-mm diameter. The diagnostic yields of both procedures were comparable for SELs larger than 20-mm diameter; however, MIAB required significantly longer procedural time (approximately 13 min) compared with EUS-FNAB.

CONCLUSIONS

Although MIAB required longer procedural time, it outperformed EUS-FNAB when diagnosing gastric SELs smaller than 20-mm diameter.

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.