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

Diagnostic yield of endoscopic and EUS-guided biopsy techniques in subepithelial lesions of the upper GI tract: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Obtaining adequate tissue samples in subepithelial lesions (SELs) remains challenging. Several biopsy techniques are available, but a systematic review including all available techniques to obtain a histologic diagnosis of SEL is lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield and adverse event rates of endoscopic biopsies, EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA), EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB) (EUS-FNB), and mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) for SELs in the upper GI tract.

METHODS

A search strategy in multiple databases was performed. The primary outcome was diagnostic yield, defined as the percentage of procedures in which histology was obtained and resulted in a definitive histopathologic diagnosis. Secondary outcome measures included reported procedure-related adverse events, which were graded according to the AGREE (Adverse Events in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy) classification.

RESULTS

A total of 94 original articles were included. Studies were classified per endoscopic technique to obtain histopathology. This resulted in 8 included studies for endoscopic biopsy methods, 55 studies for EUS-FNA, 33 studies for EUS-FNB, and 26 studies for MIAB. Pooled rates for diagnostic yield were 40.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 30.8-51.2) for endoscopic biopsy, 74.6% (95% CI, 69.9-78.7) for EUS-FNA, 84.2% (95% CI, 80.7-87.2) for EUS-FNB, and 88.2% (95% CI, 84.7-91.1) for MIAB. Reported procedure-related adverse events graded AGREE II or higher were 2.8% to 3.9% for endoscopic biopsies, 1.0% to 4.5% for EUS-FNA, .9% to 7.7% for EUS-FNB, and 1.9% to 7.9% for MIAB.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, MIAB and EUS-FNB seem to be most effective in terms of achieving a high diagnostic yield, with similar rates of adverse events.

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.

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.

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.

Franseen Needles May Be Promising for Improving the Sampling Adequacy of EUS-FNA for Subepithelial Lesions

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is useful in diagnosing subepithelial lesions (SELs), and adequate tissue sampling is necessary to differentiate between benign and malignant diseases to determine therapeutic strategies. This study aimed to evaluate sampling adequacy and diagnostic performance of EUS-FNA for SELs with Franseen needles. This retrospective study enrolled 130 patients who underwent EUS-FNA with a 22-gauge needle for SELs from January 2010 to March 2021. We compared sampling adequacy and predictive factors influencing the sampling adequacy of EUS-FNA for SELs between Franseen and conventional needles. The sampling adequacy rates were 95.0% (38/40) with Franseen needles and 76.7% (69/90) with conventional needles (p = 0.011). The mean number of punctures with Franseen needles (2.80) was significantly less than that with conventional needles (3.42) (p < 0.001). In the multivariate analysis, the use of Franseen needles (p = 0.029; odds ratio [OR], 5.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18−23.36) was an independent factor influencing the sampling adequacy. Compared to conventional needles, the Franseen needle could play a vital role in accurately diagnosing SELs by yielding better sampling adequacy and reducing the number of passes.

Inflammation-related indicators to distinguish between gastric stromal tumors and leiomyomas: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Gastric leiomyomas and gastric stromal tumors are the most common types of gastric tumors encountered. In recent years, the incidence of the two types of tumors has been increasing, but the differential diagnosis is still a challenge in clinical work. However, as there are many reports on stromal tumors and inflammation-related indicators are gradually being paid attention to as important factors in predicting tumor prognosis, the two main purposes of this study were to explore the inflammation-related differences between the two types of tumors and to develop a nomogram as a predictive model.

AIM

To explore the differences in platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), lymphocyte mononuclear cell ratio (LMR), and SII between the two types of tumors, and simultaneously create the nomogram model.

METHODS

This study enrolled 88 patients in the gastric stromal tumor group and 56 patients in the gastric leiomyoma group, and the relevant data of the two groups were entered into the system for an integrated analysis. The primary objective of this study was to identify the differences in the inflammation index between the two types of tumors.

RESULTS

There were statistically significant differences between the two groups in sex, age, and tumor location. In comparison, gastric leiomyomas seem to be more common in women, young patients, and gastric cardia, which is in line with our previous research; the groups showed the following statistical differences: PLR (158.2% vs 134.3%, P = 0.028), NLR (2.35 vs 1.68, P = 0.000), LMR (5.75 vs 10.8, P = 0.004), and SII (546.2 vs 384.3, P = 0.003). The results of the multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that sex, age, tumor location, and LMR were independent risk factors for the identification of the two types of tumors. After considering the risk factors selected by the above analysis into the predictive model, a predictive model for distinguishing gastrointestinal stromal tumors from gastric leiomyomas was established as the nomogram.

CONCLUSION

Gastric leiomyomas and gastric stromal tumors are not only different in factors such as age of the patient, but also in inflammatory indicators such as LMR and PLR. We have established a predictive model related to the laboratory indicators and are looking forward to further research conducted in this clinical area.

Optimal number of needle punctures in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy for gastric subepithelial lesions without rapid on-site evaluation

PURPOSE

The utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for gastric subepithelial lesions (SELs) has been reported. In this study, we examined the optimal number of needle punctures during EUS-FNB for gastric SELs without rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE). The factors that allowed for a single needle puncture to arrive at the correct diagnosis were also analyzed.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of all patients who underwent EUS-FNB to evaluate gastric SELs between April 2015 and September 2020; 51 patients with 57 gastric SELs were enrolled. The optimal number of needle punctures was determined when additional needle passes did not increase diagnostic sensitivity by more than 10%. Factors allowing for only a single needle puncture to arrive at the correct diagnosis were identified by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

EUS-FNB resulted in a definitive final diagnosis in 48 of 57 lesions (84%). Lesions in the gastric body (odds ratio [OR] 6.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.75-21.6; P < 0.01) and lesions punctured using a 22G Franseen needle (OR 3.61, 95% CI 1.07-12.3; P = 0.04) were independent factors that allowed for only a single needle puncture to arrive at the correct diagnosis. The optimal number of needle punctures for lesions using a 22G Franseen needle in the gastric body and other lesions was two and three, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The optimal number of needle punctures in EUS-FNB for gastric SELs without ROSE was two or three, depending on the location and type of needle used.

Advancements in the Diagnosis of Gastric Subepithelial Tumors

A diagnosis of subepithelial tumors (SETs) is sometimes difficult due to the existence of overlying mucosa on the lesions, which hampers optical diagnosis by conventional endoscopy and tissue sampling with standard biopsy forceps. Imaging modalities, by using computed tomography and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) are mandatory to noninvasively collect the target's information and to opt candidates for further evaluation. Particularly, EUS is an indispensable diagnostic modality for assessing the lesions precisely and evaluating the possibility of malignancy. The diagnostic ability of EUS appears increased by the combined use of contrast-enhancement or elastography. Histology is the gold standard for obtaining the final diagnosis. Tissue sampling requires special techniques to break the mucosal barrier. Although EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is commonly applied, mucosal cutting biopsy and mucosal incision-assisted biopsy are comparable methods to definitively obtain tissues from the exposed surface of lesions and seem more useful than EUS-FNA for small SETs. Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have a potential to drastically change the diagnostic strategy for SETs. Development and establishment of noninvasive methods including AI-assisted diagnosis are expected to provide an alternative to invasive, histological diagnosis.

THE ROLE OF CONVENTIONAL ECHOENDOSCOPY (EUS) IN THERAPEUTIC DECISIONS IN PATIENTS WITH NEUROENDOCRINE GASTROINTESTINAL TUMORS

Background:

Gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors are rare, usually presented as subepithelial or polypoid tumors. Accurate diagnosis and indication of the type of resection are still challenging.

Aim:

To determine the effectiveness of echoendoscopy in determining the depth of the lesions (T) identified by endoscopy in order to evaluate surgical and/or endoscopic indication, and to evaluate the results of endoscopic removal in the medium term.

Methods:

Twenty-seven patients were included, all of whom underwent echoendoscopy for TN tumor staging and the evaluation of possible endoscopic resection. The parameters were: lesion size, origin layer, depth of involvement and identified perilesional adenopathies. The inclusion criteria for endoscopic resection were: 1) high surgical risk; 2) those with NET <2 cm; 3) absence of impairment of the muscle itself; and 4) absence of perilesional adenopathies in echoendoscopy and in others without distant metastases. Exclusion criteria were TNE> 2 cm; those with infiltration of the muscle itself; with perilesional adenopathies and distant metastases. The techniques used were: resection with polypectomy loop; mucosectomy with saline injection; and mucosectomy after ligation with an elastic band. The anatomopathological study of the specimens included evaluation of the margins and immunohistochemistry (chromogranin, synaptophysin and Ki 67) to characterize the tumor. Follow-up was done at 1, 6 and 12 months.

Results:

Resections with polypectomy loop were performed in 15 patients; mucosectomy in five; mucosectomy and ligation with elastic band in three and the remaining four were referred for surgery. The anatomopathological specimens and immunohistochemical analyzes showed positive chromogranin and synaptophysin, while Ki 67 was less than 5% among all cases. The medium-term follow-up revealed three recurrences. The average size of tumors in the stomach was 7.6 mm and in the duodenum 7.2 mm. Well-demarcated, hypoechoic, homogeneous lesions occurred in 75%; mucous layer in 80%; and the deep and submucosal mucosa in 70%.

Conclusions:

Echoendoscopy proved to be a good method for the study of subepithelial lesions, being able to identify the layer affected by the neoplasm, degree of invasion, echogenicity, heterogeneity, size of the lesion and perilesional lymph node involvement and better indicate the treatment option.