Safety and efficacy of endoscopic resection for the treatment of duodenal subepithelial lesions

Clinical course of asymptomatic duodenal subepithelial lesions

BACKGROUND/AIMS

There is limited knowledge regarding the management of duodenal subepithelial lesions (SELs) owing to a lack of understanding of their natural course. This study aimed to assess the natural course of asymptomatic duodenal SELs and provide management recommendations.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with duodenal SELs and followed up for a minimum of 6 months were retrospectively investigated.

RESULTS

Among the 443,533 patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy between 2008 and 2020, duodenal SELs were identified in 0.39% (1,713 patients). Among them, 396 duodenal SELs were monitored for a median period of 72.5 months (interquartile range, 37.7-111.3 mo). Of them, 16 SELs (4.0%) showed substantial changes in size or morphology at a median follow-up of 35.1 months (interquartile range, 21.7-51.4 mo). Of these SELs with substantial changes, tissues of two SELs were acquired using endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy: one was a lipoma and the other was non-diagnostic. Three SELs were surgically or endoscopically removed; two were diagnosed as gastrointestinal stromal tumors, and one was a lipoma. An initial size of 20 mm or larger was associated with substantial changes during follow-up (p = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

While the majority of duodenal SELs may not exhibit substantial interval changes, regular follow-up with endoscopy may be necessary for cases with an initial size of 20 mm or larger, considering a possibility of malignancy.

Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration for Duodenal Subepithelial Lesions Showing a Hypoechoic Mass on Endoscopic Ultrasound Imaging

BACKGROUND/AIMS

For duodenal subepithelial lesions showing a hypoechoic mass on endoscopic ultrasound imaging, the utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and the frequency of histological types have not been the focus of previous literature. This study aimed to clarify this.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective observational study enrolled 22 consecutive patients who underwent endoscopic ultrasoundguided fine-needle aspiration for duodenal subepithelial lesions with hypoechoic mass on endoscopic ultrasound. Immunohistochemical analysis was performed for all endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and surgically resected specimens. The main outcome measures were the technical results of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and the frequency of histological types of duodenal subepithelial lesions with hypoechoic mass.

RESULTS

Thirteen fine-needle aspiration specimens were obtained from the duodenal bulb and eight from the descending duodenal region. The puncture was not performed because of intervening vessels in one patient. The diagnostic rate was 81% (95% confidence interval: 58.1-94.6, 17/21 patients). In 12 patients receiving surgical resection (excluding one cancellation of endoscopic ultrasoundguided fine-needle aspiration), the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration was 75% (95% confidence interval: 42.8-94.5, 9/12 patients). No complications were observed. The histopathological diagnoses included 11 cases of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (50%), 2 cases of leiomyoma (9%), 2 cases of metastatic cancer (9%), 2 cases of benign inconclusive, and 1 case each of carcinoid, malignant lymphoma, leiomyosarcoma, gauzeoma, and aberrant pancreas (4.5% each). The frequency of malignant tumors in the duodenal subepithelial lesions with hypoechoic mass group was 73% (16/22 patients).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for duodenal subepithelial lesions with hypoechoic mass was safe and accurate. As duodenal subepithelial lesion with hypoechoic mass has a reasonably high possibility of containing malignant tumors, it is desirable to perform endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration.

Survival comparison between endoscopic and surgical resection for non-ampullary duodenal neuroendocrine tumor (1-2 cm)

The treatment plan for non-ampullary duodenal neuroendocrine tumors (d-NETs) with diameters 1-2 cm remains controversial. We therefore aimed to compare the prognostic effects of endoscopic treatment and surgical resection on non-ampullary d-NETs with 1-2 cm diameters. A total of 373 eligible patients were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to match patients 1:1 according to clinicopathological characteristics. Disease-specific survival (DSS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated. Before PSM, there was no significant difference in DSS or OS (all P > 0.05), but the T stage, N stage, and TNM stage were significantly different between the two surgical methods (all P < 0.05). After 1:1 PSM, the differences in clinicopathological characteristics were significantly reduced (all P > 0.05). Survival analysis showed that tumor grade was correlated with DSS and that age was correlated with OS (all P < 0.05); however, the surgical method and other clinicopathological characteristics were not correlated with prognosis (all P > 0.05). Subgroup survival analysis of patients with T2N0M0 disease and tumors invading the lamina propria or submucosa showed that the 5-year DSS and OS rates were not significantly different according to the surgical approach (all P > 0.05). The surgical approach has no significant effect on the prognosis of patients with non-ampullary d-NETs with 1-2 cm diameters, especially those with T2N0M0 disease. This suggests that endoscopic treatment may be a preferred option for these patients.

Safety and efficacy of surgical and endoscopic resection in the treatment of duodenal subepithelial lesions

BACKGROUND

Duodenal subepithelial lesions (D-SELs) are rare and their resection is challenging. Unfortunately, data on surgical and endoscopic resection of D-SELs are scarce. This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of surgical resection and endoscopic resection (ER) for D-SELs.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed clinical data of patients with non-ampullary D-SELs who underwent ER or surgery and compared the outcomes between ER and surgery with no/low-risk SELs over 15 mm from March 2010 to August 2020. Clinicopathologic findings, procedure-related parameters, and follow-up data were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 107 patients (108 lesions) were enrolled; 52 patients (53 lesions) received ER and 55 patients (55 lesions) received surgery. In ER group, en bloc resection rate and R0 resection rate were 94 and 89%, respectively. Major adverse events rate was 6%. One (2%) patient experienced local recurrence. In surgery group, R0 resection was achieved in all cases. Major adverse events rate was 20%. Recurrence rate and distant metastases rate were 4 and 8%, respectively. One (2%) patient died from septicemia during follow-up. Thirty-three patients in each group were enrolled in the comparison. There were no significant differences in age, sex, lesion size and location (P > 0.05). More histologically GISTs and muscularis propria-originated lesions were treated by surgery (P < 0.05). ER was significantly associated with a shorter operation time, shorter hospital stay, lower cost, less estimated blood loss, and lower major adverse events rate compared to the surgery group (P < 0.05). However, R0 resection rate, mortality, recurrence rate, and metastases rate were not significant different (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

ER is an effective and safe treatment modality for selected patients with non-ampullary D-SELs by expert endoscopists. Surgery is a radical method for D-SELs that should be reserved for D-SELs not amenable to ER.

Risk Factors of Non-en Bloc Resection and Non-R0 Resection During Endoscopic Resection in the Treatment of Superficial Duodenal Epithelial Lesions

Background

Superficial duodenal epithelial lesions are precancerous lesions of duodenal carcinoma. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy has been widely used in the screening and treatment of this disease. This article will collect the data of patients who underwent endoscopic resection of superficial duodenal epithelial lesions in our hospital from 2010 to 2021, aiming to describe the efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection, as well as to explore the risk factors of non-en bloc resection and non-R0 resection.

Methods

Patients who underwent endoscopic resection for superficial duodenal epithelial lesions in our hospital from January 2010 to September 2021 were selected. The curative effect was expressed by the en bloc resection rate and R0 resection rate. The safety was expressed by intra- or postoperative complications, such as bleeding and perforation. The potential risk factors of curative effect were analyzed by logistic regression.

Results

A total of 137 patients were included. The en bloc resection rate was 95.62% (131/137), R0 resection rate was 91.97% (126/137), the postoperative bleeding rate was 2.19% (3/137), and no postoperative perforation was found. The histology result of ectopic gastric mucosa was the risk factor of non-en bloc resection (OR: 8.86, 95% CI: 1.38-56.92); the lesion size ≥2 cm was the risk factor of non-R0 resection (OR: 12.55, 95% CI: 2.95-53.38).

Conclusion

Endoscopic resection is a safe and effective method for the treatment of superficial duodenal epithelial lesions. The histology result of ectopic gastric mucosa was the risk factor of non-en bloc resection and the lesion size ≥2 cm was the risk factor of non-R0 resection.

Successful endoscopic removal of a giant duodenal bulb mass

A 53-year-old man presented to our hospital for resection of a duodenal mass because of the increasing diameter. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy revealed a giant oval mass in the back wall of duodenal bulb, which was protruded to the second part of duodenum(Figure 1). Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) revealed a submucosal mass with heterogeneous echogenicity and regular shape(Figure 2). Eventually, the patient received endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) after signing informed consent. The mass was resected completely and measured 6.0×4.2×3.0 cm [Figure 3]. Histopathological examination revealed a brunner's gland adenoma. There was no complication besides minor intraoperative bleeding. Both surgery and endoscopic resection (ER) are alternative treatments for duodenal adenoma, but the best way remains controversial. Due to the thin wall, narrow cavity and plentiful vascular network of the duodenal bulb, ER is challenging because of the technical difficulty and probability of perforation and bleeding [1]. Our previous study found that ER is an effective and safe way for treating duodenal adenoma on experienced hands, and ER possesses several advantages over surgical resection for selected patients [2，3]. In the present case, we removed the giant BGA by ESD, as far as we know, this is the largest yet removed by ER.