Endosonography-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration versus "Key-Hole Biopsy" in the diagnostics of upper gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors. A prospective randomized interventional study

III BRAZILIAN CONSENSUS STATEMENT ON ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND

BACKGROUND

•Since its inception in the 1980s, endoscopic ultrasound has increased relevance and usefulness in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND

•Endoscopic ultrasound has evolved from solely diagnostic imaging to a valuable method for tissue sampling and therapeutic procedures, such as drainage of pancreatic fluid collections and creating gastrointestinal anastomoses under EUS guidance.

BACKGROUND

•Given the rapid advancements in EUS and new devices, an update to the last Consensus must include recent developments.

BACKGROUND

•Experts evaluated and discussed the best evidence on EUS-guided procedures and devices for tissue sampling, pancreatic and liver disease management, and biliary drainage.

BACKGROUND

In the past decades, endoscopic ultrasound has developed from a diagnostic tool to a platform for many therapeutic interventions. Various technological advancements have emerged since the last Brazilian Consensus, demanding a review and update of the recommendations based on the best scientific evidence.

METHODS

A group of 32 renowned echoendoscopists selected eight relevant topics to be discussed to generate clinical questions. After that, a literature review was conducted to answer these questions based on the most updated evidence.

RESULTS

Thirty-three statements were formulated and voted on by the experts to reach a consensus. The Oxford System was used to grade the level of evidence.

CONCLUSION

There is mo-derate evidence to support that the needle shape, gauge, or aspiration technique does not influence the yield of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue sampling of pancreatic solid lesions. There is moderate evidence to support using EUS-TTNB of the cyst wall to differentiate between mucinous and non-mucinous cystic neoplasms. There is little evidence to support the EUS-guided treatment of gastric varices. There is a high level of evidence to support that EUS-guided biliary drainage and ERCP present similar outcomes in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction. There is a high level of evidence for using EUS to diagnose neoplastic pancreatic cysts and detect necrosis before indicating drainage. There is moderate evidence to support EUS-GE over duodenal stent for malignant gastric outlet obstruction in patients with a life expectancy higher than 2 months. There is a high level of evidence to support the use of RFA in treating both functioning and non-functioning types of NET.

Efficacy of EUS-guided keyhole biopsies in diagnosing subepithelial lesions of the upper gastrointestinal tract

Background and study aims Tissue acquisition is required for diagnosis of subepithelial lesions (SELs). However, obtaining adequate tissue remains challenging. This study investigated an EUS-guided technique using a forceps to create a channel and take multiple biopsies from the center of the lesion, therefore called endoscopic ultrasound-guided keyhole biopsy (EUS-KB). Patients and methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted in 56 patients with SELs in the upper gastrointestinal tract who were scheduled to undergo EUS-KB. The primary aim was to assess diagnostic yield, defined as the percentage of procedures where EUS-KB resulted in a definitive histopathological diagnosis. Furthermore, factors influencing diagnostic yield were investigated. Additional outcomes included technical success and adverse events. Results Technical success was achieved in 55 of 60 biopsies (91.7%). EUS-KB provided a diagnosis in 44 of 55 biopsies (80.0%), histology mostly showing gastrointestinal stromal tumor or leiomyoma. The diagnostic yield was not significantly influenced by the size or location of the SEL. Adverse events occurred in one patient (1.7%). Conclusions EUS-KB is a feasible and safe technique for obtaining a classifying diagnosis for SELs in the upper gastrointestinal tract. It could offer an alternative diagnostic modality, especially in lesions smaller than 20 mm.

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.

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.

Comparative diagnostic yield of different endoscopic techniques for tissue sampling of upper gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence on the comparative diagnostic performance of endoscopic tissue sampling techniques for subepithelial lesions. We performed a systematic review with network meta-analysis to compare these techniques.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the sample adequacy and diagnostic accuracy of bite-on-bite biopsy, mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB), endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), and EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB). Results were expressed as relative risk (RR) and 95%CI.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs were identified. EUS-FNB was significantly superior to EUS-FNA in terms of sample adequacy (RR 1.20 [95%CI 1.05-1.45]), whereas none of the other techniques significantly outperformed EUS-FNA. Additionally, bite-on-bite biopsy was significantly inferior to EUS-FNB (RR 0.55 [95%CI 0.33-0.98]). Overall, EUS-FNB appeared to be the best technique (surface under cumulative ranking [SUCRA] score 0.90) followed by MIAB (SUCRA 0.83), whereas bite-on-bite biopsy showed the poorest performance. When considering lesions <20 mm, MIAB, but not EUS-FNB, showed significantly higher accuracy rates compared with EUS-FNA (RR 1.68 [95%CI 1.02-2.88]). Overall, MIAB ranked as the best intervention for lesions <20 mm (SUCRA score 0.86 for adequacy and 0.91 for accuracy), with EUS-FNB only slightly superior to EUS-FNA. When rapid on-site cytological evaluation (ROSE) was available, no difference between EUS-FNB, EUS-FNA, and MIAB was observed.

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNB and MIAB appeared to provide better performance, whereas bite-on-bite sampling was significantly inferior to the other techniques. MIAB seemed to be the best option for smaller lesions, whereas EUS-FNA remained competitive when ROSE was available.

Role of Advanced Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in the Comprehensive Management of Neuroendocrine Neoplasms

Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs), also called neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), are relatively uncommon, heterogenous tumors primarily originating in the gastrointestinal tract. With the improvement in technology and increasing use of cross-sectional imaging and endoscopy, they are being discovered with increasing frequency. Although traditionally considered indolent tumors with good prognoses, some NENs exhibit aggressive behavior. Timely diagnosis, risk stratification, and management can often be a challenge. In general, small NENs without local invasion or lymphovascular involvement can often be managed using minimally invasive advanced endoscopic techniques, while larger lesions and those with evidence of lymphovascular invasion require surgery, systemic therapy, or a combination thereof. Ideal management requires a comprehensive and accurate understanding of the stage and grade of the tumor. With the recent advancements, a therapeutic advanced endoscopist can play a pivotal role in diagnosing, staging, and managing this rare condition. High-definition white light imaging and digital image enhancing technologies like narrow band imaging (NBI) in the newer endoscopes have improved the diagnostic accuracy of traditional endoscopy. The refinement of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) over the past decade has revolutionized the role of endoscopy in diagnosing and managing various pathologies, including NENs. In addition to EUS-directed diagnostic biopsies, it also offers the ability to precisely assess the depth of invasion and lymphovascular involvement and thus stage NENs accurately. EUS-directed locoregional ablative therapies are increasingly recognized as highly effective, minimally invasive treatment modalities for NENs, particularly pancreatic NENs. Advanced endoscopic resection techniques like endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), endoscopic submucosal resection (EMR), and endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) have been increasingly used over the past decade with excellent results in achieving curative resection of various early-stage gastrointestinal luminal lesions including NENs. In this article, we aim to delineate NENs of the different segments of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract (esophagus, gastric, pancreatic, and small and large intestine) and their management with emphasis on the endoscopic management of these tumors.

Case Report: Giant abdominal hemangioma originating from the liver

Background

Hepatic hemangioma is among the most common benign liver lesions. However, giant pedunculated hepatic hemangiomas are exceptionally rare and associated with additional risks, such as torsion.

Case presentation

We present the case of a 63-year-old female patient who presented with abdominal distension and pain. Barium meal examination and gastroscopy revealed a large, smooth-surfaced submucosal bulge located at the fundus of the stomach. Subsequent MRI examination identified a mass measuring approximately 6.4 x 7 cm in the left upper abdomen. Surgical intervention was planned for mass removal. However, intraoperative exploration revealed the origin of the mass to be the liver, and subsequent histopathological examination confirmed it as a hemangioma.

Conclusion

We systematically summarized the characteristics of our case along with 31 previously reported cases. Giant pedunculated hepatic hemangiomas typically occur in the left lobe of the liver. Due to their atypical presentation, a combination of imaging methods such as ultrasound, CT, and/or MRI is essential for accurate diagnosis. Furthermore, surgical intervention is recommended due to the potential risks of bleeding, rupture, and torsion.

Single-incision needle-knife biopsy for the diagnosis of GI subepithelial tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

A histologic diagnosis of GI subepithelial tumors (SETs) is important because of the malignant potential of these lesions. The current modalities of choice, including EUS-guided FNA and biopsy (EUS-FNA/FNB) have demonstrated suboptimal diagnostic success. Single-incision with needle-knife (SINK) biopsy has emerged as an alternative diagnostic approach to increase tissue acquisition and diagnostic success. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the technical success, diagnostic success, and adverse events of SINK biopsy.

METHODS

We searched multiple databases including PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Google Scholar from inception to July 2022. The primary outcomes assessed were the technical success and diagnostic success of SINK in GI SETs. The secondary outcomes assessed were adverse events and whether immunohistochemical analysis could be successfully performed on tissue samples obtained via SINK.

RESULTS

Seven studies with a total of 219 SINK biopsy procedures were included in this meta-analysis. The technical success rate was 98.1% (95% CI, 94.9%-99.3%; P = .000; I² = .0%), and the diagnostic success rate was 87.9% (95% CI, 82.6%-91.7%; P = .000; I² = .0%). The immunohistochemical success rate was 88.3% (95% CI, 78.7%-93.9%; P = .000; I² = 3.5%). The rate of adverse events was 7.5% (95% CI, 4.3%-12.7%; P = .00; I² = 7.2%), and bleeding was the most common adverse event.

CONCLUSION

SINK biopsy is a safe diagnostic procedure with a high technical and diagnostic success in patients with GI SET. Further randomized controlled trials and direct comparison studies are needed to validate these findings.

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.

Mucosal incision-assisted biopsy versus endoscopic ultrasound-assisted tissue acquisition for subepithelial lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background/Aims

Mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) for tissue acquisition (TA) from subepithelial lesions (SELs) is emerging as an alternative to endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided TA. Only a limited number of studies compared the diagnostic utility of MIAB and EUS for upper gastrointestinal (GI) SELs; therefore, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search from January 2020 to January 2022 was performed to compare the diagnostic accuracy and safety of MIAB and EUS-guided TA for upper GI SELs.

Results

Seven studies were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled technical success rate (risk ratio [RR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89–1.04) and procedural time (mean difference=–4.53 seconds; 95% CI, –22.38 to 13.31] were comparable between both the groups. The overall chance of obtaining a positive diagnostic yield was lower with EUS than with MIAB for all lesions (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71–0.98) but comparable when using a fine-needle biopsy needle (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.83–1.04). The positive diagnostic yield of MIAB was higher for lesions <20 mm (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63–0.89). Six studies reported no adverse events.

Conclusions

MIAB can be considered an effective alternative to EUS-guided TA for upper GI SELs without an increased risk of adverse events.

Endoscopic management of subepithelial lesions including neuroendocrine neoplasms: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

1: ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) as the best tool to characterize subepithelial lesion (SEL) features (size, location, originating layer, echogenicity, shape), but EUS alone is not able to distinguish among all types of SEL.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE suggests providing tissue diagnosis for all SELs with features suggestive of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) if they are of size > 20 mm, or have high risk stigmata, or require surgical resection or oncological treatment.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) or mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) equally for tissue diagnosis of SELs ≥ 20 mm in size.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends against surveillance of asymptomatic gastrointestinal (GI) tract leiomyomas, lipomas, heterotopic pancreas, granular cell tumors, schwannomas, and glomus tumors, if the diagnosis is clear.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 5: ESGE suggests surveillance of asymptomatic esophageal and gastric SELs without definite diagnosis, with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) at 3-6 months, and then at 2-3-year intervals for lesions < 10 mm in size, and at 1-2-year intervals for lesions 10-20 mm in size. For asymptomatic SELs > 20 mm in size that are not resected, ESGE suggests surveillance with EGD plus EUS at 6 months and then at 6-12-month intervals.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends endoscopic resection for type 1 gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms (g-NENs) if they grow larger than 10 mm. The choice of resection technique should depend on size, depth of invasion, and location in the stomach.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7: ESGE suggests considering removal of histologically proven gastric GISTs smaller than 20 mm as an alternative to surveillance. The decision to resect should be discussed in a multidisciplinary meeting. The choice of technique should depend on size, location, and local expertise.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 8: ESGE suggests that, to avoid unnecessary follow-up, endoscopic resection is an option for gastric SELs smaller than 20 mm and of unknown histology after failure of attempts to obtain diagnosis.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 9: ESGE recommends basing the surveillance strategy on the type and completeness of resection. After curative resection of benign SELs no follow-up is advised, except for type 1 gastric NEN for which surveillance at 1-2 years is advised.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 10: For lower or upper GI NEN with a positive or indeterminate margin at resection, ESGE recommends repeating endoscopy at 3-6 months and another attempt at endoscopic resection in the case of residual disease.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Computed tomography in the size measurement of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors: Implication to risk stratification and "wait-and-see" tactics

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to compare the radiologic size of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) on computed tomography (CT) with the pathologic size in a Chinese population, and elucidate the potential significance of the CT size in the preoperative risk stratification.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study enrolled 314 patients treated by endoscopic/surgical resection of gastric lesions that proved postoperatively to be GISTs. Bland-Altman analysis and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were adopted to assess the size agreement between CT and pathology. Independent predictors of risk category underestimation and the optimal cut-off value of CT size were determined by logistic regression analysis and the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

RESULTS

CT underestimated gastric GISTs size by 0.30 cm [95% confidence interval (CI): (-0.42, - 0.19); p < 0.001]. In the subgroup analysis, the size underestimation was 0.10 cm in GISTs ≤ 5 cm [95% CI: (-0.19, -0.01); p = 0.024]; and 0.75 cm in GISTs >5 cm [95% CI: (-1.05, 0.45), p < 0.001]. Though ICC values showed well reliability for the corresponding pathologic size, with 0.95 in all size, 0.86 in size ≤ 5 cm, and 0.92 in size >5 cm respectively. Risk underestimation by CT imaging mainly occurred in gastric GISTs with smaller size (≤5 cm; p = 0.010) and lower mitotic index (≤5 per 50 high-power fields; p = 0.011). CT size of 3.65 cm was defined as an absolute cut-off to differentiate intermediate/high-risk patients from low-risk group, with 87.5% sensitivity at a specificity of 57.8%.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative CT underestimated the mean size by 0.30 cm in gastric GISTs. A CT size of 3.65 cm would facilitate the selection of potential intermediate/high-risk patients, instant intervention should be encouraged in the absence of contraindications.