Endosonographic large-bore biopsy of gastric subepithelial tumors: a prospective multicenter study.

aDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, German Clinic for Diagnostics, Wiesbaden bDepartment of Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology, Klinikum Märkisch Oderland, Wriezen cDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Central Interdisciplinary Endoscopy, Charité Campus Virchow dDepartment of Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology, Maria Heimsuchung Caritas-Klinik eDepartment of Pathology, Charité Campus Mitte, Berlin fDepartment of Interdisciplinary Endoscopy, University Hospital Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology (Impact Factor: 1.66). 07/2012; 24(10):1135-1144. DOI: 10.1097/MEG.0b013e328356eae2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Once gastric subepithelial lesions (SEL) are found, tissue diagnosis is required, considering the possible differential diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST). Previous studies have shown insufficient accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) using cytologic analysis. METHODS: The feasibility and yield of EUS-FNA-based histologic tissue acquisition for gastric SEL, using 19 G large-bore needles, was assessed in a 4-year multicenter, prospective study. All consecutive patients, who were referred for EUS-FNA for all SEL greater than 1 cm, were included. RESULTS: Of 100 patients with suspected gastric SEL, 71 lesions were found to be eligible. Endoscopic biopsies or resections or surgery were used alternatively for a variety of reasons in 25 patients. EUS-FNA using the 19 G needle was finally performed in 46/71 cases (65%) with one to four needle passes. Sufficient material for a definite or a suspected histological diagnosis was obtained in 52 and 7% of the cases, respectively. In 41%, the samples were not informative. Immunohistochemistry was possible in 91% of cases with sufficient amounts of tissue; 30% were GIST. Self-limited, mild hemorrhage occurred in 22%; one patient developed a fatal abscess. CONCLUSION: Even when intended, EUS-guided 19 G FNA is only feasible in 46% of gastric SEL. The diagnostic yield of 19 G FNA was only 52%, but with excellent differentiation between GIST and leiomyoma. Infectious complications must be prevented.

1 Bookmark
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: At present, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines on endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling are almost complete and express state of the art developments. However, future developments are anticipated. This editorial focuses on a few recently published papers with some additional information and on two important additional techniques, elastography and contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), which are mentioned, but not explained in detail in the current ESGE guidelines. Elastography and CEUS might be of importance in the near future to improve the biopsy techniques.
    Endoscopic ultrasound. 07/2013; 2(3):117-22.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Objective. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) may facilitate tissue sampling for histopathological diagnosis of subepithelial tumors (SETs) in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. However, immunohistochemistry is not always feasible using EUS-FNA samples due to the low quality of specimens often obtained by aspiration. This study aimed to compare the use of 22-gauge (G) EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) with 22G EUS-FNA for core sampling used for histopathological examination, including immunohistochemistry, in patients with GI SETs. Methods. Twenty-eight patients with GI SETs ≥2 cm in size were prospectively enrolled at five university hospitals in Korea between January and June 2013. They were randomized to undergo either EUS-FNB or EUS-FNA. Results. A total of 22 patients was finally analyzed in this study: 10 and 12 patients underwent EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB, respectively. Compared to the EUS-FNA group, the EUS-FNB group had a significantly lower median number of needle passes to obtain macroscopically optimal core samples (4 vs. 2, p = 0.025); higher yield rates of macroscopically and histologically optimal core samples with three needle passes (30% vs. 92%, p = 0.006; 20% vs. 75%, p = 0.010, respectively); and a higher diagnostic sufficiency rate (20% vs. 75%, p = 0.010). No technical difficulties were encountered in either group. Conclusions. This study shows that EUS-FNB has a better ability to obtain histological core samples and a higher diagnostic sufficiency rate than EUS-FNA and that EUS-FNB is a feasible, safe, and preferable modality for adequate core sampling for histopathological diagnosis of GI SETs.
    Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 12/2013; · 2.33 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The forward-viewing linear echoendoscope (FV-EUS) has been developed with the aim of overcoming limitations of standard curved linear-array echoendoscopes (CLA-EUS) and to further expand interventional applications of EUS. The main characteristic of the FV-EUS is a shifting in the orientation of both endoscopic and ultrasound views from oblique to forward, with the exit of the working channel at the tip of the instrument. This allows exit of the devices parallel to the longitudinal axis of the endoscope, thus resulting in a more direct and stable access to the lesion while increasing the precision and force applied to the target. Accumulating evidence has shown that the FV-EUS can be used instead of the standard CLA-EUS scope for routine fine needle aspiration, with extremely good performance for subepithelial lesions and for difficult to reach locations. Several areas of use of this echoendoscope are yet to be better defined, such as its potential for therapeutic and interventional procedures, as well as for natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery. The current report provides an updated overview of the available evidence for both diagnostic and interventional uses of the FV-EUS.
    Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Sciences. 11/2014;