Examine the Availability and Safety of Mucosal Cutting Biopsy Technique for Diagnosis of Gastric Submucosal Tumor.
Journal
Gastroenterology research and practice
ISSN: 1687-6121
Titre abrégé: Gastroenterol Res Pract
Pays: Egypt
ID NLM: 101475557
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
28
02
2019
accepted:
31
03
2019
entrez:
14
6
2019
pubmed:
14
6
2019
medline:
14
6
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Differentiating gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) from other submucosal tumors (SMTs) is important in diagnosing SMT. GIST is an immunohistological diagnosis that cannot be made from images alone. Tissue sampling of tumor sites is thus becoming increasingly important. In this study, the utility and associated complications of mucosal cutting biopsy (MCB) for gastric SMTs were investigated. This was a case series study. The subjects were patients aged ≥20 years old in whom an SMT was seen on esophagogastroduodenography and who underwent MCB between January 2012 and December 2016. Patient information, endoscopy findings, gastric SMT size, pathological diagnosis, and other information were gathered from medical records. The SMT size was the maximum diameter that could be visualized on EUS. The pathological diagnosis was made with hematoxylin-eosin staining, with immunostaining added to diagnose GIST. The endpoint was the histopathological diagnostic yield. Risk assessment using the Miettinen classification and modified Fletcher classification was also done for GISTs treated with surgery. The mean tumor diameter was 15.4 mm. The tumor diameter was ≥20 mm in seven patients and <20 mm in 23 patients. The tissue-acquiring rate was 93.3%. A histological diagnosis could not be made in two patients. The only complication was that bleeding required endoscopic hemostasis during the procedure in one patient, but no subsequent bleeding or no postoperative bleeding was seen. MCB is an appropriate and safe procedure in the diagnosis of gastric SMTs. Many hospitals will be able to perform MCB if they have the environment, including skills and equipment, to perform endoscopic submucosal dissection.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31191643
doi: 10.1155/2019/3121695
pmc: PMC6525918
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
3121695Références
Gastrointest Endosc. 2002 Jan;55(1):37-43
pubmed: 11756912
Gastrointest Endosc. 2002 Oct;56(4 Suppl):S43-8
pubmed: 12297748
J Gastroenterol. 2004 Aug;39(8):747-53
pubmed: 15338368
Am J Surg Pathol. 2005 Jan;29(1):52-68
pubmed: 15613856
Semin Diagn Pathol. 2006 May;23(2):70-83
pubmed: 17193820
World J Gastroenterol. 2007 Apr 14;13(14):2077-82
pubmed: 17465451
Surg Endosc. 1991;5(1):20-3
pubmed: 1871670
Hum Pathol. 2008 Oct;39(10):1411-9
pubmed: 18774375
J Gastroenterol. 2009;44(4):322-8
pubmed: 19274426
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2010 Apr;8 Suppl 2:S1-41; quiz S42-4
pubmed: 20457867
Gastrointest Endosc. 2013 Jan;77(1):141-5
pubmed: 23021164
Dig Endosc. 2013 May;25(3):274-80
pubmed: 23369082
Endoscopy. 2013 Jun;45(6):445-50
pubmed: 23504490
Endoscopy. 2014 Jan;46(1):39-45
pubmed: 24218311
Dig Dis Sci. 2014 Jul;59(7):1578-85
pubmed: 24429514
Ann Oncol. 2014 Sep;25 Suppl 3:iii21-6
pubmed: 25210085
J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2014 Dec;23(4):405-12
pubmed: 25531999
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81(6):1401-7
pubmed: 25733127
Endosc Int Open. 2015 Apr;3(2):E161-4
pubmed: 26135661
Clin J Gastroenterol. 2013 Feb;6(1):29-32
pubmed: 26181401
World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Oct 10;7(14):1142-9
pubmed: 26468338
Dig Liver Dis. 2019 Jun;51(6):831-836
pubmed: 30872087
Science. 1998 Jan 23;279(5350):577-80
pubmed: 9438854