Outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic resection of gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions: a single-center retrospective cohort study.
Endoscopic ultrasound
endoscopic resection
subepithelial lesion
Journal
Annals of gastroenterology
ISSN: 1108-7471
Titre abrégé: Ann Gastroenterol
Pays: Greece
ID NLM: 101121847
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
received:
30
11
2020
accepted:
03
02
2021
entrez:
19
7
2021
pubmed:
20
7
2021
medline:
20
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Endoscopic resection (ER) is an emerging therapeutic alternative for subepithelial gastrointestinal lesions (SELs). We aimed to determine whether size, layer of origin, and histology based on endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and EUS-guided sampling (EUS-GS) influenced the outcomes and selection of patients for ER. We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent EUS, EUS-GS and resection of SELs from 2012-2019. Two pathologists reviewed the histology and layer of origin of all resected specimens, serving as the criterion for EUS accuracy. Seventy-three patients were included, of whom 59 (81%) were gastric SELs. Per EUS, median lesion size was 21 mm (interquartile range 15-32), and 63 (86%) originated from the 4th layer. The overall accuracy of EUS and EUS-GS in predicting the layer of origin and histology was 88% (95% confidence interval [CI] 77-94%) and 96% (95%CI 87-98%), respectively. Based on EUS, 18 (25%) patients were referred for ER, 5 (7%) to laparoscopic-endoscopic cooperative surgery, and 50 (68%) to surgery. Size >20 mm was associated with the type of resection approach (P=0.005), while layer of origin and histology were not (P=0.06 and P=0.09, respectively). When SELs were inaccurately classified (n=4) there were no adverse events or revision of the resection approach. EUS plays an important role in the outcome of resection approach for SELs, with size significantly influencing the selection for ER. In patients undergoing ER, no revised resections were needed when EUS was inaccurate.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Endoscopic resection (ER) is an emerging therapeutic alternative for subepithelial gastrointestinal lesions (SELs). We aimed to determine whether size, layer of origin, and histology based on endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and EUS-guided sampling (EUS-GS) influenced the outcomes and selection of patients for ER.
METHODS
METHODS
We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent EUS, EUS-GS and resection of SELs from 2012-2019. Two pathologists reviewed the histology and layer of origin of all resected specimens, serving as the criterion for EUS accuracy.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Seventy-three patients were included, of whom 59 (81%) were gastric SELs. Per EUS, median lesion size was 21 mm (interquartile range 15-32), and 63 (86%) originated from the 4th layer. The overall accuracy of EUS and EUS-GS in predicting the layer of origin and histology was 88% (95% confidence interval [CI] 77-94%) and 96% (95%CI 87-98%), respectively. Based on EUS, 18 (25%) patients were referred for ER, 5 (7%) to laparoscopic-endoscopic cooperative surgery, and 50 (68%) to surgery. Size >20 mm was associated with the type of resection approach (P=0.005), while layer of origin and histology were not (P=0.06 and P=0.09, respectively). When SELs were inaccurately classified (n=4) there were no adverse events or revision of the resection approach.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
EUS plays an important role in the outcome of resection approach for SELs, with size significantly influencing the selection for ER. In patients undergoing ER, no revised resections were needed when EUS was inaccurate.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34276190
doi: 10.20524/aog.2021.0621
pii: AnnGastroenterol-34-516
pmc: PMC8276353
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
516-520Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA015083
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright: © Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of Interest: None Funding: This study was supported by a grant from the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN (grant number UL1TR002377)
Références
Endoscopy. 2010 Apr;42(4):292-9
pubmed: 20354939
Surg Endosc. 2016 Jun;30(6):2431-41
pubmed: 26310529
Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 May 25;4:39
pubmed: 31231706
Gastrointest Endosc. 2002 Oct;56(4 Suppl):S43-8
pubmed: 12297748
Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Jun;69(7):1218-23
pubmed: 19394006
Gastrointest Endosc. 2003 Jan;57(1):68-72
pubmed: 12518134
Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2005 Jan;15(1):33-54, viii
pubmed: 15555950
World J Gastroenterol. 2007 Apr 14;13(14):2077-82
pubmed: 17465451
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2002 Jul;37(7):856-62
pubmed: 12190103
Ann Gastroenterol. 2015 Apr-Jun;28(2):160-172
pubmed: 25830949
Gastroenterology. 2018 May;154(7):1925-1937.e2
pubmed: 29486198
Surg Endosc. 1991;5(1):20-3
pubmed: 1871670
Endoscopy. 2005 Jul;37(7):646-54
pubmed: 16010609
Endoscopy. 2009 Apr;41(4):329-34
pubmed: 19340737
World J Gastroenterol. 2007 Jun 28;13(24):3316-22
pubmed: 17659670
Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Apr;71(4):722-7
pubmed: 20171632
J Dig Dis. 2016 Sep;17(9):582-587
pubmed: 27421815
Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 May;85(5):1087-1092
pubmed: 27569858
Clin Endosc. 2018 Jan;51(1):19-27
pubmed: 29397653
Gastrointest Endosc. 2020 Jan;91(1):14-22.e2
pubmed: 31374187
ISRN Gastroenterol. 2011;2011:619128
pubmed: 21991522
Gastrointest Endosc. 2005 Aug;62(2):202-8
pubmed: 16046979
Gastrointest Endosc. 2002 Jan;55(1):37-43
pubmed: 11756912
Gastrointest Endosc. 2006 Jul;64(1):29-34
pubmed: 16813799
VideoGIE. 2019 Jun 29;4(8):343-350
pubmed: 31388606