4.6 Article

Is it possible to differentiate gastric GISTs from gastric leiomyomas by EUS?

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 15, Issue 27, Pages 3376-3381

Publisher

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.15.3376

Keywords

Endoscopic ultrasonography; Gastrointestinal stromal tumor; Stomach

Funding

  1. Pusan National University [2008-1]
  2. Ministry for Health, Welfare and Family affairs, Republic of Korea [0920050]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AIM: To evaluate the ultrasonography (EUS) features of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) as compared with gastric leiomyomas and then to determine the EUS features that could predict malignant GISTs. METHODS: We evaluated the endoscopic EUS features in 53 patients with gastric mesenchymal tumors confirmed by histopathologic diagnosis. The GISTs were classified into benign and malignant groups according to the histological risk classification. RESULTS: Immunohistochemical analyses demonstrated 7 leiomyomas and 46 GISTs. Inhomogenicity, hyperechogenic spots, a marginal halo and higher echogenicity as compared with the surrounding muscle layer appeared more frequently in the GISTs than in the leiomyomas (P < 0.05). The presence of at least two of these four features had a sensitivity of 89.1% and a specificity of 85.7% for predicting GISTs. Except for tumor size and irregularity of the border, most of the EUS features were not helpful for predicting the malignant potential of GISTs. On multivariate analysis, only the maximal diameter of the GISTs was an independent predictor. The optimal size for predicting malignant GISTs was 35 mm. The sensitivity and specificity using this value were 92.3% and 78.8%, respectively. CONCLUSION: EUS may help to differentiate gastric GISTs from gastric leiomyomas. Once GISTs are suspected, surgery should be considered if the size is greater than 3.5 cm. (C) 2009 The WJG Press and Baishideng. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available