3.8 Article

Histological diagnosis of gastric submucosal tumors: A pilot study of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy vs mucosal cutting biopsy

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
卷 7, 期 14, 页码 1142-1149

出版社

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v7.i14.1142

关键词

Submucosal tumor; Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy; Gastrointestinal stromal tumor; Mucosal cutting biopsy; Endoscopic submucosal dissection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AIM: To compare the usefulness of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNAB) without cytology and mucosal cutting biopsy (MCB) in the histological diagnosis of gastric submucosal tumor (SMT). METHODS: We prospectively compared the diagnostic yield, feasibility, and safety of EUS-FNAB and those of MCB based on endoscopic submucosal dissection. The cases of 20 consecutive patients with gastric SMT >= 1 cm in diameter. who underwent both EUS-FNAB and MCB were investigated. RESULTS: The histological diagnoses were gastrointestinal stromal tumors (n = 7), leiomyoma (n = 6), schwannoma (n = 2), aberrant pancreas (n = 2), and one case each of glomus tumor, metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, and no-diagnosis. The tumors' mean size was 23.6 mm. Histological diagnosis was made in 65.0% of the EUS-FNABs and 60.0% of the MCBs, a nonsignificant difference. There were no significant differences in the diagnostic yield concerning the tumor location or tumor size between the two methods. However, diagnostic specimens were significantly more frequently obtained in lesions with intraluminal growth than in those with extraluminal growth by the MCB method (P = 0.01). All four SMTs with extraluminal growth were diagnosed only by EUS-FNAB (P = 0.03). No complications were found in either method. CONCLUSION: MCB may be chosen as an alternative diagnostic modality in tumors showing the intraluminal growth pattern regardless of tumor size, whereas EUS-FNAB should be performed for SMTs with extraluminal growth.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据