A feasible modified biopsy method for tissue diagnosis of gastric subepithelial tumors

Abstract

The MIF biopsy was simple to perform, safe, and required a shorter procedure time, with a high diagnostic yield for small SETs.

Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided single-incision needle knife biopsy for gastric subepithelial tumors: comparison with resected specimens

“…However, antibiotic prophylaxis was not done in our study, and we did not experience any septic complications. Perforation that was controlled by endoscopic clipping following MIF biopsy has been reported, but there were no perforations in our study [16]. This may have been due to the different instruments used for mucosal incision, as a fixed flexible snare for the MIF and a needle knife were used in our study.…”

“…We believe that the SINK biopsy method is a simpler and more effective method of gaining tissues. Another study reported the diagnostic yield of deep biopsy with mucosal incision with a fixed flexible snare (MIF), which is similar to the SINK biopsy except for the instrument used for mucosal incision [16]. The diagnostic yield of MIF was reported to be 90.0 %; however, the number of patients included in this study was small (11 patients), and the biopsy results were not compared with surgical specimens.…”

“…Also, technical failure was observed in 18 % of FNA cases and 14 % of TCB cases [20,21]. Although the number of studies is small, biopsies taken after unroofing the SETs such as the SINK method seem to show better diagnostic yields compared with the traditional FNA and TCB techniques [15,16]. Future studies comparing the diagnostic yields of these unroofing methods with the traditional FNA technique may be warranted.…”

In vivo real‐time diagnosis of endoscopic ultrasound‐guided needle‐based confocal laser endomicroscopy in gastric subepithelial lesions

“…However, current studies demonstrated that EUS‐FNA had variable diagnostic yields of 38–82% because of inadequate tissue acquisition, whereas EUS‐TCB was limited by technical constraints such as angulation caused by the stiffness of the device . Moreover, although novel endoscopic biopsy techniques might provide a definitive pathological diagnosis, they could also cause severe adverse events due to deeper penetration into SELs and long procedure time …”

“…Recently, several diagnostic techniques, such as EUS‐guided fine‐needle aspiration (EUS‐FNA), EUS‐guided trucut biopsy (EUS‐TCB), and other biopsy techniques based on endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), have emerged as methods for samples of SELs to theoretically overcome the disadvantages of EUS . However, current studies demonstrated that EUS‐FNA had variable diagnostic yields of 38–82% because of inadequate tissue acquisition, whereas EUS‐TCB was limited by technical constraints such as angulation caused by the stiffness of the device .…”