2011
DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v3.i5.86
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Endoscopic ultrasonography for gastric submucosal lesions

Abstract: Gastric submucosal tumors (SMTs) are a rather frequent finding, occurring in about 0.36% of routine upper GIendoscopies. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has emerged as a reliable investigative procedure for evaluation of these lesions. Diagnostic EUS has the ability to differentiate intramural tumors from extraluminal compressions and can also show the layer of origin of gastric SMTs. Tumors can be further characterized by their layer of origin, echo pattern and margin. EUS-risk criteria of their malignant po… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
66
0
4

Year Published

2014
2014
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 87 publications
(70 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
0
66
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…The definitive cytological and/or histological verification of larger gastric GIST is currently achieved in 50%-70% of EUS-guided fineneedle aspiration (FNA) or EUS-guided Trucut punch biopsies [10][11][12][13][14][15] . The histological diagnosis of GIST requires immunohistochemical detection of CD117 and particularly in CD117-negative tumors of DOG1 with the corresponding histomorphological findings.…”
Section: Eus and Eus-fnamentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The definitive cytological and/or histological verification of larger gastric GIST is currently achieved in 50%-70% of EUS-guided fineneedle aspiration (FNA) or EUS-guided Trucut punch biopsies [10][11][12][13][14][15] . The histological diagnosis of GIST requires immunohistochemical detection of CD117 and particularly in CD117-negative tumors of DOG1 with the corresponding histomorphological findings.…”
Section: Eus and Eus-fnamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The correct evaluation of a subepithelial lesion by endoscopic ultrasound relies on an experienced team of endoscopists. Indeed the differential diagnosis of "subepithelial or submucosal lesions" of the stomach is complex and extensive [10,14] . The differential diagnosis has to include cysts, pseudocysts, varices, ectopic pancreatic tissue, leiomyomas, schwannomas, lipomas, lymphomas, gastric polyps, inflammatory fibroid polyps, submucosal metastases, protruding aneurysms, large lymph nodes, granular cell tumors and gastric carcinoids [31] .…”
Section: Endoscopic Surveillancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Lee et al (9) suggest a treatment algorithm for patients with GSL (Figure 3) and the American Gastroenterological Association (7) recommends surgical resection for GSLs from the fourth layer greater than 3 cm, and follow-up with periodic endoscopy and/or EUS for GSLs smaller than 3 cm. All GISTs have malignant potential according to the classification system proposed by the National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference (4) and this is also the case even for small lesions (1,10,14,19) . The authors believe that all GSLs should first be evaluated by endoscopic ultrasound to exclude other evident etiologies (such as lipomas, vascular lesions, pancreatic rest, extra-mural compression) and to determine the most adequate management based on echoendoscopic findings.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Lee et al (9) reported an overall diagnostic rate of 57% with Trucut biopsy (unsuccessful puncture in 14% and inadequate samples in 29% of cases). Considering the technical problems of EUS-FNA and the infrequent metastatic risk in small GISTs smaller than 1 cm, Papanikolaou et al (14) recommended aggressive use of EUS-FNA only for subepithelial hypoechoic tumors of the gastrointestinal tract larger than 1 cm. The diagnostic failure rates for EUS-FNA (17) have described a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 100%, 63%, and 83%, respectively, to predict GIST malignancies using contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS, making this a promising method.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…EUS-FNA is one of the easiest and safest methods to obtain pathological samples for SMTs' diagnosis [9][10][11][12]. However, the diagnosis rate of EUS-FNA is insufficient (about 63%) as the obtained samples are too small to pathologically diagnose the mitotic counts [13].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%