Gastric subepithelial masses: evaluation of multidetector CT (multiplanar reconstruction and virtual gastroscopy) versus endoscopic ultrasonography

Ökten, Rıza Sarper; Kaçar, Sabite; Küçükay, Fahrettin; Şaşmaz, Nurgül; Cumhur, Turhan

doi:10.1007/s00261-011-9791-0

Cited by 18 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most of these EUS findings closely corresponded with those of previous reports [6,16]. On APCT, GISTs usually present with a well-defined margin and homogeneous contrast enhancement [14]. Previous studies have reported that attenuation values of 30–35 HU in pre-contrast imaging and 50–60 HU in post-contrast imaging are helpful in the differential diagnosis of GISTs using APCT [10,18].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Therefore, APCT is expected to play a more relevant role in the diagnosis of gastric SETs in the future. To date, the diagnostic ability of EUS and APCT with respect to gastric SETs has not been adequately compared, with only a few previous studies having reported the accuracy of APCT based on EUS findings as the standard of reference [9,13,14]. This study therefore aimed to compare the diagnostic ability of EUS and APCT and to assess whether they are satisfactory modalities for diagnosing gastric SETs based on surgical histopathology results.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of the Diagnostic Ability of Endoscopic Ultrasonography and Abdominopelvic Computed Tomography in the Diagnosis of Gastric Subepithelial Tumors

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/AimsEndoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is the most efficient imaging modality for gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs). However, abdominopelvic computed tomography (APCT) has other advantages in evaluating the characteristics, local extension, or invasion of SETs to adjacent organs. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic ability of EUS and APCT based on surgical histopathology results. MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed data from 53 patients who underwent both EUS and APCT before laparoscopic wedge resection for gastric SETs from January 2010 to December 2017 at a single institution. On the basis of histopathology results, we assessed the diagnostic ability of the 2 tests. ResultsThe overall accuracy of EUS and APCT was 64.2% and 50.9%, respectively. In particular, the accuracy of EUS vs. APCT for the diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), leiomyomas, and ectopic pancreas was 83.9% vs. 74.2%, 37.5% vs. 0.0%, and 57.1% vs. 14.3%, respectively. Most of the incorrect diagnoses with EUS involved hypoechoic lesions originating in the fourth echolayer, with the most common misdiagnosed lesions being GISTs mistaken for leiomyomas and vice versa. ConclusionsAPCT showed a lower overall accuracy than EUS; however, APCT remains a useful modality for malignant/potentially malignant gastric SETs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the Diagnostic Ability of Endoscopic Ultrasonography and Abdominopelvic Computed Tomography in the Diagnosis of Gastric Subepithelial Tumors

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…EUS is superior to other imaging modalities (CT, magnetic resonance imaging) in characterizing small (<2 cm) lesions. 8,9 It can accurately distinguish between extrinsic compression of the GI tract and an intramural growth; up to 30% of suspected intramural SELs are in fact extramural in origin (eg, compression from an adjacent organ). 10,11 EUS also permits measurement of lesion size and evaluation of any associated lymphadenopathy for further staging.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of endoscopy in subepithelial lesions of the GI tract

Faulx¹,

Kothari²,

Acosta³

et al. 2017

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

204

184

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As it can distinguish various types of SMTs of the stomach, it plays a very important role in determining tumor location and choosing treatment method[ 7 - 9 ]. Studies have found that EUS is better than computed tomography (CT) or magnetic-resonance imaging (MRI) for SMTs < 2 cm[ 10 , 11 ]. The general manifestation of GSTs under EUS is as follows: The tumor originates from the muscularis propria, except for a small part that originates from the muscularis mucosa.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection in treatment of small gastric stromal tumors: A state-of-the-art review

Chen

Peng

Wang

et al. 2021

WJGO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors can occur in any part of the gastrointestinal tract, but gastric stromal tumors (GSTs) are the most common. All GSTs have the potential to become malignant, and these can be divided into four different grades by risk from low to high: Very low risk, low risk, medium risk, and high risk. Current guidelines all recommend early complete excision of GSTs larger than 2 cm in diameter. However, it is not clear whether small GSTs (sGSTs, i.e. , those smaller than 2 cm in diameter) should be treated as early as possible. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends that endoscopic ultrasonography-guided (EUS-guided) fine-needle aspiration biopsy and imaging (computed tomography or magnetic-resonance imaging) be used to assess cancer risk for sGSTs detected by gastroscopy to determine treatment. When EUS indicates a higher risk of tumor, surgical resection is recommended. There are some questions on whether sGSTs also require early treatment. Many studies have shown that endoscopic treatment of GSTs with diameters of 2-5 cm is very effective. We here address whether endoscopic therapy is also suitable for sGSTs. In this paper, we try to explain three questions: (1) Does sGST require treatment? (2) Is digestive endoscopy a safe and effective means of treating sGST? and (3) When sGSTs are at different sites and depths, which endoscopic treatment method is more suitable?

show abstract

Gastric subepithelial masses: evaluation of multidetector CT (multiplanar reconstruction and virtual gastroscopy) versus endoscopic ultrasonography

Abstract: MDCT with MPR and VG is a valuable method for the evaluation of SEMs. Specific MDCT criteria for various SEMs may be helpful in making an accurate diagnosis.

Cited by 18 publications

References 45 publications

Comparison of the Diagnostic Ability of Endoscopic Ultrasonography and Abdominopelvic Computed Tomography in the Diagnosis of Gastric Subepithelial Tumors

Comparison of the Diagnostic Ability of Endoscopic Ultrasonography and Abdominopelvic Computed Tomography in the Diagnosis of Gastric Subepithelial Tumors

The role of endoscopy in subepithelial lesions of the GI tract

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection in treatment of small gastric stromal tumors: A state-of-the-art review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About