Using Forceps Biopsy after Small Submucosal Dissection in the Diagnosis of Gastric Subepithelial Tumors.
10.3346/jkms.2016.31.11.1768
- Author:
Yoon Suk JUNG
1
;
Hyuk LEE
;
Kyungeun KIM
;
Jin Hee SOHN
;
Hong Joo KIM
;
Jung Ho PARK
Author Information
1. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. pjho3@hotmail.com
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Subepithelial Tumor;
Submucosal Dissection;
Forceps Biopsy
- MeSH:
Biopsy*;
Diagnosis*;
Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration;
Humans;
Leiomyoma;
Lipoma;
Mucous Membrane;
Pancreas;
Prospective Studies;
Retrospective Studies;
Surgical Instruments*
- From:Journal of Korean Medical Science
2016;31(11):1768-1774
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
The current tissue sampling techniques for subepithelial tumors (SETs) of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract have limited diagnostic efficacy. We evaluated the diagnostic yield and safety of forceps biopsies after small endoscopic submucosal dissection (SESD biopsies) in the diagnosis of gastric SETs. A total of 42 patients with gastric SETs > 10 mm were prospectively enrolled between May 2013 and October 2014. A dual knife was used to incise the mucosa and submucosa and forceps biopsies were then introduced deep into the lesion. To compare SESD biopsies with EUS-FNA, we used the retrospective data of 30 EUS-FNA cases. The diagnostic yield of SESD biopsies was comparable to that of EUS-FNA (35/42, 83.3% vs. 24/30, 80.0%, P = 0.717). The mean procedure time of SESD biopsies was shorter than that of EUS-FNA (10 vs. 37 minutes, P < 0.001). There were no procedure-related adverse events in the both group. The pathological diagnoses in SESD biopsies group included 15 leiomyomas, 7 GISTs, 10 heterotopic pancreases, 2 lipomas, and one other lesion. SESD biopsies are an easy, effective and safe technique for the diagnosis of gastric SETs and its diagnostic yield is comparable to that of EUS-FNA. This technique may be a reliable alternative to conventional EUS-FNA (Clinical trial registration No. KCT0000730).
