Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Volume 71, Issue 6 , Pages 913-919, May 2010

Diagnostic utility of EUS-guided FNA in patients with gastric submucosal tumors

Current affiliations: Department of Gastroenterology (M.A.M., K.Y., A.S., N.M., K.H.), Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, Nagoya, Japan, Department of Tropical Medicine and Gastroenterology (M.A.M., M.A.N., A.M.O.), Assiut University, Egypt, Aichi Prefectural College of Nursing and Health (T.K.), Nagoya, Japan, Department of Pathology and Molecular Diagnostics (Y.Y.), Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, Nagoya, Japan, Department of Medical Hepatology (V.B.), Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, New Delhi, India

Received 12 August 2009; accepted 13 November 2009. published online 12 March 2010.

Background

Submucosal tumors (SMTs) comprise both benign and malignant lesions, and most of the gastric lesions tend to be malignant. The addition of EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) has the potential to improve this distinction, but published series are limited.

Objective

To evaluate the yield of EUS-FNA in gastric SMTs with referral to a criterion standard final diagnosis.

Design

Retrospective study.

Setting

Tertiary-care referral center.

Patients

This study involved 141 consecutive patients with gastric SMTs, who underwent EUS-FNA from January 2000 to December 2008. Immunohistochemical staining with c-kit, CD34, actin, and S-100 antibodies was done if a spindle cell tumor was found. Based on FNA sample adequacy, and whether a specific diagnosis could be established, EUS-FNA results were categorized as diagnostic, suggestive, or nondiagnostic. The criterion standards for final diagnosis were the surgical histopathological results or the follow-up course for malignant, inoperable cases.

Intervention

EUS-FNA.

Main Outcome Measurements

Diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA and factors related to sampling adequacy for cytological and immunohistochemical evaluation.

Results

A total of 141 patients (52% female, mean age 56.7 years) underwent EUS-FNA (range 1-5 passes). The overall results of EUS-FNA were diagnostic, suggestive, and nondiagnostic in 43.3%, 39%, and 17.7% of cases, respectively. Adequate specimens were obtained in 83% of cases, and 69 cases (48.9%) had a definitive final diagnosis. The most common gastric SMT was GI stromal tumor (59.5%). EUS-FNA results were 95.6% accurate (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.5%-99%) for the final diagnosis and 94.2% (95% CI, 85.6%-98.1%) accurate for differentiating potentially malignant lesions. A heterogeneous echo pattern was the only independent predictor for sampling adequacy (adjusted odds ratio 6.15; P = .002). There were no procedure-related complications.

Limitations

Possibility of selection bias.

Conclusion

EUS-FNA is an accurate method for diagnosis of gastric SMTs and for differentiating malignant lesions.

Abbreviations: EUS-FNA, EUS-guided FNA, GIST, GI stromal tumor, IHC, immunohistochemical, SMT, submucosal tumor

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 DISCLOSURE: All authors disclosed no financial relationships relevant to this publication.

 See CME section; p. 1028

 If you would like to chat with an author of this article, you may contact Dr. Mekky at doc_mekky0000@yahoo.com.

PII: S0016-5107(09)02834-X

doi:10.1016/j.gie.2009.11.044

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Volume 71, Issue 6 , Pages 913-919, May 2010