Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2022
Auxiliary diagnosis of subepithelial lesions by impedance measurement during EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Minoda Yosuke, Esaki Mitsuru, Ihara Eikichi, Nagatomo Shuzaburo, Nishioka Kei, Fujimori Nao, Ogino Haruei, Bai Xiaopeng, Tanaka Yoshimasa, Chinen Takatoshi, Hu Qingjiang, Ota Mitsuhiko, Umekita Shinya, Yamamoto Hidetaka, Ogawa Yoshihiro
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-guided FNA/biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) is the citerion standard for diagnosing subepithelial lesions (SELs); however, its diagnostic ability for SELs <20 mm is low. We developed a new diagnostic method to differentiate between GI stromal tumor (GIST) and non-GIST by measuring high-frequency impedance (H-impedance) using an EUS-FNB needle.
METHODS: The H-impedance of gastric epithelial neoplasms from 16 cases were measured with a conventional impedance probe to confirm whether H-impedance is clinically useful for assessing cell density (study 1). The H-impedance values of exposed SELs from 25 cases with use of the conventional probe (study 2) and nonexposed SELs from 20 cases with use of the EUS-FNB needle probe (study 3) were measured to determine the diagnostic ability of H-impedance for differentiating GISTs from non-GISTs.
RESULTS: H-impedance significantly positively correlated with cell density (P = .030) (study 1). The H-impedance of GIST (99.5) measured with a conventional probe was significantly higher than with those of the muscular layer (82.4) and leiomyoma (89.2) (P < .01) (study 2). The H-impedance of GIST measured with the EUS-FNB needle was also significantly higher than that of leiomyoma (GIST: 80.2 vs leiomyoma, 71.8; P = .015). The diagnostic yield of the impedance method for differentiating GISTs from non-GISTs had 94.4% accuracy, 88.9% sensitivity, 100% specificity, and 0.95 area under the curve. Diagnostic ability was not affected by lesion size (P = .86) (study 3).
CONCLUSION: Auxiliary differential diagnosis between gastric GISTs and non-GISTs by the H-impedance measurement during EUS-FNB could be a good option, especially when the lesion is <20 mm.
METHODS: The H-impedance of gastric epithelial neoplasms from 16 cases were measured with a conventional impedance probe to confirm whether H-impedance is clinically useful for assessing cell density (study 1). The H-impedance values of exposed SELs from 25 cases with use of the conventional probe (study 2) and nonexposed SELs from 20 cases with use of the EUS-FNB needle probe (study 3) were measured to determine the diagnostic ability of H-impedance for differentiating GISTs from non-GISTs.
RESULTS: H-impedance significantly positively correlated with cell density (P = .030) (study 1). The H-impedance of GIST (99.5) measured with a conventional probe was significantly higher than with those of the muscular layer (82.4) and leiomyoma (89.2) (P < .01) (study 2). The H-impedance of GIST measured with the EUS-FNB needle was also significantly higher than that of leiomyoma (GIST: 80.2 vs leiomyoma, 71.8; P = .015). The diagnostic yield of the impedance method for differentiating GISTs from non-GISTs had 94.4% accuracy, 88.9% sensitivity, 100% specificity, and 0.95 area under the curve. Diagnostic ability was not affected by lesion size (P = .86) (study 3).
CONCLUSION: Auxiliary differential diagnosis between gastric GISTs and non-GISTs by the H-impedance measurement during EUS-FNB could be a good option, especially when the lesion is <20 mm.