Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2010
Accuracy of EUS in the evaluation of small gastric subepithelial lesions.
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.
Karaca Cetin, Turner Brian G, Cizginer Sevdenur, Forcione David, Brugge William
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: EUS combined with endoluminal resection techniques is increasingly used to provide a definitive diagnosis of small gastric subepithelial lesions seen on standard upper endoscopy.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of EUS in diagnosing small gastric subepithelial lesions by using histology as the criterion standard.
DESIGN: A retrospective study.
SETTING: Academic tertiary care center.
PATIENTS: A total of 22 patients (15 women, mean age 62.2 years) with an endoscopically resected gastric subepithelial lesion were included in this 3-year retrospective study.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The size, echogenicity, the layer of origin, and presumptive diagnosis were determined by EUS. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS was determined by using histology as the criterion standard.
RESULTS: The mean size of the 22 lesions was 13.6 mm (range 8-20 mm). An endoscopic cap band mucosectomy device was used to resect 16 (72.7%) lesions, whereas 6 (27.3%) were resected with a saline solution-assisted and snare technique. Using histology as a criterion standard, we found that the accuracy of the EUS diagnosis was 10 of 22 (45.5%). EUS alone had an accuracy rate of 30.8% and 66.7%, respectively, in the diagnosis of neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions.
LIMITATIONS: A single-center, retrospective analysis.
CONCLUSION: EUS imaging had a low accuracy rate in the diagnosis of gastric subepithelial lesions, and endoscopic submucosal resection should be performed to provide a histologic diagnosis. Resection of small subepithelial lesions of 20 mm or less can be accomplished en bloc with an endoscopic cap band mucosectomy device.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of EUS in diagnosing small gastric subepithelial lesions by using histology as the criterion standard.
DESIGN: A retrospective study.
SETTING: Academic tertiary care center.
PATIENTS: A total of 22 patients (15 women, mean age 62.2 years) with an endoscopically resected gastric subepithelial lesion were included in this 3-year retrospective study.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The size, echogenicity, the layer of origin, and presumptive diagnosis were determined by EUS. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS was determined by using histology as the criterion standard.
RESULTS: The mean size of the 22 lesions was 13.6 mm (range 8-20 mm). An endoscopic cap band mucosectomy device was used to resect 16 (72.7%) lesions, whereas 6 (27.3%) were resected with a saline solution-assisted and snare technique. Using histology as a criterion standard, we found that the accuracy of the EUS diagnosis was 10 of 22 (45.5%). EUS alone had an accuracy rate of 30.8% and 66.7%, respectively, in the diagnosis of neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions.
LIMITATIONS: A single-center, retrospective analysis.
CONCLUSION: EUS imaging had a low accuracy rate in the diagnosis of gastric subepithelial lesions, and endoscopic submucosal resection should be performed to provide a histologic diagnosis. Resection of small subepithelial lesions of 20 mm or less can be accomplished en bloc with an endoscopic cap band mucosectomy device.