Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2015
Diagnostic potential of endoscopic ultrasonography-elastography for gastric submucosal tumors: A pilot study.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Tsuji Yuichiro, Kusano Chika, Gotoda Takuji, Itokawa Fumihide, Fukuzawa Masakatsu, Sofuni Atsushi, Matsubayashi Jun, Nagao Toshitaka, Itoi Takao, Moriyasu Fuminori
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Qualitative diagnosis for gastric submucosal tumors (SMT) is not easy. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in combination with EUS-elastography (EUS-EG) is reported useful for qualitatively diagnosing pancreatic tissues. We prospectively studied whether EUS-EG could be useful in qualitative diagnosis of gastric SMT.
METHODS: We prospectively registered 25 consecutive patients with gastric SMT diagnosed by esophagogastroduodenoscopy and carried out qualitative evaluations using EUS-EG (May 2013 to March 2015) followed by histopathological diagnosis using EUS-FNA or endoscopic mucosal cutting biopsy. Elastic scores of gastric SMT were compared to the cytological diagnosis.
RESULTS: Of 25 patients, 22 had a confirmed cytological diagnosis. Regarding the Giovannini elastic score, of three patients with aberrant pancreas, one was score 1 and two were score 2; of eight patients with leiomyoma, seven were score 2 and one was score 3. Both of two patients with schwannoma were score 4. Of nine patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor, six were score 4 and three were score 5. Gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) is harder than other types of gastric SMT, and our study's findings suggested the usefulness of EUS-EG, which can also assess tumor hardness of gastric SMT.
CONCLUSION: EUS-EG might be helpful for the differential diagnosis of gastric SMT, especially to differentiate GIST from other SMT.
METHODS: We prospectively registered 25 consecutive patients with gastric SMT diagnosed by esophagogastroduodenoscopy and carried out qualitative evaluations using EUS-EG (May 2013 to March 2015) followed by histopathological diagnosis using EUS-FNA or endoscopic mucosal cutting biopsy. Elastic scores of gastric SMT were compared to the cytological diagnosis.
RESULTS: Of 25 patients, 22 had a confirmed cytological diagnosis. Regarding the Giovannini elastic score, of three patients with aberrant pancreas, one was score 1 and two were score 2; of eight patients with leiomyoma, seven were score 2 and one was score 3. Both of two patients with schwannoma were score 4. Of nine patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor, six were score 4 and three were score 5. Gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) is harder than other types of gastric SMT, and our study's findings suggested the usefulness of EUS-EG, which can also assess tumor hardness of gastric SMT.
CONCLUSION: EUS-EG might be helpful for the differential diagnosis of gastric SMT, especially to differentiate GIST from other SMT.