Analysis of Natural History of Upper Gastrointestinal Subepithelial Tumors and Factors Related to Tumor Growth Demonstrated by Endoscopic Ultrasonography

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Small subepithelial tumors (SETs) are often found incidentally during esophagoduodenoscopy, and EUS is a useful tool for assessing SETs. This study aimed to evaluate the natural history of SETs and to clarify the predictive factors of growth using EUS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively investigated SETs less than 30 mm and identified the EUS features. A significant increase in SET size was defined as a lengthening of more than 25% of the longest diameter in the last follow-up EUS features compared with the initial study. RESULTS: A total of 99 patients with 105 upper gastrointestinal SETs were enrolled. The mean follow-up period for SETs was 22.8 months. Among the 105 SETs, 12 (11.4%) were significantly larger at follow-up. Univariate analysis revealed that the presence of hypoechoic areas was associated with significant SET growth (P=0.021). In multivariate analysis, the presence of hypoechoic areas (OR, 8.96; 95% CI, 1.89~42.54) and anechoic areas (OR, 7.85; 95% CI, 1.09~56.37) were related with significant growth of SETs. Six of the 12 SETs showing significant growth were removed, and identified as gastrointestinal stromal tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Majority of small SETs showed no significant increase during follow-up. Presence of hypoechoic areas and anechoic areas were associated with SET growth. Therefore, small SETs with hypoechoic area or anechoic area may be considered for regular follow-up in the clinical field.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric subepithelial tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To evaluate the therapeutic outcomes of the endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) technique for the treatment of gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs). METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted using the core databases. Data on the complete resection rates and the procedure-related perforation rates were extracted and analyzed. A random effects model was then applied for this meta-analysis. RESULTS: In all, 288 patients with 290 SETs were enrolled from nine studies (44 SETs originated from the submucosal layer; 246 SETs originated from the muscularis propria layer). The mean diameter of the lesions ranged from 17.99 to 38 mm. Overall, the pooled complete resection rate was estimated to be 86.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 78.9 to 91.3). If the analysis was limited to the lesions that originated from the submucosal layer, the pooled complete resection rate was 91.4% (95% CI, 77.9 to 97). If the analysis was limited to the lesions that originated from the muscularis propria, the pooled complete resection rate was 84.4% (95% CI, 78.7 to 88.8). The pooled procedure-related gastric perforation rate was 13% (95% CI, 9.4 to 17.6). Sensitivity analyses showed consistent results. Finally, publication bias was not detected. CONCLUSIONS: ESD, including endoscopic muscularis dissection, is a technically feasible procedure for the treatment of SETs. However, selection bias is suspected from the enrolled studies. For the development of a proper indication of ESD for SETs, further studies are needed.

Yields and Utility of Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided 19-Gauge Trucut Biopsy versus 22-Gauge Fine Needle Aspiration for Diagnosing Gastric Subepithelial Tumors

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To evaluate the yields and utility of 19-gauge (G) Trucut biopsy (TCB) versus 22 G fine needle aspiration (FNA) for diagnosing gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs). METHODS: We retrieved data for 152 patients with a gastric SET larger than 2 cm who had undergone endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided 19 G TCB (n=90) or 22 G FNA (n=62). Relevant clinical, tumor-specific, and EUS procedural information was reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS: A specific diagnosis was made for 76 gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) and 51 non-GIST SETs. The diagnostic yield of TCB was greater than that of FNA (77.8% vs. 38.7%, p<0.001). The percentage of non-diagnostic specimens (suspicious and insufficient) was significantly lower in the TCB group (6.7% and 15.5%, respectively) than in the FNA group (22.6% and 38.7%, respectively; both p<0.001). TCB accurately diagnosed 90.9% of GISTs and 81.1% of non-GIST SETs, whereas FNA accurately diagnosed 68.8% of GISTs and 14.3% of non-GIST SETs. There were nine technical failures with TCB, and the rate of adverse events did not differ between the groups (TCB vs. FNA, 3.3% vs. 8.1%; p=0.27). CONCLUSIONS: Nineteen-gauge TCB is safe and highly valuable for diagnosing gastric SETs larger than 2 cm if technical failure can be avoided.