Cargando…

The analysis of endoscopic ultrasonographic finding for esophageal subepithelial lesion

INTRODUCTION: The number of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for esophageal subepithelial lesion (SEL) is on the increase recently. We retrospectively investigated the 230 patients who underwent EUS for esophageal SEL from July 2010 to June 2013. We analyzed EUS finding and assumptive diagnosis. RES...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Park, C., Lee, S., Oh, M., Kim, K.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4569930/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26425530
_version_ 1782390131349520384
author Park, C.
Lee, S.
Oh, M.
Kim, K.
author_facet Park, C.
Lee, S.
Oh, M.
Kim, K.
author_sort Park, C.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: The number of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for esophageal subepithelial lesion (SEL) is on the increase recently. We retrospectively investigated the 230 patients who underwent EUS for esophageal SEL from July 2010 to June 2013. We analyzed EUS finding and assumptive diagnosis. RESULTS: Among 230 enrolled patients, subepithelial tumor (SET) was observed in 189 (82.2%) patients. Mean size of SET was 8.5 ± 5.0 mm and mean distance from incisor tooth to lesion was 29.2 ± 6.7 cm. The most common origin wall layer of the SET was muscularis mucosa (59.4%), followed by submucosa (15.8%) and muscularis propria (21.1%). 3.7% of SET was indetermined. In the analysis of primary assumptive diagnosis, 70.5% was leiomyoma, 16.8% was granular cell tumor, 6.8% was gastrointestinal stromal tumor, 1.6% was cyst and 2.1% was vascular ectasia. The tissue sample by biopsy was checked in only 14.2% (27 cases) and the result was mostly (81.5%) non-specific inflammation. 21 cases (9.1%) of 230 patients revealed extrinsic compression, 61.9% was compressed by vessel, 33.3% was due to spine and one case (4.8%) was bronchus. 20 patients (8.7%) was normal without SEL. 107 patients (46.5%) of enrolled 230 patients repeatedly underwent EUS at least twice but, 79.4% (85/107) of SET was no change in size or shape. CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal SEL is mostly benign nature and misdiagnosed as extrinsic compression or normal variation easily. Thus, meticulous inspection is essential to distinguish SET and extrinsic compression. EUS is a good modality to examine esophageal SEL but, EUS is limited to accurate diagnosis of SET. The tissue acquisition for accurate diagnosis of SET is an important issue.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4569930
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45699302015-09-30 The analysis of endoscopic ultrasonographic finding for esophageal subepithelial lesion Park, C. Lee, S. Oh, M. Kim, K. Endosc Ultrasound EURO EUS Meeting INTRODUCTION: The number of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for esophageal subepithelial lesion (SEL) is on the increase recently. We retrospectively investigated the 230 patients who underwent EUS for esophageal SEL from July 2010 to June 2013. We analyzed EUS finding and assumptive diagnosis. RESULTS: Among 230 enrolled patients, subepithelial tumor (SET) was observed in 189 (82.2%) patients. Mean size of SET was 8.5 ± 5.0 mm and mean distance from incisor tooth to lesion was 29.2 ± 6.7 cm. The most common origin wall layer of the SET was muscularis mucosa (59.4%), followed by submucosa (15.8%) and muscularis propria (21.1%). 3.7% of SET was indetermined. In the analysis of primary assumptive diagnosis, 70.5% was leiomyoma, 16.8% was granular cell tumor, 6.8% was gastrointestinal stromal tumor, 1.6% was cyst and 2.1% was vascular ectasia. The tissue sample by biopsy was checked in only 14.2% (27 cases) and the result was mostly (81.5%) non-specific inflammation. 21 cases (9.1%) of 230 patients revealed extrinsic compression, 61.9% was compressed by vessel, 33.3% was due to spine and one case (4.8%) was bronchus. 20 patients (8.7%) was normal without SEL. 107 patients (46.5%) of enrolled 230 patients repeatedly underwent EUS at least twice but, 79.4% (85/107) of SET was no change in size or shape. CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal SEL is mostly benign nature and misdiagnosed as extrinsic compression or normal variation easily. Thus, meticulous inspection is essential to distinguish SET and extrinsic compression. EUS is a good modality to examine esophageal SEL but, EUS is limited to accurate diagnosis of SET. The tissue acquisition for accurate diagnosis of SET is an important issue. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2014-04 /pmc/articles/PMC4569930/ /pubmed/26425530 Text en Copyright: © Endoscopic Ultrasound http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle EURO EUS Meeting
Park, C.
Lee, S.
Oh, M.
Kim, K.
The analysis of endoscopic ultrasonographic finding for esophageal subepithelial lesion
title The analysis of endoscopic ultrasonographic finding for esophageal subepithelial lesion
title_full The analysis of endoscopic ultrasonographic finding for esophageal subepithelial lesion
title_fullStr The analysis of endoscopic ultrasonographic finding for esophageal subepithelial lesion
title_full_unstemmed The analysis of endoscopic ultrasonographic finding for esophageal subepithelial lesion
title_short The analysis of endoscopic ultrasonographic finding for esophageal subepithelial lesion
title_sort analysis of endoscopic ultrasonographic finding for esophageal subepithelial lesion
topic EURO EUS Meeting
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4569930/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26425530
work_keys_str_mv AT parkc theanalysisofendoscopicultrasonographicfindingforesophagealsubepitheliallesion
AT lees theanalysisofendoscopicultrasonographicfindingforesophagealsubepitheliallesion
AT ohm theanalysisofendoscopicultrasonographicfindingforesophagealsubepitheliallesion
AT kimk theanalysisofendoscopicultrasonographicfindingforesophagealsubepitheliallesion
AT parkc analysisofendoscopicultrasonographicfindingforesophagealsubepitheliallesion
AT lees analysisofendoscopicultrasonographicfindingforesophagealsubepitheliallesion
AT ohm analysisofendoscopicultrasonographicfindingforesophagealsubepitheliallesion
AT kimk analysisofendoscopicultrasonographicfindingforesophagealsubepitheliallesion