Cargando…
Comparison of submucosal tunneling biopsy versus EUS-guided FNA for gastric subepithelial lesions: a prospective study with crossover design
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS : Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) for gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions (SELs) has limited diagnostic accuracy due to technical problems and small lesion size. We previously reported a novel submucosal tunneling biopsy (STB) technique for samp...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG
2017
|
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5542816/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28782002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-112497 |
_version_ | 1783255060588789760 |
---|---|
author | Kobara, Hideki Mori, Hirohito Nishimoto, Naoki Fujihara, Shintaro Nishiyama, Noriko Ayaki, Maki Yachida, Tatsuo Matsunaga, Tae Chiyo, Taiga Kobayashi, Nobuya Fujita, Koji Kato, Kiyohito Kamada, Hideki Oryu, Makoto Tsutsui, Kunihiko Iwama, Hisakazu Haba, Reiji Masaki, Tsutomu |
author_facet | Kobara, Hideki Mori, Hirohito Nishimoto, Naoki Fujihara, Shintaro Nishiyama, Noriko Ayaki, Maki Yachida, Tatsuo Matsunaga, Tae Chiyo, Taiga Kobayashi, Nobuya Fujita, Koji Kato, Kiyohito Kamada, Hideki Oryu, Makoto Tsutsui, Kunihiko Iwama, Hisakazu Haba, Reiji Masaki, Tsutomu |
author_sort | Kobara, Hideki |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS : Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) for gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions (SELs) has limited diagnostic accuracy due to technical problems and small lesion size. We previously reported a novel submucosal tunneling biopsy (STB) technique for sampling SELs. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic ability and safety of STB compared to that of FNA for SELs. PATIENTS AND METHODS : The study was a non-randomized, prospective comparative study with crossover design in patients with endoluminal gastric SELs. Forty-three patients, including 29 cases with lesions < 2 cm were enrolled. A crossover design with 2 intervention stages (Group A: FNA followed by STB for 23 SELs, Group B: STB followed by FNA for 20 SELs) was implemented. The primary outcome was the diagnostic yield (DY). Secondary outcomes were technical success rate, procedure time, complication rate, and sample quality. RESULTS : The DY of STB was significantly higher than that of FNA (100 % vs. 34.8 %; P < 0.0001) in group A, including 100 % in overall STB. The technical success rate of STB was significantly higher than that of FNA (100 % vs. 56.5 %; P = 0.0006), whereas the median procedure time of STB was significantly longer than that of FNA (37 minutes vs. 18 minutes; P < 0.0001). The median specimen area of STB samples was markedly larger than that of FNA samples (5.54 mm (2) vs. 0.69 mm (2) ; P < 0.001). No complications occurred in either method. CONCLUSIONS: STB had significantly superior diagnostic ability and a more adequate sample quality than FNA for endoluminal gastric SELs, indicating the suitability of STB for small SELs. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN 000006754 |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5542816 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | © Georg Thieme Verlag KG |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-55428162017-08-04 Comparison of submucosal tunneling biopsy versus EUS-guided FNA for gastric subepithelial lesions: a prospective study with crossover design Kobara, Hideki Mori, Hirohito Nishimoto, Naoki Fujihara, Shintaro Nishiyama, Noriko Ayaki, Maki Yachida, Tatsuo Matsunaga, Tae Chiyo, Taiga Kobayashi, Nobuya Fujita, Koji Kato, Kiyohito Kamada, Hideki Oryu, Makoto Tsutsui, Kunihiko Iwama, Hisakazu Haba, Reiji Masaki, Tsutomu Endosc Int Open BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS : Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) for gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions (SELs) has limited diagnostic accuracy due to technical problems and small lesion size. We previously reported a novel submucosal tunneling biopsy (STB) technique for sampling SELs. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic ability and safety of STB compared to that of FNA for SELs. PATIENTS AND METHODS : The study was a non-randomized, prospective comparative study with crossover design in patients with endoluminal gastric SELs. Forty-three patients, including 29 cases with lesions < 2 cm were enrolled. A crossover design with 2 intervention stages (Group A: FNA followed by STB for 23 SELs, Group B: STB followed by FNA for 20 SELs) was implemented. The primary outcome was the diagnostic yield (DY). Secondary outcomes were technical success rate, procedure time, complication rate, and sample quality. RESULTS : The DY of STB was significantly higher than that of FNA (100 % vs. 34.8 %; P < 0.0001) in group A, including 100 % in overall STB. The technical success rate of STB was significantly higher than that of FNA (100 % vs. 56.5 %; P = 0.0006), whereas the median procedure time of STB was significantly longer than that of FNA (37 minutes vs. 18 minutes; P < 0.0001). The median specimen area of STB samples was markedly larger than that of FNA samples (5.54 mm (2) vs. 0.69 mm (2) ; P < 0.001). No complications occurred in either method. CONCLUSIONS: STB had significantly superior diagnostic ability and a more adequate sample quality than FNA for endoluminal gastric SELs, indicating the suitability of STB for small SELs. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN 000006754 © Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2017-08 2017-08-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5542816/ /pubmed/28782002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-112497 Text en © Thieme Medical Publishers |
spellingShingle | Kobara, Hideki Mori, Hirohito Nishimoto, Naoki Fujihara, Shintaro Nishiyama, Noriko Ayaki, Maki Yachida, Tatsuo Matsunaga, Tae Chiyo, Taiga Kobayashi, Nobuya Fujita, Koji Kato, Kiyohito Kamada, Hideki Oryu, Makoto Tsutsui, Kunihiko Iwama, Hisakazu Haba, Reiji Masaki, Tsutomu Comparison of submucosal tunneling biopsy versus EUS-guided FNA for gastric subepithelial lesions: a prospective study with crossover design |
title | Comparison of submucosal tunneling biopsy versus EUS-guided FNA for gastric subepithelial lesions: a prospective study with crossover design |
title_full | Comparison of submucosal tunneling biopsy versus EUS-guided FNA for gastric subepithelial lesions: a prospective study with crossover design |
title_fullStr | Comparison of submucosal tunneling biopsy versus EUS-guided FNA for gastric subepithelial lesions: a prospective study with crossover design |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of submucosal tunneling biopsy versus EUS-guided FNA for gastric subepithelial lesions: a prospective study with crossover design |
title_short | Comparison of submucosal tunneling biopsy versus EUS-guided FNA for gastric subepithelial lesions: a prospective study with crossover design |
title_sort | comparison of submucosal tunneling biopsy versus eus-guided fna for gastric subepithelial lesions: a prospective study with crossover design |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5542816/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28782002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-112497 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kobarahideki comparisonofsubmucosaltunnelingbiopsyversuseusguidedfnaforgastricsubepitheliallesionsaprospectivestudywithcrossoverdesign AT morihirohito comparisonofsubmucosaltunnelingbiopsyversuseusguidedfnaforgastricsubepitheliallesionsaprospectivestudywithcrossoverdesign AT nishimotonaoki comparisonofsubmucosaltunnelingbiopsyversuseusguidedfnaforgastricsubepitheliallesionsaprospectivestudywithcrossoverdesign AT fujiharashintaro comparisonofsubmucosaltunnelingbiopsyversuseusguidedfnaforgastricsubepitheliallesionsaprospectivestudywithcrossoverdesign AT nishiyamanoriko comparisonofsubmucosaltunnelingbiopsyversuseusguidedfnaforgastricsubepitheliallesionsaprospectivestudywithcrossoverdesign AT ayakimaki comparisonofsubmucosaltunnelingbiopsyversuseusguidedfnaforgastricsubepitheliallesionsaprospectivestudywithcrossoverdesign AT yachidatatsuo comparisonofsubmucosaltunnelingbiopsyversuseusguidedfnaforgastricsubepitheliallesionsaprospectivestudywithcrossoverdesign AT matsunagatae comparisonofsubmucosaltunnelingbiopsyversuseusguidedfnaforgastricsubepitheliallesionsaprospectivestudywithcrossoverdesign AT chiyotaiga comparisonofsubmucosaltunnelingbiopsyversuseusguidedfnaforgastricsubepitheliallesionsaprospectivestudywithcrossoverdesign AT kobayashinobuya comparisonofsubmucosaltunnelingbiopsyversuseusguidedfnaforgastricsubepitheliallesionsaprospectivestudywithcrossoverdesign AT fujitakoji comparisonofsubmucosaltunnelingbiopsyversuseusguidedfnaforgastricsubepitheliallesionsaprospectivestudywithcrossoverdesign AT katokiyohito comparisonofsubmucosaltunnelingbiopsyversuseusguidedfnaforgastricsubepitheliallesionsaprospectivestudywithcrossoverdesign AT kamadahideki comparisonofsubmucosaltunnelingbiopsyversuseusguidedfnaforgastricsubepitheliallesionsaprospectivestudywithcrossoverdesign AT oryumakoto comparisonofsubmucosaltunnelingbiopsyversuseusguidedfnaforgastricsubepitheliallesionsaprospectivestudywithcrossoverdesign AT tsutsuikunihiko comparisonofsubmucosaltunnelingbiopsyversuseusguidedfnaforgastricsubepitheliallesionsaprospectivestudywithcrossoverdesign AT iwamahisakazu comparisonofsubmucosaltunnelingbiopsyversuseusguidedfnaforgastricsubepitheliallesionsaprospectivestudywithcrossoverdesign AT habareiji comparisonofsubmucosaltunnelingbiopsyversuseusguidedfnaforgastricsubepitheliallesionsaprospectivestudywithcrossoverdesign AT masakitsutomu comparisonofsubmucosaltunnelingbiopsyversuseusguidedfnaforgastricsubepitheliallesionsaprospectivestudywithcrossoverdesign |