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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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