Cargando…
Reasons for Diagnostic Failure in Forty-Five Consecutive Mucosal Cutting Biopsy Examinations of Gastric Subepithelial Tumors
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Mucosal cutting biopsy (MCB) is useful for the histopathological diagnosis of gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs). However, there is little information on cases in which MCB did not establish a diagnosis. In the current study, we aimed to investigate the characteristics of cases in...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7548140/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32053861 http://dx.doi.org/10.5946/ce.2019.150 |
_version_ | 1783592562501615616 |
---|---|
author | Nakano, Yoshiko Takao, Toshitatsu Morita, Yoshinori Tanaka, Shinwa Toyonaga, Takashi Umegaki, Eiji Kodama, Yuzo |
author_facet | Nakano, Yoshiko Takao, Toshitatsu Morita, Yoshinori Tanaka, Shinwa Toyonaga, Takashi Umegaki, Eiji Kodama, Yuzo |
author_sort | Nakano, Yoshiko |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND/AIMS: Mucosal cutting biopsy (MCB) is useful for the histopathological diagnosis of gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs). However, there is little information on cases in which MCB did not establish a diagnosis. In the current study, we aimed to investigate the characteristics of cases in which MCB was unsuccessful. METHODS: Cases in which MCB was used to histopathologically diagnose gastric SETs at Kobe University Hospital between August 2012 and October 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Forty-five cases in which MCB was used to diagnose 43 gastric SETs in 43 patients were analyzed. The median tumor size was 20 mm (range, 8–50 mm). Pathological examinations resulted in definitive and suspected diagnoses and no diagnosis in 29 (gastrointestinal stromal tumor: n=17, leiomyoma: n=7, aberrant pancreas: n=3, others: n=2), 6, and 10 cases, respectively. Failure to expose the tumor according to retrospective examinations of endoscopic images was significantly associated with no diagnosis. Other possible explanations included a less elevated tumor, biopsy of the surrounding field instead of the tumor due to the mobility, and poor endoscope maneuverability due to the tumor being close to the cardia. CONCLUSIONS: Clear exposure of gastric SETs during MCB may improve the diagnostic rate of such examinations. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7548140 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-75481402020-10-19 Reasons for Diagnostic Failure in Forty-Five Consecutive Mucosal Cutting Biopsy Examinations of Gastric Subepithelial Tumors Nakano, Yoshiko Takao, Toshitatsu Morita, Yoshinori Tanaka, Shinwa Toyonaga, Takashi Umegaki, Eiji Kodama, Yuzo Clin Endosc Original Article BACKGROUND/AIMS: Mucosal cutting biopsy (MCB) is useful for the histopathological diagnosis of gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs). However, there is little information on cases in which MCB did not establish a diagnosis. In the current study, we aimed to investigate the characteristics of cases in which MCB was unsuccessful. METHODS: Cases in which MCB was used to histopathologically diagnose gastric SETs at Kobe University Hospital between August 2012 and October 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Forty-five cases in which MCB was used to diagnose 43 gastric SETs in 43 patients were analyzed. The median tumor size was 20 mm (range, 8–50 mm). Pathological examinations resulted in definitive and suspected diagnoses and no diagnosis in 29 (gastrointestinal stromal tumor: n=17, leiomyoma: n=7, aberrant pancreas: n=3, others: n=2), 6, and 10 cases, respectively. Failure to expose the tumor according to retrospective examinations of endoscopic images was significantly associated with no diagnosis. Other possible explanations included a less elevated tumor, biopsy of the surrounding field instead of the tumor due to the mobility, and poor endoscope maneuverability due to the tumor being close to the cardia. CONCLUSIONS: Clear exposure of gastric SETs during MCB may improve the diagnostic rate of such examinations. Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2020-09 2020-02-14 /pmc/articles/PMC7548140/ /pubmed/32053861 http://dx.doi.org/10.5946/ce.2019.150 Text en Copyright © 2020 Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Nakano, Yoshiko Takao, Toshitatsu Morita, Yoshinori Tanaka, Shinwa Toyonaga, Takashi Umegaki, Eiji Kodama, Yuzo Reasons for Diagnostic Failure in Forty-Five Consecutive Mucosal Cutting Biopsy Examinations of Gastric Subepithelial Tumors |
title | Reasons for Diagnostic Failure in Forty-Five Consecutive Mucosal Cutting Biopsy Examinations of Gastric Subepithelial Tumors |
title_full | Reasons for Diagnostic Failure in Forty-Five Consecutive Mucosal Cutting Biopsy Examinations of Gastric Subepithelial Tumors |
title_fullStr | Reasons for Diagnostic Failure in Forty-Five Consecutive Mucosal Cutting Biopsy Examinations of Gastric Subepithelial Tumors |
title_full_unstemmed | Reasons for Diagnostic Failure in Forty-Five Consecutive Mucosal Cutting Biopsy Examinations of Gastric Subepithelial Tumors |
title_short | Reasons for Diagnostic Failure in Forty-Five Consecutive Mucosal Cutting Biopsy Examinations of Gastric Subepithelial Tumors |
title_sort | reasons for diagnostic failure in forty-five consecutive mucosal cutting biopsy examinations of gastric subepithelial tumors |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7548140/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32053861 http://dx.doi.org/10.5946/ce.2019.150 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT nakanoyoshiko reasonsfordiagnosticfailureinfortyfiveconsecutivemucosalcuttingbiopsyexaminationsofgastricsubepithelialtumors AT takaotoshitatsu reasonsfordiagnosticfailureinfortyfiveconsecutivemucosalcuttingbiopsyexaminationsofgastricsubepithelialtumors AT moritayoshinori reasonsfordiagnosticfailureinfortyfiveconsecutivemucosalcuttingbiopsyexaminationsofgastricsubepithelialtumors AT tanakashinwa reasonsfordiagnosticfailureinfortyfiveconsecutivemucosalcuttingbiopsyexaminationsofgastricsubepithelialtumors AT toyonagatakashi reasonsfordiagnosticfailureinfortyfiveconsecutivemucosalcuttingbiopsyexaminationsofgastricsubepithelialtumors AT umegakieiji reasonsfordiagnosticfailureinfortyfiveconsecutivemucosalcuttingbiopsyexaminationsofgastricsubepithelialtumors AT kodamayuzo reasonsfordiagnosticfailureinfortyfiveconsecutivemucosalcuttingbiopsyexaminationsofgastricsubepithelialtumors |