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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nakano, Yoshiko, Takao, Toshitatsu, Morita, Yoshinori, Tanaka, Shinwa, Toyonaga, Takashi, Umegaki, Eiji, Kodama, Yuzo
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