KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology / 2018 / Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 4

Lesion size determines diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA with onsite cytopathologic evaluation for upper gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions

Tan ATTİLA
Özlem AYDIN ALTUNTAŞ
Sayfa
436–441
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Lesion size <2 cm significantly reduces the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA for the upper GI SELs.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Background/Aims: The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic yield and factors influencing the diagnostic yield of endo-scopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for upper gastrointestinal (GI) subepithelial lesions (SELs) with rapid onsite cytopathologic evaluation.Materials and Methods: This is a single-center, retrospective study.Results: Among 22 patients who underwent EUS-FNA, a cytopathological diagnosis was reached in 16 (72.7%) patients.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The EUS-FNA results were as follows: seven GISTs (31.8%), six leiomyomas (27.2%), four non-diagnostics (18%), two duplication cysts (9%), two spin-dle cell tumor (9%), and one ectopic pancreas (4.5%).
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Lesion size <2 cm significantly reduces the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA for the upper GI SELs.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

Background/Aims: The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic yield and factors influencing the diagnostic yield of endo-scopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for upper gastrointestinal (GI) subepithelial lesions (SELs) with rapid onsite cytopathologic evaluation.Materials and Methods: This is a single-center, retrospective study.Results: Among 22 patients who underwent EUS-FNA, a cytopathological diagnosis was reached in 16 (72.7%) patients. The EUS-FNA results were as follows: seven GISTs (31.8%), six leiomyomas (27.2%), four non-diagnostics (18%), two duplication cysts (9%), two spin-dle cell tumor (9%), and one ectopic pancreas (4.5%). The long-axis size was >20 mm in 12 patients (average size: 31.3 ±9.3 mm) and 20 mm was 91.6% (11/12 lesions) (Fisher’s exact test; p=0.028). Six patients underwent surgical resection. Surgical pathology results of five lesions (four GIST, one leiomyoma) were consistent with cytopathology results (83.3%). Conclusion: The diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA of the upper GI SELs with an onsite cytopathologic interpretation was 72.7%. Lesion size <2 cm significantly reduces the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA for the upper GI SELs.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

ATTİLA, T., ALTUNTAŞ, Ö. A. (2018). Lesion size determines diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA with onsite cytopathologic evaluation for upper gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions. Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology, Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 4, 436–441. https://ajindex.com/articles/410137

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (15)

  1. Hedenbro JL, Ekelund M, Wetterberg P. Endoscopic diagnosis of submucosal gastric lesions. The results after routine endoscopy. Surg Endosc 1991; 5: 20-3.
  2. Humphris JL, Jones DB. Subepithelial mass lesions in the upper gastrointestinal tract. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 23: 556-66.
  3. Hwang JH, Rulyak SD, Kimmey MB. American Gastroenterological Association Institute technical review on the management of gas- tric subepithelial masses. Gastroenterology 2006; 130: 2217-28.
  4. Gress F, Schmitt C, Savides T, et al. Interobserver agreement for EUS in the evaluation and diagnosis of submucosal masses. Gastro- intest Endosc 2001; 53: 71-6.
  5. Chak A, Canto MI, Rosch T, et al. Endosonographic differentiation of benign and malignant stromal cell tumors. Gastrointest Endosc 1997; 45: 468-73.
  6. Rosch T, Kapfer B, Will U, et al. Accuracy of endoscopic ultraso- nography in upper gastrointestinal submucosal lesions: a prospec- tive multicenter study. Scand J Gastroenterol 2002; 37: 856-62
  7. Karaca C, Turner BG, Cizginer S, Forcione D, Brugge W. Accuracy of EUS in the evaluation of small gastric subepithelial lesions. Gas- trointest Endosc 2010; 71: 722-7.
  8. Eckardt AJ, Jenssen C. Current endoscopic ultrasound-guided ap- proach to incidental subepithelial lesions: optimal or optional? Ann Gastroenterol 2015; 28: 160-72.
  9. Miettinen M, Sarlomo-Rikala M, Lasota J. Gastrointestinal stro- mal tumors: recent advances in understanding of their biology. Hum Pathol 1999; 30: 1213-20.
  10. Kawanowa K, Sakuma Y, Sakurai S, et al. High incidence of mi- croscopic gastrointestinal stromal tumors in the stomach. Hum Pathol 2006; 37: 1527-35.
  11. Agaimy A, Wünsch PH, Hofstaedter F, et al. Minute gastric scle- rosing stromal tumors (GIST tumorlets) are common in adults and frequently show c-KIT mutations. Am J Surg Pathol 2007; 31: 113-20.
  12. Miettinen M, Lasota J. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors: pathology and prognosis at different sites. Semin Diagn Pathol 2006; 23: 70-83.
  13. Fletcher CD, Berman JJ, Corless C, et al. Diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors: A consensus approach. Hum Pathol 2002; 33: 459-65.
  14. Tran T, Davila JA, El-Serag HB. The epidemiology of malignant gastrointestinal stromal tumors: an analysis of 1,458 cases from 1992 to 2000. Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100: 162-8.
  15. Ma GL, Murphy JD, Martinez ME, Sicklick JK. Epidemiology of gas- trointestinal stromal tumors in the era of histology codes: results of a population-based study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2015; 24: 298-302. Demetri GD, von Me