Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Jul 6;23(6):287-292.
doi: 10.1016/j.jpge.2016.05.001. eCollection 2016 Nov-Dec.

The Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in the Diagnostic Assessment of Subepithelial Lesions of the Upper Gastrointestinal Tract

Francisca Dias de Castro  1 , Joana Magalhães  1 , Sara Monteiro  1 , Sílvia Leite  1 , José Cotter  1   2   3
Affiliations

The Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in the Diagnostic Assessment of Subepithelial Lesions of the Upper Gastrointestinal Tract

Francisca Dias de Castro et al. GE Port J Gastroenterol. .

Abstract
in English, Portuguese

Introduction: The identification of subepithelial lesions is a relatively frequent finding at endoscopy however their natural history is not well known. Our aim was to analyze the role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in the diagnostic approach of subepithelial lesions of the upper gastrointestinal tract.

Methods: Retrospective study which included 324 patients undergoing upper radial EUS for evaluation of subepithelial lesions from 2008 to 2014. The EUS features, presumptive diagnosis and management decision were analyzed.

Results: 324 patients included, 60% with gastric subepithelial lesions, 28% oesophageal and 12% from the duodenum. Based on EUS features the presumptive diagnosis was: 25% gastrointestinal stromal tumor, 21% lipoma, 19% leiomyoma, 17% pancreatic rest, 7% submucosa cysts, 1% granular cell tumors, 1% carcinoids, 1% mucosa lesions and 8% not defined. After EUS the suggested approach was no follow-up in 45%, follow-up with re-examination with EUS in 35% and additional tissue sampling or endoscopic/surgical resection in 20%. The latter was based on EUS features of risk at the diagnosis (53%), such as size ≥2 cm, hypoechogenicity, heterogeneity, lobulation, calcifications, cystic component and regional adenopathies; impossibility to define a presumptive diagnosis (39%) or EUS features change at follow-up (8%). The combination of multiple features correlated with a higher probability of this recommended strategy (p < 0.001), in 100% when 4 or more features were present. Among the 33 patients who underwent fine needle aspiration, in 66% the result was inconclusive. During follow-up, none of the patients who were managed with surveillance radial EUS presented complications.

Conclusion: EUS is the method of choice in the study of subepithelial lesions of the upper gastrointestinal tract, in most cases defining a diagnosis. The need for a definitive diagnosis or therapeutic approaches can be based on ultrasound risk features, presented, in the majority, at presentation. This study shows that EUS is capable of safely and accurately define those subepithelial lesions that can be managed only with surveillance ultrasound while waiting for better results with fine needle aspiration.

Introdução: As lesões subepiteliais (LS) são achados frequentes, particularmente no trato digestivo alto. Incluem um grande número de entidades, algumas com potencial maligno, cuja história natural não é totalmente conhecida e o adequado manejo controverso. O nosso objetivo foi analisar o papel da ultrassonografia endoscópica (EUS) na abordagem diagnóstica das LS do trato digestivo alto.

Material: Estudo retrospetivo de doentes consecutivos submetidos a EUS alta para estudo diagnóstico de LS entre 2008-2014. Analisadas as características ultrassonográficas e a orientação definida.

Resultados: Incluídos 324 doentes, 60% com LS gástrica, 28% esofágica e 12% duodenal. O diagnóstico segundo as características ultrassonográficas foi: GIST 25%, lipoma 21%, leiomioma 19%, pâncreas ectópico 17%, quisto submucosa 7%, tumor células granulares 1%, carcinoide 1%, lesões da mucosa 1% e em 8% indefinido. A orientação proposta após EUS foi em 35% de vigilância e em 20% intervenção diagnóstica/terapêutica (punção aspirativa agulha fina - PAAF ou ressecção cirúrgica/endoscópica). Esta última por características EUS de agressividade no diagnóstico (53%), diagnóstico indefinido em EUS (39%) ou alterações de tamanho em EUS subsequentes (8%). As características EUS associadas significativamente à decisão de PAAF/ressecção foram: tamanho, hipoecogenicidade, heterogeneidade, bordos irregulares, calcificações, componente quístico e adenopatias. A associação de várias características associou-se a maior percentagem de doentes submetidos a esta abordagem (p < 0,001), em 100% quando 4 ou mais critérios. Nos 33 doentes submetidos a PAAF, em 66% o diagnóstico foi inconclusivo. Em todas as LSE orientadas para vigilância não se verificaram intercorrências neste período.

Conclusão: A EUS é o método de eleição no estudo das LS do trato digestivo alto, na maioria definindo um diagnóstico. A abordagem diagnóstica definitiva ou terapêutica, pode ser baseada na associação de características ultrassonográficas de agressividade, apresentadas na maioria logo no diagnóstico inicial. Foi demonstrada segurança nas LSE orientadas para vigilância e a necessidade de aguardar melhores resultados com PAAF.

Keywords: Endosonography; Gastrointestinal Diseases/ultrasonography; Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors/ultrasonography; Gastrointestinal Tract/ultrasonography.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
GIST-EUS shows a heterogeneous hypoechoic lesion of the forth gastric wall layer with lobulation measuring 10 × 6 cm.
Figure 2
Figure 2
GIST-EUS shows a heterogeneous hypoechoic lesion of the forth gastric wall layer with lobulation measuring 8.0 × 6.6 cm.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Hwang J.H., Saunders M.D., Rulyak S.J., Shaw S., Nietsch H., Kimmey M.B. A prospective study comparing endoscopy and EUS in the evaluation of GI subepithelial masses. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;62:202–208. - PubMed
    1. Hedenbro J.L., Ekelund M., Wetterberg P. Endoscopic diagnosis of submucosal gastric lesions. The results after routine endoscopy. Surg Endosc. 1991;5:20–23. - PubMed
    1. Eckardt A.J., Jenssen C. Current endoscopic ultrasound-guided approach to incidental subepithelial lesions: optimal or optional. Ann Gastroenterol. 2015;28:160–172. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Menon L., Buscaglia J.M. Endoscopic approach to subepithelial lesions. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2014;7:123–130. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Reddymasu S.C., Oropeza-Vail M., Pakseresht K., Moloney B., Esfandyari T., Grisolano S. Are endoscopic ultrasonography imaging characteristics reliable for the diagnosis of small upper gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions? J Clin Gastroenterol. 2012;46:42–45. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources