UNASSIGNED: This pilot study aimed to evaluate safety and tissue sampling from subepithelial lesions (SEL) in the upper gastrointestinal tract with a novel electric motor driven endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided 17-gauge (G) size core needle biopsy (CNB) instrument.
UNASSIGNED: An investigator-led prospective open label, performance and safety control study, including seven patients (female n = 4, median 71 y, range 28-75) with a determined SEL (median size 30 mm, range 17-150 mm) in the upper digestive tract (stomach n = 6, duodenum n = 1) were eligible and later followed up 14 days after index procedure. All investigations were completed according to protocol with three FNB 22-G passes with four fanning strokes and two EndoDrill® 17-G passes with three fanning strokes.
UNASSIGNED: Quality of samples as \'visible pieces\' (>5 mm): FNB (n = 5/7) (fragmented/blood imbibed n = 1, poor tissue quantity n = 1) compared with 17-G CNB (n = 7/7). Histological result which led to final diagnosis (leiomyoma n = 2, adenocarcinoma n = 1, schwannoma n = 1, neuroendocrine tumour n = 1, desmoid tumour n = 1 and gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) n = 1) could be obtained with the 17-G CNB instrument in all seven patients. FNB technique reached correct diagnosis in six patients. No serious adverse event were recorded.
UNASSIGNED: By using an electric driven 17-G biopsy device, a true cylinder of core tissue can be obtained in one single puncture from the area of interest reducing the need for a second sampling. The absolute benefit of EUS-guided CNB is that the sample can be handled and histologically prepared in the same manner as standard percutaneous core needle sample, e.g., breast and prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Subepithelial lesions (SELs) are associated with various endoscopic resection (ER) outcomes and diagnostic challenges. We aimed to establish a tool for predicting ER-related outcomes and diagnosing SELs and to investigate the predictive value of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS).
METHODS: Phase 1 (system development) was performed in a retrospective cohort (n = 837) who underwent EUS before ER for SELs at eight hospitals. Prediction models for five key outcomes were developed using logistic regression. Models with satisfactory internal validation performance were included in a mobile application system, SEL endoscopic resection predictor (SELERP). In Phase 2, the models were externally validated in a prospective cohort of 200 patients.
RESULTS: An SELERP was developed using EUS characteristics, which included 10 models for five key outcomes: post-ER ulcer management, short procedure time, long hospital stay, high medication costs, and diagnosis of SELs. In Phase 1, 10 models were derived and validated (C-statistics, 0.67-0.99; calibration-in-the-large, -0.14-0.10; calibration slopes, 0.92-1.08). In Phase 2, the derived risk prediction models showed convincing discrimination (C-statistics, 0.64-0.73) and calibration (calibration-in-the-large, -0.02-0.05; calibration slopes, 1.01-1.09) in the prospective cohort. The sensitivities and specificities of the five diagnostic models were 68.3-95.7% and 64.1-83.3%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: We developed and prospectively validated an application system for the prediction of ER outcomes and diagnosis of SELs, which could aid clinical decision-making and facilitate patient-physician consultation. EUS features significantly contributed to the prediction.
BACKGROUND: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, http://www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2000040118).

UNASSIGNED: Endoscopic resection (ER) is an emerging therapeutic alternative for subepithelial gastrointestinal lesions (SELs). We aimed to determine whether size, layer of origin, and histology based on endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and EUS-guided sampling (EUS-GS) influenced the outcomes and selection of patients for ER.
UNASSIGNED: We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent EUS, EUS-GS and resection of SELs from 2012-2019. Two pathologists reviewed the histology and layer of origin of all resected specimens, serving as the criterion for EUS accuracy.
UNASSIGNED: Seventy-three patients were included, of whom 59 (81%) were gastric SELs. Per EUS, median lesion size was 21 mm (interquartile range 15-32), and 63 (86%) originated from the 4th layer. The overall accuracy of EUS and EUS-GS in predicting the layer of origin and histology was 88% (95% confidence interval [CI] 77-94%) and 96% (95%CI 87-98%), respectively. Based on EUS, 18 (25%) patients were referred for ER, 5 (7%) to laparoscopic-endoscopic cooperative surgery, and 50 (68%) to surgery. Size >20 mm was associated with the type of resection approach (P=0.005), while layer of origin and histology were not (P=0.06 and P=0.09, respectively). When SELs were inaccurately classified (n=4) there were no adverse events or revision of the resection approach.
UNASSIGNED: EUS plays an important role in the outcome of resection approach for SELs, with size significantly influencing the selection for ER. In patients undergoing ER, no revised resections were needed when EUS was inaccurate.

Adequate tissue acquisition is important in making treatment decisions for patients with upper gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors (SETs). This study aimed to compare the outcomes of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) with those of the unroofing biopsy technique.
This study was a single-center, prospective comparative study conducted at Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine. A total of 39 patients with SETs ≥15 mm were enrolled between January 2016 and August 2017.
Of the 39 patients, 28 underwent biopsy with both techniques (4 underwent only unroofing and 7 underwent only EUS-FNB). Histological diagnosis was made with EUS-FNB in 64.3% and unroofing biopsy in 78.6% (p = 0.344), and immunohistochemical diagnosis was made with EUS-FNB in 46.4% and unroofing biopsy in 67.9% (p = 0.180). In the subgroup analysis (28 patients), there was no significant difference in diagnostic yield between the 2 methods The mean procedural time with EUS-FNB was shorter than that with unroofing biopsy (p < 0.001). The larger SET (≥ 20 mm) (p = 0.035) and satisfaction of procedure (p = 0.019) were positively associated with successful histological diagnosis by EUS-FNB.
There was no significant difference in the histological diagnostic yield for SETs between the EUS-FNB and unroofing biopsy techniques (CinicalTrials.gov. identifier NCT02646241).

UNASSIGNED: A new 20-gauge (G) biopsy needle with a core-trap technology has been developed with a large core size and enhanced flexibility. The aim of this multicenter study was to determine the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) with the new 20G needle in diagnosing subepithelial lesions (SELs).
UNASSIGNED: Retrospectively collected data from consecutive patients with SELs undergoing EUS-FNB with the 20G needle at five centers were analyzed.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 50 SELs were included. The mean lesion size was 43.1 ± 17.5 mm. The lesion locations were esophagus (n = 1), stomach (n = 37), distal duodenum (n = 5), rectum (n = 6), and colon (n = 1). The procedure was technically feasible in all patients. Definitive diagnosis with full histological assessment including immunohistochemistry was obtained in 88% (44/50) of the patients. Considering malignant versus benign lesions, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 85% (95% confidence interval [CI] 70.2-94.3), 100% (95% CI 58.7%-100%), 100% (95% CI 85.1%-100%), and 62.5 (95% CI 27.7-84.8), respectively. No major complications requiring additional care have been observed.
UNASSIGNED: In this multicenter study, we found that EUS-FNB with the new 20G core needle is an effective and safe method for the diagnosis of SELs with a high rate of producing adequate histological material and high diagnostic accuracy even from difficult-to-approach anatomical locations.

In a tertiary center setting we aimed to study the diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of EUS-guided biopsy sampling (EUS-FNB) with a reverse bevel needle compared with that of fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in the work-up of subepithelial lesions (SEL).
All patients presenting with SELs referred for EUS-guided sampling were prospectively included in 2012-2015. After randomization of the first pass modality, dual sampling with both EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA was performed in each lesion. Outcome measures in an intention-to-diagnose analysis were the diagnostic accuracy, technical failures, and adverse events. The clinical impact was measured as the performance of additional diagnostic procedures post-EUS and the rate of unwarranted resections compared with a reference cohort of SELs sampled in the same institution 2006-2011.
In 70 dual sampling procedures of unique lesions (size: 6-220 mm) the diagnostic sensitivity for malignancy and the overall accuracy of EUS-FNB was superior to EUS-FNA compared head-to-head (90 vs 52%, and 83 vs 49%, both p < 0.001). The adverse event rate of EUS-FNB was low (1.2%). EUS-FNB in 2012-2015 had a positive clinical impact in comparison with the reference cohort demonstrated by less cases referred for an additional diagnostic procedure, 12/83 (14%) vs 39/73 (53%), p < 0.001, and fewer unwarranted resections in cases subjected to surgery, 3/48 (6%) vs 12/35 (34%), p = 0.001.
EUS-FNB with a reverse bevel needle is safe and superior to EUS-FNA in providing a conclusive diagnosis of subepithelial lesions. This biopsy sampling approach facilitates a rational clinical management and accurate treatment.

BACKGROUND: Schwannomas are difficult to diagnose using imaging alone. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is an effective and safe tissue sampling technique. Nevertheless, few reports have described EUS-FNA for schwannoma.
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the efficacy of EUS-FNA for diagnosing schwannoma.
METHODS: This retrospective study examined six consecutive schwannoma patients who were diagnosed as having schwannoma either from EUS-FNA results or from surgically resected specimens. The primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA for schwannoma. The secondary endpoint was EUS-FNA safety.
RESULTS: Based on cytomorphologic features and immunocytochemistry results after EUS-FNA, 4 out of 6 patients (66.7%) were diagnosed with schwannoma. The diagnoses before EUS-FNA were the following: 3 cases of gastric subepithelial lesion (SEL, suspicious for gastrointestinal stromal tumor), 1 case of intraperitoneal tumor, 1 case of retroperitoneal tumor, and 1 case of pancreatic tumor, with sizes of 15-44 mm (median 36 mm). No case was diagnosed as schwannoma solely based on image findings. Two cases of gastric SELs could not be diagnosed as schwannoma by EUS-FNA before surgery. Inadequate sampling and a lack of additional material for immunohistochemical studies could have engendered less-definite diagnoses in those cases. No procedural adverse events occurred.
CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy rate of EUS-FNA for schwannoma is somewhat low. However, tissue samples were obtained safely using this method. Moreover, it is an important procedure for diagnosing schwannoma, which cannot be diagnosed solely from image findings.

An innovative ligation-assisted endoscopic enucleation (EE-L) technique was developed for the diagnosis and treatment of esophageal subepithelial lesions (smaller than 12 mm) originating from muscularis propria by combining endoscopic band ligation and endoscopic enucleation techniques. The aim of the study was to evaluate efficacy and safety of EE-L technique in the treatment of esophageal subepithelial lesions (smaller than 12 mm) originating from muscularis propria. Forty-seven esophageal subepithelial lesions (smaller than 12 mm) originating from the muscularis propria in 44 patients were treated with EE-L between September 2010 and September 2012. The lesion was first aspirated into the transparent cap attached to the tip of endoscope. The elastic band was then released around its base. The purpose of ligation was to force the lesion to assume a polypoid form with a pseudostalk. Endoscopic enucleation was then performed until the tumor was completely enucleated from muscularis propria using a hook knife and forceps. All tumors (median diameter: 8.2 ± 2.3 mm, range: 4-12 mm) were enucleated completely. Histopathology identified 45 tumors (95.7%) as leiomyoma, 2 (4.3%) tumors as gastrointestinal stromal tumor with very low risk. The mean time of the EE-L procedure was 12.5 ± 4.6 minutes (range: 6-23 minutes). Two patients experienced self-limiting, non-life-threatening hemorrhage after EE-L. No perforation and massive hemorrhage requiring further endoscopic or surgical intervention occurred. There were no recurrences during the 6-24 months follow-up period. EE-L offers the option of localized treatment of small esophageal muscularis propria tumors (smaller than 12 mm) with relatively few complications and low mortality, and provides the advantage of allowing a histopathological diagnosis. All the resected lesions in this study had a benign pathology.