Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Discrepancy in diagnosis of gastric submucosal tumor among esophagogastroduodenoscopy, CT, and endoscopic ultrasonography: a retrospective analysis of 93 consecutive cases

  • Published:
Abdominal Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Evidences on diagnostic ability of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), CT, and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for gastric submucosal tumor (SMT) are insufficient. For investigating a suitable diagnostic strategy, we retrospectively investigated diagnostic accuracy of EGD and CT for SMT, in comparison to EUS findings.

Methods

Ninety-three consecutive lesions in which gastric SMT was suspected by EGD were investigated by EUS from March 2009 to June 2011, including 55 lesions evaluated also by CT 4 months before or after EUS. Frequency of possibly malignant SMTs as a detection rate of EGD, and sensitivity and specificity of CT in detection of SMT were retrospectively analyzed. Factors influencing the ability for CT to detect SMT were also investigated.

Results

EUS revealed possibly malignant SMT in 60 cases (64.5%). In 32 out of 55 cases, possibly malignant SMT was suspected by CT. Sensitivity and specificity of CT was 80.6% and 84.2%, respectively. The mean size of possibly malignant SMT detected and not detected by CT was 27.4 and 11.0 mm, respectively, with a statistically significant difference (p = 0.0001).

Conclusion

This study elucidated that approximately one-third of suspected SMTs by EGD might not need clinical care. EUS for suspected SMTs is indispensable for extracting possibly malignant SMTs from others, and CT may be insufficient as an alternative to EUS in detecting especially small ones.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hedenbro JL, Ekelund M, Wetterberg P (1991) Endoscopic diagnosis of submucosal gastric lesions. The results after routine endoscopy. Surg Endosc 5:20–23

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Fletcher CDM, Bermann JJ, Corless C, et al. (2002) Diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a consensus approach. Hum Pathol 33:459–465

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Nilsson B, Bumming P, Meis-Kindblom JM, et al. (2005) Gastrointestinal stromal tumors: the incidence, prevalence, clinical course, and prognostication in the preimatinib mesylate era. A population-based study in western Sweden. Cancer 103:821–829

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Blay JY, Bonvalot S, Casali P, et al. (2005) Consensus meeting for the management of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Report of the GIST Consensus Conference of 20–21 March 2004, under the auspices of ESMO. Ann Oncol 16:566–578

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ponsaing LG, Kiss K, Loft A, Jensen LI, Hansen MB (2007) Diagnostic procedures for submucosal tumors in the gastrointestinal tract. World J Gastroenterol 13:3301–3310

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hoda KM, Rodriguez SA, Faigel DO (2009) EUS-guided sampling of suspected GI stromal tumors. Gastrointest Endosc 69:1218–1223

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sepe PS, Moparty B, Pitman MB, Saltzman JR, Brugge WR (2009) EUS-guided FNA for the diagnosis of GI stromal cell tumors: sensitivity and cytologic yield. Gastrointest Endosc 70:254–261

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mekky MA, Yamao K, Sawaki A, et al. (2010) Diagnostic utility of EUS-guided FNA in patients with gastric submucosal tumors. Gastrointest Endosc 71:913–919

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Oztas E, Oguz D, Kurt M, et al. (2011) Endosonographic evaluation of patients with suspected extraluminal compression or subepithelial lesions during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Eur J Gatroenterol Hepatol 23:586–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hwang JH, Saunders MD, Rulyak SJ, et al. (2005) A prospective study comparing endoscopy and EUS in the evaluation of GI subepithelial masses. Gastrointest Endosc 62:202–208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rösch T, Kapfer B, Will U, et al. (2002) Accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography in upper gastrointestinal submucosal lesions: a prospective multicenter study. Scand J Gastroenterol 7:856–862

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kang JH, Lim JS, Kim JH, et al. (2009) Role of EUS and MDCT in the diagnosis of gastric submucosal tumors according to the revised pathologic concept of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Eur Radiol 19:924–934

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chak A, Soweid A, Hoffman B, et al. (1998) Clinical implications of endoluminal ultrasonography using through-the-scope catheter probes. Gastrointest Endosc 48:485–490

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Lau S, Tam KF, Kam CK, et al. (2004) Imaging of gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST). Clin Radiol 59:487–498

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Karaca C, Turner BG, Cizginer S, Forcione D, Brugge W (2010) Accuracy of EUS in the evaluation of small gastric subepithelial lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 71:722–727

    Google Scholar 

  16. Miettinen M, Lasota J (2006) Gastrointestinal stromal tumors: pathology and prognosis at different site. Semin Diag Pathol 23:70–83

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Grant support

None.

Financial disclosure

There is no financial disclosure.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan

    Osamu Goto, Haruka Kambe, Satoshi Mochizuki, Itsuko Asada-Hirayama, Chihiro Minatsuki, Shinya Kodashima, Nobutake Yamamichi, Yutaka Yamaji & Kazuhiko Koike

  2. Department of Endoscopy and Endoscopic Surgery, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

    Keiko Niimi & Mitsuhiro Fujishiro

  3. Center for Preventive Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

    Satoshi Ono

Authors
  1. Osamu Goto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Haruka Kambe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Keiko Niimi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Satoshi Mochizuki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Itsuko Asada-Hirayama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Chihiro Minatsuki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Satoshi Ono
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Shinya Kodashima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Nobutake Yamamichi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Yutaka Yamaji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Mitsuhiro Fujishiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Kazuhiko Koike
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Osamu Goto.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Goto, O., Kambe, H., Niimi, K. et al. Discrepancy in diagnosis of gastric submucosal tumor among esophagogastroduodenoscopy, CT, and endoscopic ultrasonography: a retrospective analysis of 93 consecutive cases. Abdom Imaging 37, 1074–1078 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-012-9928-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-012-9928-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation