Gastroenterology
Volume 130, Issue 7 , Pages 2217-2228, June 2006

American Gastroenterological Association Institute Technical Review on the Management of Gastric Subepithelial Masses

  • Joo Ha Hwang
    • ,
  • Stephen D. Rulyak
    • ,
  • Michael B. Kimmey

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress requests for reprints to: Chair, Clinical Practice and Economics Committee, AGA Institute National Office, c/o Membership Department, 4930 Del Ray Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland 20814. Fax: (301) 654-5920.

Division of Gastroenterology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Article Outline

This literature review and the recommendations therein were prepared for the American Gastroenterological Association Institute Clinical Practice and Economics Committee. The paper was approved by the Committee on January 19, 2006, and by the AGA Institute Governing Board on April 20, 2006.

Abbreviations used in this paper: CT, computed tomography, ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection, ESMR, endoscopic submucosal resection, EUS, endoscopic ultrasonography, FNA, fine-needle aspiration, GIST, gastrointestinal stromal tumor, MRI, magnetic resonance imaging

 

Subepithelial mass lesions in the stomach are relatively common findings in patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. While such masses are often referred to as submucosal, these lesions are more correctly termed subepithelial because they may arise from layers of the gastric wall other than the histologic submucosa or from extrinsic compression of the stomach by a number of normal or abnormal intra-abdominal structures. In practice, the diagnostic evaluation and subsequent management of subepithelial masses varies considerably because approaches to these lesions are currently in evolution. The goal of the present review is to examine available evidence concerning the diagnosis and management of gastric subepithelial masses.

See CME Quiz on page 2208.

A literature review was conducted to identify all English-language articles relating to gastric subepithelial masses published between 1980 and 2005. A search of MEDLINE and PubMed was performed using the following key words: subepithelial tumor, subepithelial mass, submucosal tumor, or submucosal mass. The following terms were also searched to identify additional relevant articles: gastrointestinal stromal tumor, carcinoid, pancreatic rest, glomus tumor, inclusion cyst, duplication cyst, leiomyoma, leiomyosarcoma, lymphoma, lipoma, inflammatory fibroid polyp, and extraluminal compression. The reference lists of the articles identified in this manner were then manually searched to identify any additional references. References published only in abstract form were excluded. The present review concerns gastric subepithelial masses, and therefore articles concerned solely with subepithelial masses in other parts of the gastrointestinal tract were also excluded.

Back to Article Outline

Epidemiology 

The endoscopic appearance of a subepithelial lesion in the stomach is that of a mass, bulge, or impression visible within the gastric lumen that is covered by normal-appearing epithelium. While every endoscopist has encountered subepithelial lesions during endoscopy, the frequency of finding such lesions is likely to vary according to the size and location of the mass as well as the care taken during the endoscopic examination. The prevalence of subepithelial gastric masses on routine endoscopies is uncertain, although one retrospective study reported a prevalence of 0.36% during upper endoscopy performed between 1976 and 1984.1 No recent studies have identified the prevalence of gastric subepithelial masses on a population basis.

Back to Article Outline

Diagnostic Techniques 

Endoscopy 

The evaluation of subepithelial masses begins with the initial endoscopy. Features of subepithelial masses that can be assessed during endoscopy include an estimate of the size, shape, mobility, consistency (pillow sign, firm, cystic), pulsation, color, and mucosal appearance. In general, subepithelial masses have normal-appearing mucosa overlying the lesion, although erythema or inflammation on histologic examination of mucosal biopsy specimens unrelated to the underlying mass can be present. Furthermore, subepithelial lesions usually appear smooth with tapered margins along the edge of the lesion. However, it can be difficult to differentiate an intramural lesion from extramural compression with endoscopy alone. Two prospective studies have shown that the sensitivity and specificity of endoscopy to correctly differentiate an intramural lesion from extramural compression were between 89% and 98% and between 29% and 64%, respectively.2, 3

Probing of the subepithelial mass can be performed with closed biopsy forceps to determine its consistency. If there is any concern that the lesion is vascular or cystic, no biopsy specimens should be taken until the lesion has been evaluated with endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). However, the consistency of the mass can suggest a diagnosis. For example, a mobile mass that is soft and indents when depressed using biopsy forceps (pillow sign) is highly suggestive of a lipoma.2 Further evaluation is suggested for lesions that are firm and not consistent with either a cyst or a lipoma.

Endosonography 

EUS can reliably differentiate intramural lesions from extrinsic compression. Furthermore, EUS will often result in a specific diagnosis, especially if the lesion is due to extrinsic compression. If an intramural lesion is identified, EUS can be used to ascertain the exact size and layer of origin, as well as additional morphologic features that can suggest the diagnosis. On EUS, the mass can be either homogeneous or heterogeneous and can be hyperechoic, hypoechoic, or anechoic. Anechoic masses can also be interrogated with Doppler to assess for blood flow. EUS is also used to evaluate the margins of the mass to determine if they are smooth or irregular and whether the mass disrupts or distorts adjacent layers or organs. Small, well-circumscribed lesions are typically benign, whereas a lesion with irregular margins that invades into other layers or structures is more likely to represent a malignant process.4, 5 The features identified on EUS can then be used to determine if further tests such as endoscopic resection, fine-needle aspiration (FNA), or core biopsies are required.

EUS imaging of the gastrointestinal tract wall typically exhibits 5 distinct layers but can also exhibit 7 or 9 layers, depending on the region of the gastrointestinal tract being examined and the frequency of the ultrasound transducer. Initial interpretation of the EUS images assumed direct correspondence of the layers seen on EUS to those seen on histology. However, it was later proven that this was an incorrect interpretation of the EUS images of the gastrointestinal tract wall.6 In fact, it was shown that the 5 distinct layers seen on EUS imaging corresponded to the following: layer 1, interface echo between the superficial mucosa and the acoustic coupling medium; layer 2, deep mucosa; layer 3, submucosa plus the acoustic interface between the submucosa and muscularis propria; layer 4, muscularis propria minus the acoustic interface between the submucosa and muscularis propria; and layer 5, serosa and subserosal fat.

Cross-sectional Imaging (Computed Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging) 

Transabdominal ultrasonography, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings in patients with subepithelial masses have been the subjects of case reports and small case series. These imaging studies are most useful for defining the origin and extent of large extramural masses. Large lipomas can be detected on both CT and MRI by the characteristic density and magnetic resonance properties of fatty tissue.7 CT and MRI can image large gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) and are especially helpful in the evaluation for metastatic spread of malignant GISTs.8, 9 Unlike EUS, CT and MRI cannot identify the histologic layers of the gut wall and are therefore of limited value in distinguishing between the different causes of intramural masses.

Tissue Diagnosis 

Initial evaluation of subepithelial lesions with EUS helps identify those lesions where tissue diagnosis may be necessary. If a subepithelial lesion is found to be a hypoechoic mass in the third or fourth echo layer on EUS examination, then tissue sampling should be strongly considered to establish the diagnosis because malignant or potentially malignant lesions are included in the differential diagnosis and EUS findings have been shown to be insufficient to correctly establish the diagnosis.2 A preoperative tissue diagnosis may not be necessary for large and/or symptomatic lesions that require surgery irrespective of histology. The need to obtain tissue from small (<1 cm) hypoechoic masses of the gastric wall is controversial and has not been adequately studied but should be considered given the potential for malignant behavior of such lesions.

EUS-guided FNA 

EUS-guided FNA is commonly used to confirm the presence of malignancy in lymph nodes or organs adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract. EUS-guided FNA (typically with a 22-gauge needle) can be used to obtain a specimen for cytologic examination, and occasionally core tissue specimens, by directing the needle into the area of interest under direct ultrasound guidance.10, 11 Complications from EUS-guided FNA are rare but include perforation, infection, or hemorrhage.10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 An exception may be cyst aspiration, where infection has been reported to occur in up to 15% of cases, justifying the use of preprocedural antibiotic prophylaxis.17, 18 In reports in which prophylactic antibiotics were administered before aspiration of cysts, fewer infectious complications have been reported.14, 19

Cytology is most useful for distinguishing benign from malignant lesions but is less useful for determining the type of benign lesion present. Thus, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of cytologic evaluation of intramural lesions are low.11, 12, 20 The yield of EUS-guided FNA in the diagnosis of hypoechoic fourth-layer masses such as GISTs may be improved with the application of immunohistochemical analysis.11, 21, 22, 23 Common markers used to evaluate hypoechoic intramural masses are CD117 (c-kit), CD34, smooth muscle actin, and S100.23, 24 The c-kit protein is a transmembrane receptor with tyrosine kinase activity that is highly sensitive and specific for GISTs. CD34 is also expressed in approximately 80% of GISTs. Positive staining for smooth muscle actin suggests the presence of a leiomyoma or glomus tumor, and the presence of S100 suggests a neural origin or Schwannoma. A preliminary study by Ando et al21 suggested that immunohistochemical staining for Ki-67, a marker of cell proliferation, improved the ability to diagnose malignant GISTs. If this finding is confirmed, it would be a significant advance because the inability of EUS-guided FNA to accurately predict which GISTs have high potential for malignant behavior is currently a major limitation of this procedure.

EUS-guided core needle biopsy 

EUS-guided core needle biopsy using a 19-gauge Trucut needle (QuickCore; Wilson-Cook, Inc, Winston-Salem, NC) has been proposed as a method for obtaining sufficient tissue for histologic evaluation.25, 26 The Trucut needle provides a core of tissue that can be examined histologically for changes in tissue architecture in addition to the individual cell morphology scrutinized in the cytologic evaluation of FNA specimens. Initial experience using the Trucut biopsy needle in intramural lesions yielded the correct diagnosis in 4 of 5 cases compared with 1 of 5 cases using EUS-guided FNA.25 However, additional prospective studies are required to determine if EUS-guided core needle biopsy results in greater accuracy than EUS-guided FNA and to determine if complications are more frequent with this technique.

Stacked forceps biopsy 

Standard biopsy forceps are designed to sample primarily the mucosa, although submucosa is sometimes obtained. By taking multiple biopsy specimens of the same site using a jumbo forceps (interchangeably referred to as stacked, bite-on-bite, or tunneled biopsies), tissue from deeper layers of the gastric wall can be obtained. This technique appears to be safe with a relatively low risk of bleeding, although the diagnostic yield also appears to be limited. In one study, the diagnostic yield of stacked biopsies was 42% (15/36 lesions) and the complication rate was 2.8% (1/36 cases complicated by bleeding).27

Endoscopic submucosal resection and dissection 

The use of endoscopic submucosal resection (ESMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) to resect submucosal lesions is another technique to obtain tissue specimens for accurate histologic diagnosis.27, 28, 29, 30, 31 This technique provides greater yield than stacked biopsies but has not been compared with either EUS-guided FNA or EUS-guided core needle biopsy. ESMR and ESD are usually reserved for lesions that are confined to the submucosal or deep mucosal layers due to the increased risk of perforation associated with endoscopic resection of lesions from the muscularis propria; however, there are some small case series in the literature of endoscopic resection of lesions arising from the muscularis propria with no associated perforations.27, 28 Given that the perforation rate for ESMR of submucosal lesions is reported to be 2%–3%, it is likely that endoscopic resection of lesions from the muscularis propria will be similar if not higher.22 Bleeding, both during the procedure and delayed, is a significant complication that can occur with all endoscopic resection techniques.

Back to Article Outline

Differential Diagnosis 

The differential diagnosis of a gastric subepithelial mass depends on whether the lesion represents compression from a normal or abnormal structure adjacent to the gastric wall or if it originates from the wall itself. A brief description of lesions in the differential diagnosis of subepithelial lesions is presented with a description of the corresponding findings on EUS examination and additional methods that can be used to obtain tissue to establish the diagnosis. The differential diagnoses for intramural causes of gastric subepithelial masses are presented as benign lesions or lesions that are malignant or have malignant potential (Table 1).

Table 1. Differential Diagnosis of Intramural Gastric Subepithelial Masses Based on EUS Features
Subepithelial lesionEUS layeraEchogenicity
Benign
Leiomyoma2, 3 or 4Hypoechoic
Neural origin tumors
Schwannoma3 or 4Hypoechoic
Neuroma
Neurofibroma
Lipoma3Intensely hyperechoic
Duplication cystAny or extramuralAnechoic
Pancreatic rest2 or 3Hypoechoic
Inflammatory fibroid polyp3 or 4Hyperechoic
Granular cell tumor2 or 3Hypoechoic
Varices2 or 3Anechoic
Malignant or with malignant potential
GIST4 (rarely 2 or 3)Hypoechoic
Lymphoma2, 3 or 4Hypoechoic
Carcinoid2 or 3Hypoechoic
Metastatic carcinomaAnyHypoechoic
Glomus tumor3 or 4Hypoechoic

aLayer 1 is the interface of luminal fluid and mucosa, layer 2 represents the deep mucosa, layer 3 is largely due to the submucosa, layer 4 represents the muscularis propria, and layer 5 is adventitia or serosa with adjacent fatty or fibrous tissue.

Extramural Lesions 

The most common source of extraluminal compression in the stomach is from the spleen and splenic vessels.2, 3, 32 Other sources of extraluminal compression include normal abdominal structures such as the left lobe of the liver, gallbladder, colon, and pancreas. In addition, pathologic lesions such as tumors, abscesses, pancreatic pseudocysts, renal cysts, aneurysms, and enlarged lymph nodes can appear as gastric subepithelial lesions on endoscopy.

Benign Intramural Lesions 

The differential diagnosis for intramural causes of gastric subepithelial masses can be divided into benign lesions or lesions that are malignant or have malignant potential.

Lipoma 

Gastric lipomas are a rare cause of gastric subepithelial masses, accounting for <1% of gastric intramural lesions.33 Gastric lipomas are benign, slow-growing lesions; however, they can cause significant clinical symptoms such as bleeding caused by ulceration, obstruction from intussusception into the pylorus or duodenal bulb, and abdominal pain.7, 33, 34 Lipomas present typically as solitary lesions; however, multiple lipomas of the stomach and duodenum have been reported.35 On endoscopy, lipomas can have a yellow hue, often exhibit a pillow sign when probed with closed biopsy forceps, and may also exhibit some mobility. A recent study showed that the pillow sign had 98% specificity but only 40% sensitivity in identifying lipomas.2 The finding of an intensely hyperechoic well-circumscribed mass arising from the submucosal wall layer on EUS examination is essentially diagnostic for a lipoma, and no further evaluation is needed in such cases.

Leiomyoma 

Leiomyomas are smooth muscle tumors that arise from either the muscularis mucosae or muscularis propria within the wall of the gastrointestinal tract and are benign tumors composed of well-differentiated smooth muscle cells. True leiomyomas are rarely found in the stomach, although case reports are abundant in the older literature because tumors that are now classified as GISTs were often misclassified as leiomyomas or leiomyosarcomas. With new immunohistochemical methods, it is clear that tumors of smooth muscle origin, as identified by positive staining for α–smooth muscle actin and desmin and negative staining for CD117, CD34, and S100 protein, are rare in the stomach. A recent study that examined archived histologic slides of more than 500 gastrointestinal mesenchymal tumors previously classified as smooth muscle tumors showed that most were actually GISTs with the exception of masses in the esophagus, where true leiomyomas were more common.36 In this relatively large study, no gastric leiomyomas were identified. In another retrospective study of gastric spindle cell tumors, 2 of 17 tumors were identified as leiomyomas.21 Leiomyomas appear as hypoechoic, well-circumscribed masses arising from the muscularis propria or the muscularis mucosae on EUS examination.

Varices 

Gastric varices can have the appearance of a subepithelial mass or large gastric fold on endoscopy.37 Gastric varices should be suspected in patients with portal hypertension (end-stage liver disease, Budd–Chiari syndrome, portal vein thrombosis, and so on) and in patients with splenic vein thrombosis, typically due to pancreatitis, that result in isolated gastric varices. Endoscopic examination may reveal the presence of portal hypertensive gastropathy, and probing with closed biopsy forceps may reveal a soft consistency to the lesion. Closely examining the color of the lesion for a blue hue can also suggest that the lesion may be a varix. If these features are present, biopsy specimens should not be obtained and EUS examination should be performed to confirm that the lesion is a varix. EUS examination will show a round or tubular hypoechoic or anechoic structure located in the submucosa (third layer), and Doppler examination will demonstrate flow within the structure.

Pancreatic rest 

A pancreatic rest or heterotopic pancreatic tissue is the presence of ectopic pancreatic tissue within the wall of the stomach, typically in the gastric antrum, and usually within the submucosal layer.38 Although they generally do not cause symptoms, pancreatic rests have been reported to present with nausea, epigastric pain, weight loss, hematemesis, and gastric outlet obstruction.38, 39 In addition, there are rare case reports of heterotopic pancreatic tissue that have undergone malignant change.40, 41, 42, 43, 44 On endoscopy, a pancreatic rest commonly exhibits an umbilication on the surface of the nodule, although the specificity of this finding is not known. On EUS examination, a pancreatic rest will appear hypoechoic relative to the surrounding submucosal layer with a heterogeneous echotexture. Because the differential diagnosis for hypoechoic third-layer lesions includes potentially malignant lesions, tissue sampling to establish the diagnosis is necessary. Cap-assisted ESMR has been reported as a potential endoscopic method of obtaining an adequate histologic sample to diagnose a pancreatic rest.45

Duplication cyst 

Gastrointestinal duplication cysts are benign lesions that result from an error in the embryonic development of the foregut and are primarily diagnosed in the pediatric population.46, 47 Duplication cysts in adults are often found incidentally and are usually asymptomatic. The cysts are located either within or adjacent to the wall of the gastrointestinal tract and are lined with gastrointestinal epithelium.48 Because duplication cysts generally do not communicate with the gastrointestinal lumen, they can enlarge, resulting in mass effect, rupture, or bleeding.46, 49, 50 The diagnosis of a gastric duplication cyst can easily be made using EUS, which will show an anechoic, smooth, spherical, or tubular structure with a well-defined wall.51, 52 If the cystic structure is adjacent to the pancreas, EUS/FNA can be performed to sample the fluid contents of the cyst to rule out a pancreatic pseudocyst or a pancreatic cystic neoplasm.53

Inflammatory fibroid polyp 

Gastric inflammatory fibroid polyps are rare benign lesions in the stomach that are characterized histologically by fibrous tissue that is not encapsulated. In addition, there are commonly many small blood vessels and an eosinophilic inflammatory infiltrate.54, 55 On EUS examination, the polyps are located in the deep mucosal or submucosal layers without involvement of the muscularis propria.55 They are typically hypoechoic with a homogeneous echotexture and indistinct margins. Occasionally they will appear slightly hyperechoic, which corresponds histologically with multiple small penetrating vessels within the fibrous stroma of the polyp.55

Malignant and Potentially Malignant Intramural Lesions 

GIST 

GISTs are the most commonly identified intramural subepithelial mass in the upper gastrointestinal tract, and some controversy exists regarding the diagnosis and management of these tumors. It is believed that 5000–6000 new cases of GIST are diagnosed each year, with 10%–30% being malignant.56 Most patients are in their fifth or sixth decade of life at the time of diagnosis, and the most common location of GISTs is the stomach.24, 56 GISTs were once believed to represent smooth muscle tumors (leiomyomas and leiomyosarcomas); however, they are now believed to arise from the interstitial cells of Cajal and can be identified using immunohistochemistry for expression of CD117, which is also known as c-kit protein (a cell membrane receptor with tyrosine kinase activity). Due to this recent change in classification, the older literature may be confusing and must be considered in light of this new information. A study of archived histologic slides of masses previously classified as smooth muscle tumors showed that most were actually GISTs with the exception of masses in the esophagus, where true leiomyomas were more common.36

GISTs most commonly arise from the muscularis propria and are usually asymptomatic until the tumor becomes large or ulcerates, resulting in bleeding. EUS examination of a GIST shows a hypoechoic mass with a homogeneous echotexture that is contiguous with the muscularis propria (fourth EUS layer). Findings on EUS of a mass diameter >3 cm, irregular extraluminal border, cystic spaces, echogenic foci (heterogenous echotexture), and adjacent malignant-appearing lymph nodes are features that can suggest malignancy4, 5; however, even small GISTs have malignant potential and have been reported to metastasize.57, 58, 59 Unfortunately, EUS findings do not accurately predict the malignant potential of a small GIST and histologic examination is necessary. There are reports of new techniques using EUS-guided FNA or core needle biopsies that may be helpful in determining the malignant potential of a GIST without having to perform surgical resection; however, studies examining their clinical utility in large numbers of patients have yet to be reported.10, 21, 60

Carcinoid tumor 

Gastric carcinoid tumors are neuroendocrine tumors that originate from enterochromaffin-like cells located in the gastric mucosa. Carcinoid tumors can be solitary or multiple, the latter usually occurring in the setting of hypergastrinemia due to gastrinoma or autoimmune atrophic gastritis. Carcinoid tumors originate in the mucosal layer and can invade into deeper structures of the gastrointestinal tract wall.61 The biologic behavior appears to be different between solitary gastric carcinoids and multiple gastric carcinoids due to hypergastrinemia; solitary gastric carcinoids exhibit a greater potential for malignancy and metastasis to local lymph nodes and the liver.62, 63, 64 On endoscopy, carcinoids typically appear as polypoid lesions with normal-appearing overlying mucosa.65 EUS examination of a carcinoid tumor will show a hypoechoic lesion, typically originating from the deep mucosa or submucosa (second or third EUS layer), and can be useful in identifying the depth of invasion of the carcinoid tumor.66 Furthermore, EUS can be used to assess for possible local lymph node metastasis.

Lymphoma 

Primary gastric lymphomas are typically either diffuse large B-cell lymphomas or low-grade B-cell mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphomas.67, 68 In addition, disseminated nodal disease can secondarily involve the gastrointestinal tract.69 Endoscopically, gastric lymphomas can present as an ulcerated polypoid mass, thickened gastric folds, or subepithelial mass. Because gastric lymphomas typically involve the deep mucosa, standard biopsy specimens usually provide sufficient tissue to make the diagnosis. EUS of primary gastric lymphoma typically shows a hypoechoic lesion that can be localized to the second and third layers of the gastric wall or extend through the entire wall.70 EUS can also be used to assess for local lymph node involvement, and EUS-guided FNA can be used to obtain tissue for flow cytometry to establish the diagnosis.71, 72

Glomus tumor 

Glomus tumors originate from modified vascular smooth muscle cells and usually occur in peripheral soft tissue but can also occur in the gastrointestinal tract, typically the stomach.73, 74 These lesions are usually benign, but they have potential for malignant behavior and can also present with ulceration and hemorrhage. In a retrospective study of 31 gastric glomus tumors, Miettinen et al reported that all but one tumor exhibited benign behavior; however, one patient died due to liver metastases of the glomus tumor.73 EUS will show a hypoechoic, well-circumscribed mass located in the third and/or fourth EUS layer; however, EUS findings are insufficient to establish the diagnosis and cannot be used to predict the malignant potential of the tumor.75 EUS-guided FNA has been reported to successfully diagnose glomus tumors using cytologic and immunohistochemical analysis. Immunohistochemical staining will show positivity for smooth muscle actin and vimentin while being negative for CD117 (c-kit) staining, which helps to differentiate these lesions from GISTs.73, 76

Metastasis 

Metastatic spread of malignancies to the gastric wall is extremely rare; however, various malignancies have potential to metastasize to the gastric wall, including malignant melanoma as well as carcinomas of the breast, lung, kidney, and ovaries.77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82 EUS examination of most metastatic lesions will show a hypoechoic lesion that can be in any layer of the gastric wall. EUS-guided FNA can be performed to obtain tissue to establish the diagnosis of metastasis to the gastric wall.81

Back to Article Outline

Management 

The management of gastric subepithelial lesions depends on the diagnosis determined using the findings at endoscopy, EUS, and biopsy. Many benign gastric subepithelial masses, including lipomas, varices, pancreatic rests, duplication cysts, and extramural compression from normal structures, require no further evaluation or follow-up. The management of frankly malignant lesions is also straightforward in that all such lesions require complete removal by either surgical or endoscopic resection. However, many gastric subepithelial masses, including GISTs and some carcinoid tumors, may not be malignant at diagnosis but have potential for malignant behavior. The management of this category of gastric subepithelial lesions is controversial and often based on limited data and/or clinical experience. While a comprehensive review of the management of all the lesions that can present as a gastric subepithelial mass is beyond the scope of this review, strategies for observation versus surgical or endoscopic resection are discussed, with particular attention to GISTs and carcinoid tumors.

Management of GISTs 

The clinical behavior of GISTs is quite variable and can be difficult to predict on the basis of available clinical and histologic features. Nonetheless, a consensus conference has proposed a strategy for predicting malignant behavior of GISTs based on size (<2 cm, 2–5 cm, 5–10 cm, >10 cm) and mitotic count on histology (<5, 6–10, or >10 per 50 high-power field), with the understanding that no GIST can be defined as benign on the basis of currently available diagnostic testing.24 It should be noted that this method for predicting the malignant potential of GISTs requires a surgical specimen to determine the mitotic count and therefore cannot be determined preoperatively. EUS criteria, including size (>3 cm), irregularity of the extraluminal border, and the presence of cystic spaces, echogenic foci, and heterogeneity, have also been associated with an increased likelihood of malignant behavior of GISTs, although the sensitivity and specificity of these criteria are imperfect and there is also considerable interobserver variability in interpretation of these findings.4, 5 Moreover, the natural history of GISTs is incompletely defined, and the potential for malignant behavior of even small lesions exists.21, 57, 58, 59

The optimal management of these lesions remains controversial. All GISTs have malignant potential according to the classification system proposed by the National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference24; however, the absolute potential for malignancy and metastasis appears to be very low, especially for small (<3 cm) lesions. Because surgery is the current standard of care for resecting GIST lesions, there is debate as to whether the potential morbidity and mortality associated with surgical resection are acceptable for removing a lesion with low potential for malignancy. Given the lack of sufficient evidence to guide management, we recommend that this decision be made on an individual basis, taking into consideration the clinical presentation (eg, symptoms, comorbidities), endoscopic and EUS evaluation, histologic evaluation (if obtained), and patient preference. Only prospective studies with long-term follow-up will identify the appropriate management strategy for GISTs.

Management of Carcinoid Tumors 

Gastric carcinoids are believed to arise from enterochromaffin-like cells in the gastric mucosa, and clinical behavior can vary considerably. On the basis of clinical behavior and pathologic features, 3 distinct types of gastric carcinoids have been proposed.63 Type 1 carcinoids are the most common, encompassing approximately 65% of gastric carcinoids, and are associated with hypergastrinemia in the setting of chronic atrophic gastritis.83 Type 2 carcinoids arise in the setting of hypergastrinemia associated with a gastrinoma in patients with Zollinger–Ellison syndrome and multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. Gastric carcinoids that arise in the setting of hypergastrinemia (type 1 and type 2) are generally believed to have a favorable prognosis and rarely become locally invasive or metastatic. This is particularly true for type 1 lesions, where 5-year survival exceeds 95%.83 Type 3 or sporadic carcinoids are less frequently identified (21% of gastric carcinoids) and arise in the setting of normal serum gastrin levels.63 In contrast to type 1 carcinoids, up to one half of type 3 carcinoids will become locally invasive or metastatic. While the risk of metastasis is believed to be associated with size, there are reports of even small gastric carcinoids metastasizing to lymph nodes.84 Therefore, recommended management of type 3 carcinoids in an otherwise healthy individual is aggressive surgical resection.83 More conservative management of type 1 and 2 carcinoids can be considered, although many authorities recommend endoscopic excision of small (<1–2 cm) gastric carcinoids if feasible followed by endoscopic surveillance.85 Others have reported that reduction in antral G-cell mass via antrectomy can result in regression of carcinoids associated with hypergastrinemia and may be the optimal treatment for multiple large carcinoids that are symptomatic due to bleeding or obstruction.86

Management Strategies 

Surveillance 

When a subepithelial lesion is believed to be neither benign nor clearly malignant or premalignant or if a patient with a premalignant lesion is deemed to be at excessive operative risk, surveillance may be indicated. This is often the case with third- and fourth-layer hypoechoic masses where tissue sampling (ESMR or FNA) is not technically feasible or is not diagnostic. Such lesions are most likely GISTs. Moreover, if such lesions are small (<3 cm) and no concerning endosonographic features are present, such as irregularity of the extraluminal border or presence of cystic spaces, echogenic foci, or heterogeneity, then surveillance may be considered with the understanding that no GIST can be confirmed to be benign. Only one small series of endosonographic follow-up in this setting has been published.87 In this series, which included follow-up for a mean of 19 months, 24 of 25 lesions (96%) remained stable with regard to both size and echo features, whereas one lesion increased from 30 to 38 mm and became irregular and inhomogeneous during follow-up. This lesion was subsequently identified to be a GIST with high malignant potential at resection. Therefore, if surveillance of a premalignant lesion is undertaken, it should be done so after thorough discussion with the patient.

If surveillance is selected, there may be alternatives to performing EUS to evaluate for a change in the lesions. Several articles have reported on the use of transabdominal ultrasonography for the examination of lesions arising in the gastric wall.88, 89, 90 While transabdominal ultrasonography is less invasive than EUS, it must be emphasized that not all lesions arising in the gastric wall can be visualized by transabdominal ultrasonography; published series have reported that rates of adequate visualization for surveillance range from 69% to 93%. Polkowski et al have reported than visualization with transabdominal ultrasonography in this setting is inversely proportional to the size of the mass in the gastric wall, with only 61% and 50% visualization for lesions <30 mm and <10 mm, respectively.90 Therefore, those lesions that are most likely to be considered for surveillance are also those that may be most difficult to visualize with transabdominal ultrasonography. Another alternative to surveillance with EUS may be to follow lesion size alone using gastroscopy with comparison to a size reference such as a biopsy forceps. Hwang et al have reported good correlation between endoscopic evaluation of size with a standard reference (open biopsy forceps) compared with EUS measurement of size.2 This may have particular utility in settings where EUS is not readily available.

Surgical resection 

Treatment of GISTs >3 cm, selected gastric carcinoids, and other malignant or premalignant lesions should be complete removal of the lesion. In addition, lesions in which the malignant potential cannot be determined by less invasive means may also require surgical excision for diagnosis. While a complete review of surgical approaches to subepithelial masses in the stomach is beyond the scope of this review, indications and an overview of techniques are briefly discussed.

For GISTs, local resection with clear margins appears to be adequate and neither wide histologic margins nor lymph node dissection appear to be necessary.91 Similarly, local excision appears to be adequate for removal of type 1 and type 2 carcinoid tumors, although the need for resection of these lesions is somewhat uncertain.83, 85 In contrast, type 3 gastric carcinoids appear to have much greater potential for aggressive behavior, and partial or total gastrectomy with lymph node dissection is required in such cases.85

Traditionally, surgical resection of most malignant and premalignant subepithelial gastric masses has been accomplished by complete local resection using an open surgical approach. However, there are now numerous case series describing the use of laparoscopic92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98 or combined laparoscopic/endoscopic99, 100 approaches for resection of gastric subepithelial lesions. These series report high success rates usually in excess of 90% among well-selected patients with low rates of complications and shorter hospital stays compared with traditional open resections. However, it must be noted that the length of follow-up in many of the studies of laparoscopic resection is limited, and rates of local recurrence in reported case series of laparoscopic resection of GISTs range from 0% to 30%. Whether the rate of local recurrence differs between minimally invasive and open approaches cannot be determined with certainty from the available literature because no prospective, randomized comparison has been published to date. Despite this, minimally invasive approaches are becoming the standard of care for the surgical resection of GISTs and other mass lesions arising in the gastric wall.

Endoscopic resection 

Endoscopic resection of mucosal lesions is a common practice among gastroenterologists, but resection of lesions arising in deeper layers of the gastric wall is less commonly practiced owing to the more technically demanding nature of such procedures and the higher rate of complications, including bleeding and perforation.27 However, endoscopic resection of lesions arising in both the submucosa and muscularis propria has been described and is increasingly performed, particularly in Asian centers. It must be emphasized that characterization of the layer of origin with EUS is necessary before proceeding with attempted endoscopic resection because the risk of the procedure is directly related to the depth of the tumor within the gastric wall.

Case reports of endoscopic resection of lesions in the submucosal layer date back to the early 1990s.101, 102 Early series of endoscopic submucosal resection primarily included esophageal, small intestinal, and colonic lesions, although more recent series have included increasing numbers of gastric lesions. One early series consisted of 62 patients with esophageal submucosal lesions ranging in size from 0.6 to 7.5 cm.28 In this series, lesions <2 cm in diameter were removed by standard snare polypectomy and those ≥2 cm were removed by stripping of the overlying mucosa followed by enucleation with a snare and electrocoagulation electrode. The investigators reported complete excision of the esophageal submucosal lesions with no perforations and 3 patients who required endoscopic therapy for bleeding. Another series included 45 patients with submucosal tumors in various parts of the gastrointestinal tract that were resected with a polypectomy snare with or without assistance of a grasping forceps using a double-channel endoscope. This series reported complete resection of all lesions with no perforations and only 5 patients with mild or moderate bleeding that was controlled endoscopically.103 Kojima et al reported their experience with endoscopic submucosal resection of 31 submucosal tumors (14 gastric) with snare electrocautery and a grasping forceps via double-channel endoscope with no perforations and a 9% bleeding rate.29 In this same series, forceps biopsy of lesions arising in the submucosa was accomplished following resection of the overlying mucosa and submucosa by the same technique. Another series included 27 submucosal lesions (4 gastric) in which attempted removal with either snare and grasping forceps technique or cap-assisted technique was successful in 93% of cases with no complications.30 One case report has reported the adjunctive use of band ligation before submucosal resection.104

Endoscopic resection of lesions arising in the muscularis propria has also been reported in several small case series. Spinelli et al reported on the endoscopic resection of 7 gastric leiomyomas using a polypectomy snare with no major complications.105 Sun et al reported a series of endoscopic resections of subepithelial lesions, including several lesions arising in the muscularis propria.31 In this series, EUS was first used to inject saline into the submucosa. Lesions arising in the submucosa were then directly removed with a polypectomy snare, whereas tumors arising in the muscularis propria were removed via enucleation with a polypectomy snare after the overlying mucosa and submucosa were removed with a needle knife. Six submucosal tumors and 9 tumors in the muscularis mucosae were removed, with no perforations and 2 patients requiring endoscopic hemostasis for bleeding. Most lesions removed in this series were classified as leiomyomas, with no distinction made between GISTs and leiomyomas.

One recent study has also reported the use of band ligation for the treatment of lesions arising in the muscularis propria after EUS with FNA or stacked forceps biopsy specimens were used to make a histologic diagnosis.106 In this study of 64 upper gastrointestinal leiomyomas (14 gastric), bands were placed and lesions allowed to slough over time with success rates of 100% in the esophagus and duodenum and 75% in the stomach. It should be noted that this study did not evaluate these fourth-layer hypoechoic masses for c-kit, although it is likely that many of these lesions were GISTs. Most of the lesions treated in this series were small (<1–2 cm), and a disadvantage of this technique is that complete histologic evaluation of the lesions was not possible because the masses were not removed but rather allowed to slough into the lumen and pass through the gastrointestinal tract.

A newer technique for endoscopic resection of subepithelial tumors involves the use of an insulated-tip electrosurgical knife, which was initially developed for the endoscopic resection of early-stage gastric cancer. Park et al reported the use of the insulated-tip electrosurgical knife for the resection of 5 esophageal and 10 gastric tumors, including 11 cases in which the tumor arose from the muscularis propria.107 Complications included bleeding in one patient and perforation in one patient, both of which were managed with placement of endoscopic clips. Rösch et al have recently reported their experience with the combined use of suction cap ESMR and insulated-tip electrosurgical knife resection in 12 patients with tumors localized to the submucosa by EUS.108 In this series, the complete removal rate was reported to be 79%, with one perforation and one clinically significant bleeding event occurring in these patients.

In all case series of endoscopic resection of gastric subepithelial lesions, it must be emphasized that follow-up was limited and studies have not included examination of surgical or autopsy specimens to confirm completeness of resection. The clinical importance of complete resection of gastric subepithelial masses is currently unknown, although the premalignant nature of many of these lesions should warrant complete removal until data to the contrary are available. Moreover, while reported complication rates are relatively low, they are significantly greater than the risks associated with other endoscopic procedures such as polypectomy and complication rates are likely to be higher among less experienced operators.

Ablation 

A single case report has described the use of 95% ethanol to ablate a gastric GIST.109 In this report, injection of ethanol into a 4-cm GIST under EUS guidance resulted in successful ablation of the tumor with no evidence of residual GIST at follow-up EUS 2 years after treatment. Whether the use of ethanol or other ablative therapies can be used for successful ablation of premalignant subepithelial lesions requires prospective study.

Back to Article Outline

Conclusions 

Identifying a subepithelial mass during endoscopy is common. Further evaluation with EUS allows for improved characterization of subepithelial lesions, aiding the clinician in narrowing the differential diagnosis; however, the specificity of EUS imaging findings alone has been disappointing. It must be emphasized that despite the lack of specificity of EUS in diagnosing the etiology of subepithelial lesions, it remains the best test for determining the need for further evaluation, endoscopic resection, or surgery. Obtaining tissue using EUS-guided FNA or endoscopic submucosal resection is often necessary to establish the diagnosis and direct further patient management. The literature is abundant with case reports on endoscopic management of subepithelial masses; however, further investigation is needed to better define the optimal management of patients with GISTs and those with indeterminate lesions.

Back to Article Outline

 

The Clinical Practice and Economics Committee acknowledges the following individuals whose critiques of this review paper provided valuable guidance to the authors: Manoop Bhutani, MD, Doug Faigel, MD, and Michael B. Wallace, MD.

Back to Article Outline

References 

  1. Hedenbro JL, Ekelund M, Wetterberg P. Endoscopic diagnosis of submucosal gastric lesions. The results after routine endoscopy. Surg Endosc. 1991;5:20–23
  2. Hwang JH, Saunders MD, Rulyak SJ, Shaw S, Nietsch H, Kimmey MB. A prospective study comparing endoscopy and EUS in the evaluation of GI subepithelial masses. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;62:202–208
  3. Rösch T, Kapfer B, Will U, Baronius W, Strobel M, Lorenz R, et al. Accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography in upper gastrointestinal submucosal lesions (a prospective multicenter study). Scand J Gastroenterol. 2002;37:856–862
  4. Chak A, Canto MI, Rösch T, Dittel HJ, Hawes RH, Tio TL, et al. Endosonographic differentiation of benign and malignant stromal cell tumors. Gastrointest Endosc. 1997;45:468–472
  5. Palazzo L, Landi B, Cellier C, Cuillerier E, Roseau G, Barbier JP. Endosonographic features predictive of benign and malignant gastrointestinal stromal cell tumours. Gut. 2000;46:88–92
  6. Kimmey MB, Martin RW, Haggitt RC, Wang KY, Franklin DW, Silverstein FE. Histologic correlates of gastrointestinal ultrasound images. Gastroenterology. 1989;96:433–441
  7. Thompson WM, Kende AI, Levy AD. Imaging characteristics of gastric lipomas in 16 adult and pediatric patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181:981–985
  8. Hasegawa S, Semelka RC, Noone TC, Woosley JT, Marcos HB, Kenney PJ, et al. Gastric stromal sarcomas (correlation of MR imaging and histopathologic findings in nine patients). Radiology. 1998;208:591–595
  9. Scatarige JC, Fishman EK, Jones B, Cameron JL, Sanders RC, Siegelman SS. Gastric leiomyosarcoma (CT observations). J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1985;9:320–327
  10. Matsui M, Goto H, Niwa Y, Arisawa T, Hirooka Y, Hayakawa T. Preliminary results of the needle aspiration biopsy histology in upper gastrointestinal submucosal tumors. Endoscopy. 1998;30:750–755
  11. Gu M, Ghafari S, Nguyen PT, Lin F. Cytologic diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors of the stomach by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (cytomorphologic and immunohistochemical study of 12 cases). Diagn Cytopathol. 2001;25:343–350
  12. Williams DB, Sahai AV, Aabakken L, Penman ID, Van VA, Webb J, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration biopsy (a large single centre experience). Gut. 1999;44:720–726
  13. Affi A, Vazquez-Sequeiros E, Norton ID, Clain JE, Wiersema MJ. Acute extraluminal hemorrhage associated with EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (frequency and clinical significance). Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;53:221–225
  14. O’Toole D, Palazzo L, Arotcarena R, Dancour A, Aubert A, Hammel P, et al. Assessment of complications of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;53:470–474
  15. Barawi M, Gottlieb K, Cunha B, Portis M, Gress F. A prospective evaluation of the incidence of bacteremia associated with EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;53:189–192
  16. Levy MJ, Norton ID, Wiersema MJ, Schwartz DA, Clain JE, Vazquez-Sequeiros E, et al. Prospective risk assessment of bacteremia and other infectious complications in patients undergoing EUS-guided FNA. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;57:672–678
  17. Wildi SM, Hoda RS, Fickling W, Schmulewitz N, Varadarajuluy S, Roberts SS, et al. Diagnosis of benign cysts of the mediastinum (the role and risks of EUS and FNA). Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;58:362–368
  18. Wiersema MJ, Vilmann P, Giovannini M, Chang KJ, Wiersema LM. Endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (diagnostic accuracy and complication assessment). Gastroenterology. 1997;112:1087–1095
  19. Lee LS, Saltzman JR, Bounds BC, Poneros JM, Brugge WR, Thompson CC. EUS-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic cysts (a retrospective analysis of complications and their predictors). Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;3:231–236
  20. Wiersema MJ, Wiersema LM, Khusro Q, Cramer HM, Tao LC. Combined endosonography and fine-needle aspiration cytology in the evaluation of gastrointestinal lesions. Gastrointest Endosc. 1994;40:199–206
  21. Ando N, Goto H, Niwa Y, Hirooka Y, Ohmiya N, Nagasaka T, et al. The diagnosis of GI stromal tumors with EUS-guided fine needle aspiration with immunohistochemical analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;55:37–43
  22. Hunt GC, Rader AE, Faigel DO. A comparison of EUS features between CD-117 positive GI stromal tumors and CD-117 negative GI spindle cell tumors. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;57:469–474
  23. Stelow EB, Stanley MW, Mallery S, Lai R, Linzie BM, Bardales RH. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration findings of gastrointestinal leiomyomas and gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Am J Clin Pathol. 2003;119:703–708
  24. Fletcher CD, Berman JJ, Corless C, Gorstein F, Lasota J, Longley BJ, et al. Diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (a consensus approach). Hum Pathol. 2002;33:459–465
  25. Levy MJ, Jondal ML, Clain J, Wiersema MJ. Preliminary experience with an EUS-guided trucut biopsy needle compared with EUS-guided FNA. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;57:101–106
  26. Wiersema MJ, Levy MJ, Harewood GC, Vazquez-Sequeiros E, Jondal ML, Wiersema LM. Initial experience with EUS-guided trucut needle biopsies of perigastric organs. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;56:275–278
  27. Hunt GC, Smith PP, Faigel DO. Yield of tissue sampling for submucosal lesions evaluated by EUS. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;57:68–72
  28. Hyun JH, Jeen YT, Chun HJ, Lee HS, Lee SW, Song CW, et al. Endoscopic resection of submucosal tumor of the esophagus (results in 62 patients). Endoscopy. 1997;29:165–170
  29. Kojima T, Takahashi H, Parra-Blanco A, Kohsen K, Fujita R. Diagnosis of submucosal tumor of the upper GI tract by endoscopic resection. Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;50:516–522
  30. Waxman I, Saitoh Y, Raju GS, Watari J, Yokota K, Reeves AL, et al. High-frequency probe EUS-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection (a therapeutic strategy for submucosal tumors of the GI tract). Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;55:44–49
  31. Sun S, Wang M, Sun S. Use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided injection in endoscopic resection of solid submucosal tumors. Endoscopy. 2002;34:82–85
  32. Motoo Y, Okai T, Ohta H, Satomura Y, Watanabe H, Yamakawa O, et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnosis of extraluminal compressions mimicking gastric submucosal tumors. Endoscopy. 1994;26:239–242
  33. Fernandez MJ, Davis RP, Nora PF. Gastrointestinal lipomas. Arch Surg. 1983;118:1081–1083
  34. Maderal F, Hunter F, Fuselier G, Gonzales-Rogue P, Torres O. Gastric lipomas—an update of clinical presentation, diagnosis, and treatment. Am J Gastroenterol. 1984;79:964–967
  35. Deeths TM, Madden PN, Dodds WJ. Multiple lipomas of the stomach and duodenum. Am J Dig Dis. 1975;20:771–774
  36. Miettinen M, Sobin LH, Sarlomo-Rikala M. Immunohistochemical spectrum of GISTs at different sites and their differential diagnosis with a reference to CD117 (KIT). Mod Pathol. 2000;13:1134–1142
  37. Mendis RE, Gerdes H, Lightdale CJ, Botet JF. Large gastric folds (a diagnostic approach using endoscopic ultrasonography). Gastrointest Endosc. 1994;40:437–441
  38. Thoeni RF, Gedgaudas RK. Ectopic pancreas (usual and unusual features). Gastrointest Radiol. 1980;5:37–42
  39. Lai EC, Tompkins RK. Heterotopic pancreas. Review of a 26 year experience. Am J Surg. 1986;151:697–700
  40. Goldfarb WB, Bennett D, Monafo W. Carcinoma in a heterotopic gastric pancreas. Ann Surg. 1963;158:56–58
  41. Tanimura A, Yamamoto H, Shibata H, Sano E. Carcinoma in heterotopic gastric pancreas. Acta Pathol Jpn. 1979;29:251–257
  42. Hickman DM, Frey CF, Carson JW. Adenocarcinoma arising in gastric heterotopic pancreas. West J Med. 1981;135:57–62
  43. Jeng KS, Yang KC, Kuo S. Malignant degeneration of heterotopic pancreas. Gastrointest Endosc. 1991;37:196–198
  44. Ura H, Denno R, Hirata K, Saeki A, Hirata K, Natori H. Carcinoma arising from ectopic pancreas in the stomach (endosonographic detection of malignant change). J Clin Ultrasound. 1998;26:265–268
  45. Faigel DO, Gopal D, Weeks DA, Corless C. Cap-assisted endoscopic submucosal resection of a pancreatic rest. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;54:782–784
  46. Lamont AC, Starinsky R, Cremin BJ. Ultrasonic diagnosis of duplication cysts in children. Br J Radiol. 1984;57:463–467
  47. Hulnick DH, Balthazar EJ. Gastric duplication cyst (GI series and CT correlation). Gastrointest Radiol. 1987;12:106–108
  48. Mathur M, Gupta SD, Bajpai M, Rohatagi M. Histochemical pattern in alimentary tract duplications of children. Am J Gastroenterol. 1991;86:1419–1423
  49. Ott DJ, Wolfman NT, Wu WC, Chen MY, White WL. Endoscopic ultrasonography of benign esophageal cyst simulating leiomyoma. J Clin Gastroenterol. 1992;15:85–87
  50. Stringer MD, Dinwiddie R, Hall CM, Spitz L. Foregut duplication cysts (a diagnostic challenge). J R Soc Med. 1993;86:174–175
  51. Geller A, Wang KK, DiMagno EP. Diagnosis of foregut duplication cysts by endoscopic ultrasonography. Gastroenterology. 1995;109:838–842
  52. Faigel DO, Burke A, Ginsberg GG, Stotland BR, Kadish SL, Kochman ML. The role of endoscopic ultrasound in the evaluation and management of foregut duplications. Gastrointest Endosc. 1997;45:99–103
  53. Van Dam J, Rice TW, Sivak MV. Endoscopic ultrasonography and endoscopically guided needle aspiration for the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal tract foregut cysts. Am J Gastroenterol. 1992;87:762–765
  54. Kim YI, Kim WH. Inflammatory fibroid polyps of gastrointestinal tract. Evolution of histologic patterns. Am J Clin Pathol. 1988;89:721–727
  55. Matsushita M, Hajiro K, Okazaki K, Takakuwa H. Gastric inflammatory fibroid polyps (endoscopic ultrasonographic analysis in comparison with the histology). Gastrointest Endosc. 1997;46:53–57
  56. Miettinen M, Sarlomo-Rikala M, Lasota J. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (recent advances in understanding of their biology). Hum Pathol. 1999;30:1213–1220
  57. Meesters B, Pauwels PAA, Pijnenburg AM, Vlasveld LT, Repelaer van Driel OJ. Metastasis in a ‘benign’ duodenal stromal tumour. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1998;24:334–335
  58. Trupiano JK, Stewart RE, Misick C, Appelman HD, Goldblum JR. Gastric stromal tumors (a clinicopathologic study of 77 cases with correlation of features with nonaggressive and aggressive clinical behaviors). Am J Surg Pathol. 2002;26:705–714
  59. Evans HL. Smooth muscle tumors of the gastrointestinal tract. A study of 56 cases followed for a minimum of 10 years. Cancer. 1985;56:2242–2250
  60. Levy AD, Remotti HE, Thompson WM, Sobin LH, Miettinen M. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (radiologic features with pathologic correction). Radiographics. 2003;23:283–304
  61. Soga J. Early-stage carcinoids of the gastrointestinal tract (an analysis of 1914 reported cases). Cancer. 2005;103:1587–1595
  62. Rindi G, Azzoni C, La Rosa S, Klersy C, Paolotti D, Rappel S, et al. ECL cell tumor and poorly differentiated endocrine carcinoma of the stomach (prognostic evaluation by pathological analysis). Gastroenterology. 1999;116:532–542
  63. Rindi G, Luinetti O, Cornaggia M, Capella C, Solcia E. Three subtypes of gastric argyrophil carcinoid and the gastric neuroendocrine carcinoma (a clinicopathologic study). Gastroenterology. 1993;104:994–1006
  64. Soga J. Gastric carcinoids (a statistical evaluation of 1,094 cases collected from the literature). Surg Today. 1997;27:892–901
  65. Nakamura S, Lida M, Yao T, Fujishima M. Endoscopic features of gastric carcinoids. Gastrointest Endosc. 1991;37:535–538
  66. Matsumoto T, Lida M, Suekane H, Tominaga M, Yao T, Fujishima M. Endoscopic ultrasonography in rectal carcinoid tumors (contribution to selection of therapy). Gastrointest Endosc. 1991;37:539–542
  67. Brooks JJ, Enterline HT. Primary gastric lymphomas (A clinicopathologic study of 58 cases with long-term follow-up and literature review). Cancer. 1983;51:701–711
  68. Lewin KJ, Ranchod M, Dorfman RF. Lymphomas of the gastrointestinal tract (a study of 117 cases presenting with gastrointestinal disease). Cancer. 1978;42:693–707
  69. Kolve M, Fischbach W, Greiner A, Wilms K German Gastrointestinal Lymphoma Study Group. Differences in endoscopic and clinicopathological features of primary and secondary gastric non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;49:307–315
  70. Bolondi L, Casanova P, Caletti GC, Grigioni W, Zani L, Barbara L. Primary gastric lymphoma versus gastric carcinoma (endoscopic US evaluation). Radiology. 1987;165:821–826
  71. Tio TL, den Hartog Jager FC, Tijtgat GN. Endoscopic ultrasonography of non-Hodgkin lymphoma of the stomach. Gastroenterology. 1986;91:401–408
  72. Vander Noot MR, Eloubeidi MA, Chen VK, Eltoum I, Jhala D, Jhala N, et al. Diagnosis of gastrointestinal tract lesions by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy. Cancer. 2004;102:157–163
  73. Miettinen M, Paal E, Lasota J, Sobin LH. Gastrointestinal glomus tumors (a clinicopathologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular genetic study of 32 cases). Am J Surg Pathol. 2002;26:301–311
  74. Tsuneyoshi M, Enjoji M. Glomus tumor (a clinicopathologic and electron microscopic study). Cancer. 1982;50:1601–1607
  75. Imamura A, Tochihara M, Natsui K, Murashima Y, Suga T, Yaosaka T, et al. Glomus tumor of the stomach (endoscopic ultrasonographic findings). Am J Gastroenterol. 1994;89:272–272
  76. Debol SM, Stanley MW, Mallery S, Sawinski E, Bardales RH. Glomus tumor of the stomach (cytologic diagnosis by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration). Diagn Cytopathol. 2003;28:316–321
  77. Panagiotou I, Brountzos EN, Bafaloukos D, Stoupis C, Brestas P, Kelekis DA. Malignant melanoma metastatic to the gastrointestinal tract. Melanoma Res. 2002;12:169–173
  78. Kadakia SC, Parker A, Canales L. Metastatic tumors to the upper gastrointestinal tract (endoscopic experience). Am J Gastroenterol. 1992;87:1418–1423
  79. Saunders NJ. Haematemesis due to gastric involvement by metastatic ovarian carcinoma 30 years after removal of the primary tumour. Br J Clin Pract. 1986;40:298–299
  80. Taylor RR, Phillips WS, O’Connor DM, Harrison CR. Unusual intramural gastric metastasis of recurrent epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 1994;55:152–155
  81. Sangha S, Gergeos F, Freter P, Paiva L, Jacobson B. Diagnosis of ovarian cancer metastatic to the stomach by EUS-guided FNA. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;58:933–935
  82. Taal BG, Peterse H, Boot H. Clinical presentation, endoscopic features, and treatment of gastric metastases from breast carcinoma. Cancer. 2000;89:2214–2221
  83. Modlin IM, Kidd M, Latich I, Zikusoka MN, Shapiro MD. Current status of gastrointestinal carcinoids. Gastroenterology. 2005;128:1717–1751
  84. Kumashiro R, Naitoh H, Teshima K, Sakai T, Inutsuka S. Minute gastric carcinoid tumor with regional lymph node metastasis. Int Surg. 1989;74:198–200
  85. Gilligan CJ, Lawton GP, Tang LH, West AB, Modlin IM. Gastric carcinoid tumors (the biology and therapy of an enigmatic and controversial lesion). Am J Gastroenterol. 1995;90:338–352
  86. Hirschowitz BI, Griffith J, Pellegrin D, Cummings OW. Rapid regression of enterochromaffinlike cell gastric carcinoids in pernicious anemia after antrectomy. Gastroenterology. 1992;102:1409–1418
  87. Melzer E, Fidder H. The natural course of upper gastrointestinal submucosal tumors (an endoscopic ultrasound survey). Isr Med Assoc J. 2000;2:430–432
  88. Tsai TL, Changchien CS, Hu TH, Hsiaw CM. Demonstration of gastric submucosal lesions by high-resolution transabdominal sonography. J Clin Ultrasound. 2000;28:125–132
  89. Futagami K, Hata J, Haruma K, Yamashita N, Yoshida S, Tanaka S, et al. Extracorporeal ultrasound is an effective diagnostic alternative to endoscopic ultrasound for gastric submucosal tumours. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2001;36:1222–1226
  90. Polkowski M, Palucki J, Butruk E. Transabdominal ultrasound for visualizing gastric submucosal tumors diagnosed by endosonography (can surveillance be simplified?). Endoscopy. 2002;34:979–983
  91. DeMatteo RP, Lewis JJ, Leung D, Mudan SS, Woodruff JM, Brennan MF. Two hundred gastrointestinal stromal tumors (recurrence patterns and prognostic factors for survival). Ann Surg. 2000;231:51–58
  92. Choi YV, Oh ST. Laparoscopy in the management of gastric submucosal tumors. Surg Endosc. 2005;14:741–745
  93. Matthews BD, Walsh RM, Kercher KW, Sing RF, Pratt BL, Answini GA, et al. Laparoscopic vs open resection of gastric stromal tumors. Surg Endosc. 2002;16:803–807
  94. Hindmarsh A, Koo B, Lewis MP, Rhodes M. Laparoscopic resection of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Surg Endosc. 2005;19:1109–1112
  95. Tagaya N, Mikami H, Kogure H, Kubota K, Hosoya Y, Nagai H. Laparoscopic intragastric stapled resection of gastric submucosal tumors located near the esophagogastric junction. Surg Endosc. 2002;16:177–179
  96. Nguyen NT, Jim J, Nguyen A, Lee J, Chang K. Laparaoscopic resection of gastric stromal tumor (a tailored approach). Am Surg. 2003;69:946–951
  97. Basso N, Rosato P, De Leo A, Picconi T, Tretino P, Fantini A, et al. Laparoscopic treatment of gastric stromal tumors. Surg Endosc. 2000;14:524–526
  98. Buyske J, McDonald M, Fernandez C, Munson JL, Sanders LE, Tsao J, et al. Minimally invasive management of low-grade and benign gastric tumors. Surg Endosc. 1997;11:1084–1087
  99. Walsh RM, Ponsky J, Brody F, Matthews BD, Heniford BT. Combined endoscopic laparoscopic intragastric resection of gastric stromal tumors. J Gastrointest Surg. 2003;7:386–392
  100. Ludwig K, Wilhelm L, Scharlau U, Amtsberg G, Bernhardt J. Laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous resection of gastric tumors. Surg Endosc. 2002;16:1561–1565
  101. Takahashi H, Fujita R. Endoscopic diathermic resection of gastric submucosal tumors. Gastrointest Endosc. 1991;33:1001–1006
  102. Yu J, Luo HS, Wang XZ. Endoscopic treatment of submucosal lesions of the gastrointestinal tract. Endoscopy. 1992;24:190–193
  103. Kawamoto K, Yamada Y, Furukawa N, Utsonomiya T, Haraguchi Y, Mizuguchi M, et al. Endoscopic submucosal tumorectomy for gastrointestinal submucosal tumors restricted to the submucosa (a new form of endoscopic minimal surgery). Gastrointest Endosc. 1997;46:311–317
  104. Chang K, Yoshinaka R, Nguyen P. Endoscopic ultrasound-assisted band ligation (a new technique for resection of submucosal tumors). Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;44:720–722
  105. Spinelli P, Carrai FG, Cambareri AR, Meroni E, Pizzetti P. Two-step endoscopic resection of gastric leiomyomas. Surg Endosc. 1993;7:90–92
  106. Sun S, Jin Y, Chang G, Wang C, Li X, Wang Z. Endoscopic band ligation without electrosurgery (a new technique for excision of small upper-GI leiomyoma). Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;60:218–222
  107. Park Y, Park S, Kim T, Song S, Choi E, Chung J, et al. Endoscopic enucleation of upper-GI submucosal tumors by using an insulated-tip electrosurgical knife. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;59:409–415
  108. Rösch T, Sarbia M, Schumacher B, Deinert K, Frimberger E, Toermer T, et al. Attempted endoscopic en bloc resection of mucosal and submucosal tumors using insulated-tip knives (a pilot series). Endoscopy. 2004;36:788–801
  109. Gunter E, Lingenfeiser T, Eitelbach F, Muller H, Ell C. EUS-guided ethanol injection for treatment of a GI stromal tumor. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;57:113–115

PII: S0016-5085(06)00845-6

doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2006.04.033

Refers to article:

  • Continuing Medical Education Exam 5: June 2006

    J.H. Hwang, S.D. Rulyak, M.B. Kimmey
    Gastroenterology June 2006 (Vol. 130, Issue 7, Pages 2208-2209)

Refers to erratum:

Gastroenterology
Volume 130, Issue 7 , Pages 2217-2228, June 2006

Article Tools