FACTORS AFFECTING THE DIAGNOSTIC YIELD OF ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND GUIDED BIOPSY OF SUB EPITHELIAL LESIONS IN GASTROINTESTINAL TRACT
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54112/pjicm.v5i01.88Keywords:
Subepithelial Lesions Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy Diagnostic Yield Lesion Size Endoscopist Experience Gastrointestinal Tract.Abstract
Background: Subepithelial lesions (SELs) of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract are often incidental findings during endoscopy, and their evaluation can be challenging. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy (EUS-GEB) has emerged as a key diagnostic tool for obtaining tissue samples from SELs, yet its diagnostic yield varies due to multiple procedural and lesion-related factors. Objective: To evaluate the factors influencing the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy (EUS-GEB) in the assessment of gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions. Study Design: Descriptive study. Setting: Hayatabad Medical Complex, Peshawar, Pakistan. Duration of Study: July 2024 to January 2025. Methods: A total of 60 patients who underwent EUS-GEB for SELs in the gastrointestinal tract were included. Clinical and procedural data were collected, including lesion size, location, echogenicity, needle size, number of needle passes, and endoscopist experience. Histopathological evaluation was conducted on all biopsy samples. Diagnostic yield was defined as the percentage of procedures resulting in a definitive histological diagnosis. Statistical analyses were performed using appropriate tests to identify significant predictors of diagnostic yield. Results: Among the 60 patients enrolled, most lesions were located in the stomach (63.3%) and esophagus (18.3%). The overall diagnostic yield was 68.3%. Lesions larger than 20 mm, more than three needle passes, and procedures performed by more experienced endoscopists were significantly associated with higher diagnostic yield (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Lesion size, the number of needle passes, and endoscopist experience are key factors that significantly affect the diagnostic yield of EUS-GEB in evaluating subepithelial lesions of the GI tract. Optimizing these variables may improve diagnostic accuracy and clinical outcomes.
References
Nishida T, Kawai N, Yamaguchi S, Nishida Y. Submucosal tumors: comprehensive guide for the diagnosis and therapy of gastrointestinal submucosal tumors. Dig Endosc. 2013;25(5):479-89.
Hedenbro JL, Ekelund M, Wetterberg P. Endoscopic diagnosis of submucosal gastric lesions: the results after routine endoscopy. Surg Endosc. 1991;5:20-3.
Lim YJ, Son HJ, Lee JS, Byun YH, Suh HJ, Rhee PL, et al. Clinical course of subepithelial lesions detected on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. World J Gastroenterol. 2010;16(4):439-42.
Menon L, Buscaglia JM. Endoscopic approach to subepithelial lesions. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2014;7(3):123-30.
Akahoshi K, Oya M, Koga T, Shiratsuchi Y. Current clinical management of gastrointestinal stromal tumor. World J Gastroenterol. 2018;24(26):2806.
Sharzehi K, Sethi A, Savides T. AGA clinical practice update on management of subepithelial lesions encountered during routine endoscopy: expert review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;20(11):2435-43..
Buscaglia JM, Nagula S, Jayaraman V, Robbins DH, Vadada D, Gross SA, et al. Diagnostic yield and safety of jumbo biopsy forceps in patients with subepithelial lesions of the upper and lower GI tract. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75(6):1147-52.
Cantor MJ, Davila RE, Faigel DO. Yield of tissue sampling for subepithelial lesions evaluated by EUS: a comparison between forceps biopsies and endoscopic submucosal resection. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;64(1):29-34.
Deprez PH, Moons LM, OʼToole D, Gincul R, Seicean A, Pimentel-Nunes P, et al. Endoscopic management of subepithelial lesions including neuroendocrine neoplasms: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy. 2022;54(04):412-29.
Faulx AL, Kothari S, Acosta RD, Agrawal D, Bruining DH, Chandrasekhara V, et al. The role of endoscopy in subepithelial lesions of the GI tract. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;85(6):1117-32.
Polkowski M. Endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy for the diagnosis of malignant submucosal tumors. Endoscopy. 2005;37(07):635-45.
Attila T, Aydın Ö. Lesion size determines diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA with onsite cytopathologic evaluation for upper gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions. Turk J Gastroenterol. 2018;29:436-41.
Dumanlı, S., Bektas, M., Erdem Er, R., KAMANI, L., Ceyhan, K., Attila, T., et al. Factors Affecting The Results of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration In Subepithelial Lesions of The Gastrointestinal Tract. Global Gastroenterology, 2024; 2(1)
Verloop CA, Goos JAC, Bruno MJ, Quispel R, van Driel LMJW, Hol L. Diagnostic yield of endoscopic and EUS-guided biopsy techniques in subepithelial lesions of the upper GI tract: a systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc. 2024;99(6):895-911.e13.
Watson RR, Binmoeller KF, Hamerski CM, Shergill AK, Shaw RE, Jaffee IM, Stewart L, Shah JN. Yield and performance characteristics of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for diagnosing upper GI tract stromal tumors. Digest Dis Sci. 2011;56:1757-62.
Savides TJ. Tricks for improving EUS-FNA accuracy and maximizing cellular yield. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69(2):S130-3.
Li DF, Wang JY, Yang MF, et al. Factors associated with diagnostic accuracy, technical success and adverse events of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;35: 1264–1276.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 A LIAQAT , H BADSHAH , SA KAMAL , M SHAH , M MAAZ , U WAHID , K KHAN

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.