Search

Background and Aim: Small gastric subepithelial lesions (SELs) are sometimes encountered in daily esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) practice, but whether once-annual or twice-annual endoscopy can provide sufficient follow-up remains unclear. Because follow-up based on small-SEL characteristics is important, this study clarified the natural history of gastric SELs less than 20 mm. Methods: This retrospective multicenter observation study conducted at 24 Japanese hospitals during April 2000 to March 2020 examined small gastric SELs of ≤20 mm diameter. The primary outcome was the rate of size increase of those SELs detected using EGD, with growth times assessed irrespective of SEL pathological diagnoses. Results: We examined 824 cases with tumors of 1–5 mm diameter in 298 (36.2%) cases, 6–10 mm in 344 (41.7%) cases, 11–15 mm in 112 (13.6%) cases, and 16–20 mm in 70 (8.50%) cases. An increase of small gastric SELs was observed in 70/824 patients (8.5%). The SELs larger than 6 mm increased, even after 10 years. No-change and increasing groups had no significantly different malignant findings at diagnosis. In cases of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), internal cystic change in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is a risk factor for an increased tumor size. The predictive tumor growth cutoff size at initial diagnosis was 13.5 mm. Conclusions: Small gastric SELs less than 20 mm have an approximately 8.5% chance of increase. Predictive markers for GIST growth are tumor size ≥13.5 mm and internal cystic change in EUS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: A few reports stating that differences in the various types of contrast media injected into the pancreatic duct are related to the onset of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) have been published, and it was indicated that iodixanol which is a nonionic iodide radiographic contrast medium with a dimeric (2 dimers) structure may reduce the incidence of PEP. The aim of this retrospective study is to evaluate the usefulness of iodaxanol for prevention PEP in comparison with megulamine amidototrizoate. Methods: Two hundred and ninety-one patients were enrolled and divided into the 2 groups according to the contrast medium used. One hundred and fifty-five patients underwent ERCP with meglumine amidotrizoate, and 136 patients underwent ERCP with iodaxanol. The primary outcome of this study was the incidence of PEP associated with the use of each contrast medium. Results: In this study, comparison of the meglumine amidotrizoate treatment and iodaxanol treatment groups showed no significant difference with respect to the incidence of PEP. In addition, there was also no difference between the groups with respect to PEP severity. Conclusion: Our study suggested that iodaxanol does not necessarily contribute to the prevention of PEP in comparison with meglumine amidotrizoate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]