Search

Heterotopic pancreas in the stomach is usually asymptomatic and benign. Here, we presented a rare case of an early gastric cancer overlying a heterotopic pancreas. A 48-year-old woman underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy, which revealed a subepithelial mass measuring 2.0×1.5 cm on the gastric antrum with a 1-cm erosive erythematous discoloration on the surface. A biopsy specimen showed moderately differentiated tubular adenocarcinoma. Endosonography showed a heterogeneous hypoechoic mass measuring 1.3×0.6 cm, with indistinct margins in the second and third layers of the gastric wall; anechoic tubular structures within the mass were suggestive of heterotopic pancreas. Distal gastrectomy was performed, which confirmed an early gastric cancer confined to the mucosa, and a separate underlying heterotopic pancreas. Although heterotopic pancreas is most likely benign, careful endoscopic observation of the mucosal surface is necessary to avoid overlooking a coincident early gastric cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is a valuable imaging tool for evaluating subepithelial lesions in the stomach. However, there are few studies on differentiation between gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) and benign mesenchymal tumors, such as leiomyoma or schwannoma, with the use of EUS. In addition, there are limitations in the analysis of the characteristic features of such tumors due to poor interobserver agreement as a result of subjective interpretation of EUS images. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the role of digital image analysis in distinguishing the features of GISTs from those of benign mesenchymal tumors on EUS. Methods We enrolled 65 patients with histopathologically proven gastric GIST, leiomyoma or schwannoma on surgically resected specimens who underwent EUS examination at our endoscopic unit from January 2007 to September 2010. After standardization of the EUS images, brightness values including the mean (Tmean), indicative of echogenicity, and the standard deviation (TSD), indicative of heterogeneity, in the tumors were analyzed. Results The Tmean and TSD were significantly higher in GIST than in leiomyoma and schwannoma (p < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the Tmean or TSD between benign and malignant GISTs. The sensitivity and specificity were almost optimized for differentiating GIST from leiomyoma or schwannoma when the critical values of Tmean and TSD were 65 and 75, respectively. The presence of at least 1 of these 2 findings in a given tumor resulted in a sensitivity of 94%, specificity of 80%, positive predictive value of 94%, negative predictive value of 80%, and accuracy of 90.8% for predicting GIST. Conclusion Digital image analysis provides objective information on EUS images; thus, it can be useful in diagnosing gastric mesenchymal tumors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aim: The development of endoscopic treatment, such as endoscopic submucosal dissection, extends the indications for endoscopic resection in patients with early gastric cancer (EGC). Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is the first-choice imaging modality for determining the depth of invasion of gastric cancer. The aim of the present study was to prospectively assess the accuracy of EUS for determining the depth of EGC, according to the accepted/extended indications. Methods: We prospectively included a total of 181 lesions in 178 patients, with an endoscopic diagnosis of EGC, who underwent EUS for staging the depth of tumor invasion using a 20-MHz catheter probe. We investigated the accuracy of EUS for determining the depth of endoscopically-suspected EGC and then analyzed the difference in the accuracy of EUS according to the accepted/extended indications. Results: Of the 178 patients, five patients were dropped because of the absence of final histological results. For the 176 lesions in 173 patients, the accuracy of EUS assessment for the depth of tumor invasion was 80.7% (142 of 176 lesions). The accuracy of EUS for the lesions with accepted indications and with extended indications was 97.6% (40 of 41 lesions) and 83.6% (46 of 57 lesions), respectively ( P = 0.040). Of the lesions with extended indications, the accuracy of EUS decreased especially for the lesions with ulceration and those with minute submucosal invasion (79.2% and 42.9%, respectively). Conclusions: The accuracy of EUS for the lesions with the extended indications was lower than that for the lesions with the accepted indications. In particular, lesions with ulceration and minute submucosal invasion should be carefully considered prior to endoscopic treatment by pretreatment EUS staging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]