Management of small subepithelial tumors by endoscopic banding without resection and single-incision needle-knife-assisted biopsy sampling: a prospective multicenter study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) without resection combined with single-incision needle-knife (SINK) biopsy sampling may have a positive impact on small GI subepithelial tumor (SET) management, but the method needs to be tested. The aim was to evaluate the feasibility of this strategy in small-sized SETs. METHODS: This prospective multicenter observational cohort study in 7 centers included patients with SETs ≤15 mm (confirmed by EUS) between March 2017 and March 2020. The primary outcome was clinical success at 4 weeks, defined as complete SET disappearance on EUS. Secondary outcomes were long-term (1-year) clinical success, technical difficulty level, clinical impact, yield pathology, and safety. RESULTS: Of 273 patients screened, 122 (62.3% women; mean age, 60.9 ± 13.2 years) were included with SETs (mean size, 9 ± 2.8 mm; gastric location, 77%; superficial layer dependence, 63%). The primary endpoint was achieved in 73.6% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 64.8-81.2). At the 1-year follow-up, the success rate was 68.4% (95% CI, 59.1-76.8). A favorable clinical impact was observed in 97 cases (79.5%; 95% CI, 71.3-86.3). Pathology diagnosis was known in 70%. Potentially malignant lesions were present in 24.7%. The related adverse events rate was 4.1% (95% CI, 1.3-9.3; all mild: 2 bleeding, 2 abdominal pain). On multivariable analysis, the ≤10-mm SET group was associated with a greater success rate (1 year, 87%; relative risk, 5.07; 95% CI, 2.63-9.8) and clinical impact rate (92.7%; relative risk, 6.15; 95% CI, 2.72-13.93). CONCLUSIONS: EBL plus SINK biopsy sampling seems to be feasible and safe, and it may offer a favorable clinical impact in small-sized SETs. In particular, SETs ≤10 mm are the best candidates. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03247231.).

Half of the patients with subepithelial tumors present borderline or pathologic anxiety-distress and carcinophobia: a multicenter cohort study

Background and Aims: Minor nonspecific gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions (usually defined by the term ‘tumor’) are usually associated with a malignant illness and cancer. The aim of this study was to assess anxiety-distress and carcinophobia in patients referred to specialized monographic outpatient clinics for evaluation and treatment of this type of lesion. Methods: Prospective, multicenter, cohort study. Specific self-reported questionnaires were used to report threatening life-experiences and to assess levels of distress (The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and cancer-related worries (The Cancer Worry Scale). Results: Forty participants were included and analyzed at baseline. Pathologic and borderline anxiety were detected in 13% (5/40, 95%CI: 4-27%) and 35% (14/40, 95%CI: 21-52%) of participants, respectively, whereas, cancer-related worries (moderate to very high) were observed in 48% (19/40, 95%CI: 32-64%) of participants. Pathologic global distress was identified in 25% (10/40, 95%CI: 13-42%) of subjects. Higher educational level (university studies), a lack of lifetime psychiatric comorbidity and a lack of family history of cancer were associated with less anxiety, global distress and carcinophobia. Conclusions: Almost half of the patients diagnosed with a minor nonspecific gastrointestinal subepithelial lesion presented anxiety-distress and/or carcinophobia. Specific associations with anxiety-distress reaction and fears were detected (AU)

Half of the patients with subepithelial tumors present borderline or pathologic anxiety-distress and carcinophobia: a multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Minor nonspecific gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions (usually defined by the term 'tumor') are usually associated with a malignant illness and cancer. The aim of this study was to assess anxiety-distress and carcinophobia in patients referred to specialized monographic outpatient clinics for evaluation and treatment of this type of lesion. METHODS: Prospective, multicenter, cohort study. Specific self-reported questionnaires were used to report threatening life-experiences and to assess levels of distress (The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and cancer-related worries (The Cancer Worry Scale). RESULTS: Forty participants were included and analyzed at baseline. Pathologic and borderline anxiety were detected in 13% (5/40, 95%CI: 4-27%) and 35% (14/40, 95%CI: 21-52%) of participants, respectively, whereas, cancer-related worries (moderate to very high) were observed in 48% (19/40, 95%CI: 32-64%) of participants. Pathologic global distress was identified in 25% (10/40, 95%CI: 13-42%) of subjects. Higher educational level (university studies), a lack of lifetime psychiatric comorbidity and a lack of family history of cancer were associated with less anxiety, global distress and carcinophobia. CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of the patients diagnosed with a minor nonspecific gastrointestinal subepithelial lesion presented anxiety-distress and/or carcinophobia. Specific associations with anxiety-distress reaction and fears were detected.