EUS-guided tissue samples for the diagnosis of patients with a thickened gastric wall and prior negative endoscopic biopsies.

AIM: Evaluate the diagnostic yield of biopsies obtained by EUS guidance in patients with gastric wall thickening and prior negative endoscopic biopsies. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data collected from October 2008 to January 2016 were analyzed in a retrospective manner. All included patients had undergone at least one endoscopy with a negative biopsy and showed evidence of gastric wall thickening by tomography, confirmed by endoscopy. All patients gave their written informed consent before the procedure. Demographics and baseline characteristics, including age, sex, number of previous endoscopies, and histopathological diagnosis were recorded. Follow-up data were obtained from a review of the electronic medical records. RESULT: In total, 22 patients with previous negative endoscopic biopsies and gastric wall thickening were included. Using EUSFNA/FNB, the diagnosis was made in the first procedure in 19/22 (86.30%) cases, while in 1/22 (4.5%) patients the diagnosis was made in the second EUS-FNA. A total of 18 (81.82%) patients with EUS-FNA were assessed using a standard Echo-tip, while the remaining four (18.18%) patients underwent EUS-FNB and using a ProCore needle. All patients with a final diagnosis of malignancy had a thickened gastric wall with impaired gastric distension and a loss of wall structure determined by EUS. Of patients with a benign final diagnosis, all (n=8) showed a thickened gastric wall by EUS but with preservation of the deep layers. CONCLUSION: EUS-FNA/FNB is necessary in patients with a thickened gastric wall and prior negative biopsy on endoscopy. The procedure is safe and has a good diagnostic.

Giant hepatic hemangioma versus conventional hepatic hemangioma: clinical findings, risk factors, and management.

BACKGROUND: Giant hepatic hemangiomas (GHHs) are those that are larger than 4 cm in size. AIMS: The aim of this study was to describe GHH clinical findings, their risk factors, diagnostic approach and management, and to compare these data with those of conventional hemangiomas. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with hemangiomas, whether by imaging studies or histopathology, at our hospital within the time frame of 1990-2008. The medical records of each patient were reviewed to obtain clinical and surgical data. RESULTS: Of the 57 patients with liver hemangioma, 41 (72%) were women and 32 (56%) had GHH. Liver hemangioma median size was 4.49 cm. In regard to the patients with GHH, 31.2% were asymptomatic and when symptoms presented, pain was the most common. Both symptoms and oral contraceptive exposure were more common in the GHH patients. Nine patients with GHH underwent surgery: 2 open biopsies due to diagnostic uncertainty, one enucleation, and 6 resections. CONCLUSIONS: GHHs are more prevalent in women and when symptomatic, pain is the most frequent complaint. Diagnosis is usually made through imaging studies, but when there is diagnostic doubt, surgical exploration is sometimes needed. Oral contraceptive use is most likely more of a risk factor for GHH than for conventional hemangioma, but this association needs to be studied further.