2013
DOI: 10.1111/1751-2980.12099
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Accuracy of a scoring system for the differential diagnosis of common gastric subepithelial tumors based on endoscopic ultrasonography

Abstract: The new scoring system was simple and relatively useful for predicting the histology of gastric SET without acquiring tissues. Prospective studies with large sample sizes are needed in the future.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
49
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 43 publications
(51 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
1
49
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Seo et al . retrospectively validated their scoring system by location, layer of origin, echogenicity, and shape to identify four common gastric SMT, and this scoring system was simple and appeared relatively useful for predicting the histology of gastric SMT without tissue acquisition …”
Section: Current Status In China Korea Japan and Taiwanmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Seo et al . retrospectively validated their scoring system by location, layer of origin, echogenicity, and shape to identify four common gastric SMT, and this scoring system was simple and appeared relatively useful for predicting the histology of gastric SMT without tissue acquisition …”
Section: Current Status In China Korea Japan and Taiwanmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Cytology is the most reliable diagnostic method for gastric tumor lesions; however, as a result of their morphology, normal endoscopic diagnostics for gastric SMT are limited and cytological diagnosis is not easy. Although there have been many reports of the differential diagnosis of gastric SMT by contrast‐enhanced computed tomography (CT) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), it is difficult to state that the methods are reliable. To reach a positive diagnosis, EUS‐guided fine‐needle aspiration (EUS‐FNA) and mucosal cutting biopsy after mucosal cutting are required.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A recent study proposed a scoring system for diagnosis of GISTs and other SETs based on EUS characteristics and found sensitivity and specificity to be 75% and 85%, respectively, for GISTs. However, this study only enrolled gastric SETs and had not been validated yet [33]. Therefore, a complementary biopsy is mandatory.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%