Skip to main content

Table 4 Comparison of MIAB and EUS-FNAB in diagnosing SELs < 20-mm diameter (using the matching factor of lesion size)

From: Superiority of mucosal incision-assisted biopsy over ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in diagnosing small gastric subepithelial lesions: a propensity score matching analysis

 

Before matching

After matching

MIAB group

EUS-FNAB group

P value

MIAB group

EUS-FNAB group

P value

Number of patients

45

56

n.s. (P = 0.84)

31

31

n.s. (P = 1.0)

Gender; male/female

21/24

25/31

n.s. (P = 0.84)

14/17

13/18

n.s. (P = 0.80)

Age; median & range

62.0 (27–84)

62.0 (27–87)

n.s. (P = 0.98)>

62.0 (27–82)

64.0 (27–83)

n.s. (P = 0.77)

Lesion size (mm); median & range

15.0 (8.8–19.8)

16.0 (9.0–19.8)

n.s. (P = 0.84)

17 (8.8–19.8)

15 (9–19.8)

n.s. (P = 0.99)

Number of lesions in each gastric location

  

n.s. (P = 0.41)

  

n.s. (P = 0.92)

 Upper stomach

24

34

 

18

18

 

 Middle stomach

13

17

 

8

9

 

 Lower stomach

8

5

 

5

4

 

Procedural time (min); median & range

31 (10–160)

20 (9–49)

P < 0.001

31 (10–160)

20 (10–49)

P = 0.0093

Success rate of tissue sampling

97.8% (44/45)

85.7% (48/56)

P = 0.34

93.5% (29/31)

61.3% (19/31)

P = 0.011

Diagnostic yield

93.3% (42/45)

71.4% (40/56)>

P = 0.005

93.5% (29/31)

61.3% (19/31)

P = 0.011

Complication rate

0% (0/45)

0% (0/56)

n.s. (P = 1.0)

0% (0/31)

0% (0/31)

n.s. (P = 1.0)

Number and frequency of lesions of each histology type

  

n.s. (P = 0.066)

  

n.s. (P = 0.14)

 GIST

46.7% (21/45)

57.1% (32/56)

 

48.4% (15/31)

42.0% (13/31)

 

 Leiomyoma

26.7% (12/45)

8.9% (5/56)

 

25.8% (8/31)

12.9% (4/31)

 

 Schwannoma

4.4% (2/45)

1.7% (1/56)

 

6.5% (2/31)

–

 

 Aberrant pancreas

8.9% (4/45)

3.4% (2/56)

 

6.5% (2/31)

6.5% (2/31)

 

 Glomus tumor

2.2% (1/45)

–

 

–

–

 

 Lipoma

2.2% (1/45)

–

 

3.2% (1/31)

–

 

 Inflammatory change

2.2% (1/45)

–

 

3.2% (1/31)

–

Â