title: Diagnostic yield and safety of jumbo biopsy forceps in patients with subepithelial lesions of the upper and lower GI tract.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  EUS-FNA often fails to make a definitive diagnosis in the evaluation of subepithelial lesions. The addition of jumbo biopsy forceps has the potential to improve diagnostic yield, but published series are limited.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To assess the likelihood of definitive diagnosis for subepithelial lesions by using jumbo biopsy forceps during EUS examination.
  
  
  METHODS
  Pooled retrospective analysis.
  
  
  METHODS
  6 tertiary referral centers.
  
  
  METHODS
  All patients having undergone EUS examination for a subepithelial lesion in which jumbo biopsy forceps were used for tissue acquisition.
  
  
  METHODS
  Diagnostic yield of jumbo biopsy forceps use, complication rates, and comparison of diagnostic yield with that of EUS-FNA.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A total of 129 patients underwent EUS with jumbo biopsy forceps; 31 patients (24%) had simultaneous EUS-FNA. The lesion locations were stomach (n = 98), esophagus (n = 14), duodenum (n = 11), colon (n = 5), and jejunum (n = 1). The average lesion size was 14.9 mm ± 9.3 mm. Overall, definitive diagnosis was obtained in 87 of 129 patients (67.4%) by using either method. A definitive diagnosis was provided by jumbo biopsy forceps use in 76 of 129 patients (58.9%) and by FNA in 14 of 31 patients (45.1%) (P = .175). The results in third-layer lesions were definitive with jumbo biopsy forceps in 56 of 86 lesions (65.1%) and with FNA in 6 of 16 lesions (37.5%) (P = .047). For fourth-layer lesions, the results with jumbo biopsy forceps were definitive in 10 of 25 (40.0%) and with FNA in 8 of 14 (57.1%) (P = .330). Forty-five of 129 patients (34.9%) experienced significant bleeding after biopsy with jumbo forceps and required some form of endoscopic hemostasis.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Retrospective study.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Jumbo forceps are a useful tool for the definitive diagnosis of subepithelial lesions. The greatest benefit appears to be with third-layer (submucosal) lesions. The risk of bleeding is significant.
authors.affiliation: Stony Brook University Medical Center, Stony Brook, New York 11794, USA.
authors.forename: Jonathan M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Buscaglia
authors.forename: Satish
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Nagula
authors.forename: Vijay
authors.initials: V
authors.lastname: Jayaraman
authors.forename: David H
authors.initials: DH
authors.lastname: Robbins
authors.forename: Deepak
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Vadada
authors.forename: Seth A
authors.initials: SA
authors.lastname: Gross
authors.forename: Christopher J
authors.initials: CJ
authors.lastname: DiMaio
authors.forename: Shireen
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Pais
authors.forename: Kal
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Patel
authors.forename: Divyesh V
authors.initials: DV
authors.lastname: Sejpal
authors.forename: Michelle K
authors.initials: MK
authors.lastname: Kim
mesh_terms: D001706:Biopsy / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000295:instrumentation*; D044963:Biopsy, Fine-Needle; D016009:Chi-Square Distribution; D019160:Endosonography; D006471:Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage / Q000209:etiology* / Q000628:therapy; D005770:Gastrointestinal Neoplasms / Q000473:pathology*; D016558:Hemostasis, Endoscopic; D006801:Humans; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D018084:Ultrasonography, Interventional