Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Editor's snapshot: an unexpected duodenal finding
  1. Andrew David Nelson1,
  2. Gillian H Bain1,
  3. Ashley D Graham2,
  4. Marianne C Nicolson3,
  5. John S Leeds1
  1. 1Department of Gastroenterology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK
  2. 2Department of Pathology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK
  3. 3Department of Oncology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr John S Leeds, Department of Gastroenterology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Foresterhill Road, Aberdeen AB25 2ZN, UK; j.leeds{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Case description

A 32-year-old Caucasian man presented with a 2-month history of fatigue, 4 kg weight loss and vague dyspepsia. He described no vomiting and no lower gastrointestinal symptoms. He was previously healthy with no significant past medical history, did not smoke and consumed around 10 units of alcohol per week. Systemic examination was normal. Blood tests revealed a mild normocytic anaemia (haemoglobin 128 g/l) with normal haematinics. Urea and electrolytes, liver function tests, calcium and c reactive protein were all within normal limits.

Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy revealed an unusual raised lesion in the second …

View Full Text


  • Contributors ADN drafted and revised the article. He is guarantor. GHB provided the image used in figure 1 and reviewed the draft article. ADG provided and annotated figure 2 as well as drafting the description of the histological findings in the discussion section. MCN and JSL reviewed and amended the draft article.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Ethics approval The study (upper gastrointestinal endoscopy) was performed as part of this patient's management with his consent. We feel we have anonymised the information presented and that approval by an ethics committee is not needed.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.