A 74-year-old woman was referred to our gastroenterology clinic for further evaluation of a duodenal subepithelial lesion detected on a screening EGD. Local biopsy specimen showed focal atypical cell aggregation with signet ring cell features, which could not exclude SRCC. In our clinic, EGD revealed a 13 mm-sized subepithelial lesion, located in the second portion of the duodenum, and a linear erosion with locally reddish irregular mucosa was seen on the surface (
Fig. 1A-D). Endoscopic ultrasonography showed a heterogeneous echogenic mass with small anechoic areas mainly located in the submucosa in favor of typical features of BGH (
Fig. 1E) [
5]. And the suspected SRCC seemed to be confined to the mucosal layer (
Fig. 1F). She had no gastrointestinal symptoms, and physical examination and laboratory tests were normal. No organ or lymph node metastasis were identified by abdominal computed tomography (CT). Comprehensively, the SRCC appeared to be a minute early stage lesion confined to mucosa arising on the surface of BGH. Therefore, we planned to perform EMR rather than pancreatoduodenectomy for the lesion. After submucosal injection to lift the lesion (
Fig. 2A), we totally resected the tumor using an endoscopic snare (
Fig. 2B and C). And then, the resected area was closed by endoclips (
Fig. 2D). Gross appearance of the resected specimen showed a 13 mmsized subepithelial tumor, with reddish irregular mucosal surface showing abnormal vasculature via near-focus imaging (
Fig. 2E and F). Pathological analysis of the resected specimen was performed. On microscopic findings, atypical cells were identified in the lamina propria in background of gastric metaplasia overlying on BGH (
Fig. 3). These cells were isolated or poorly cohesive with signet ring cell features with no wellformed glands (
Fig. 4A), and strongly positive for pan-Cytokeratin (AE1/AE3, epithelium specific antibodies6) (
Fig. 4B), which is consistent with SRCC. Tumor size was 4 mm with clear lateral and vertical resection margins, and lymphovascular invasion was not seen in the specimen. On immunohistochemical (IHC) findings, the tumor cells were strongly positive for MUC5AC (a marker for gastric foveolar epithelium) (
Fig. 4C), and also weakly positive for MUC6 (a maker for gastric mucous neck cells or antral glands) (
Fig. 4D). However, immunostainings for MUC2 (a marker for intestinal goblet cells) (
Fig. 4E) and CD10 (a marker for the brush border of intestinal epithelium7) were negative (
Fig. 4F). Finally, we diagnosed SRCC probably originated from gastric foveolar metaplastic epithelium arising on BGH. The patient was discharged with no procedure-related complications. Now we plan 6-month follow-up with EGD and abdominal CT in the first year, and regular annual follow-ups from years 2 to 5.