Cargando…
Risk Factors and Interpretation of Inconclusive Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology in the Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions
Background: The inconclusive cytological findings of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) remain a major clinical challenge and often lead to treatment delays. Methods: Patients who had undergone EUS-FNA sampling for solid pancreas lesions between 2014 and 2021 were retrospe...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10486755/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37685379 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13172841 |
_version_ | 1785103082222256128 |
---|---|
author | Bor, Renáta Vasas, Béla Fábián, Anna Szűcs, Mónika Bősze, Zsófia Bálint, Anita Rutka, Mariann Farkas, Klaudia Tóth, Tibor Resál, Tamás Bacsur, Péter Molnár, Tamás Szepes, Zoltán |
author_facet | Bor, Renáta Vasas, Béla Fábián, Anna Szűcs, Mónika Bősze, Zsófia Bálint, Anita Rutka, Mariann Farkas, Klaudia Tóth, Tibor Resál, Tamás Bacsur, Péter Molnár, Tamás Szepes, Zoltán |
author_sort | Bor, Renáta |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background: The inconclusive cytological findings of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) remain a major clinical challenge and often lead to treatment delays. Methods: Patients who had undergone EUS-FNA sampling for solid pancreas lesions between 2014 and 2021 were retrospectively enrolled. The “atypical” and “non-diagnostic” categories of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology System were considered inconclusive and the “negative for malignancy” category of malignancy was suspected clinically. We determined the frequency and predictors of inconclusive cytological finding. Results: A total of 473 first EUS-FNA samples were included, of which 108 cases (22.83%) were inconclusive. Significant increases in the odds of inconclusive cytological findings were observed for lesions with a benign final diagnosis (OR 11.20; 95% CI 6.56–19.54, p < 0.001) as well as with the use of 25 G FNA needles (OR 2.12; 95% CI 1.09–4.01, p = 0.023) compared to 22 G needles. Furthermore, the use of a single EUS-FNA technique compared to the combined use of slow-pull and standard suction techniques (OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.06–2.70, p = 0.027) and less than three punctures per procedure led to an elevation in the risk of inconclusive cytology (OR 2.49; 95% CI 1.49–4.14, p < 0.001). Risk reduction in inconclusive cytology findings was observed in lesions between 2–4 cm (OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.23–0.68, p = 0.001) and >4 cm (OR 0.16; 95% CI 0.08–0.31, p < 0.001) compared to lesions ≤2 cm. Conclusions: The more than two punctures per EUS-FNA sampling with larger-diameter needle (19 G or 22 G) using the slow-pull and standard suction techniques in combination may decrease the probability of inconclusive cytological findings. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10486755 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-104867552023-09-09 Risk Factors and Interpretation of Inconclusive Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology in the Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions Bor, Renáta Vasas, Béla Fábián, Anna Szűcs, Mónika Bősze, Zsófia Bálint, Anita Rutka, Mariann Farkas, Klaudia Tóth, Tibor Resál, Tamás Bacsur, Péter Molnár, Tamás Szepes, Zoltán Diagnostics (Basel) Article Background: The inconclusive cytological findings of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) remain a major clinical challenge and often lead to treatment delays. Methods: Patients who had undergone EUS-FNA sampling for solid pancreas lesions between 2014 and 2021 were retrospectively enrolled. The “atypical” and “non-diagnostic” categories of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology System were considered inconclusive and the “negative for malignancy” category of malignancy was suspected clinically. We determined the frequency and predictors of inconclusive cytological finding. Results: A total of 473 first EUS-FNA samples were included, of which 108 cases (22.83%) were inconclusive. Significant increases in the odds of inconclusive cytological findings were observed for lesions with a benign final diagnosis (OR 11.20; 95% CI 6.56–19.54, p < 0.001) as well as with the use of 25 G FNA needles (OR 2.12; 95% CI 1.09–4.01, p = 0.023) compared to 22 G needles. Furthermore, the use of a single EUS-FNA technique compared to the combined use of slow-pull and standard suction techniques (OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.06–2.70, p = 0.027) and less than three punctures per procedure led to an elevation in the risk of inconclusive cytology (OR 2.49; 95% CI 1.49–4.14, p < 0.001). Risk reduction in inconclusive cytology findings was observed in lesions between 2–4 cm (OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.23–0.68, p = 0.001) and >4 cm (OR 0.16; 95% CI 0.08–0.31, p < 0.001) compared to lesions ≤2 cm. Conclusions: The more than two punctures per EUS-FNA sampling with larger-diameter needle (19 G or 22 G) using the slow-pull and standard suction techniques in combination may decrease the probability of inconclusive cytological findings. MDPI 2023-09-01 /pmc/articles/PMC10486755/ /pubmed/37685379 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13172841 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Bor, Renáta Vasas, Béla Fábián, Anna Szűcs, Mónika Bősze, Zsófia Bálint, Anita Rutka, Mariann Farkas, Klaudia Tóth, Tibor Resál, Tamás Bacsur, Péter Molnár, Tamás Szepes, Zoltán Risk Factors and Interpretation of Inconclusive Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology in the Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions |
title | Risk Factors and Interpretation of Inconclusive Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology in the Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions |
title_full | Risk Factors and Interpretation of Inconclusive Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology in the Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions |
title_fullStr | Risk Factors and Interpretation of Inconclusive Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology in the Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions |
title_full_unstemmed | Risk Factors and Interpretation of Inconclusive Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology in the Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions |
title_short | Risk Factors and Interpretation of Inconclusive Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology in the Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions |
title_sort | risk factors and interpretation of inconclusive endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration cytology in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10486755/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37685379 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13172841 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT borrenata riskfactorsandinterpretationofinconclusiveendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationcytologyinthediagnosisofsolidpancreaticlesions AT vasasbela riskfactorsandinterpretationofinconclusiveendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationcytologyinthediagnosisofsolidpancreaticlesions AT fabiananna riskfactorsandinterpretationofinconclusiveendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationcytologyinthediagnosisofsolidpancreaticlesions AT szucsmonika riskfactorsandinterpretationofinconclusiveendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationcytologyinthediagnosisofsolidpancreaticlesions AT boszezsofia riskfactorsandinterpretationofinconclusiveendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationcytologyinthediagnosisofsolidpancreaticlesions AT balintanita riskfactorsandinterpretationofinconclusiveendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationcytologyinthediagnosisofsolidpancreaticlesions AT rutkamariann riskfactorsandinterpretationofinconclusiveendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationcytologyinthediagnosisofsolidpancreaticlesions AT farkasklaudia riskfactorsandinterpretationofinconclusiveendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationcytologyinthediagnosisofsolidpancreaticlesions AT tothtibor riskfactorsandinterpretationofinconclusiveendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationcytologyinthediagnosisofsolidpancreaticlesions AT resaltamas riskfactorsandinterpretationofinconclusiveendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationcytologyinthediagnosisofsolidpancreaticlesions AT bacsurpeter riskfactorsandinterpretationofinconclusiveendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationcytologyinthediagnosisofsolidpancreaticlesions AT molnartamas riskfactorsandinterpretationofinconclusiveendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationcytologyinthediagnosisofsolidpancreaticlesions AT szepeszoltan riskfactorsandinterpretationofinconclusiveendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationcytologyinthediagnosisofsolidpancreaticlesions |