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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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