Cargando…

A prospective randomized study of the difference in diagnostic yield between endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUSFNA) needles with and without a side port in pancreatic masses

Background and study aims: Two 22G needles with similar designs, apart from the absence (A) or presence of a side port (B), are available for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA). The side port was designed to increase diagnostic yield but this advantage was unproven. This...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ang, Tiing Leong, Kwek, Andrew Boon Eu, Seo, Dong Wan, Paik, Woo Hyun, Cheng, Tsu-Yao, Wang, Hsiu-Po, Lau, James
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: © Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4554507/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26356802
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1391964
_version_ 1782388069778849792
author Ang, Tiing Leong
Kwek, Andrew Boon Eu
Seo, Dong Wan
Paik, Woo Hyun
Cheng, Tsu-Yao
Wang, Hsiu-Po
Lau, James
author_facet Ang, Tiing Leong
Kwek, Andrew Boon Eu
Seo, Dong Wan
Paik, Woo Hyun
Cheng, Tsu-Yao
Wang, Hsiu-Po
Lau, James
author_sort Ang, Tiing Leong
collection PubMed
description Background and study aims: Two 22G needles with similar designs, apart from the absence (A) or presence of a side port (B), are available for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA). The side port was designed to increase diagnostic yield but this advantage was unproven. This study evaluated the difference in diagnostic yield between both needles in pancreatic masses. Patients and methods: This was a prospective multicenter randomized cross-over study. Patients with pancreatic masses were randomized to one needle for the first two passes, followed by the other for the next two passes. A pathologist blinded to the needle assessed each puncture for cellularity and morphology. The diagnostic yield between both needles was compared. Results: In total, 30 patients were recruited (mean lesion size: 3.5 cm, range: 1.2 – 6.3). Comparison of cellularity adequacy: first pass: A vs. B: 26/30 vs. 24/30 (P = 0.488): 2nd pass: A vs. B: 25/30 vs. 26/30 (P = 0.718). Comparison of diagnostic accuracy: first pass: A vs. B: 22/30 vs. 23/30 (P = 0.766); after two passes: A vs. B: 26/30 vs. 26/30 (P = 1.0). When all four passes were assessed, adequate cellularity was obtained in 29/30 and the correct diagnosis was obtained in 28/30 patients. There were no procedural complications. Conclusions: There was no significant difference in diagnostic yield between EUSFNA needles with or without a side port for pancreatic masses. Study registration: NCT02092519.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4554507
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher © Georg Thieme Verlag KG
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45545072015-09-09 A prospective randomized study of the difference in diagnostic yield between endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUSFNA) needles with and without a side port in pancreatic masses Ang, Tiing Leong Kwek, Andrew Boon Eu Seo, Dong Wan Paik, Woo Hyun Cheng, Tsu-Yao Wang, Hsiu-Po Lau, James Endosc Int Open Article Background and study aims: Two 22G needles with similar designs, apart from the absence (A) or presence of a side port (B), are available for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA). The side port was designed to increase diagnostic yield but this advantage was unproven. This study evaluated the difference in diagnostic yield between both needles in pancreatic masses. Patients and methods: This was a prospective multicenter randomized cross-over study. Patients with pancreatic masses were randomized to one needle for the first two passes, followed by the other for the next two passes. A pathologist blinded to the needle assessed each puncture for cellularity and morphology. The diagnostic yield between both needles was compared. Results: In total, 30 patients were recruited (mean lesion size: 3.5 cm, range: 1.2 – 6.3). Comparison of cellularity adequacy: first pass: A vs. B: 26/30 vs. 24/30 (P = 0.488): 2nd pass: A vs. B: 25/30 vs. 26/30 (P = 0.718). Comparison of diagnostic accuracy: first pass: A vs. B: 22/30 vs. 23/30 (P = 0.766); after two passes: A vs. B: 26/30 vs. 26/30 (P = 1.0). When all four passes were assessed, adequate cellularity was obtained in 29/30 and the correct diagnosis was obtained in 28/30 patients. There were no procedural complications. Conclusions: There was no significant difference in diagnostic yield between EUSFNA needles with or without a side port for pancreatic masses. Study registration: NCT02092519. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2015-08 2015-05-26 /pmc/articles/PMC4554507/ /pubmed/26356802 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1391964 Text en © Thieme Medical Publishers
spellingShingle Article
Ang, Tiing Leong
Kwek, Andrew Boon Eu
Seo, Dong Wan
Paik, Woo Hyun
Cheng, Tsu-Yao
Wang, Hsiu-Po
Lau, James
A prospective randomized study of the difference in diagnostic yield between endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUSFNA) needles with and without a side port in pancreatic masses
title A prospective randomized study of the difference in diagnostic yield between endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUSFNA) needles with and without a side port in pancreatic masses
title_full A prospective randomized study of the difference in diagnostic yield between endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUSFNA) needles with and without a side port in pancreatic masses
title_fullStr A prospective randomized study of the difference in diagnostic yield between endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUSFNA) needles with and without a side port in pancreatic masses
title_full_unstemmed A prospective randomized study of the difference in diagnostic yield between endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUSFNA) needles with and without a side port in pancreatic masses
title_short A prospective randomized study of the difference in diagnostic yield between endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUSFNA) needles with and without a side port in pancreatic masses
title_sort prospective randomized study of the difference in diagnostic yield between endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (eusfna) needles with and without a side port in pancreatic masses
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4554507/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26356802
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1391964
work_keys_str_mv AT angtiingleong aprospectiverandomizedstudyofthedifferenceindiagnosticyieldbetweenendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationeusfnaneedleswithandwithoutasideportinpancreaticmasses
AT kwekandrewbooneu aprospectiverandomizedstudyofthedifferenceindiagnosticyieldbetweenendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationeusfnaneedleswithandwithoutasideportinpancreaticmasses
AT seodongwan aprospectiverandomizedstudyofthedifferenceindiagnosticyieldbetweenendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationeusfnaneedleswithandwithoutasideportinpancreaticmasses
AT paikwoohyun aprospectiverandomizedstudyofthedifferenceindiagnosticyieldbetweenendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationeusfnaneedleswithandwithoutasideportinpancreaticmasses
AT chengtsuyao aprospectiverandomizedstudyofthedifferenceindiagnosticyieldbetweenendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationeusfnaneedleswithandwithoutasideportinpancreaticmasses
AT wanghsiupo aprospectiverandomizedstudyofthedifferenceindiagnosticyieldbetweenendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationeusfnaneedleswithandwithoutasideportinpancreaticmasses
AT laujames aprospectiverandomizedstudyofthedifferenceindiagnosticyieldbetweenendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationeusfnaneedleswithandwithoutasideportinpancreaticmasses
AT angtiingleong prospectiverandomizedstudyofthedifferenceindiagnosticyieldbetweenendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationeusfnaneedleswithandwithoutasideportinpancreaticmasses
AT kwekandrewbooneu prospectiverandomizedstudyofthedifferenceindiagnosticyieldbetweenendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationeusfnaneedleswithandwithoutasideportinpancreaticmasses
AT seodongwan prospectiverandomizedstudyofthedifferenceindiagnosticyieldbetweenendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationeusfnaneedleswithandwithoutasideportinpancreaticmasses
AT paikwoohyun prospectiverandomizedstudyofthedifferenceindiagnosticyieldbetweenendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationeusfnaneedleswithandwithoutasideportinpancreaticmasses
AT chengtsuyao prospectiverandomizedstudyofthedifferenceindiagnosticyieldbetweenendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationeusfnaneedleswithandwithoutasideportinpancreaticmasses
AT wanghsiupo prospectiverandomizedstudyofthedifferenceindiagnosticyieldbetweenendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationeusfnaneedleswithandwithoutasideportinpancreaticmasses
AT laujames prospectiverandomizedstudyofthedifferenceindiagnosticyieldbetweenendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationeusfnaneedleswithandwithoutasideportinpancreaticmasses