Cargando…

22-gauge core vs 22-gauge aspiration needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of abdominal masses

AIM: To compare the aspiration needle (AN) and core biopsy needle (PC) in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of abdominal masses. METHODS: Consecutive patients referred for EUS-FNA were included in this prospective single-center trial. Each patient underwent a puncture of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sterlacci, William, Sioulas, Athanasios D, Veits, Lothar, Gönüllü, Pervin, Schachschal, Guido, Groth, Stefan, Anders, Mario, Kontos, Christos K, Topalidis, Theodoros, Hinsch, Andrea, Vieth, Michael, Rösch, Thomas, Denzer, Ulrike W
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5075557/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27818598
http://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v22.i39.8820
_version_ 1782461883173830656
author Sterlacci, William
Sioulas, Athanasios D
Veits, Lothar
Gönüllü, Pervin
Schachschal, Guido
Groth, Stefan
Anders, Mario
Kontos, Christos K
Topalidis, Theodoros
Hinsch, Andrea
Vieth, Michael
Rösch, Thomas
Denzer, Ulrike W
author_facet Sterlacci, William
Sioulas, Athanasios D
Veits, Lothar
Gönüllü, Pervin
Schachschal, Guido
Groth, Stefan
Anders, Mario
Kontos, Christos K
Topalidis, Theodoros
Hinsch, Andrea
Vieth, Michael
Rösch, Thomas
Denzer, Ulrike W
author_sort Sterlacci, William
collection PubMed
description AIM: To compare the aspiration needle (AN) and core biopsy needle (PC) in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of abdominal masses. METHODS: Consecutive patients referred for EUS-FNA were included in this prospective single-center trial. Each patient underwent a puncture of the lesion with both standard 22-gauge (G) AN (Echo Tip Ultra; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana, United States) and the novel 22G PC (EchoTip ProCore; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana, United States) in a randomized fashion; histology was attempted in the PC group only. The main study endpoint was the overall diagnostic accuracy, including the contribution of histology to the final diagnosis. Secondary outcome measures included material adequacy, number of needle passes, and complications. RESULTS: Fifty six consecutive patients (29 men; mean age 68 years) with pancreatic lesions (n = 38), lymphadenopathy (n = 13), submucosal tumors (n = 4), or others lesions (n = 1) underwent EUS-FNA using both of the needles in a randomized order. AN and PC reached similar overall results for diagnostic accuracy (AN: 88.9 vs PC: 96.1, P = 0.25), specimen adequacy (AN: 96.4% vs PC: 91.1%, P = 0.38), mean number of passes (AN: 1.5 vs PC: 1.7, P = 0.14), mean cellularity score (AN: 1.7 vs PC: 1.1, P = 0.058), and complications (none). A diagnosis on the basis of histology was achieved in the PC group in 36 (64.3%) patients, and in 2 of those as the sole modality. In patients with available histology the mean cellularity score was higher for AN (AN: 1.7 vs PC: 1.0, P = 0.034); no other differences were of statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Both needles achieved high overall diagnostic yields and similar performance characteristics for cytological diagnosis; histological analysis was only possible in 2/3 of cases with the new needle.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5075557
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Baishideng Publishing Group Inc
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50755572016-11-04 22-gauge core vs 22-gauge aspiration needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of abdominal masses Sterlacci, William Sioulas, Athanasios D Veits, Lothar Gönüllü, Pervin Schachschal, Guido Groth, Stefan Anders, Mario Kontos, Christos K Topalidis, Theodoros Hinsch, Andrea Vieth, Michael Rösch, Thomas Denzer, Ulrike W World J Gastroenterol Randomized Clinical Trial AIM: To compare the aspiration needle (AN) and core biopsy needle (PC) in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of abdominal masses. METHODS: Consecutive patients referred for EUS-FNA were included in this prospective single-center trial. Each patient underwent a puncture of the lesion with both standard 22-gauge (G) AN (Echo Tip Ultra; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana, United States) and the novel 22G PC (EchoTip ProCore; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana, United States) in a randomized fashion; histology was attempted in the PC group only. The main study endpoint was the overall diagnostic accuracy, including the contribution of histology to the final diagnosis. Secondary outcome measures included material adequacy, number of needle passes, and complications. RESULTS: Fifty six consecutive patients (29 men; mean age 68 years) with pancreatic lesions (n = 38), lymphadenopathy (n = 13), submucosal tumors (n = 4), or others lesions (n = 1) underwent EUS-FNA using both of the needles in a randomized order. AN and PC reached similar overall results for diagnostic accuracy (AN: 88.9 vs PC: 96.1, P = 0.25), specimen adequacy (AN: 96.4% vs PC: 91.1%, P = 0.38), mean number of passes (AN: 1.5 vs PC: 1.7, P = 0.14), mean cellularity score (AN: 1.7 vs PC: 1.1, P = 0.058), and complications (none). A diagnosis on the basis of histology was achieved in the PC group in 36 (64.3%) patients, and in 2 of those as the sole modality. In patients with available histology the mean cellularity score was higher for AN (AN: 1.7 vs PC: 1.0, P = 0.034); no other differences were of statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Both needles achieved high overall diagnostic yields and similar performance characteristics for cytological diagnosis; histological analysis was only possible in 2/3 of cases with the new needle. Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 2016-10-21 2016-10-21 /pmc/articles/PMC5075557/ /pubmed/27818598 http://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v22.i39.8820 Text en ©The Author(s) 2016. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial.
spellingShingle Randomized Clinical Trial
Sterlacci, William
Sioulas, Athanasios D
Veits, Lothar
Gönüllü, Pervin
Schachschal, Guido
Groth, Stefan
Anders, Mario
Kontos, Christos K
Topalidis, Theodoros
Hinsch, Andrea
Vieth, Michael
Rösch, Thomas
Denzer, Ulrike W
22-gauge core vs 22-gauge aspiration needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of abdominal masses
title 22-gauge core vs 22-gauge aspiration needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of abdominal masses
title_full 22-gauge core vs 22-gauge aspiration needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of abdominal masses
title_fullStr 22-gauge core vs 22-gauge aspiration needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of abdominal masses
title_full_unstemmed 22-gauge core vs 22-gauge aspiration needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of abdominal masses
title_short 22-gauge core vs 22-gauge aspiration needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of abdominal masses
title_sort 22-gauge core vs 22-gauge aspiration needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of abdominal masses
topic Randomized Clinical Trial
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5075557/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27818598
http://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v22.i39.8820
work_keys_str_mv AT sterlacciwilliam 22gaugecorevs22gaugeaspirationneedleforendoscopicultrasoundguidedsamplingofabdominalmasses
AT sioulasathanasiosd 22gaugecorevs22gaugeaspirationneedleforendoscopicultrasoundguidedsamplingofabdominalmasses
AT veitslothar 22gaugecorevs22gaugeaspirationneedleforendoscopicultrasoundguidedsamplingofabdominalmasses
AT gonullupervin 22gaugecorevs22gaugeaspirationneedleforendoscopicultrasoundguidedsamplingofabdominalmasses
AT schachschalguido 22gaugecorevs22gaugeaspirationneedleforendoscopicultrasoundguidedsamplingofabdominalmasses
AT grothstefan 22gaugecorevs22gaugeaspirationneedleforendoscopicultrasoundguidedsamplingofabdominalmasses
AT andersmario 22gaugecorevs22gaugeaspirationneedleforendoscopicultrasoundguidedsamplingofabdominalmasses
AT kontoschristosk 22gaugecorevs22gaugeaspirationneedleforendoscopicultrasoundguidedsamplingofabdominalmasses
AT topalidistheodoros 22gaugecorevs22gaugeaspirationneedleforendoscopicultrasoundguidedsamplingofabdominalmasses
AT hinschandrea 22gaugecorevs22gaugeaspirationneedleforendoscopicultrasoundguidedsamplingofabdominalmasses
AT viethmichael 22gaugecorevs22gaugeaspirationneedleforendoscopicultrasoundguidedsamplingofabdominalmasses
AT roschthomas 22gaugecorevs22gaugeaspirationneedleforendoscopicultrasoundguidedsamplingofabdominalmasses
AT denzerulrikew 22gaugecorevs22gaugeaspirationneedleforendoscopicultrasoundguidedsamplingofabdominalmasses