Cargando…
A Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration and Fine-Needle Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is the method of choice for sampling pancreatic lesions. This study compares the diagnostic accuracy and safety of FNB using a novel core needle to FNA in solid pancreatic lesions. METHODS: A retrospective review of...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Hindawi
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5933021/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29850451 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/1415062 |
_version_ | 1783319924175798272 |
---|---|
author | Ayres, Lachlan R. Kmiotek, Elizabeth K. Lam, Eric Telford, Jennifer J. |
author_facet | Ayres, Lachlan R. Kmiotek, Elizabeth K. Lam, Eric Telford, Jennifer J. |
author_sort | Ayres, Lachlan R. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is the method of choice for sampling pancreatic lesions. This study compares the diagnostic accuracy and safety of FNB using a novel core needle to FNA in solid pancreatic lesions. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients in whom EUS FNA or FNB was performed for solid pancreatic lesions was conducted. Diagnostic performance was calculated based upon a dual classification system: classification 1, only malignant pathology considered a true positive, versus classification 2, atypical, suspicious, and malignant pathology considered a true positive. RESULTS: 43 patients underwent FNB compared with 51 FNA. Using classification 1, sensitivity was 74.0% versus 80.0%, specificity 100% versus 100%, and diagnostic accuracy 77.0% versus 80.0% for FNB versus FNA, respectively (all p > 0.05). Using classification 2, sensitivity was 97% versus 94.0%, specificity 100% versus 100%, and diagnostic accuracy 98.0% versus 94.0% for FNB versus FNA, respectively (all p > 0.05). FNB required significantly fewer needle passes (median = 2) compared to FNA (median = 3; p < 0.001). Adverse events occurred in two (4.5%) FNB patients compared with none in the FNA group (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: FNA and FNB have comparable sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy. FNB required fewer passes. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5933021 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Hindawi |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-59330212018-05-30 A Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration and Fine-Needle Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions Ayres, Lachlan R. Kmiotek, Elizabeth K. Lam, Eric Telford, Jennifer J. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol Research Article BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is the method of choice for sampling pancreatic lesions. This study compares the diagnostic accuracy and safety of FNB using a novel core needle to FNA in solid pancreatic lesions. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients in whom EUS FNA or FNB was performed for solid pancreatic lesions was conducted. Diagnostic performance was calculated based upon a dual classification system: classification 1, only malignant pathology considered a true positive, versus classification 2, atypical, suspicious, and malignant pathology considered a true positive. RESULTS: 43 patients underwent FNB compared with 51 FNA. Using classification 1, sensitivity was 74.0% versus 80.0%, specificity 100% versus 100%, and diagnostic accuracy 77.0% versus 80.0% for FNB versus FNA, respectively (all p > 0.05). Using classification 2, sensitivity was 97% versus 94.0%, specificity 100% versus 100%, and diagnostic accuracy 98.0% versus 94.0% for FNB versus FNA, respectively (all p > 0.05). FNB required significantly fewer needle passes (median = 2) compared to FNA (median = 3; p < 0.001). Adverse events occurred in two (4.5%) FNB patients compared with none in the FNA group (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: FNA and FNB have comparable sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy. FNB required fewer passes. Hindawi 2018-04-19 /pmc/articles/PMC5933021/ /pubmed/29850451 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/1415062 Text en Copyright © 2018 Lachlan R. Ayres et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Ayres, Lachlan R. Kmiotek, Elizabeth K. Lam, Eric Telford, Jennifer J. A Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration and Fine-Needle Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions |
title | A Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration and Fine-Needle Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions |
title_full | A Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration and Fine-Needle Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions |
title_fullStr | A Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration and Fine-Needle Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions |
title_full_unstemmed | A Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration and Fine-Needle Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions |
title_short | A Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration and Fine-Needle Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions |
title_sort | comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and fine-needle biopsy in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5933021/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29850451 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/1415062 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ayreslachlanr acomparisonofendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationandfineneedlebiopsyinthediagnosisofsolidpancreaticlesions AT kmiotekelizabethk acomparisonofendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationandfineneedlebiopsyinthediagnosisofsolidpancreaticlesions AT lameric acomparisonofendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationandfineneedlebiopsyinthediagnosisofsolidpancreaticlesions AT telfordjenniferj acomparisonofendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationandfineneedlebiopsyinthediagnosisofsolidpancreaticlesions AT ayreslachlanr comparisonofendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationandfineneedlebiopsyinthediagnosisofsolidpancreaticlesions AT kmiotekelizabethk comparisonofendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationandfineneedlebiopsyinthediagnosisofsolidpancreaticlesions AT lameric comparisonofendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationandfineneedlebiopsyinthediagnosisofsolidpancreaticlesions AT telfordjenniferj comparisonofendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationandfineneedlebiopsyinthediagnosisofsolidpancreaticlesions |