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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ayres, Lachlan R., Kmiotek, Elizabeth K., Lam, Eric, Telford, Jennifer J.
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