Cargando…

Evaluation of 22G fine-needle aspiration (FNA) versus fine-needle biopsy (FNB) for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: a prospective comparison study

BACKGROUND: To compare the diagnostic yield and safety of 22G endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) in the diagnosis of pancreatic solid lesions. METHODS: Between April 2014 and September 2015, 36 patients with pan...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tian, Li, Tang, An-Liu, Zhang, Lei, Liu, Xiao-Wen, Li, Jing-Bo, Wang, Fen, Shen, Shou-Rong, Wang, Xiao-Yan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6061052/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29404729
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6075-6
_version_ 1783342139537620992
author Tian, Li
Tang, An-Liu
Zhang, Lei
Liu, Xiao-Wen
Li, Jing-Bo
Wang, Fen
Shen, Shou-Rong
Wang, Xiao-Yan
author_facet Tian, Li
Tang, An-Liu
Zhang, Lei
Liu, Xiao-Wen
Li, Jing-Bo
Wang, Fen
Shen, Shou-Rong
Wang, Xiao-Yan
author_sort Tian, Li
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To compare the diagnostic yield and safety of 22G endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) in the diagnosis of pancreatic solid lesions. METHODS: Between April 2014 and September 2015, 36 patients with pancreatic solid lesions were included for endoscopic ultrasound test. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: EUS-FNA (n = 18) and EUS-FNB (n = 18). Each nidus was punctured three times (15 ~ 20 insertions for each puncture) with a 22G needle. The core specimens were analyzed, and the diagnostic yields of FNA and FNB were evaluated. RESULTS: The procedure success rate was 100% with no complications. Cytological and histological examinations found that the diagnostic yield of FNB and FNA were both 83.3%. To get a definitive diagnosis, FNB needed fewer punctures than FNA (1.11 vs. 1.83; P  <  0.05). CONCLUSIONS: 22G EUS-FNB is a safe and effective way to diagnose pancreatic solid lesions. FNB required a lower number of needle passes to achieve a diagnosis compared with FNA.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6061052
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60610522018-08-09 Evaluation of 22G fine-needle aspiration (FNA) versus fine-needle biopsy (FNB) for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: a prospective comparison study Tian, Li Tang, An-Liu Zhang, Lei Liu, Xiao-Wen Li, Jing-Bo Wang, Fen Shen, Shou-Rong Wang, Xiao-Yan Surg Endosc Article BACKGROUND: To compare the diagnostic yield and safety of 22G endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) in the diagnosis of pancreatic solid lesions. METHODS: Between April 2014 and September 2015, 36 patients with pancreatic solid lesions were included for endoscopic ultrasound test. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: EUS-FNA (n = 18) and EUS-FNB (n = 18). Each nidus was punctured three times (15 ~ 20 insertions for each puncture) with a 22G needle. The core specimens were analyzed, and the diagnostic yields of FNA and FNB were evaluated. RESULTS: The procedure success rate was 100% with no complications. Cytological and histological examinations found that the diagnostic yield of FNB and FNA were both 83.3%. To get a definitive diagnosis, FNB needed fewer punctures than FNA (1.11 vs. 1.83; P  <  0.05). CONCLUSIONS: 22G EUS-FNB is a safe and effective way to diagnose pancreatic solid lesions. FNB required a lower number of needle passes to achieve a diagnosis compared with FNA. Springer US 2018-02-05 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC6061052/ /pubmed/29404729 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6075-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Article
Tian, Li
Tang, An-Liu
Zhang, Lei
Liu, Xiao-Wen
Li, Jing-Bo
Wang, Fen
Shen, Shou-Rong
Wang, Xiao-Yan
Evaluation of 22G fine-needle aspiration (FNA) versus fine-needle biopsy (FNB) for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: a prospective comparison study
title Evaluation of 22G fine-needle aspiration (FNA) versus fine-needle biopsy (FNB) for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: a prospective comparison study
title_full Evaluation of 22G fine-needle aspiration (FNA) versus fine-needle biopsy (FNB) for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: a prospective comparison study
title_fullStr Evaluation of 22G fine-needle aspiration (FNA) versus fine-needle biopsy (FNB) for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: a prospective comparison study
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of 22G fine-needle aspiration (FNA) versus fine-needle biopsy (FNB) for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: a prospective comparison study
title_short Evaluation of 22G fine-needle aspiration (FNA) versus fine-needle biopsy (FNB) for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: a prospective comparison study
title_sort evaluation of 22g fine-needle aspiration (fna) versus fine-needle biopsy (fnb) for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: a prospective comparison study
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6061052/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29404729
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6075-6
work_keys_str_mv AT tianli evaluationof22gfineneedleaspirationfnaversusfineneedlebiopsyfnbforendoscopicultrasoundguidedsamplingofpancreaticlesionsaprospectivecomparisonstudy
AT tanganliu evaluationof22gfineneedleaspirationfnaversusfineneedlebiopsyfnbforendoscopicultrasoundguidedsamplingofpancreaticlesionsaprospectivecomparisonstudy
AT zhanglei evaluationof22gfineneedleaspirationfnaversusfineneedlebiopsyfnbforendoscopicultrasoundguidedsamplingofpancreaticlesionsaprospectivecomparisonstudy
AT liuxiaowen evaluationof22gfineneedleaspirationfnaversusfineneedlebiopsyfnbforendoscopicultrasoundguidedsamplingofpancreaticlesionsaprospectivecomparisonstudy
AT lijingbo evaluationof22gfineneedleaspirationfnaversusfineneedlebiopsyfnbforendoscopicultrasoundguidedsamplingofpancreaticlesionsaprospectivecomparisonstudy
AT wangfen evaluationof22gfineneedleaspirationfnaversusfineneedlebiopsyfnbforendoscopicultrasoundguidedsamplingofpancreaticlesionsaprospectivecomparisonstudy
AT shenshourong evaluationof22gfineneedleaspirationfnaversusfineneedlebiopsyfnbforendoscopicultrasoundguidedsamplingofpancreaticlesionsaprospectivecomparisonstudy
AT wangxiaoyan evaluationof22gfineneedleaspirationfnaversusfineneedlebiopsyfnbforendoscopicultrasoundguidedsamplingofpancreaticlesionsaprospectivecomparisonstudy