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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |