Cargando…
Randomized controlled trial comparing a conventional needle and a novel needle for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided histology of peripancreatic masses
INTRODUCTION: Cytological study of samples obtained by Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) allows for recognition of clear signs of malignant transformation. However, certain neoplasms can be difficult to diagnose without histological analysis. Recently, a novel EUS-g...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7969324/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33725907 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000025106 |
Sumario: | INTRODUCTION: Cytological study of samples obtained by Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) allows for recognition of clear signs of malignant transformation. However, certain neoplasms can be difficult to diagnose without histological analysis. Recently, a novel EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) needle was developed to increase tissue acquisition. This study set out to investigate the usefulness of this novel EUS-FNB needle (NEFN) in terms of obtaining a proper histology compared with a conventional EUS-FNA needle (CEFN). METHODS: This investigation was a prospective, single-blind, randomized study in a single academic hospital. Primary outcome was the acquisition rate of an appropriate and sufficient specimen for histologic assessment. Secondary outcomes were diagnostic yield of peripancreatic masses using a CEFN and a NEFN. Furthermore, we assessed the feasibility of determining K-ras mutation status according to needle type. RESULTS: The study enrolled 56 consecutive patients. Technical success rates were 96.6% (28/29) for the CEFN and 100% (27/27) for the NEFN (P = 1.000). No complications occurred during or after the procedure in either needle group. An adequate sample for cytologic diagnosis was obtained in 89.7% (26/29) of patients in the CEFN group vs 96.3% (26/27) of patients in the NEFN group (P = .612). For histologic diagnosis, a sample with a biopsy adequacy score of 2 or more was obtained in 41.4% (12/29) of CEFN-acquired samples vs 88.9% (24/27) of NEFN-acquired samples (P < .001). K-ras mutation analysis using histologic specimens was possible in 13 (44.8%) CEFN-acquired samples and 25 (92.6%) of NEFN-acquired samples. This difference was significant (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests that the NEFN is an effective and reliable alternative compared to a CEFN in terms of tissue acquisition rate and quality of histologic sampling. |
---|