Cargando…

Impact of rapid on-site evaluation on diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions: experience from a single center

BACKGROUND: The use of ROSE in EUS-FNA pancreatic lesions is still controversial in many centers. In this study, we aimed to demonstrate the contribution of ROSE to the diagnostic accuracy, as well as its assistance to the pathologist/cytopathologist. METHODS: 162 EUS-FNA biopsies were included in t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Guvendir, Irem, Zemheri, Itir Ebru, Ozdil, Kamil
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9145146/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35624440
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12876-022-02330-w
_version_ 1784716221345693696
author Guvendir, Irem
Zemheri, Itir Ebru
Ozdil, Kamil
author_facet Guvendir, Irem
Zemheri, Itir Ebru
Ozdil, Kamil
author_sort Guvendir, Irem
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The use of ROSE in EUS-FNA pancreatic lesions is still controversial in many centers. In this study, we aimed to demonstrate the contribution of ROSE to the diagnostic accuracy, as well as its assistance to the pathologist/cytopathologist. METHODS: 162 EUS-FNA biopsies were included in the study. EUS-FNA cytology results were reported according to the six-tiered system of Papanicolaou Cytopathology Society and compared to their final diagnosis with histopathology and/or clinical follow-ups regarding malignancy. The diagnostic yield, the difference in diagnostic accuracy, and the contribution of ROSE to providing the pathologist with adequate tissue uptake (number of slides and cell blocks) for further examination were compared in the ROSE and non-ROSE patient groups. RESULTS: In the non-ROSE group, the diagnostic accuracy according to the final diagnoses was 96% and the sensitivity was 94.44%, specificity 100%, PPV 100%, NPV 87.50%; while diagnostic accuracy was 97.09%, sensitivity 97.47%, specificity 95.83%, PPV 98.77%, NPV 92% in patients with ROSE. There was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between those with and without ROSE (p: 0.078). In diagnostic cases, the number of passes, slides and cell blocks were significantly higher in patients with ROSE than those without ROSE (p: 0.003, p: 0.007, p: 0.012, respectively). ROSE was independently associated with diagnostic yield when evaluated by number of passes, slides, cell blocks in regression analysis (p: 0.001, OR: 5.07, confidence interval: 1.89–13.5). CONCLUSION: ROSE may increase the acquisition of sufficient tissue, but it does not have an advantage in diagnostic accuracy. ROSE may raise the number of slides, which may assist the pathologist for the diagnosis. If the lesion is solid and/or contains a solid component, diagnostic yield is higher in patients where ROSE is available. Therefore, ROSE still maintains its applicability in terms of increasing the diagnostic efficiency and making the final diagnosis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9145146
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91451462022-05-29 Impact of rapid on-site evaluation on diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions: experience from a single center Guvendir, Irem Zemheri, Itir Ebru Ozdil, Kamil BMC Gastroenterol Research BACKGROUND: The use of ROSE in EUS-FNA pancreatic lesions is still controversial in many centers. In this study, we aimed to demonstrate the contribution of ROSE to the diagnostic accuracy, as well as its assistance to the pathologist/cytopathologist. METHODS: 162 EUS-FNA biopsies were included in the study. EUS-FNA cytology results were reported according to the six-tiered system of Papanicolaou Cytopathology Society and compared to their final diagnosis with histopathology and/or clinical follow-ups regarding malignancy. The diagnostic yield, the difference in diagnostic accuracy, and the contribution of ROSE to providing the pathologist with adequate tissue uptake (number of slides and cell blocks) for further examination were compared in the ROSE and non-ROSE patient groups. RESULTS: In the non-ROSE group, the diagnostic accuracy according to the final diagnoses was 96% and the sensitivity was 94.44%, specificity 100%, PPV 100%, NPV 87.50%; while diagnostic accuracy was 97.09%, sensitivity 97.47%, specificity 95.83%, PPV 98.77%, NPV 92% in patients with ROSE. There was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between those with and without ROSE (p: 0.078). In diagnostic cases, the number of passes, slides and cell blocks were significantly higher in patients with ROSE than those without ROSE (p: 0.003, p: 0.007, p: 0.012, respectively). ROSE was independently associated with diagnostic yield when evaluated by number of passes, slides, cell blocks in regression analysis (p: 0.001, OR: 5.07, confidence interval: 1.89–13.5). CONCLUSION: ROSE may increase the acquisition of sufficient tissue, but it does not have an advantage in diagnostic accuracy. ROSE may raise the number of slides, which may assist the pathologist for the diagnosis. If the lesion is solid and/or contains a solid component, diagnostic yield is higher in patients where ROSE is available. Therefore, ROSE still maintains its applicability in terms of increasing the diagnostic efficiency and making the final diagnosis. BioMed Central 2022-05-27 /pmc/articles/PMC9145146/ /pubmed/35624440 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12876-022-02330-w Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Guvendir, Irem
Zemheri, Itir Ebru
Ozdil, Kamil
Impact of rapid on-site evaluation on diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions: experience from a single center
title Impact of rapid on-site evaluation on diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions: experience from a single center
title_full Impact of rapid on-site evaluation on diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions: experience from a single center
title_fullStr Impact of rapid on-site evaluation on diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions: experience from a single center
title_full_unstemmed Impact of rapid on-site evaluation on diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions: experience from a single center
title_short Impact of rapid on-site evaluation on diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions: experience from a single center
title_sort impact of rapid on-site evaluation on diagnostic accuracy of eus-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions: experience from a single center
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9145146/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35624440
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12876-022-02330-w
work_keys_str_mv AT guvendirirem impactofrapidonsiteevaluationondiagnosticaccuracyofeusguidedfineneedleaspirationofsolidpancreaticlesionsexperiencefromasinglecenter
AT zemheriitirebru impactofrapidonsiteevaluationondiagnosticaccuracyofeusguidedfineneedleaspirationofsolidpancreaticlesionsexperiencefromasinglecenter
AT ozdilkamil impactofrapidonsiteevaluationondiagnosticaccuracyofeusguidedfineneedleaspirationofsolidpancreaticlesionsexperiencefromasinglecenter