Cargando…
Comparison of specimen quality among the standard suction, slow-pull, and wet suction techniques for EUS-FNA: A multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Standard suction technique (SST), slow-pull technique (SPT), and wet suction technique (WEST) of EUS-FNA are designed to improve the diagnostic yields of solid and solid-cystic lesions. We conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomized crossover trial to compare SST, SPT...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9688131/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36255027 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/EUS-D-21-00163 |
_version_ | 1784836189808754688 |
---|---|
author | Chen, Tian-Yin Cao, Ji-Wang Jin, Chen Ji, Yuan Zhong, Liang Wang, Li-Mei Cui, Ning Di, Yang Bao, Yun Zhong, Ning Zhang, Yi-Qun Zhou, Ping-Hong |
author_facet | Chen, Tian-Yin Cao, Ji-Wang Jin, Chen Ji, Yuan Zhong, Liang Wang, Li-Mei Cui, Ning Di, Yang Bao, Yun Zhong, Ning Zhang, Yi-Qun Zhou, Ping-Hong |
author_sort | Chen, Tian-Yin |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Standard suction technique (SST), slow-pull technique (SPT), and wet suction technique (WEST) of EUS-FNA are designed to improve the diagnostic yields of solid and solid-cystic lesions. We conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomized crossover trial to compare SST, SPT, and WEST on specimen quality and diagnostic accuracy using a 22G needle. METHODS: Patients with solid or solid-cystic lesions referred for EUS-FNA at four tertiary hospitals from December 2017 to August 2019 were considered eligible. All lesions were sampled using a 22G needle by the three techniques performed consecutively in a randomized order. The primary outcome was quality of the specimen acquired by each technique regarding blood contamination, tissue integrity and cellularity for diagnosis, graded on a predefined scale. The secondary outcomes were the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA and the incidence of adverse events. ClinicalTrial. gov registration number: NCT03567863. RESULTS: A total of 300 patients (mean age, 60.6 years, 188 men) were enrolled. WEST was superior (mean score 4.02 ± 1.51) over SST (3.67 ± 1.57, P = 0.018), but comparable to SPT (3.83 ± 1.55, P = 0.370) in overall specimen quality evaluation. WEST produced better tissue integrity (1.42 ± 0.74) and higher cellularity (1.32 ± 0.80) than SST and SPT. SPT (1.43 ± 0.69) was superior to SST (1.27 ± 0.72, P = 0.004) and WEST (1.28 ± 0.71, P = 0.006) in avoiding blood contamination. WEST achieved a diagnostic accuracy of 74.7%, higher than SST (64.4%, P = 0.007) and SPT (65.0%, P = 0.012). One bleeding event occurred with a pancreatic lesion. CONCLUSIONS: WEST was comparable to SPT and superior to SST in the overall quality of the specimen and achieved highest diagnostic yield. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9688131 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Wolters Kluwer - Medknow |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-96881312022-11-25 Comparison of specimen quality among the standard suction, slow-pull, and wet suction techniques for EUS-FNA: A multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial Chen, Tian-Yin Cao, Ji-Wang Jin, Chen Ji, Yuan Zhong, Liang Wang, Li-Mei Cui, Ning Di, Yang Bao, Yun Zhong, Ning Zhang, Yi-Qun Zhou, Ping-Hong Endosc Ultrasound Original Article BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Standard suction technique (SST), slow-pull technique (SPT), and wet suction technique (WEST) of EUS-FNA are designed to improve the diagnostic yields of solid and solid-cystic lesions. We conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomized crossover trial to compare SST, SPT, and WEST on specimen quality and diagnostic accuracy using a 22G needle. METHODS: Patients with solid or solid-cystic lesions referred for EUS-FNA at four tertiary hospitals from December 2017 to August 2019 were considered eligible. All lesions were sampled using a 22G needle by the three techniques performed consecutively in a randomized order. The primary outcome was quality of the specimen acquired by each technique regarding blood contamination, tissue integrity and cellularity for diagnosis, graded on a predefined scale. The secondary outcomes were the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA and the incidence of adverse events. ClinicalTrial. gov registration number: NCT03567863. RESULTS: A total of 300 patients (mean age, 60.6 years, 188 men) were enrolled. WEST was superior (mean score 4.02 ± 1.51) over SST (3.67 ± 1.57, P = 0.018), but comparable to SPT (3.83 ± 1.55, P = 0.370) in overall specimen quality evaluation. WEST produced better tissue integrity (1.42 ± 0.74) and higher cellularity (1.32 ± 0.80) than SST and SPT. SPT (1.43 ± 0.69) was superior to SST (1.27 ± 0.72, P = 0.004) and WEST (1.28 ± 0.71, P = 0.006) in avoiding blood contamination. WEST achieved a diagnostic accuracy of 74.7%, higher than SST (64.4%, P = 0.007) and SPT (65.0%, P = 0.012). One bleeding event occurred with a pancreatic lesion. CONCLUSIONS: WEST was comparable to SPT and superior to SST in the overall quality of the specimen and achieved highest diagnostic yield. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2022-06-08 /pmc/articles/PMC9688131/ /pubmed/36255027 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/EUS-D-21-00163 Text en Copyright: © 2022 SCHOLAR MEDIA PUBLISHING https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Chen, Tian-Yin Cao, Ji-Wang Jin, Chen Ji, Yuan Zhong, Liang Wang, Li-Mei Cui, Ning Di, Yang Bao, Yun Zhong, Ning Zhang, Yi-Qun Zhou, Ping-Hong Comparison of specimen quality among the standard suction, slow-pull, and wet suction techniques for EUS-FNA: A multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial |
title | Comparison of specimen quality among the standard suction, slow-pull, and wet suction techniques for EUS-FNA: A multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial |
title_full | Comparison of specimen quality among the standard suction, slow-pull, and wet suction techniques for EUS-FNA: A multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial |
title_fullStr | Comparison of specimen quality among the standard suction, slow-pull, and wet suction techniques for EUS-FNA: A multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of specimen quality among the standard suction, slow-pull, and wet suction techniques for EUS-FNA: A multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial |
title_short | Comparison of specimen quality among the standard suction, slow-pull, and wet suction techniques for EUS-FNA: A multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial |
title_sort | comparison of specimen quality among the standard suction, slow-pull, and wet suction techniques for eus-fna: a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9688131/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36255027 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/EUS-D-21-00163 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT chentianyin comparisonofspecimenqualityamongthestandardsuctionslowpullandwetsuctiontechniquesforeusfnaamulticenterprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial AT caojiwang comparisonofspecimenqualityamongthestandardsuctionslowpullandwetsuctiontechniquesforeusfnaamulticenterprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial AT jinchen comparisonofspecimenqualityamongthestandardsuctionslowpullandwetsuctiontechniquesforeusfnaamulticenterprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial AT jiyuan comparisonofspecimenqualityamongthestandardsuctionslowpullandwetsuctiontechniquesforeusfnaamulticenterprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial AT zhongliang comparisonofspecimenqualityamongthestandardsuctionslowpullandwetsuctiontechniquesforeusfnaamulticenterprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial AT wanglimei comparisonofspecimenqualityamongthestandardsuctionslowpullandwetsuctiontechniquesforeusfnaamulticenterprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial AT cuining comparisonofspecimenqualityamongthestandardsuctionslowpullandwetsuctiontechniquesforeusfnaamulticenterprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial AT diyang comparisonofspecimenqualityamongthestandardsuctionslowpullandwetsuctiontechniquesforeusfnaamulticenterprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial AT baoyun comparisonofspecimenqualityamongthestandardsuctionslowpullandwetsuctiontechniquesforeusfnaamulticenterprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial AT zhongning comparisonofspecimenqualityamongthestandardsuctionslowpullandwetsuctiontechniquesforeusfnaamulticenterprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial AT zhangyiqun comparisonofspecimenqualityamongthestandardsuctionslowpullandwetsuctiontechniquesforeusfnaamulticenterprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial AT zhoupinghong comparisonofspecimenqualityamongthestandardsuctionslowpullandwetsuctiontechniquesforeusfnaamulticenterprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial |