Cargando…

Optimal sampling technique for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions using a 25-gauge ProCore needle: A multicenter randomized crossover superiority study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: It remains unclear whether the use of the stylet slow-pull (SP) and wet suction (WS) can improve the yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy compared to standard suction (SS). The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic efficacy of the three sampli...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Shi-Yu, Shi, Lei, Yao, Jun, Zhou, Wei, Wang, Zhi-Jie, Jiang, Yue-Ping, Wang, Xiao-Wei, Zhou, Chun-Hua, Gao, Li, Jiang, Hui, Chen, Ying, Li, Zhao-Shen, Jin, Zhen-Dong, Wang, Kai-Xuan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9921982/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36537384
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/EUS-D-21-00256
_version_ 1784887443425591296
author Li, Shi-Yu
Shi, Lei
Yao, Jun
Zhou, Wei
Wang, Zhi-Jie
Jiang, Yue-Ping
Wang, Xiao-Wei
Zhou, Chun-Hua
Gao, Li
Jiang, Hui
Chen, Ying
Li, Zhao-Shen
Jin, Zhen-Dong
Wang, Kai-Xuan
author_facet Li, Shi-Yu
Shi, Lei
Yao, Jun
Zhou, Wei
Wang, Zhi-Jie
Jiang, Yue-Ping
Wang, Xiao-Wei
Zhou, Chun-Hua
Gao, Li
Jiang, Hui
Chen, Ying
Li, Zhao-Shen
Jin, Zhen-Dong
Wang, Kai-Xuan
author_sort Li, Shi-Yu
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: It remains unclear whether the use of the stylet slow-pull (SP) and wet suction (WS) can improve the yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy compared to standard suction (SS). The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic efficacy of the three sampling techniques when using 25G ProCore needles for solid pancreatic lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multicenter single-blind randomized crossover superiority trial enrolled patients with solid pancreatic lesions (n = 300) from four digestive endoscopic centers in China. All three sampling techniques were performed on each patient using a 25G ProCore needle in a randomized sequence. The diagnostic efficacy, the specimen yield, and quality of each technique, the overall technical success rate and diagnostic yield of the 25G ProCore needle, and rate of adverse events were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 291 patients were analyzed. No significant difference was found in diagnostic efficiency among the three techniques (sensitivity, 82.14% vs. 75.00% vs. 77.86, P = 0.1186; accuracy, 82.82% vs. 75.95% vs. 78.69%, P = 0.1212). The SP had an inferior tissue integrity compared to the SS and WS techniques (71.82% vs. 62.55% vs. 69.76%, P = 0.0096). There was no significant difference in the degree of blood contamination among the three groups (P = 0.2079). After three passes, the overall sensitivity was 93.93%, and the accuracy was 94.16%. CONCLUSIONS: SS and WS techniques are better choices than SP technique for 25G ProCore needle, for they could provide higher specimen adequacy without increasing the amount of blood contamination. The 25G ProCore needle can provide a satisfactory diagnostic yield for solid pancreatic lesions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9921982
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99219822023-02-12 Optimal sampling technique for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions using a 25-gauge ProCore needle: A multicenter randomized crossover superiority study Li, Shi-Yu Shi, Lei Yao, Jun Zhou, Wei Wang, Zhi-Jie Jiang, Yue-Ping Wang, Xiao-Wei Zhou, Chun-Hua Gao, Li Jiang, Hui Chen, Ying Li, Zhao-Shen Jin, Zhen-Dong Wang, Kai-Xuan Endosc Ultrasound Original Article BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: It remains unclear whether the use of the stylet slow-pull (SP) and wet suction (WS) can improve the yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy compared to standard suction (SS). The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic efficacy of the three sampling techniques when using 25G ProCore needles for solid pancreatic lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multicenter single-blind randomized crossover superiority trial enrolled patients with solid pancreatic lesions (n = 300) from four digestive endoscopic centers in China. All three sampling techniques were performed on each patient using a 25G ProCore needle in a randomized sequence. The diagnostic efficacy, the specimen yield, and quality of each technique, the overall technical success rate and diagnostic yield of the 25G ProCore needle, and rate of adverse events were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 291 patients were analyzed. No significant difference was found in diagnostic efficiency among the three techniques (sensitivity, 82.14% vs. 75.00% vs. 77.86, P = 0.1186; accuracy, 82.82% vs. 75.95% vs. 78.69%, P = 0.1212). The SP had an inferior tissue integrity compared to the SS and WS techniques (71.82% vs. 62.55% vs. 69.76%, P = 0.0096). There was no significant difference in the degree of blood contamination among the three groups (P = 0.2079). After three passes, the overall sensitivity was 93.93%, and the accuracy was 94.16%. CONCLUSIONS: SS and WS techniques are better choices than SP technique for 25G ProCore needle, for they could provide higher specimen adequacy without increasing the amount of blood contamination. The 25G ProCore needle can provide a satisfactory diagnostic yield for solid pancreatic lesions. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2022-12-05 /pmc/articles/PMC9921982/ /pubmed/36537384 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/EUS-D-21-00256 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
Li, Shi-Yu
Shi, Lei
Yao, Jun
Zhou, Wei
Wang, Zhi-Jie
Jiang, Yue-Ping
Wang, Xiao-Wei
Zhou, Chun-Hua
Gao, Li
Jiang, Hui
Chen, Ying
Li, Zhao-Shen
Jin, Zhen-Dong
Wang, Kai-Xuan
Optimal sampling technique for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions using a 25-gauge ProCore needle: A multicenter randomized crossover superiority study
title Optimal sampling technique for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions using a 25-gauge ProCore needle: A multicenter randomized crossover superiority study
title_full Optimal sampling technique for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions using a 25-gauge ProCore needle: A multicenter randomized crossover superiority study
title_fullStr Optimal sampling technique for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions using a 25-gauge ProCore needle: A multicenter randomized crossover superiority study
title_full_unstemmed Optimal sampling technique for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions using a 25-gauge ProCore needle: A multicenter randomized crossover superiority study
title_short Optimal sampling technique for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions using a 25-gauge ProCore needle: A multicenter randomized crossover superiority study
title_sort optimal sampling technique for eus-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions using a 25-gauge procore needle: a multicenter randomized crossover superiority study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9921982/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36537384
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/EUS-D-21-00256
work_keys_str_mv AT lishiyu optimalsamplingtechniqueforeusguidedfineneedlebiopsyofsolidpancreaticlesionsusinga25gaugeprocoreneedleamulticenterrandomizedcrossoversuperioritystudy
AT shilei optimalsamplingtechniqueforeusguidedfineneedlebiopsyofsolidpancreaticlesionsusinga25gaugeprocoreneedleamulticenterrandomizedcrossoversuperioritystudy
AT yaojun optimalsamplingtechniqueforeusguidedfineneedlebiopsyofsolidpancreaticlesionsusinga25gaugeprocoreneedleamulticenterrandomizedcrossoversuperioritystudy
AT zhouwei optimalsamplingtechniqueforeusguidedfineneedlebiopsyofsolidpancreaticlesionsusinga25gaugeprocoreneedleamulticenterrandomizedcrossoversuperioritystudy
AT wangzhijie optimalsamplingtechniqueforeusguidedfineneedlebiopsyofsolidpancreaticlesionsusinga25gaugeprocoreneedleamulticenterrandomizedcrossoversuperioritystudy
AT jiangyueping optimalsamplingtechniqueforeusguidedfineneedlebiopsyofsolidpancreaticlesionsusinga25gaugeprocoreneedleamulticenterrandomizedcrossoversuperioritystudy
AT wangxiaowei optimalsamplingtechniqueforeusguidedfineneedlebiopsyofsolidpancreaticlesionsusinga25gaugeprocoreneedleamulticenterrandomizedcrossoversuperioritystudy
AT zhouchunhua optimalsamplingtechniqueforeusguidedfineneedlebiopsyofsolidpancreaticlesionsusinga25gaugeprocoreneedleamulticenterrandomizedcrossoversuperioritystudy
AT gaoli optimalsamplingtechniqueforeusguidedfineneedlebiopsyofsolidpancreaticlesionsusinga25gaugeprocoreneedleamulticenterrandomizedcrossoversuperioritystudy
AT jianghui optimalsamplingtechniqueforeusguidedfineneedlebiopsyofsolidpancreaticlesionsusinga25gaugeprocoreneedleamulticenterrandomizedcrossoversuperioritystudy
AT chenying optimalsamplingtechniqueforeusguidedfineneedlebiopsyofsolidpancreaticlesionsusinga25gaugeprocoreneedleamulticenterrandomizedcrossoversuperioritystudy
AT lizhaoshen optimalsamplingtechniqueforeusguidedfineneedlebiopsyofsolidpancreaticlesionsusinga25gaugeprocoreneedleamulticenterrandomizedcrossoversuperioritystudy
AT jinzhendong optimalsamplingtechniqueforeusguidedfineneedlebiopsyofsolidpancreaticlesionsusinga25gaugeprocoreneedleamulticenterrandomizedcrossoversuperioritystudy
AT wangkaixuan optimalsamplingtechniqueforeusguidedfineneedlebiopsyofsolidpancreaticlesionsusinga25gaugeprocoreneedleamulticenterrandomizedcrossoversuperioritystudy