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...
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/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 |