Cargando…
Comparison between three types of needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid masses: a multicenter observational study
It is debatable which needle has clear superiority of diagnostic performance in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle biopsy (FNB) of solid pancreatic masses. This study aimed to compare the performance of three needles and determine the variables that affect diagnostic accuracy. From March...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9985625/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36871105 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-30920-5 |
_version_ | 1784900997308481536 |
---|---|
author | Yang, Min Jae Kim, Jaihwan Park, Se Woo Cho, Jae Hee Kim, Eui Joo Lee, Yun Nah Lee, Dong Wook Park, Chan Hyuk Lee, Sang Soo |
author_facet | Yang, Min Jae Kim, Jaihwan Park, Se Woo Cho, Jae Hee Kim, Eui Joo Lee, Yun Nah Lee, Dong Wook Park, Chan Hyuk Lee, Sang Soo |
author_sort | Yang, Min Jae |
collection | PubMed |
description | It is debatable which needle has clear superiority of diagnostic performance in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle biopsy (FNB) of solid pancreatic masses. This study aimed to compare the performance of three needles and determine the variables that affect diagnostic accuracy. From March 2014 to May 2020, 746 patients with solid pancreatic masses who underwent EUS-FNB using three types of needles (Franseen needle, Menghini-tip needle, and Reverse-bevel needle) were retrospectively reviewed. Multivariate analysis using a logistic regression model was used to identify factors related to diagnostic accuracy. There were significant differences between the groups regarding the procurement rate of the histologic and optimal quality cores (Franseen vs. Menghini-tip vs. Reverse-bevel: 98.0% [192/196] vs. 85.8% [97/113] vs. 91.9% [331/360], P < 0.001 and 95.4% [187/196] vs. 65.5% [74/113] vs. 88.3% [318/360], P < 0.001, respectively). The sensitivity and accuracy using histologic samples were 95.03% and 95.92% for Franseen, 82.67% and 88.50% for Menghini-tip, and 82.61% and 85.56% for Reverse-bevel needles, respectively. In direct comparison between the needles using histologic samples, the Franseen needle showed significantly superior accuracy than the Menghini-tip (P = 0.018) and Reverse-bevel needles (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis indicated that tumor size ≥ 2 cm (odds ratio [OR] 5.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.40–8.47, P < 0.001) and fanning technique (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.00–2.86, P = 0.047) were significantly associated with an accurate diagnosis. EUS-FNB using the Franseen needle enables the acquisition of a larger and more adequate histologic core tissue and achieves an accurate histological diagnosis when using the fanning technique. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9985625 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-99856252023-03-06 Comparison between three types of needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid masses: a multicenter observational study Yang, Min Jae Kim, Jaihwan Park, Se Woo Cho, Jae Hee Kim, Eui Joo Lee, Yun Nah Lee, Dong Wook Park, Chan Hyuk Lee, Sang Soo Sci Rep Article It is debatable which needle has clear superiority of diagnostic performance in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle biopsy (FNB) of solid pancreatic masses. This study aimed to compare the performance of three needles and determine the variables that affect diagnostic accuracy. From March 2014 to May 2020, 746 patients with solid pancreatic masses who underwent EUS-FNB using three types of needles (Franseen needle, Menghini-tip needle, and Reverse-bevel needle) were retrospectively reviewed. Multivariate analysis using a logistic regression model was used to identify factors related to diagnostic accuracy. There were significant differences between the groups regarding the procurement rate of the histologic and optimal quality cores (Franseen vs. Menghini-tip vs. Reverse-bevel: 98.0% [192/196] vs. 85.8% [97/113] vs. 91.9% [331/360], P < 0.001 and 95.4% [187/196] vs. 65.5% [74/113] vs. 88.3% [318/360], P < 0.001, respectively). The sensitivity and accuracy using histologic samples were 95.03% and 95.92% for Franseen, 82.67% and 88.50% for Menghini-tip, and 82.61% and 85.56% for Reverse-bevel needles, respectively. In direct comparison between the needles using histologic samples, the Franseen needle showed significantly superior accuracy than the Menghini-tip (P = 0.018) and Reverse-bevel needles (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis indicated that tumor size ≥ 2 cm (odds ratio [OR] 5.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.40–8.47, P < 0.001) and fanning technique (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.00–2.86, P = 0.047) were significantly associated with an accurate diagnosis. EUS-FNB using the Franseen needle enables the acquisition of a larger and more adequate histologic core tissue and achieves an accurate histological diagnosis when using the fanning technique. Nature Publishing Group UK 2023-03-04 /pmc/articles/PMC9985625/ /pubmed/36871105 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-30920-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This 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/) . |
spellingShingle | Article Yang, Min Jae Kim, Jaihwan Park, Se Woo Cho, Jae Hee Kim, Eui Joo Lee, Yun Nah Lee, Dong Wook Park, Chan Hyuk Lee, Sang Soo Comparison between three types of needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid masses: a multicenter observational study |
title | Comparison between three types of needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid masses: a multicenter observational study |
title_full | Comparison between three types of needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid masses: a multicenter observational study |
title_fullStr | Comparison between three types of needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid masses: a multicenter observational study |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison between three types of needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid masses: a multicenter observational study |
title_short | Comparison between three types of needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid masses: a multicenter observational study |
title_sort | comparison between three types of needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid masses: a multicenter observational study |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9985625/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36871105 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-30920-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT yangminjae comparisonbetweenthreetypesofneedlesforendoscopicultrasoundguidedtissueacquisitionofpancreaticsolidmassesamulticenterobservationalstudy AT kimjaihwan comparisonbetweenthreetypesofneedlesforendoscopicultrasoundguidedtissueacquisitionofpancreaticsolidmassesamulticenterobservationalstudy AT parksewoo comparisonbetweenthreetypesofneedlesforendoscopicultrasoundguidedtissueacquisitionofpancreaticsolidmassesamulticenterobservationalstudy AT chojaehee comparisonbetweenthreetypesofneedlesforendoscopicultrasoundguidedtissueacquisitionofpancreaticsolidmassesamulticenterobservationalstudy AT kimeuijoo comparisonbetweenthreetypesofneedlesforendoscopicultrasoundguidedtissueacquisitionofpancreaticsolidmassesamulticenterobservationalstudy AT leeyunnah comparisonbetweenthreetypesofneedlesforendoscopicultrasoundguidedtissueacquisitionofpancreaticsolidmassesamulticenterobservationalstudy AT leedongwook comparisonbetweenthreetypesofneedlesforendoscopicultrasoundguidedtissueacquisitionofpancreaticsolidmassesamulticenterobservationalstudy AT parkchanhyuk comparisonbetweenthreetypesofneedlesforendoscopicultrasoundguidedtissueacquisitionofpancreaticsolidmassesamulticenterobservationalstudy AT leesangsoo comparisonbetweenthreetypesofneedlesforendoscopicultrasoundguidedtissueacquisitionofpancreaticsolidmassesamulticenterobservationalstudy |