Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A multicenter randomized trial comparing a 25-gauge EUS fine-needle aspiration device with a 20-gauge EUS fine-needle biopsy device.
van Riet, Priscilla A; Larghi, Alberto; Attili, Fabia; Rindi, Guido; Nguyen, Nam Quoc; Ruszkiewicz, Andrew; Kitano, Masayuki; Chikugo, Takaaki; Aslanian, Harry; Farrell, James; Robert, Marie; Adeniran, Adebowale; Van Der Merwe, Schalk; Roskams, Tania; Chang, Kenneth; Lin, Fritz; Lee, John G; Arcidiacono, Paolo Giorgio; Petrone, Mariachiara; Doglioni, Claudio; Iglesias-Garcia, Julio; Abdulkader, Ihab; Giovannini, Marc; Bories, Erwan; Poizat, Flora; Santo, Erwin; Scapa, Erez; Marmor, Silvia; Bucobo, Juan Carlos; Buscaglia, Jonathan M; Heimann, Alan; Wu, Maoxin; Baldaque-Silva, Francisco; Moro, Carlos Fernández; Erler, Nicole S; Biermann, Katharina; Poley, Jan-Werner; Cahen, Djuna L; Bruno, Marco J.
Afiliación
  • van Riet PA; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
  • Larghi A; Department of Endoscopy, Catholic University Rome, Rome, Italy.
  • Attili F; Department of Endoscopy, Catholic University Rome, Rome, Italy.
  • Rindi G; Department of Pathology, Catholic University Rome, Rome, Italy.
  • Nguyen NQ; Department of Endoscopy, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia.
  • Ruszkiewicz A; Department of Pathology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia.
  • Kitano M; Department of Endoscopy, Kinki University, Osaka-Sayama, Japan.
  • Chikugo T; Department of Pathology, Kinki University, Osaka-Sayama, Japan.
  • Aslanian H; Department of Endoscopy, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
  • Farrell J; Department of Endoscopy, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
  • Robert M; Department of Pathology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
  • Adeniran A; Department of Pathology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
  • Van Der Merwe S; Department of Endoscopy, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
  • Roskams T; Department of Pathology, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
  • Chang K; Department of Endoscopy, University of California, Irvine, California, USA.
  • Lin F; Department of Pathology, University of California, Irvine, California, USA.
  • Lee JG; Department of Endoscopy, University of California, Irvine, California, USA.
  • Arcidiacono PG; Department of Endoscopy, Vita Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
  • Petrone M; Department of Endoscopy, Vita Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
  • Doglioni C; Department of Pathology, Vita Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
  • Iglesias-Garcia J; Department of Endoscopy, University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
  • Abdulkader I; Department of Pathology, University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
  • Giovannini M; Department of Endoscopy, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseilles, France.
  • Bories E; Department of Endoscopy, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseilles, France.
  • Poizat F; Department of Pathology, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseilles, France.
  • Santo E; Department of Endoscopy, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel.
  • Scapa E; Department of Endoscopy, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel.
  • Marmor S; Department of Pathology, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel.
  • Bucobo JC; Department of Endoscopy, Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook, New York, USA.
  • Buscaglia JM; Department of Endoscopy, Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook, New York, USA.
  • Heimann A; Department of Pathology, Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook, New York, USA.
  • Wu M; Department of Pathology, Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook, New York, USA.
  • Baldaque-Silva F; Department of Upper GI Diseases, Unit of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
  • Moro CF; Department of Clinical Pathology/Cytology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
  • Erler NS; Department of Biostatistics, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
  • Biermann K; Department of Pathology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
  • Poley JW; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
  • Cahen DL; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
  • Bruno MJ; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Gastrointest Endosc ; 89(2): 329-339, 2019 02.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30367877
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND

AIMS:

Several studies have compared EUS-guided FNA with fine-needle biopsy (FNB), but none have proven superiority. We performed a multicenter randomized controlled trial to compare the performance of a commonly used 25-gauge FNA needle with a newly designed 20-gauge FNB needle.

METHODS:

Consecutive patients with a solid lesion were randomized in this international multicenter study between a 25-gauge FNA (EchoTip Ultra) or a 20-gauge FNB needle (ProCore). The primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy for malignancy and the Bethesda classification (non-diagnostic, benign, atypical, malignant). Technical success, safety, and sample quality were also assessed. Multivariable and supplementary analyses were performed to adjust for confounders.

RESULTS:

A total of 608 patients were allocated to FNA (n = 306) or FNB (n = 302); 312 pancreatic lesions (51%), 147 lymph nodes (24%), and 149 other lesions (25%). Technical success rate was 100% for the 25-gauge FNA and 99% for the 20-gauge FNB needle (P = .043), with no differences in adverse events. The 20-gauge FNB needle outperformed 25-gauge FNA in terms of histologic yield (77% vs 44%, P < .001), accuracy for malignancy (87% vs 78%, P = .002) and Bethesda classification (82% vs 72%, P = .002). This was robust when corrected for indication, lesion size, number of passes, and presence of an on-site pathologist (odds ratio, 3.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.55-8.56; P = .004), and did not differ among centers (P = .836).

CONCLUSION:

The 20-gauge FNB needle outperformed the 25-gauge FNA needle in terms of histologic yield and diagnostic accuracy. This benefit was irrespective of the indication and was consistent among participating centers, supporting the general applicability of our findings. (Clinical trial registration number NCT02167074.).
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Neoplasias Pancreáticas / Carcinoma / Tumores Neuroendocrinos / Tumores del Estroma Gastrointestinal / Biopsia por Aspiración con Aguja Fina Guiada por Ultrasonido Endoscópico / Biopsia con Aguja Gruesa / Linfadenopatía / Neoplasias Intestinales / Linfoma Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Diagnostic_studies / Etiology_studies Límite: Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Gastrointest Endosc Año: 2019 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Países Bajos

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Neoplasias Pancreáticas / Carcinoma / Tumores Neuroendocrinos / Tumores del Estroma Gastrointestinal / Biopsia por Aspiración con Aguja Fina Guiada por Ultrasonido Endoscópico / Biopsia con Aguja Gruesa / Linfadenopatía / Neoplasias Intestinales / Linfoma Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Diagnostic_studies / Etiology_studies Límite: Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Gastrointest Endosc Año: 2019 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Países Bajos
...