Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Contrast-Enhanced Harmonic Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration versus Standard Fine-Needle Aspiration in Pancreatic Masses: A Propensity Score Analysis.
Facciorusso, Antonio; Cotsoglou, Christian; Chierici, Andrea; Mare, Ruxandra; Crinò, Stefano Francesco; Muscatiello, Nicola.
Afiliación
  • Facciorusso A; Gastroenterology Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, Ospedali Riuniti di Foggia, 71122 Foggia, Italy.
  • Cotsoglou C; General Surgery Department, ASST-Vimercate, 20871 Vimercate, Italy.
  • Chierici A; General Surgery Department, ASST-Vimercate, 20871 Vimercate, Italy.
  • Mare R; Department of Internal Medicine II, Gastroenterology Unit, "Victor Babes" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 300226 Timisoara, Romania.
  • Crinò SF; Department of Medicine, Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, The Pancreas Institute, University Hospital of Verona, 37100 Verona, Italy.
  • Muscatiello N; Gastroenterology Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, Ospedali Riuniti di Foggia, 71122 Foggia, Italy.
Diagnostics (Basel) ; 10(10)2020 Oct 06.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33036222
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Whether endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) contrast-enhanced fine-needle aspiration (CH-EUS-FNA) determines superior results in comparison to standard EUS-FNA in tissue acquisition of pancreatic masses remains unclear. The aim of this study was to compare these two techniques on a series of patients with solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS:

362 patients underwent EUS-FNA (2008-2019), after the propensity score matching of two groups were compared; 103 treated with CH-EUS-FNA (group 1) and 103 with standard EUS-FNA (group 2). The primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and sample adequacy.

RESULTS:

Diagnostic sensitivity was 87.6% in group 1 and 80% in group 2 (p = 0.18). The negative predictive value was 56% in group 1 and 41.5% in group 2 (p = 0.06). The specificity and positive predictive values were 100% for both groups. Diagnostic accuracy was 89.3% and 82.5%, respectively (p = 0.40). Sample adequacy was 94.1% in group 1 and 91.2% in group 2 (p = 0.42). The rate of adequate core histologic samples was 33% and 28.1%, respectively (p = 0.44), and the number of needle passes to obtain adequate samples were 2.4 ± 0.6 and 2.7 ± 0.8, respectively (p = 0.76). These findings were confirmed in subgroup analyses, conducted according to lesion size and contrast enhancement pattern.

CONCLUSIONS:

CH-EUS-FNA does not appear to be superior to standard EUS-FNA in patients with pancreatic masses.
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies Idioma: En Revista: Diagnostics (Basel) Año: 2020 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Italia

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies Idioma: En Revista: Diagnostics (Basel) Año: 2020 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Italia
...