RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasound (CH-EUS) can visualize necrotic areas and vessels inside lesions. CH-EUS findings combined with EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) improves diagnosis in pancreatic solid masses. CH-EUS can also guide EUS-FNA (CH-EUS-FNA), potentially improving the diagnostic rate of EUS-FNA, but such superiority has not been proved in prospective studies. We aimed to assess whether CH-EUS-FNA is superior to standard EUS-FNA for specific diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses and what factors affect the diagnostic rate. METHODS: This randomized controlled study in one tertiary medical academic center included patients with suspected pancreatic solid masses on transabdominal ultrasound or computed tomography (CT) scan. Two passes with a 22-G standard FNA needle were done using EUS-FNA and CH-EUS-FNA in random order, and the visible core obtained was sent for histological analysis. Final diagnosis was based on EUS-FNA or surgical specimen results and on 12-month follow-up by imaging. RESULTS: 148 patients were evaluated. EUS-FNA and CH-EUS-FNA showed diagnostic sensitivities of 85.5â% and 87.6â%, respectively (not significantly different) and the combined sensitivity of the two passes was 93.8â%. The false-negative rate was not significantly different when hypoenhanced or hyperenhanced lesions were compared with the EUS-FNA results. No differences were seen for the results related to location, size, tumor stage, chronic pancreatitis features, or presence of biliary plastic stent. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic rates for samples obtained using 22-G needles with standard EUS-FNA and CH-EUS-FNA were not statistically significantly different.
Assuntos
Aspiração por Agulha Fina Guiada por Ultrassom Endoscópico , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Humanos , Pâncreas/diagnóstico por imagem , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/diagnóstico por imagem , Estudos Prospectivos , Padrões de ReferênciaRESUMO
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) are considered good tools for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer and for obtaining material for cytology or histology. The accuracy of EUS-FNA can rise to 85-95%, but it is lower in cases with a chronic pancreatitis background or with previous biliary stenting. We aimed to establish the diagnostic yield of the visible length of the core biopsy samples in pancreatic cancer by using one single type of standard 22G needle and to evaluate the factors which can influence the results. METHOD: EUS-FNA was performed by using a 22G standard needle on patients prospectively recruited with the suspicion of pancreatic masses on transabdominal ultrasound or CT scan over a period of eight months. The number of passes was limited by the length of the core obtained. The final diagnosis was based on EUS-FNA or hepatic biopsy for their metastasis or by follow up every three month by imaging methods. RESULTS: The study included 118 patients. Previous stents were present in 10 patients and chronic pancreatitis features were found in 3 patients. The procedure sensitivity was 89% and the global accuracy was 89%. The presence of biliary stents did not impede the accuracy of results. The number of passes did not influence the results. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic rate of core biopsy by using 22G needles had a high accuracy and it is safe when the length of core dictates the number of passes. The presence of biliary stents did not influence the results.