RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The sensitivity of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) varies considerably. The optimal number of passes through a solid pancreatic lesion with a 22G FNB needle during EUS-FNB is controversial. This prospective randomized controlled study aimed to determine the optimal number of needle passes during EUS-FNB of solid pancreatic lesions, with 22G FNB needles and different sampling techniques. METHODS: Pancreatic masses were sampled using 22G FNB needles with either the stylet slow-pull (SP) technique or the standard-suction (SS) technique. We determined the number of needle passes required to obtain a diagnostic accuracy of >90%. Differences between the two techniques in terms of technical success rate, cytological acquisition, core tissue acquisition, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and complications were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients were randomly assigned to either SP or SS group. Three patients who were lost to follow-up and one who did not complete 5 passes due to bent needle head were excluded from the study. Fifty-six cases in the SP group and 60 cases in the SS group were included in the analysis. For SP technique, the cumulative accuracy of passes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 was 44.83%, 76.79%, 87.50%, 92.86%, and 94.64%, respectively. For SS technique, the cumulative accuracy of passes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 was 71.67%, 85.0%, 90.0%, 93.33%, and 95.0%, respectively. For each group, there was no statistically significant difference in accuracy after 3 and 4 passes. After 4 passes, the pooled sensitivity (92.59% vs. 93.10%), accuracy (92.86% vs. 93.10%), and specificity (100% vs. 100%) were similar (P > 0.05) in the SP and SS groups, respectively. In addition, positive cytological diagnoses (83.9% vs. 85.0%) and positive histological diagnoses (71.4% vs. 78.3%) were comparable (P > 0.05) in the SP and SS groups, respectively. No statistically significant factor was found associated with diagnostic sensitivity for each group. CONCLUSION: When on-site cytological evaluation is unavailable, we recommend that at least 3 passes with 22G ProCore needles be performed during EUS-FNB using the SS technique, at least 4 passes when using SP technique. The SS technique showed potential advantages over SP technique in tissue acquisition and diagnostic capabilities.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the role of double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) in treating intestinal polyps in patients with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome (PJS). METHODS: All patients diagnosed with PJS who underwent a polypectomy under DBE from October 2006 to December 2018 were enrolled. Their clinical records, including surgical history, the method of DBE insertion, the number of DBE procedures, and the maximum size and number of the resected polyps, were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Altogether 97 patients were enrolled. For both antegrade and retrograde DBE the maximum size of the resected polyps during the second hospitalization was significantly smaller than that during the first hospitalization (antegrade DBE: [2.13 ± 1.51] cm vs [3.63 ± 0.92] cm, P = 0.012; retrograde DBE: [1.20 ± 1.10] cm vs [2.95 ± 1.95] cm, P = 0.03), but was significantly larger than that during the third hospitalization (antegrade DBE: [2.13 ± 1.51] cm vs [0.88 ± 0.70] cm, P = 0.012; retrograde DBE: [1.20 ± 1.10] cm vs [0.46 ± 0.40] cm, P = 0.048). The interval between the second and third hospitalizations was significantly longer than that between the first and second hospitalizations ([899.00 ± 382.12] days vs [537.27 ± 326.28] days, P = 0.027). The success rate of total enteroscopy was 58.3% (28/48), which was not affected by a history of laparotomy (61.5% vs 52.4%, P = 0.528). The complication rate was 4.4%. CONCLUSION: DBE is clinically safe and effective for the diagnosis and treatment of intestinal polyps in patients with PJS.
