Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparison of contrast-enhanced versus conventional EUS-guided FNA/fine-needle biopsy in diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions: a randomized controlled trial.
Cho, In Rae; Jeong, Seok-Hoo; Kang, Huapyong; Kim, Eui Joo; Kim, Yeon Suk; Cho, Jae Hee.
Afiliação
  • Cho IR; Department of Internal Medicine and Liver Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
  • Jeong SH; Department of Internal Medicine, Catholic Kwandong University International Saint Mary's Hospital, Incheon, Korea.
  • Kang H; Department of Internal Medicine, Gachon University Gil Medical Center, Incheon, Korea.
  • Kim EJ; Department of Internal Medicine, Gachon University Gil Medical Center, Incheon, Korea.
  • Kim YS; Department of Internal Medicine, Gachon University Gil Medical Center, Incheon, Korea.
  • Cho JH; Department of Internal Medicine, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Gastrointest Endosc ; 94(2): 303-310, 2021 08.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33497643
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS (CEH-EUS) is useful in the differential diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs). However, there is lack of verification about the usefulness of CEH-EUS-guided FNA/fine-needle biopsy (FNB) sampling. This study aimed to investigate the usefulness of CEH-EUS-guided FNA/FNB sampling without on-site cytopathology. METHODS: Patients with SPLs were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned (1:1) to 2 parallel groups, the interventional group (CEH-EUS) or the control group (conventional EUS). The diagnostic sensitivity and optimal number of needle passes for pathologic diagnosis were investigated and compared between groups. RESULTS: Two hundred forty patients were enrolled from March 2016 to September 2019, with 120 patients assigned to each group. Pancreatic malignancies and neuroendocrine tumors were found in 202 (90.83%) and 9 (3.75%) patients, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of age, sex, lesion size (30.96 ± 12.09 mm in the CEH-EUS group vs 33.09 ± 16.39 mm in the conventional EUS group; P = .252), lesion location, adverse event rate, and disease distribution. The diagnostic sensitivity values in the CEH-EUS and conventional EUS groups were 85.8% and 88.3%, respectively (P = .564). All patients in the conventional EUS group and most in the CEH-EUS group received a pathologic diagnosis within 3 needle passes. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic sensitivity for SPLs was not different between the CEH-EUS and conventional EUS groups, and no independent factors were found that could improve diagnostic sensitivity. CEH-EUS-guided FNA/FNB sampling does not need to be used routinely and may be selectively considered for small, indeterminate lesions. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT 0001840.).
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Neoplasias Pancreáticas / Tumores Neuroendócrinos / Aspiração por Agulha Fina Guiada por Ultrassom Endoscópico Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Diagnostic_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Neoplasias Pancreáticas / Tumores Neuroendócrinos / Aspiração por Agulha Fina Guiada por Ultrassom Endoscópico Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Diagnostic_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article