0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Establishing the optimal number of passes during EUS-FNB for diagnosis of pancreatic solid lesions: Prospective multicenter study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background and study aims The optimal number of needle passes during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is not yet established. We aimed to perform a per-pass analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB of solid pancreatic lesions using a 22G Franseen needle.

          Patients and methods Consecutive patients with solid pancreatic lesions referred to 11 Italian centers were prospectively enrolled. Three needle passes were performed; specimens were collected after each pass and processed individually as standard histology following macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) by the endoscopist. The primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy of each sequential pass. Final diagnosis was established based on surgical pathology or a clinical course of at least 6 months. Secondary endpoints were specimen adequacy, MOSE reliability, factors impacting diagnostic accuracy, and procedure-related adverse events.

          Results A total of 504 samples from 168 patients were evaluated. Diagnostic accuracy was 90.5% (85.0%–94.1%) after one pass and 97.6% (94.1%–99.3%) after two passes ( P =0.01). Similarly, diagnostic sensitivity and sample adequacy were significantly higher adding the second needle pass (90.2%, 84.6%–94.3% vs 97.5%, 93.8%–99.3%, P =0.009 and 91.1%, 85.7%-94.9% vs 98.2%, 95.8%–99.3%, P =0.009, one pass vs two passes, respectively). Accuracy, sensitivity, and adequacy remained the same after the third pass. The concordance between MOSE and histological evaluation was 89.9%. The number of passes was the only factor associated with accuracy. One case of mild acute pancreatitis (0.6%) was managed conservatively.

          Conclusions At least two passes should be performed for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions. MOSE is a reliable tool to predict the histological adequacy of specimens.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Technical aspects of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Guideline - March 2017.

            For routine EUS-guided sampling of solid masses and lymph nodes (LNs) ESGE recommends 25G or 22G needles (high quality evidence, strong recommendation); fine needle aspiration (FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) needles are equally recommended (high quality evidence, strong recommendation).When the primary aim of sampling is to obtain a core tissue specimen, ESGE suggests using 19G FNA or FNB needles or 22G FNB needles (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE recommends using 10-mL syringe suction for EUS-guided sampling of solid masses and LNs with 25G or 22G FNA needles (high quality evidence, strong recommendation) and other types of needles (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). ESGE suggests neutralizing residual negative pressure in the needle before withdrawing the needle from the target lesion (moderate quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE does not recommend for or against using the needle stylet for EUS-guided sampling of solid masses and LNs with FNA needles (high quality evidence, strong recommendation) and suggests using the needle stylet for EUS-guided sampling with FNB needles (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE suggests fanning the needle throughout the lesion when sampling solid masses and LNs (moderate quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE equally recommends EUS-guided sampling with or without on-site cytologic evaluation (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). When on-site cytologic evaluation is unavailable, ESGE suggests performance of three to four needle passes with an FNA needle or two to three passes with an FNB needle (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).For diagnostic sampling of pancreatic cystic lesions without a solid component, ESGE suggests emptying the cyst with a single pass of a 22G or 19G needle (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). For pancreatic cystic lesions with a solid component, ESGE suggests sampling of the solid component using the same technique as in the case of other solid lesions (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE does not recommend antibiotic prophylaxis for EUS-guided sampling of solid masses or LNs (low quality evidence, strong recommendation), and suggests antibiotic prophylaxis with fluoroquinolones or beta-lactam antibiotics for EUS-guided sampling of cystic lesions (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). ESGE suggests that evaluation of tissue obtained by EUS-guided sampling should include histologic preparations (e. g., cell blocks and/or formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded tissue fragments) and should not be limited to smear cytology (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Statistics review 8: Qualitative data – tests of association

              This review introduces methods for investigating relationships between two qualitative (categorical) variables. The χ2 test of association is described, together with the modifications needed for small samples. The test for trend, in which at least one of the variables is ordinal, is also outlined. Risk measurement is discussed. The calculation of confidence intervals for proportions and differences between proportions are described. Situations in which samples are matched are considered.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Endosc Int Open
                Endosc Int Open
                10.1055/s-00025476
                Endosc Int Open
                Endoscopy International Open
                Georg Thieme Verlag KG (Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany )
                2364-3722
                2196-9736
                05 April 2024
                April 2024
                1 April 2024
                : 12
                : 4
                : E467-E473
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Ringgold 9348, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Istituto Clinico Mater Domini Casa di Cura Privata SpA, Castellanza, Italy;
                [2 ]Medical Sciences, Gastroenterology, Foggia, Italy
                [3 ]Ringgold 220431, Operative Endoscopy Department, Campus Bio-Medico University Hospital, Roma, Italy;
                [4 ]Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Nuovo Ospedale Civile S. Agostino-Estense, Baggiovara di Modena (Mo), Italy
                [5 ]Ringgold 18067, Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Azienda Unita Sanitaria Locale di Modena, Italy;
                [6 ]Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Universita' Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
                [7 ]Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
                [8 ]Digestive Endoscopy, Istituto Clinico Humanitas, Rozzano, Italy
                [9 ]Ringgold 9296, Gastroenterology Unit, Hospital of Imola, University of Bologna, Imola, Italy;
                [10 ]Gastroenterology Unit, University of Bologna, Imola, Italy
                [11 ]Ringgold 18635, Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy, Azienda Ospedaliera Ospedali Riuniti Marche Nord, Pesaro, Italy;
                [12 ]Division of Gastroenterology, Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Rozzano (Milan), Italy
                [13 ]Ringgold 437807, Department of Biomedical Science, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy;
                [14 ]Ringgold 9286, Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Verona, Italy;
                [15 ]Ringgold 9268, Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Division of Gastroenterology, Istituto Clinico Humanitas, Rozzano, Italy;
                [16 ]Digestive Endoscopy, Nuovo Ospedale Civile S. Agostino Estense di Baggiovara, Modena, Modena, Italy
                [17 ]Gastroenterologia, Università Federico II, Napoli, Italy
                [18 ]Ringgold 9317, Operative Endoscopy Department, Campus Bio-Medico University, Roma, Italy;
                [19 ]Ringgold 12348, Gastroenterology and Hepatology, The University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, United States;
                [20 ]Ringgold 9348, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Istituto Clinico Mater Domini Casa di Cura Privata SpA, Castellanza, Varese, Italy;
                [21 ]Department of Diagnostics and Public Health, University of Verona Hospital Trust P.Le L.A. Scuro 10, Verona, Italy
                [22 ]Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, Humanitas Mater Domini, Castellanza, Italy
                [23 ]Ringgold 437807, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy;
                [24 ]Endoscopy Unit, IRCCS Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Milan, Italy
                [25 ]Ringgold 437807, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy;
                [26 ]Ringgold 9268, Digestive Endoscopy Unit, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy;
                [27 ]Ringgold 19051, Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona, Verona, Italy;
                Author notes
                Correspondence Dr. Stefano Francesco Crinó Ringgold 19051, Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona; P.le LA Scuro, 1037129 VeronaItaly stefanofrancesco.crino@ 123456aovr.veneto.it
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0611-7448
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2107-2156
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7724-7402
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4397-9314
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3290-3103
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2939-6876
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7167-1459
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4560-8741
                Article
                EIO-2023-11-3222-OA
                10.1055/a-2236-7654
                10997423
                38585018
                b42907bf-3014-49c7-a2f7-f4ee38dee136
                The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, which permits unrestricted reproduction and distribution, for non-commercial purposes only; and use and reproduction, but not distribution, of adapted material for non-commercial purposes only, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 28 November 2023
                : 19 December 2023
                Categories
                Original article

                pancreas,endoscopic ultrasonography,fine-needle aspiration/biopsy

                Comments

                Comment on this article