EUS-FNA versus ERCP for tissue diagnosis of suspect malignant biliary strictures: a prospective comparative study

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_MOURA_EUSFNA_versus_ERCP_for_tissue_diagnosis_of_suspect_2018.PDF (959.82 KB)
Citações na Scopus
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2018
DOI
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
Autores
GUIDAMARAES, Eduardo
Citação
ENDOSCOPY INTERNATIONAL OPEN, v.6, n.6, p.E769-E777, 2018
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Background and study aims Biliary strictures are frequently a challenging clinical scenario and the anatomopathological diagnosis is essential in the therapeutic management, whether for curative or palliative purposes. The acquisition of specimens is necessary since many benign diseases mimic biliopancreatic neoplasms. Endscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the traditionally used method despite the low sensitivity of biliary brush cytology and forceps biopsy. On the other hand, several studies reported good accuracy rates using endoscopic ultrasound- guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). The aim of this prospective study was to compare, the accuracy of EUS-FNA and ERCP for tissue sampling of biliary strictures. Patients and methods After performing the sample size calculation, 50 consecutive patients with indeterminate biliary strictures were included to undergo ERCP and EUS on the same sedation. The gold-standard was surgery or 6 months' follow-up. Evaluation of the diagnostic indices (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, positive and negative likelihood ratio), concordance and adverse events among the methods were performed. Also, subtype analyses of the techniques, anatomical localization and size of the lesion were included. Results The final diagnoses reported in 50 patients were 47 malignant, 1 suspicious and 2 benign lesions. 31 lesions were extraductal and 19 intraductal, 35 were distal and 15 proximal strictures. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the sensitivity and accuracy of EUS-FNA were superior than ERCP tissue sampling (93,8%, 94% vs. 60,4%, 62%, respectively) (P = 0.034), with similar adverse events. There was no concordance between the methods and combining both methods improved the sensitivity and accuracy for 97.9% and 98%, respectively. In the subtype analyses, the EUS-FNA was superior, with a higher accuracy than ERCP tissue sampling in evaluating extraductal lesions (100% vs. 54.8 %, P = 0.019) and in those larger than 1.5 cm (95.8% vs. 61.9%, P = 0.031), but were similar in evaluating intraductal lesions and lesions smaller than 1.5 cm. There was no significant difference between the methods in the analyzes of proximal, distal and pancreatic lesions. Conclusion EUS-FNA is better than ERCP with brush cytology and intraductal forceps biopsy in diagnosing malignant biliary strictures, mainly in the assessment of extraductal lesions and in those larger than 1.5 cm. Combining ERCP with tissue sampling and EUS-FNA is feasible, the techniques have similar complication rates, and the combination greatly improves diagnostic accuracy.
Palavras-chave
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/27187
Referências
  1. American Cancer Society, 2013, AM CANC SOC CANC FAC
  2. Anderson MA, 2013, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V77, P167, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2012.09.029
  3. Bosman FT, 2010, WHO CLASSIFICATION T
  4. Burnett AS, 2013, J SURG RES, V184, P304, DOI 10.1016/j.jss.2013.06.028
  5. Busnello ED, 1999, REV SAUDE PUBL, V33, P487, DOI 10.1590/S0034-89101999000500008
  6. Cui XW, 2012, Z GASTROENTEROL, V50, P226, DOI 10.1055/s-0031-1281967
  7. de Bellis M, 2002, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V56, P720, DOI 10.1067/mge.2002.129219
  8. de Bellis M, 2002, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V56, P552, DOI 10.1067/mge.2002.128132
  9. DeWitt J, 2006, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V64, P325, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2005.11.064
  10. Eloubeidi MA, 2004, CLIN GASTROENTEROL H, V2, P209, DOI 10.1053/S1542-3565(04)00005-9
  11. Freeman ML, 1996, NEW ENGL J MED, V335, P909, DOI 10.1056/NEJM199609263351301
  12. Fritscher-Ravens A, 2004, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V99, P45, DOI 10.1046/j.1572-0241.2003.04006.x
  13. Fusaroli P, 2016, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V84, P587, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2016.06.006
  14. De Moura DTH, 2018, ENDOSC ULTRASOUND, V7, P10, DOI 10.4103/2303-9027.193597
  15. Korc P, 2016, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V84, P557, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2016.04.039
  16. LEE JG, 1995, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V90, P722
  17. Levy MJ, 2008, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V103, P1263, DOI 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01776.x
  18. Logrono R, 2004, ACTA CYTOL, V48, P613, DOI 10.1159/000326431
  19. Luna LEM, 2006, GASTROENTEROLOGY, V131, P1064, DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2006.08.021
  20. Menzel J, 1999, ANN ONCOL, V10, P1227, DOI 10.1023/A:1008368807817
  21. Mohamadnejad M, 2011, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V73, P71, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2010.08.050
  22. Naitoh I, 2016, J DIGEST DIS, V17, P44, DOI 10.1111/1751-2980.12311
  23. Nanda A, 2015, THER ADV GASTROENTER, V8, P56, DOI 10.1177/1756283X14564674
  24. Navaneethan U, 2015, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V82, P608, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2015.04.030
  25. Navaneethan U, 2015, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V81, P168, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2014.09.017
  26. Novis Monica, 2010, Rev. Col. Bras. Cir., V37, P190, DOI 10.1590/S0100-69912010000300006
  27. Onda S, 2016, THER ADV GASTROENTER, V9, P302, DOI 10.1177/1756283X15625584
  28. Oppong K, 2010, J PANCREAS, V11, P560
  29. Pocock S J, 1983, CLIN TRIALS PRACTILC
  30. PONCHON T, 1995, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V42, P565, DOI 10.1016/S0016-5107(95)70012-9
  31. Rosch T, 2004, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V60, P390, DOI 10.1016/S0016-5107(04)01732-8
  32. Tanaka M, 2006, PANCREATOLOGY, V6, P17, DOI 10.1159/000090023
  33. Weilert F, 2014, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V80, P97, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2013.12.031
  34. Wight CO, 2004, CYTOPATHOLOGY, V15, P87, DOI 10.1046/j.0956-5507.2003.00097.x
  35. Yoon Won Jae, 2013, Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am, V23, P277, DOI 10.1016/j.giec.2012.12.002

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICHC
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/InCor
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/26
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/35
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/37