Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration vs fine needle biopsy in solid lesions: A multi-center analysis
Carregando...
Citações na Scopus
3
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2021
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
Autores
MCCARTY, Thomas R.
JIRAPINYO, Pichamol
RYOU, Marvin
THOMPSON, Christopher C.
Citação
WORLD JOURNAL OF CLINICAL CASES, v.9, n.34, p.10507-10517, 2021
Resumo
BACKGROUND While endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) is considered a preferred technique for tissue sampling for solid lesions, fine needle biopsy (FNB) has recently been developed. AIM To compare the accuracy of FNB vs FNA in determining the diagnosis of solid lesions. METHODS A retrospective, multi-center study of EUS-guided tissue sampling using FNA vs FNB needles. Measured outcomes included diagnostic test characteristics (i.e., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy), use of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), and adverse events. Subgroup analyses were performed by type of lesion and diagnostic yield with or without ROSE. A multivariable logistic regression was also performed. RESULTS A total of 1168 patients with solid lesions (n = 468 FNA; n = 700 FNB) underwent EUS-guided sampling. Mean age was 65.02 +/- 12.13 years. Overall, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were superior for FNB vs FNA (84.70% vs 74.53%; 99.29% vs 96.62%; and 87.62% vs 81.55%, respectively; P < 0.001). On subgroup analyses, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of FNB alone were similar to FNA + ROSE [(81.66% vs 86.45%; P = 0.142), (100% vs 100%; P = 1.00) and (88.40% vs 85.43%; P = 0.320]. There were no difference in diagnostic yield of FNB alone vs FNB + ROSE (P > 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed no significant predictor for better accuracy. On subgroup analyses, FNB was superior to FNA for non-pancreatic lesions; however, there was no difference between the techniques among pancreatic lesions. One adverse event was reported in each group. CONCLUSION FNB is superior to FNA with equivalent diagnostic test characteristics compared to FNA + ROSE in the diagnosis of non-pancreatic solid lesions. Our results suggest that EUS-FNB may eliminate the need of ROSE and should be employed as a first-line method in the diagnosis of solid lesions.
Palavras-chave
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition, Fine needle aspiration, Fine needle biopsy, Solid lesions, Endoscopic ultrasound, Cancer
Referências
- Aadam AA, 2016, ENDOSC INT OPEN, V4, pE497, DOI 10.1055/s-0042-106958
- Attili F, 2015, DIGEST LIVER DIS, V47, P943, DOI 10.1016/j.dld.2015.07.003
- Bang JY, 2019, DIGEST ENDOSC, V31, P197, DOI 10.1111/den.13280
- Bang JY, 2012, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V76, P321, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2012.03.1392
- Brunaldi Vitor Ottoboni, 2017, J Med Case Rep, V11, P59, DOI 10.1186/s13256-017-1205-7
- Cheng B, 2018, CLIN GASTROENTEROL H, V16, P1314, DOI 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.07.010
- Crino SF, 2021, PANCREATOLOGY, V21, P443, DOI 10.1016/j.pan.2020.12.015
- El Hajj II, 2018, CLIN ENDOSC, V51, P576, DOI 10.5946/ce.2018.053
- Facciorusso A, 2019, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V90, P893, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2019.07.009
- Guedes HG, 2018, CLINICS, V73, DOI 10.6061/clinics/2018/e261
- Haseeb A, 2018, ANN GASTROENTEROL, V31, P742, DOI 10.20524/aog.2018.0313
- Hedenstrom P, 2018, SURG ENDOSC, V32, P1304, DOI 10.1007/s00464-017-5808-2
- de Moura DTH, 2020, CLIN ENDOSC, V53, P417, DOI 10.5946/ce.2019.053
- Khan MA, 2017, ENDOSC INT OPEN, V5, pE363, DOI 10.1055/s-0043-101693
- Nagula S, 2018, CLIN GASTROENTEROL H, V16, P1307, DOI 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.06.013
- Polkowski M, 2017, ENDOSCOPY, V49, P989, DOI 10.1055/s-0043-119219
- Puli SR, 2008, WORLD J GASTROENTERO, V14, P3028, DOI 10.3748/wjg.14.3028
- Tian L, 2018, SURG ENDOSC, V32, P3533, DOI 10.1007/s00464-018-6075-6
- Varadarajulu S, 2004, ENDOSCOPY, V36, P397, DOI 10.1055/s-2004-814316
- Wang J, 2017, MEDICINE, V96, DOI 10.1097/MD.0000000000007452