|
1
|
Koukoulioti E, Tziatzios G, Tadic M, Dimitriadis S, Gkolfakis P, Politi E, Stoos-Veic T, Turcic P, Chatzidakis A, Lazaridis LD, Farmaki M, Vezakis A, Triantafyllou K, Polydorou A, Papanikolaou IS. Two Needle Passes Achieve Similar Diagnostic Yield Compared to Three Passes Regarding Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration. Diagnostics (Basel) 2021; 11:diagnostics11122272. [PMID: 34943512 PMCID: PMC8700681 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11122272] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/28/2021] [Revised: 11/28/2021] [Accepted: 12/02/2021] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Current guidelines advocate 3–4 passes with a fine-needle aspiration (FNA) to achieve high rates of diagnostic samples for malignancy when performing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions, in the absence of on-site cytologic evaluation. The aim of this study is to compare 2 vs. 3 needle passes in EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic lesions in terms of incremental diagnostic yield and to identify factors associated with the procedure’s outcome. In this retrospective study, 2 passes of EUS-FNA were found to have similar diagnostic yield compared to 3 passes for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses, suggesting that there might be no significant incremental tissue yield when 3 passes are performed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eleni Koukoulioti
- Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine–Propaedeutic, Research Institute and Diabetes Center, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, ‘‘Attikon” University General Hospital, 12462 Athens, Greece; (E.K.); (G.T.); (S.D.); (A.C.); (L.-D.L.); (K.T.)
| | - Georgios Tziatzios
- Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine–Propaedeutic, Research Institute and Diabetes Center, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, ‘‘Attikon” University General Hospital, 12462 Athens, Greece; (E.K.); (G.T.); (S.D.); (A.C.); (L.-D.L.); (K.T.)
| | - Mario Tadic
- Endoscopy Unit, Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Clinical Nutrition, Dubrava University Hospital, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia; (M.T.); (T.S.-V.)
| | - Stavros Dimitriadis
- Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine–Propaedeutic, Research Institute and Diabetes Center, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, ‘‘Attikon” University General Hospital, 12462 Athens, Greece; (E.K.); (G.T.); (S.D.); (A.C.); (L.-D.L.); (K.T.)
| | - Paraskevas Gkolfakis
- Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatopancreatology and Digestive Oncology, Erasme University Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1070 Brussels, Belgium;
- Department of Medical Oncology, Institut Jules Bordet, 1070 Brussels, Belgium
| | - Ekaterini Politi
- Department of Cytopathology, Aretaieion Hospital, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 11528 Athens, Greece;
| | - Tajana Stoos-Veic
- Endoscopy Unit, Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Clinical Nutrition, Dubrava University Hospital, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia; (M.T.); (T.S.-V.)
| | - Petra Turcic
- Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, University of Zagreb, Domagojeva 2, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia;
| | - Alexandros Chatzidakis
- Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine–Propaedeutic, Research Institute and Diabetes Center, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, ‘‘Attikon” University General Hospital, 12462 Athens, Greece; (E.K.); (G.T.); (S.D.); (A.C.); (L.-D.L.); (K.T.)
| | - Lazaros-Dimitrios Lazaridis
- Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine–Propaedeutic, Research Institute and Diabetes Center, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, ‘‘Attikon” University General Hospital, 12462 Athens, Greece; (E.K.); (G.T.); (S.D.); (A.C.); (L.-D.L.); (K.T.)
| | - Maria Farmaki
- 2nd Department of Surgery, Aretaieion Hospital, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 11528 Athens, Greece; (M.F.); (A.V.); (A.P.)
| | - Antonios Vezakis
- 2nd Department of Surgery, Aretaieion Hospital, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 11528 Athens, Greece; (M.F.); (A.V.); (A.P.)
| | - Konstantinos Triantafyllou
- Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine–Propaedeutic, Research Institute and Diabetes Center, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, ‘‘Attikon” University General Hospital, 12462 Athens, Greece; (E.K.); (G.T.); (S.D.); (A.C.); (L.-D.L.); (K.T.)
| | - Andreas Polydorou
- 2nd Department of Surgery, Aretaieion Hospital, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 11528 Athens, Greece; (M.F.); (A.V.); (A.P.)
| | - Ioannis S. Papanikolaou
- Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine–Propaedeutic, Research Institute and Diabetes Center, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, ‘‘Attikon” University General Hospital, 12462 Athens, Greece; (E.K.); (G.T.); (S.D.); (A.C.); (L.-D.L.); (K.T.)
- 2nd Department of Surgery, Aretaieion Hospital, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 11528 Athens, Greece; (M.F.); (A.V.); (A.P.)
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +30-210-5832087
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Facciorusso A, Crinò SF, Muscatiello N, Gkolfakis P, Samanta J, Londoño Castillo J, Cotsoglou C, Ramai D. Endoscopic Ultrasound Fine-Needle Biopsy versus Fine-Needle Aspiration for Tissue Sampling of Abdominal Lymph Nodes: A Propensity Score Matched Multicenter Comparative Study. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:cancers13174298. [PMID: 34503112 PMCID: PMC8428361 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13174298] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/15/2021] [Revised: 08/19/2021] [Accepted: 08/24/2021] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Lymph node (LN) sampling or staging is crucial to the management of malignancies. The use of endoscopic ultrasound for lymph node sampling can be performed with EUS fine-needle aspiration (FNA) or EUS fine-needle biopsy (FNB). However, it remains unclear whether EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB is superior for sampling of abdominal lymph nodes. In this study, we retrospectively compared a large volume of patients who underwent lymph node sampling using EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB. Most patients were diagnosed with metastatic colorectal disease. We found that EUS-FNB had a higher diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity compared to EUS-FNA. Both modalities had no adverse events. Thus, the results support the use of EUS-FNB for abdominal lymph node sampling. Abstract There is a paucity of evidence on the comparison between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle biopsy (FNB) and fine-needle aspiration (FNA) for lymph node (LNs) sampling. The aim of this study was to compare these two approaches in a multicenter series of patients with abdominal tumors. Out of 502 patients undergoing EUS sampling, two groups following propensity score matching were compared: 105 undergoing EUS-FNB and 105 undergoing EUS-FNA. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, sample adequacy, optimal histological core procurement, number of passes, and adverse events. Median age was 64.6 years, and most patients were male in both groups. Final diagnosis was LN metastasis (mainly from colorectal cancer) in 70.4% of patients in the EUS-FNB group and 66.6% in the EUS-FNA group (p = 0.22). Diagnostic accuracy was significantly higher in the EUS-FNB group as compared to the EUS-FNA group (87.62% versus 75.24%, p = 0.02). EUS-FNB outperformed EUS-FNA also in terms of diagnostic sensitivity (84.71% vs. 70.11%; p = 0.01), whereas specificity was 100% in both groups (p = 0.6). Sample adequacy analysis showed a non-significant trend in favor of EUS-FNB (96.1% versus 89.5%, p = 0.06) whereas the histological core procurement rate was significantly higher with EUS-FNB (94.2% versus 51.4%; p < 0.001). No procedure-related adverse events were observed. These findings show that EUS-FNB is superior to EUS-FNA in tissue sampling of abdominal LNs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Antonio Facciorusso
- Gastroenterology Unit, Department of Surgical and Medical Sciences, University of Foggia, 71122 Foggia, Italy; (A.F.); (N.M.)
- Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Department of Medicine, The Pancreas Institute, University Hospital of Verona, 37134 Verona, Italy;
| | - Stefano Francesco Crinò
- Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Department of Medicine, The Pancreas Institute, University Hospital of Verona, 37134 Verona, Italy;
| | - Nicola Muscatiello
- Gastroenterology Unit, Department of Surgical and Medical Sciences, University of Foggia, 71122 Foggia, Italy; (A.F.); (N.M.)
| | - Paraskevas Gkolfakis
- Hepatopancreatology and Digestive Oncology Unit, Department of Gastroenterology, CUB Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), 1070 Brussels, Belgium;
| | - Jayanta Samanta
- Department of Gastroenterology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh 160012, India;
| | | | | | - Daryl Ramai
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84132, USA
- Correspondence:
| |
Collapse
|