BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Several studies have evaluated the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNAB) in the upper gastrointestinal tract, but so far no studies have specifically evaluated the clinical impact of EUS-FNAB in upper gastrointestinal tract cancer patients. In this consecutive and prospective study, EUS-FNAB was only performed if a positive malignant finding would change the therapeutic strategy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1997 and 1999, 307 consecutive patients were referred for EUS with a diagnosis or strong suspicion of esophageal, gastric or pancreatic cancer; 274 patients were potential candidates for surgical treatment and had EUS. According to predefined impact criteria, 27% (75/274) of the patients had EUS-FNAB for staging or diagnostic reasons. RESULTS: The overall clinical impact of EUS-FNAB was 13%, 14%, and 30% in esophageal, gastric, and pancreatic cancer, respectively. The staging-related clinical impact was similar for all three types of cancer (11-12.5%), whereas the diagnosis-related impact was highest in pancreatic cancer patients (86%). EUS-FNAB was inadequate in 13% and gave false-negative results in 5%. The overall sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for EUS-FNAB were 80%, 78% and 80%, respectively. No complications related to the biopsy procedure were seen. CONCLUSIONS: If EUS-FNAB was performed only in cases where a positive malignant result would change patient management, then approximately one out of four patients with upper gastrointestinal tract cancer would require a biopsy. With this approach the actual clinical impact of EUS-FNAB ranged from 13% in esophageal cancer to 30% in pancreatic cancer. EUS-FNAB plays a limited, but very important clinical role in the assessment of upper gastrointestinal tract cancer.
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Several studies have evaluated the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNAB) in the upper gastrointestinal tract, but so far no studies have specifically evaluated the clinical impact of EUS-FNAB in upper gastrointestinal tract cancerpatients. In this consecutive and prospective study, EUS-FNAB was only performed if a positive malignant finding would change the therapeutic strategy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1997 and 1999, 307 consecutive patients were referred for EUS with a diagnosis or strong suspicion of esophageal, gastric or pancreatic cancer; 274 patients were potential candidates for surgical treatment and had EUS. According to predefined impact criteria, 27% (75/274) of the patients had EUS-FNAB for staging or diagnostic reasons. RESULTS: The overall clinical impact of EUS-FNAB was 13%, 14%, and 30% in esophageal, gastric, and pancreatic cancer, respectively. The staging-related clinical impact was similar for all three types of cancer (11-12.5%), whereas the diagnosis-related impact was highest in pancreatic cancerpatients (86%). EUS-FNAB was inadequate in 13% and gave false-negative results in 5%. The overall sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for EUS-FNAB were 80%, 78% and 80%, respectively. No complications related to the biopsy procedure were seen. CONCLUSIONS: If EUS-FNAB was performed only in cases where a positive malignant result would change patient management, then approximately one out of four patients with upper gastrointestinal tract cancer would require a biopsy. With this approach the actual clinical impact of EUS-FNAB ranged from 13% in esophageal cancer to 30% in pancreatic cancer. EUS-FNAB plays a limited, but very important clinical role in the assessment of upper gastrointestinal tract cancer.
Authors: Christian Jenssen; Jouke Tabe Annema; Paul Clementsen; Xin-Wu Cui; Mathias Maximilian Borst; Christoph Frank Dietrich Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Hee Kyong Na; Jeong Hoon Lee; Young Soo Park; Ji Yong Ahn; Kwi-Sook Choi; Do Hoon Kim; Kee Don Choi; Ho June Song; Gin Hyug Lee; Hwoon-Yong Jung; Jin-Ho Kim Journal: Clin Endosc Date: 2015-03-27
Authors: Robert L Schmidt; Benjamin L Witt; Anna P Matynia; Gonzalo Barraza; Lester J Layfield; Douglas G Adler Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2012-10-04 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Meike M C Hirdes; Matthijs P Schwartz; Kristien M A J Tytgat; Noël J Schlösser; Daisy M D S Sie-Go; Menno A Brink; Bas Oldenburg; Peter D Siersema; Frank P Vleggaar Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2010-02-23 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Chandrajit P Raut; Ana M Grau; Gregg A Staerkel; Madhukar Kaw; Eric P Tamm; Robert A Wolff; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Jeffrey E Lee; Peter W T Pisters; Douglas B Evans Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 3.452