BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were to investigate the diagnostic value and safety of ultrasound-guided percutaneous pancreatic tumor biopsy (pancreatic biopsy) in patients with suspected unresectable pancreatic cancer, and to compare the data with those obtained by metastatic liver tumor biopsy (liver metastases biopsy). METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively from 388 patients (398 procedures) for whom a final diagnosis was available and who underwent ultrasound-guided pancreatic or liver metastases biopsy with a 21-gauge needle (core biopsy) or a 22-gauge needle (fine-needle aspiration biopsy: FNAB). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of pancreatic and liver metastases biopsies were evaluated. Biopsy-related complications were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Data from 271 pancreatic and 112 liver metastases biopsy procedures were available. For pancreatic core biopsy and FNAB, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 93%, 100%, and 93%, and 86%, 100%, and 86%, respectively, all of which were comparable to those of liver metastases biopsy. The complication rate in pancreatic biopsy was 21.4%, including a 4.4% incidence of post-biopsy ephemeral fever. The complication rate in liver metastases biopsy was 38.7%, including an 8.0% incidence of ephemeral fever. Fever and infection occurred more frequently among patients who underwent liver metastases biopsy (4.4% vs. 11%: P = 0.038). In pancreatic biopsy cases, a prebiopsy high serum total bilirubin level was a statistically significant predictor of ephemeral fever. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound-guided percutaneous pancreatic biopsy is an effective and safe modality for confirming the pathologic diagnosis in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer.
BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were to investigate the diagnostic value and safety of ultrasound-guided percutaneous pancreatic tumor biopsy (pancreatic biopsy) in patients with suspected unresectable pancreatic cancer, and to compare the data with those obtained by metastatic liver tumor biopsy (liver metastases biopsy). METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively from 388 patients (398 procedures) for whom a final diagnosis was available and who underwent ultrasound-guided pancreatic or liver metastases biopsy with a 21-gauge needle (core biopsy) or a 22-gauge needle (fine-needle aspiration biopsy: FNAB). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of pancreatic and liver metastases biopsies were evaluated. Biopsy-related complications were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Data from 271 pancreatic and 112 liver metastases biopsy procedures were available. For pancreatic core biopsy and FNAB, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 93%, 100%, and 93%, and 86%, 100%, and 86%, respectively, all of which were comparable to those of liver metastases biopsy. The complication rate in pancreatic biopsy was 21.4%, including a 4.4% incidence of post-biopsy ephemeral fever. The complication rate in liver metastases biopsy was 38.7%, including an 8.0% incidence of ephemeral fever. Fever and infection occurred more frequently among patients who underwent liver metastases biopsy (4.4% vs. 11%: P = 0.038). In pancreatic biopsy cases, a prebiopsy high serum total bilirubin level was a statistically significant predictor of ephemeral fever. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound-guided percutaneous pancreatic biopsy is an effective and safe modality for confirming the pathologic diagnosis in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer.
Authors: Carlos Micames; Paul S Jowell; Rebekah White; Erik Paulson; Rendon Nelson; Michael Morse; Herbert Hurwitz; Theodore Pappas; Douglas Tyler; Kevin McGrath Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: J Shawn Mallery; Barbara A Centeno; Peter F Hahn; YuChiao Chang; Andrew L Warshaw; William R Brugge Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: A DelMaschio; A Vanzulli; S Sironi; M Castrucci; R Mellone; C Staudacher; M Carlucci; A Zerbi; D Parolini; A Faravelli Journal: Radiology Date: 1991-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: F G Balen; A Little; A C Smith; B A Theis; K R Abrams; J Houghton; A R Hatfield; R Christopher; G Russell; W R Lees Journal: Radiology Date: 1994-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Michael Mueller; Richard Andrew Mason; Wolfgang Kratzer; Suemeyra Oeztuerk; Mark Martin Haenle Journal: J Med Ultrason (2001) Date: 2012-07-04 Impact factor: 1.314
Authors: Elliot B Levy; Maria I Fiel; Stanley R Hamilton; David E Kleiner; Shannon J McCall; Peter Schirmacher; William Travis; Michael D Kuo; Robert D Suh; Alda L Tam; Shaheen U Islam; Katherine Ferry-Galow; Rebecca A Enos; James H Doroshow; Hala R Makhlouf Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-03-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Paul A Toste; Brian E Kadera; Sergei F Tatishchev; David W Dawson; Barbara M Clerkin; Raman Muthusamy; Rabindra Watson; James S Tomlinson; Oscar J Hines; Howard A Reber; Timothy R Donahue Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2013-10-08 Impact factor: 3.452