BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) with rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) has been reported to provide a more accurate diagnosis than EUS-FNA without such evaluation. However, even endosonographers can evaluate ROSE regarding sample adequacy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA with ROSE by endosonographers compared to ROSE by cytopathologists in patients with solid pancreatic masses. METHODS: Between September 2001 and October 2005, of the 73 EUS-FNA procedures with the final diagnoses, 38 procedures after the introduction of ROSE by endosonographers (September 2001-September 2003, period 1), and 35 procedures after the introduction of ROSE by cytopathologists (October 2003-October 2005, period 2) were included. The specimens were stained with Diff-Quik stain and assessed. When the on-site assessors (endosonographers or cytopathologists) indicated that the amounts of cell samples were adequate, the procedure was stopped. RESULTS: Results are presented with 95% confidence limits. The average numbers of needle passes were 4.0 +/- 1.6 and 3.4 +/- 1.5 in periods 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.06). The specimen collection rates were 97.4 and 97.1% in periods 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.51). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy for malignancy and benign were 92.9, 100, 100, 83.3, and 94.7%, respectively, in period 1, and 93.1, 100, 100, 75.0, and 94.3%, respectively, in period 2 (P = 0.97, P = 1.0, P = 1.0, P = 0.65, P = 0.93, respectively). No complications were seen. CONCLUSIONS: For accurate diagnosis, ROSE should be performed during EUS-FNA by the endosonographer, if no cytopathologist is available.
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) with rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) has been reported to provide a more accurate diagnosis than EUS-FNA without such evaluation. However, even endosonographers can evaluate ROSE regarding sample adequacy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA with ROSE by endosonographers compared to ROSE by cytopathologists in patients with solid pancreatic masses. METHODS: Between September 2001 and October 2005, of the 73 EUS-FNA procedures with the final diagnoses, 38 procedures after the introduction of ROSE by endosonographers (September 2001-September 2003, period 1), and 35 procedures after the introduction of ROSE by cytopathologists (October 2003-October 2005, period 2) were included. The specimens were stained with Diff-Quik stain and assessed. When the on-site assessors (endosonographers or cytopathologists) indicated that the amounts of cell samples were adequate, the procedure was stopped. RESULTS: Results are presented with 95% confidence limits. The average numbers of needle passes were 4.0 +/- 1.6 and 3.4 +/- 1.5 in periods 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.06). The specimen collection rates were 97.4 and 97.1% in periods 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.51). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy for malignancy and benign were 92.9, 100, 100, 83.3, and 94.7%, respectively, in period 1, and 93.1, 100, 100, 75.0, and 94.3%, respectively, in period 2 (P = 0.97, P = 1.0, P = 1.0, P = 0.65, P = 0.93, respectively). No complications were seen. CONCLUSIONS: For accurate diagnosis, ROSE should be performed during EUS-FNA by the endosonographer, if no cytopathologist is available.
Authors: Julia Kim LeBlanc; Donato Ciaccia; Mohammed T Al-Assi; Kevin McGrath; Tom Imperiale; Liang-Che Tao; Steve Vallery; John DeWitt; Stuart Sherman; Edith Collins Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 9.427
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: Frank Gress; Hazar Michael; Daniel Gelrud; Panjak Patel; Klaus Gottlieb; Frank Singh; James Grendell Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Christopher J DiMaio; Jonathan M Buscaglia; Seth A Gross; Harry R Aslanian; Adam J Goodman; Sammy Ho; Michelle K Kim; Shireen Pais; Felice Schnoll-Sussman; Amrita Sethi; Uzma D Siddiqui; David H Robbins; Douglas G Adler; Satish Nagula Journal: World J Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2014-10-16
Authors: Payal Saxena; Mohamad El Zein; Tyler Stevens; Ahmed Abdelgelil; Sepideh Besharati; Ahmed Messallam; Vivek Kumbhari; Alba Azola; Jennifer Brainard; Eun Ji Shin; Anne Marie Lennon; Marcia I Canto; Vikesh K Singh; Mouen A Khashab Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2017-12-22 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: L D Dickerson; A Farooq; F Bano; J Kleeff; R Baron; M Raraty; P Ghaneh; R Sutton; P Whelan; F Campbell; P Healey; J P Neoptolemos; V S Yip Journal: World J Surg Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: H M Gordon; D A J Lloyd; A Higginson; R McCrudden; C Bent; F W Shek; R Beable; A Al-Badri; B Green; E Jaynes; B Foria; B S F Stacey Journal: Frontline Gastroenterol Date: 2016-08-09
Authors: S Hébert-Magee; S Bae; S Varadarajulu; J Ramesh; A R Frost; M A Eloubeidi; I A Eltoum Journal: Cytopathology Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 2.073