T E Yusuf1, S Ho, D A Pavey, H Michael, F G Gress. 1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY 11203-2098, USA. tyusuf@yahoo.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is now performed routinely in many advanced endoscopy centers and has enhanced the ability to diagnose pancreatic masses. However, there is uncertainty about which needle size is optimal for EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses. We aimed to evaluate the performance of the 22-gauge and 25-gauge needles in obtaining cytologic diagnosis of pancreatic masses. METHODS: All cases that were referred for EUS-FNA for pancreatic masses between February 2001 and June 2007 were reviewed, and patients who underwent EUS-FNA using the 22-gauge and 25-gauge needle system were identified. In patients who underwent surgery, operative histopathological findings were compared with the cytopathological findings from EUS-FNA. RESULTS: A total of 842 patients with pancreatic masses detected on computed tomography (CT) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and confirmed by EUS underwent EUS-FNA with the 22-gauge needle (n = 540) or the 25-gauge needle (n = 302). Results of EUS-FNA cytology findings were compared with the gold standard of surgical histopathological findings or long-term clinical follow-up. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of FNA were respectively 84%, 100%, 100%, and 73% [corrected] for the 22-gauge needle compared with 92%, 97%, 98%, and 87%, [corrected] respectively for the 25-gauge needle. No complications were noted in the 25-gauge needle group, compared with pancreatitis in 2% of the 22-gauge needle group. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective comparative study shows that EUS-FNA with a 25-gauge needle system is a safe and reliable method for tissue sampling in pancreatic masses. The system is more sensitive and has a slightly [corrected] higher NPV than the standard 22-gauge needle. Our study suggests that perhaps the smaller caliber FNA needle causes less trauma during EUS-FNA and hence less complications. Further studies including randomized trials are needed.
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is now performed routinely in many advanced endoscopy centers and has enhanced the ability to diagnose pancreatic masses. However, there is uncertainty about which needle size is optimal for EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses. We aimed to evaluate the performance of the 22-gauge and 25-gauge needles in obtaining cytologic diagnosis of pancreatic masses. METHODS: All cases that were referred for EUS-FNA for pancreatic masses between February 2001 and June 2007 were reviewed, and patients who underwent EUS-FNA using the 22-gauge and 25-gauge needle system were identified. In patients who underwent surgery, operative histopathological findings were compared with the cytopathological findings from EUS-FNA. RESULTS: A total of 842 patients with pancreatic masses detected on computed tomography (CT) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and confirmed by EUS underwent EUS-FNA with the 22-gauge needle (n = 540) or the 25-gauge needle (n = 302). Results of EUS-FNA cytology findings were compared with the gold standard of surgical histopathological findings or long-term clinical follow-up. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of FNA were respectively 84%, 100%, 100%, and 73% [corrected] for the 22-gauge needle compared with 92%, 97%, 98%, and 87%, [corrected] respectively for the 25-gauge needle. No complications were noted in the 25-gauge needle group, compared with pancreatitis in 2% of the 22-gauge needle group. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective comparative study shows that EUS-FNA with a 25-gauge needle system is a safe and reliable method for tissue sampling in pancreatic masses. The system is more sensitive and has a slightly [corrected] higher NPV than the standard 22-gauge needle. Our study suggests that perhaps the smaller caliber FNA needle causes less trauma during EUS-FNA and hence less complications. Further studies including randomized trials are needed.
Authors: Kajsa E Affolter; Robert L Schmidt; Anna P Matynia; Douglas G Adler; Rachel E Factor Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2012-10-21 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Judy C Pang; Rebecca M Minter; Richard S Kwon; Diane M Simeone; Michael H Roh Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2013-01-08 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Alexander W Jahng; Sonya Reicher; David Chung; Donna Varela; Rahul Chhablani; Anil Dev; Binh Pham; Jose Nieto; Rose J Venegas; Samuel W French; Bruce E Stabile; Viktor E Eysselein Journal: World J Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2010-11-16
Authors: Christian Jenssen; Maria Victoria Alvarez-Sánchez; Bertrand Napoléon; Siegbert Faiss Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2012-09-14 Impact factor: 5.742