Literature DB >> 21737075

False-positive EUS-guided FNA cytology for solid pancreatic lesions.

Ali A Siddiqui1, Thomas E Kowalski, Haroon Shahid, Sean O'Donnell, Joanna Tolin, David E Loren, Anthony Infantolino, Shih-Kuang Hong, Mohamad A Eloubeidi.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The currently accepted paradigm is that the false-positive (FP) rate for EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) cytologic analysis of a pancreatic lesion is less than 1%.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the FP rate of EUS-FNA in patients who underwent surgical resection for presumed pancreatic cancer.
DESIGN: Retrospective study.
SETTING: Tertiary-care referral center. PATIENTS: This study involved 367 patients with solid pancreatic lesions in whom EUS-FNA cytology results were interpreted as positive or suspicious for malignancy, which resulted in subsequent surgical resection. INTERVENTION: Surgical resection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The FP diagnosis was defined as EUS-FNA cytology specimens being reported as "positive" or "suspicious for malignancy" but that were later proven to be benign on surgical pathology.
RESULTS: The FP rate for EUS-FNA was 4 of 367 (1.1%) when only "positive" cytology findings were interpreted as malignant and 14 of 367 (3.8%) when both suspicious and positive cytology findings were interpreted as malignant. Among the 4 cases falsely interpreted as positive, 1 was falsely diagnosed cytologically as a neuroendocrine tumor and 3 as adenocarcinomas. All FP specimens showed chronic pancreatitis on surgical pathology. The incidence of discordance between cytology and surgical pathology did not change over time (2000-2006: 8/188 [4.3%] vs 2007-2010: 6/179 [3.4%]; P = .79). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study at a single center.
CONCLUSION: In a retrospective cohort trial, the FP rate for EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions was 1.1%. Findings of the current study are in line with previous studies that have evaluated the FP cytology rates with EUS-FNA of solid lesions. FP cases transpired primarily as a result of cytologic misinterpretation in the setting of chronic pancreatitis.
Copyright © 2011 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21737075     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.04.039

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  18 in total

Review 1.  Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for solid pancreatic lesion: a systematic review.

Authors:  Jiong Chen; Renbao Yang; Yin Lu; Yunlian Xia; Hangcheng Zhou
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-06-30       Impact factor: 4.553

2.  Quality indicators for EUS.

Authors:  Sachin Wani; Michael B Wallace; Jonathan Cohen; Irving M Pike; Douglas G Adler; Michael L Kochman; John G Lieb; Walter G Park; Maged K Rizk; Mandeep S Sawhney; Nicholas J Shaheen; Jeffrey L Tokar
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-12-02       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 3.  How to measure quality in endoscopic ultrasound.

Authors:  Antonio Facciorusso; Rosario Vincenzo Buccino; Nicola Muscatiello
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2018-07

4.  The role of endoscopic ultrasound in biliary obstruction.

Authors:  Lennart Choo; Jason Conway; Girish Mishra
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2012-12

Review 5.  Applications of endoscopic ultrasound in pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Leticia Perondi Luz; Mohammad Ali Al-Haddad; Michael Sai Lai Sey; John M DeWitt
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-06-28       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 6.  Ultrasound-guided percutaneous fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic neoplasms: 10-year experience with more than 2,000 cases and a review of the literature.

Authors:  Mirko D'Onofrio; Riccardo De Robertis; Emilio Barbi; Enrico Martone; Erminia Manfrin; Stefano Gobbo; Gino Puntel; Franco Bonetti; Roberto Pozzi Mucelli
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-09-16       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Reliable Detection of Somatic Mutations in Fine Needle Aspirates of Pancreatic Cancer With Next-generation Sequencing: Implications for Surgical Management.

Authors:  Vicente Valero; Tyler J Saunders; Jin He; Matthew J Weiss; John L Cameron; Avani Dholakia; Aaron T Wild; Eun Ji Shin; Mouen A Khashab; Anne Marie O'Broin-Lennon; Syed Z Ali; Daniel Laheru; Ralph H Hruban; Christine A Iacobuzio-Donahue; Joseph M Herman; Christopher L Wolfgang
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 8.  Pancreatico-biliary endoscopic ultrasound: a systematic review of the levels of evidence, performance and outcomes.

Authors:  Pietro Fusaroli; Dimitrios Kypraios; Giancarlo Caletti; Mohamad A Eloubeidi
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-08-28       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 9.  Diagnostic endoscopic ultrasonography: assessment of safety and prevention of complications.

Authors:  Christian Jenssen; Maria Victoria Alvarez-Sánchez; Bertrand Napoléon; Siegbert Faiss
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-09-14       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 10.  Endoscopic ultrasound in the diagnosis and management of carcinoma pancreas.

Authors:  Rajesh Puri; Manish Manrai; Ragesh Babu Thandassery; Abdulrahman A Alfadda
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2016-01-25
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.