OBJECTIVE: Few studies have assessed the diagnostic efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and/or trucut biopsy (TCB) in patients with rectal and perirectal lesions. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic utility of EUS-FNA and/or TCB in patients with rectal and perirectal lesions. We also assessed their influence on the management and clinical course of these patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed EUS-FNA and/or TCB in 11 consecutive patients (4 men and 7 women, 33-69 years) with rectal and perirectal lesions for whom conventional diagnostic tools could not provide definitive diagnoses. Patients with definite intraluminal cancer were excluded. RESULTS: The 11 patients underwent 12 procedures, with 9 being EUS-FNA alone and 3 being EUS-FNA and TCB. Seven patients had rectal lesions and four had perirectal lesions. Initial EUS-FNA and/or TCB established a diagnosis of malignancy in five patients and of benign lesions in four. EUS-FNA plus TCB confirmed malignant lymphoma after diagnostic failure of initial EUS-FNA in one patient. In one other patient with suspicious secondary linitis plastica, EUS-FNA could not establish a definitive diagnosis. Correct diagnoses were obtained in 10 out of 11 patients who underwent EUS-FNA and/or TCB. EUS-FNA and/or TCB changed clinical courses, which included avoidance of unnecessary surgeries, having a chance of anal sphincter-saving surgeries, and timely administration of chemotherapy. No serious complications related to the use of EUS-FNA or TCB were evident. CONCLUSION: EUS-FNA and/or TCB are useful in the diagnostic evaluation of and appropriate therapeutic plan in patients with rectal and perirectal lesions.
OBJECTIVE: Few studies have assessed the diagnostic efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and/or trucut biopsy (TCB) in patients with rectal and perirectal lesions. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic utility of EUS-FNA and/or TCB in patients with rectal and perirectal lesions. We also assessed their influence on the management and clinical course of these patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed EUS-FNA and/or TCB in 11 consecutive patients (4 men and 7 women, 33-69 years) with rectal and perirectal lesions for whom conventional diagnostic tools could not provide definitive diagnoses. Patients with definite intraluminal cancer were excluded. RESULTS: The 11 patients underwent 12 procedures, with 9 being EUS-FNA alone and 3 being EUS-FNA and TCB. Seven patients had rectal lesions and four had perirectal lesions. Initial EUS-FNA and/or TCB established a diagnosis of malignancy in five patients and of benign lesions in four. EUS-FNA plus TCB confirmed malignant lymphoma after diagnostic failure of initial EUS-FNA in one patient. In one other patient with suspicious secondary linitis plastica, EUS-FNA could not establish a definitive diagnosis. Correct diagnoses were obtained in 10 out of 11 patients who underwent EUS-FNA and/or TCB. EUS-FNA and/or TCB changed clinical courses, which included avoidance of unnecessary surgeries, having a chance of anal sphincter-saving surgeries, and timely administration of chemotherapy. No serious complications related to the use of EUS-FNA or TCB were evident. CONCLUSION: EUS-FNA and/or TCB are useful in the diagnostic evaluation of and appropriate therapeutic plan in patients with rectal and perirectal lesions.