BACKGROUND: Use of a stylet during EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) is believed to improve the quality and diagnostic yield of specimens. OBJECTIVE: To compare samples obtained by EUS-FNA with (S+) and without (S-) a stylet for diagnostic yield of malignancy and cytological characteristics. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients referred for EUS-FNA of solid lesions. INTERVENTION: EUS-FNA; the number of passes was determined by lesion site (6 pancreas/others and 4 lymph nodes). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Diagnostic yield of malignancy and degree of cellularity, specimen adequacy, contamination, and amount of blood. RESULTS:One hundred patients were prospectively enrolled in this randomized, controlled trial and the sites of EUS-FNA were the pancreas, 58; lymph node, 25; and other, 17. The overall diagnosis was malignancy in 56, benign in 30, suspicious/atypical in 7, and inadequate specimen in 7 lesions. There were 550 passes made (275 with a stylet and 275 without a stylet). Interim analysis demonstrated no difference in the diagnostic yield of malignancy (94 passes with a stylet [34.2%] vs 110 without a stylet [40%], P = .2) and in the proportion of inadequate specimens (57 with a stylet [20.7%] vs 64 without a stylet [23.3%], P = .2). There was no difference with regard to cellularity (P = .83), contamination (P = .31), number of cells (P = .25), and amount of blood (P = .6). Similar results were noted in a subgroup analysis based on lesion site. Applying the rules of futility, the study was terminated. LIMITATIONS: Subjectivity in cytopathologists' assessment, endosonographer not blinded. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in the diagnostic yield of malignancy or proportion of inadequate specimens between passes with and without a stylet. These results suggest that the use of a stylet does not confer any advantage during EUS-FNA.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Use of a stylet during EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) is believed to improve the quality and diagnostic yield of specimens. OBJECTIVE: To compare samples obtained by EUS-FNA with (S+) and without (S-) a stylet for diagnostic yield of malignancy and cytological characteristics. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients referred for EUS-FNA of solid lesions. INTERVENTION: EUS-FNA; the number of passes was determined by lesion site (6 pancreas/others and 4 lymph nodes). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Diagnostic yield of malignancy and degree of cellularity, specimen adequacy, contamination, and amount of blood. RESULTS: One hundred patients were prospectively enrolled in this randomized, controlled trial and the sites of EUS-FNA were the pancreas, 58; lymph node, 25; and other, 17. The overall diagnosis was malignancy in 56, benign in 30, suspicious/atypical in 7, and inadequate specimen in 7 lesions. There were 550 passes made (275 with a stylet and 275 without a stylet). Interim analysis demonstrated no difference in the diagnostic yield of malignancy (94 passes with a stylet [34.2%] vs 110 without a stylet [40%], P = .2) and in the proportion of inadequate specimens (57 with a stylet [20.7%] vs 64 without a stylet [23.3%], P = .2). There was no difference with regard to cellularity (P = .83), contamination (P = .31), number of cells (P = .25), and amount of blood (P = .6). Similar results were noted in a subgroup analysis based on lesion site. Applying the rules of futility, the study was terminated. LIMITATIONS: Subjectivity in cytopathologists' assessment, endosonographer not blinded. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in the diagnostic yield of malignancy or proportion of inadequate specimens between passes with and without a stylet. These results suggest that the use of a stylet does not confer any advantage during EUS-FNA.
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
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: Eric L Scholten; Roy Semaan; Peter Illei; Christopher Mallow; Sixto Arias; David Feller-Kopman; Karen Oakjones-Burgess; Bernice Frimpong; Ricardo Ortiz; Hans Lee; Lonny Yarmus Journal: Chest Date: 2016-10-18 Impact factor: 9.410
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: Konstantinos Blouhos; Konstantinos A Boulas; Dimitrios G Tselios; Stavroula P Katsaouni; Basiliki Mauroeidi; Anestis Hatzigeorgiadis Journal: Int J Surg Case Rep Date: 2013-02-24