BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated the impact of biliary stents on EUS-guided FNA. AIM: To compare diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA in patients with or without biliary stents. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Patients with obstructive jaundice secondary to solid pancreatic mass lesions who underwent EUS-FNA over 5 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary objective was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA in patients with or without biliary stents and between patients with plastic stents or self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs). Secondary objectives were to assess the technical difficulty of EUS-FNA by comparing the number of passes required to establish diagnosis and to identify predictors of a false-negative diagnosis. RESULTS: Of 214 patients who underwent EUS-FNA, 150 (70%) had biliary stents and 64 (30%) had no stents in place. Of 150 patients with biliary stents, 105 (70%) were plastic and 45 (30%) were SEMSs. At EUS-FNA, the diagnosis was pancreatic cancer in 155 (72%), chronic pancreatitis in 17 (8%), other cancer in 31 (14%), and indeterminate in 11 (5%). There was no difference in rates of diagnostic accuracy between patients with or without stents (93.7% vs 95.3%; P = .73) and between plastic or SEMSs (95.2% vs 95.5%, P = .99), respectively. Median number of passes to diagnosis was not significantly different between patients with or without stents (2 [interquartile ratio range (IQR) = 1-3] vs 2 [IQR = 1-4]; P = .066) and between plastic or SEMS (2.5 [IQR = 1-4] vs 2 [IQR = 1-4], P = .69), respectively. On univariate analysis, EUS-FNA results were false-negative in patients with large pancreatic masses (>3 cm vs <3 cm, 9.35% vs 0.93%, P = .005) that required more FNA passes (<2 vs >2 passes, 0% vs 11.8%, P < .0001). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study. CONCLUSIONS: The presence or absence of a biliary stent, whether plastic or metal, does not have an impact on the diagnostic yield or technical difficulty of EUS-FNA.
BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated the impact of biliary stents on EUS-guided FNA. AIM: To compare diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA in patients with or without biliary stents. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Patients with obstructive jaundice secondary to solid pancreatic mass lesions who underwent EUS-FNA over 5 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary objective was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA in patients with or without biliary stents and between patients with plastic stents or self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs). Secondary objectives were to assess the technical difficulty of EUS-FNA by comparing the number of passes required to establish diagnosis and to identify predictors of a false-negative diagnosis. RESULTS: Of 214 patients who underwent EUS-FNA, 150 (70%) had biliary stents and 64 (30%) had no stents in place. Of 150 patients with biliary stents, 105 (70%) were plastic and 45 (30%) were SEMSs. At EUS-FNA, the diagnosis was pancreatic cancer in 155 (72%), chronic pancreatitis in 17 (8%), other cancer in 31 (14%), and indeterminate in 11 (5%). There was no difference in rates of diagnostic accuracy between patients with or without stents (93.7% vs 95.3%; P = .73) and between plastic or SEMSs (95.2% vs 95.5%, P = .99), respectively. Median number of passes to diagnosis was not significantly different between patients with or without stents (2 [interquartile ratio range (IQR) = 1-3] vs 2 [IQR = 1-4]; P = .066) and between plastic or SEMS (2.5 [IQR = 1-4] vs 2 [IQR = 1-4], P = .69), respectively. On univariate analysis, EUS-FNA results were false-negative in patients with large pancreatic masses (>3 cm vs <3 cm, 9.35% vs 0.93%, P = .005) that required more FNA passes (<2 vs >2 passes, 0% vs 11.8%, P < .0001). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study. CONCLUSIONS: The presence or absence of a biliary stent, whether plastic or metal, does not have an impact on the diagnostic yield or technical difficulty of EUS-FNA.
Authors: Todd H Baron; J Shawn Mallery; William K Hirota; Jay L Goldstein; Brian C Jacobson; Jonathan A Leighton; J Patrick Waring; Douglas O Faigel Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: M E Cannon; S L Carpenter; G H Elta; T T Nostrant; M L Kochman; G G Ginsberg; B Stotland; E F Rosato; J B Morris; F Eckhauser; J M Scheiman Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 1999-07 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Ali A Siddiqui; Lauren J Brown; Shih-Kuang S Hong; Rossitza A Draganova-Tacheva; Jason Korenblit; David E Loren; Thomas E Kowalski; Charalambos Solomides Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2011-06-19 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: William A Ross; Sanjeev M Wasan; Douglas B Evans; Robert A Wolff; Leonard V Trapani; Gregg A Staerkel; Thomas Prindiville; Jeffrey H Lee Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2008-04-02 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Philip Q Bao; J Chad Johnson; Elizabeth H Lindsey; David A Schwartz; Ron C Arildsen; Ewa Grzeszczak; Alexander A Parikh; Nipun B Merchant Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2007-10-23 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Mohamad A Eloubeidi; Shyam Varadarajulu; Shilpa Desai; Rhett Shirley; Martin J Heslin; Mohit Mehra; Juan P Arnoletti; Isam Eltoum; Charles M Wilcox; Selwyn M Vickers Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Leon Fisher; Dev Shankar Segarajasingam; Colin Stewart; W Bastiaan Deboer; Ian Fuad Yusoff Journal: J Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 4.029
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
Authors: Mohammad S Mahmud; Gray R May; Mohammad M Kamal; Ahmed S Khwaja; Carry Sun; Alex Vitkin; Victor Xd Yang Journal: World J Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2013-11-16
Authors: Lawrence Mj Best; Vishal Rawji; Stephen P Pereira; Brian R Davidson; Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-04-17
Authors: Christoph F Dietrich; Noor L Bekkali; Sean Burmeister; Yi Dong; Simon M Everett; Michael Hocke; Andre Ignee; Wei On; Srisha Hebbar; Kofi Oppong; Siyu Sun; Christian Jenssen; Barbara Braden Journal: Endosc Ultrasound Date: 2022 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.275