BACKGROUND: Several studies have investigated the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for pancreatic lesions, but they have included only limited patient populations. This study aimed to clarify the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA in a large number of pancreatic lesions, and to describe the factors that influence it. METHODS: From March 1997 to May 2010, 944 consecutive patients who had undergone EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid lesions were evaluated retrospectively. Factors affecting EUS-FNA accuracy were then analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 996 solid pancreatic lesions were sampled by EUS-FNA. The overall sampling adequacy and diagnostic accuracy of these lesions were 99.3 % (989/996) and 91.8 % (918/996), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for differentiating malignant from benign lesions were 91.5 % (793/867) and 97.7 % (126/129), respectively. The diagnostic performance was significantly higher when both cytological and cell-block examinations were carried out than with only cytological examination. In multivariate analysis, final diagnosis, location of lesion, lesion size, availability of on-site cytopathological evaluation, and experience of EUS-FNA procedure were independent factors affecting the accuracy of EUS-FNA. On-site cytopathological evaluation and lesion size were found to be the most weighted factors affecting diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid lesions yielded a high accuracy and low complication rate. Both cytological and cell-block preparations and on-site cytopathological evaluation contributed to improve the accuracy. The diagnostic ability of EUS-FNA was less for smaller lesions, and repeated procedures may be needed if malignancy is suspected.
BACKGROUND: Several studies have investigated the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for pancreatic lesions, but they have included only limited patient populations. This study aimed to clarify the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA in a large number of pancreatic lesions, and to describe the factors that influence it. METHODS: From March 1997 to May 2010, 944 consecutive patients who had undergone EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid lesions were evaluated retrospectively. Factors affecting EUS-FNA accuracy were then analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 996 solid pancreatic lesions were sampled by EUS-FNA. The overall sampling adequacy and diagnostic accuracy of these lesions were 99.3 % (989/996) and 91.8 % (918/996), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for differentiating malignant from benign lesions were 91.5 % (793/867) and 97.7 % (126/129), respectively. The diagnostic performance was significantly higher when both cytological and cell-block examinations were carried out than with only cytological examination. In multivariate analysis, final diagnosis, location of lesion, lesion size, availability of on-site cytopathological evaluation, and experience of EUS-FNA procedure were independent factors affecting the accuracy of EUS-FNA. On-site cytopathological evaluation and lesion size were found to be the most weighted factors affecting diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid lesions yielded a high accuracy and low complication rate. Both cytological and cell-block preparations and on-site cytopathological evaluation contributed to improve the accuracy. The diagnostic ability of EUS-FNA was less for smaller lesions, and repeated procedures may be needed if malignancy is suspected.
Authors: K Matsumoto; K Hara; A Sawaki; N Mizuno; S Hijioka; H Imamura; Y Niwa; M Tajika; H Kawai; S Kondo; Y Inaba; K Yamao Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2010-01-13 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Julio Iglesias-Garcia; J Enrique Dominguez-Munoz; Ihab Abdulkader; Jose Larino-Noia; Elena Eugenyeva; Antonio Lozano-Leon; Jeronimo Forteza-Vila Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2011-04-12 Impact factor: 10.864
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: 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: R Rocca; C De Angelis; M Daperno; P Carucci; N Ravarino; M Bruno; L Crocellà; A Lavagna; M Fracchia; D Pacchioni; G Masoero; C Rigazio; E Ercole; R Sostegni; M Motta; G Bussolati; B Torchio; M Rizzetto; A Pera Journal: Dig Liver Dis Date: 2007-07-02 Impact factor: 4.088
Authors: L D Dickerson; A Farooq; F Bano; J Kleeff; R Baron; M Raraty; P Ghaneh; R Sutton; P Whelan; F Campbell; P Healey; J P Neoptolemos; V S Yip Journal: World J Surg Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 3.352