BACKGROUND: The utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for the diagnosis of pelvic masses has been suggested but limited data are available in the literature regarding its diagnostic accuracy. GOALS: To report our institutional experience with EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of a variety of pelvic diseases. METHODS: Patients who were referred for the evaluation of pelvic lesions using lower EUS-FNA were included in this retrospective analysis if they had available surgical pathology (obtained after EUS) which was considered the gold standard against which the EUS-FNA findings would have been compared. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA for pelvic masses was analyzed and any early or late complications after the procedure were reported. A pelvic mass was defined in the study as any mass seen with an imaging modality in the pelvic area including those involving the colonic wall. RESULTS: Twenty patients had EUS-FNA followed by surgery for whom FNA cytology and surgical pathology findings were available. EUS-FNA reached the correct diagnosis in 19 out of 20 patients, whereas for the missing 1 malignant lymph node wherein FNA revealed benign cytology, surgical specimen confirmed metastatic colon cancer. The sensitivity and specificity of EUS-FNA were 90% and 100%, respectively, with positive and negative predictive values of 100% and 90%, respectively. No early or late complications were encountered with this procedure for the sampling of cystic and noncystic masses. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNA has excellent diagnostic accuracy for pelvic masses. It represents a safe procedure with excellent yield and thus may be used as a first line modality for the evaluation and diagnosis of pelvic masses within its reach.
BACKGROUND: The utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for the diagnosis of pelvic masses has been suggested but limited data are available in the literature regarding its diagnostic accuracy. GOALS: To report our institutional experience with EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of a variety of pelvic diseases. METHODS:Patients who were referred for the evaluation of pelvic lesions using lower EUS-FNA were included in this retrospective analysis if they had available surgical pathology (obtained after EUS) which was considered the gold standard against which the EUS-FNA findings would have been compared. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA for pelvic masses was analyzed and any early or late complications after the procedure were reported. A pelvic mass was defined in the study as any mass seen with an imaging modality in the pelvic area including those involving the colonic wall. RESULTS: Twenty patients had EUS-FNA followed by surgery for whom FNA cytology and surgical pathology findings were available. EUS-FNA reached the correct diagnosis in 19 out of 20 patients, whereas for the missing 1 malignant lymph node wherein FNA revealed benign cytology, surgical specimen confirmed metastatic colon cancer. The sensitivity and specificity of EUS-FNA were 90% and 100%, respectively, with positive and negative predictive values of 100% and 90%, respectively. No early or late complications were encountered with this procedure for the sampling of cystic and noncystic masses. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNA has excellent diagnostic accuracy for pelvic masses. It represents a safe procedure with excellent yield and thus may be used as a first line modality for the evaluation and diagnosis of pelvic masses within its reach.