Literature DB >> 23824404

Rapid on-site evaluation reduces needle passes in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for solid pancreatic lesions: a risk-benefit analysis.

Robert L Schmidt1, Brandon S Walker, Kirsten Howard, Lester J Layfield, Douglas G Adler.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration increases with the number of needle passes but needle passes are also associated with increased risk of adverse events. The trade-off between needle passes and adequacy has not been well-characterized. AIMS: The purpose of this study was to compare the risk-benefit tradeoff of different sampling protocols with and without rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used a discrete-event simulation model to compare eight different sampling protocols. Each sampling protocol was simulated 10,000 times to obtain the average performance for each scenario. The per-pass adequacy rates, ROSE, accuracy of the assessor and sampling limits were varied to determine the impact of these factors on the number of needle passes and adequacy rates.
RESULTS: Increasing per-class adequacy can be achieved at a cost of increased needle passes. Sampling with ROSE achieved higher adequacy with fewer needle passes than policies using a fixed number of needle passes without ROSE.
CONCLUSIONS: Variable sampling policies using ROSE generally achieve greater per-case adequacy with fewer needle passes than non-ROSE sampling policies using a fixed number of passes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23824404     DOI: 10.1007/s10620-013-2750-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dig Dis Sci        ISSN: 0163-2116            Impact factor:   3.199


  20 in total

1.  Studies on the impact of onsite evaluation must account for the per-pass success rate.

Authors:  Robert L Schmidt
Journal:  Dig Endosc       Date:  2013-06-09       Impact factor: 7.559

2.  EUS-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration of Solid Masses With or Without On-Site Cytological Evaluation: No Paradox.

Authors:  Robert L Schmidt; Douglas G Adler
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 3.  The influence of rapid onsite evaluation on the adequacy rate of fine-needle aspiration cytology: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Robert L Schmidt; Benjamin L Witt; Leslie E Lopez-Calderon; Lester J Layfield
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 2.493

4.  Risk-benefit analysis of sampling methods for fine-needle aspiration cytology: a mathematical modeling approach.

Authors:  Robert L Schmidt; Michal A Kordy; Kirsten Howard; Lester J Layfield; Brian J Hall; Douglas G Adler
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 2.493

5.  Influence of on-site cytopathology evaluation on the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of solid pancreatic masses.

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

6.  How to do pancreatic mass FNA.

Authors:  Michael D Harris; Jonathan M Buscaglia
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 9.427

7.  EUS-guided fine-needle tissue acquisition by using a 19-gauge needle in a selected patient population: a prospective study.

Authors:  Alberto Larghi; Elizabeth C Verna; Riccardo Ricci; Tom C Seerden; Domenico Galasso; Antonella Carnuccio; Naohito Uchida; Guido Rindi; Guido Costamagna
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 9.427

Review 8.  Rapid onsite evaluation improves the adequacy of fine-needle aspiration for thyroid lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Benjamin L Witt; Robert L Schmidt
Journal:  Thyroid       Date:  2013-03-18       Impact factor: 6.568

9.  EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: high yield of 2 passes with combined histologic-cytologic analysis.

Authors:  Kathleen Möller; Ioannis S Papanikolaou; Thomas Toermer; Eumorphia M Delicha; Mario Sarbia; Ulrich Schenck; Martin Koch; Hussain Al-Abadi; Alexander Meining; Harald Schmidt; Hans-Joachim Schulz; Bertram Wiedenmann; Thomas Rösch
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2009-04-25       Impact factor: 9.427

10.  Randomized controlled trial of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle sampling with or without suction for better cytological diagnosis.

Authors:  Rajesh Puri; Peter Vilmann; Adrian Săftoiu; Birgit Guldhammer Skov; Dorte Linnemann; Hazem Hassan; Elymir Soraya Galvis Garcia; Florin Gorunescu
Journal:  Scand J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 2.423

View more
  13 in total

1.  Is it time to take a pass on the increased number of passes in EUS-FNA?

Authors:  Shantel Hébert-Magee; Robert H Hawes; Shyam Varadarajulu
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 3.199

2.  Rapid on-site evaluation of cytology for EUS- and EBUS-guided fine-needle aspiration.

Authors:  Kartik Ramakrishna
Journal:  Indian J Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-03-14

Review 3.  International association for the study of lung cancer map, Wang lymph node map and rapid on-site evaluation in transbronchial needle aspiration.

Authors:  Qing-Hua Liu; Sixto Arias; Ko-Pen Wang
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 2.895

4.  Feasibility of Using an Enzymatically Activatable Fluorescence Probe for the Rapid Evaluation of Pancreatic Tissue Obtained Using Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration: a Pilot Study.

Authors:  Kazumichi Kawakubo; Shunsuke Ohnishi; Yutaka Hatanaka; Kanako C Hatanaka; Hidetaka Hosono; Yoshimasa Kubota; Mako Kamiya; Masaki Kuwatani; Hiroshi Kawakami; Yasuteru Urano; Naoya Sakamoto
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 3.488

5.  A deep learning-based segmentation system for rapid onsite cytologic pathology evaluation of pancreatic masses: A retrospective, multicenter, diagnostic study.

Authors:  Song Zhang; Yangfan Zhou; Dehua Tang; Muhan Ni; Jinyu Zheng; Guifang Xu; Chunyan Peng; Shanshan Shen; Qiang Zhan; Xiaoyun Wang; Duanmin Hu; Wu-Jun Li; Lei Wang; Ying Lv; Xiaoping Zou
Journal:  EBioMedicine       Date:  2022-05-02       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  When Is Rapid On-Site Evaluation Cost-Effective for Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsy?

Authors:  Robert L Schmidt; Brandon S Walker; Michael B Cohen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 7.  High-quality endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration tissue acquisition.

Authors:  Bronte A Holt; Shyam Varadarajulu; Shantel Hébert-Magee
Journal:  Adv Ther       Date:  2014-06-24       Impact factor: 3.845

8.  Is a Cytopathologist Always Needed during Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Tissue Acquisition?

Authors:  Moon Won Lee; Gwang Ha Kim
Journal:  Clin Endosc       Date:  2017-07-17

Review 9.  Efforts to improve the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic tumors.

Authors:  Akane Yamabe; Atsushi Irisawa; Manoop S Bhutani; Goro Shibukawa; Mariko Fujisawa; Ai Sato; Yoshitsugu Yoshida; Noriyuki Arakawa; Tsunehiko Ikeda; Ryo Igarashi; Takumi Maki; Shogo Yamamoto
Journal:  Endosc Ultrasound       Date:  2016 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.628

10.  A Multicenter comparative trial of a novel EUS-guided core biopsy needle (SharkCore) with the 22-gauge needle in patients with solid pancreatic mass lesions.

Authors:  Mariam Naveed; Ali A Siddiqui; Thomas E Kowalski; David E Loren; Ammara Khalid; Ayesha Soomro; Syed M Mazhar; Joseph Yoo; Raza Hasan; Silpa Yalamanchili; Nicholas Tarangelo; Linda J Taylor; Douglas G Adler
Journal:  Endosc Ultrasound       Date:  2018 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.628

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.