BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of pancreatic masses is an established procedure for obtaining a pathological specimen. However, application of suction during EUS-FNA is still controversial and the efficacy of the slow-pull technique was recently reported for new core biopsy needles. AIM: The purpose of this study was to compare the suction and slow-pull techniques using regular FNA needles. METHODS: The diagnostic yield of the suction and slow-pull techniques was retrospectively studied for patients who underwent EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid lesions. RESULTS: A total of 367 passes (181 by suction and 186 by the slow-pull technique) were performed during 97 EUS-FNA procedures for 93 patients with pancreatic solid lesions. The slow-pull technique resulted in lower scores for cellularity (≥2 for 37.5 % vs. 76.7 %) but scores for contamination with blood were lower (≥2 for 25.0 % vs. 66.7 %) and sensitivity of diagnosis of malignancy was higher (90.0 % vs. 67.9 %) when a 25-gauge FNA needle was used. There were no significant differences between the two techniques when a 22-gauge needle was used. In multivariate analysis of 82 cases with malignancy, the slow-pull technique (odds ratio (OR) 1.92, P = 0.028), tumor size ≥25 mm (OR 4.64, P < 0.001), and tumor location in the body or tail (OR 2.82, P < 0.001) were associated with greater sensitivity. CONCLUSION: The slow-pull technique was associated with less contamination with blood and can potentially increase the diagnostic yield compared with the suction technique in EUS-FNA of pancreatic solid masses, especially with a 25-gauge FNA needle.
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of pancreatic masses is an established procedure for obtaining a pathological specimen. However, application of suction during EUS-FNA is still controversial and the efficacy of the slow-pull technique was recently reported for new core biopsy needles. AIM: The purpose of this study was to compare the suction and slow-pull techniques using regular FNA needles. METHODS: The diagnostic yield of the suction and slow-pull techniques was retrospectively studied for patients who underwent EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid lesions. RESULTS: A total of 367 passes (181 by suction and 186 by the slow-pull technique) were performed during 97 EUS-FNA procedures for 93 patients with pancreatic solid lesions. The slow-pull technique resulted in lower scores for cellularity (≥2 for 37.5 % vs. 76.7 %) but scores for contamination with blood were lower (≥2 for 25.0 % vs. 66.7 %) and sensitivity of diagnosis of malignancy was higher (90.0 % vs. 67.9 %) when a 25-gauge FNA needle was used. There were no significant differences between the two techniques when a 22-gauge needle was used. In multivariate analysis of 82 cases with malignancy, the slow-pull technique (odds ratio (OR) 1.92, P = 0.028), tumor size ≥25 mm (OR 4.64, P < 0.001), and tumor location in the body or tail (OR 2.82, P < 0.001) were associated with greater sensitivity. CONCLUSION: The slow-pull technique was associated with less contamination with blood and can potentially increase the diagnostic yield compared with the suction technique in EUS-FNA of pancreatic solid masses, especially with a 25-gauge FNA needle.
Authors: Jun Kyu Lee; Jong Hak Choi; Kwang Hyuck Lee; Kwang Min Kim; Jae Uk Shin; Jong Kyun Lee; Kyu Taek Lee; Kee-Taek Jang Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2013-02-21 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Takuji Iwashita; Yousuke Nakai; Jason B Samarasena; Do Hyun Park; Zesong Zhang; Mai Gu; John G Lee; Kenneth J Chang Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2013-02-20 Impact factor: 9.427
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: Sachin Wani; Dayna Early; Julie Kunkel; Ann Leathersich; Christine E Hovis; Thomas G Hollander; Cara Kohlmeier; Cynthia Zelenka; Riad Azar; Steven Edmundowicz; Brian Collins; Jingxia Liu; Matthew Hall; Daniel Mullady Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2012-06-12 Impact factor: 9.427
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: A Aziz Aadam; Young S Oh; Vinod B Shidham; Abdul Khan; Bryan Hunt; Nagarjun Rao; Ying Zhang; Sergey Tarima; Kulwinder S Dua Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2015-09-07 Impact factor: 3.199