BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) has been becoming the standard tool for acquiring pancreatic lesion tissue. However, a single cytologic or histologic evaluation is not satisfactory for diagnosis. In this study, we evaluated the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid masses and intra-abdominal lymph nodes using a triple approach. METHODS: This study included patients undergoing evaluation for a solid pancreatic mass (n = 59) or intra-abdominal lymph nodes (n = 16) using EUS-FNA with a 22- or 25-gauge (G) needle, respectively. The specimens from each pass were analyzed by on-site cytology using Diff-Quick stain, cytology using Papanicolaou stain, and histology with immunohistochemical (IHC) staining. RESULTS: A total of 75 patients (49 males; mean age; 63.7 years) were included. The median number of needle pass for diagnosis of malignancy was 2.0, and there was no technical failure. The diagnostic accuracies with on-site cytology, cytology using Papanicolaou staining, and histology were 70.7, 80.0, and 80.0 %, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy using a triple approach was significantly greater than cytology using Papanicolaou staining alone (94.7 vs. 80.0 %; p = 0.007). In patients with malignant lesions, cytology identified 12 of 71 (16.9 %) malignant lesions that were not diagnosed by histology using IHC, and histology identified six (8.5 %) malignant lesions that were not diagnosed by cytology. CONCLUSION: On-site cytopathologic evaluation combined with cytologic and histologic analysis with IHC stain for one-pass specimen is considered to be able to increase the overall accuracy of EUS-FNA in pancreatic solid masses and lymph nodes.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) has been becoming the standard tool for acquiring pancreatic lesion tissue. However, a single cytologic or histologic evaluation is not satisfactory for diagnosis. In this study, we evaluated the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid masses and intra-abdominal lymph nodes using a triple approach. METHODS: This study included patients undergoing evaluation for a solid pancreatic mass (n = 59) or intra-abdominal lymph nodes (n = 16) using EUS-FNA with a 22- or 25-gauge (G) needle, respectively. The specimens from each pass were analyzed by on-site cytology using Diff-Quick stain, cytology using Papanicolaou stain, and histology with immunohistochemical (IHC) staining. RESULTS: A total of 75 patients (49 males; mean age; 63.7 years) were included. The median number of needle pass for diagnosis of malignancy was 2.0, and there was no technical failure. The diagnostic accuracies with on-site cytology, cytology using Papanicolaou staining, and histology were 70.7, 80.0, and 80.0 %, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy using a triple approach was significantly greater than cytology using Papanicolaou staining alone (94.7 vs. 80.0 %; p = 0.007). In patients with malignant lesions, cytology identified 12 of 71 (16.9 %) malignant lesions that were not diagnosed by histology using IHC, and histology identified six (8.5 %) malignant lesions that were not diagnosed by cytology. CONCLUSION: On-site cytopathologic evaluation combined with cytologic and histologic analysis with IHC stain for one-pass specimen is considered to be able to increase the overall accuracy of EUS-FNA in pancreatic solid masses and lymph nodes.
Authors: A Ribeiro; E Vazquez-Sequeiros; L M Wiersema; K K Wang; J E Clain; M J Wiersema Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: L Camellini; G Carlinfante; F Azzolini; V Iori; M Cavina; G Sereni; F Decembrino; C Gallo; I Tamagnini; R Valli; S Piana; C Campari; G Gardini; R Sassatelli Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2011-05-24 Impact factor: 10.093
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: 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: 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
Authors: Uzma D Siddiqui; Federico Rossi; Lawrence S Rosenthal; Manmeet S Padda; Visvanathan Murali-Dharan; Harry R Aslanian Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2009-07-28 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Toshiro Masuda; Amanda M Dann; Irmina A Elliott; Hideo Baba; Stephen Kim; Alireza Sedarat; V Raman Muthusamy; Mark D Girgis; O Joe Hines; Howard A Reber; Timothy R Donahue Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-10-17 Impact factor: 3.452
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: Yun Nah Lee; Jong Ho Moon; Hyun Jong Choi; Hee Kyung Kim; Seo-Youn Choi; Moon Han Choi; Tae Hee Lee; Tae Hoon Lee; Sang-Woo Cha; Sang-Heum Park Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2017-02-21 Impact factor: 4.452