Literature DB >> 25098612

Core needle versus standard needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy of solid pancreatic masses: a randomized crossover study.

Geoffroy Vanbiervliet1, Bertrand Napoléon2, Marie Christine Saint Paul3, Charlotte Sakarovitch4, Marc Wangermez5, Philippe Bichard6, Clément Subtil7, Stéphane Koch8, Philippe Grandval9, Rodica Gincul10, David Karsenti11, Laurent Heyries12, Jean-Christophe Duchmann13, Jean François Bourgaux14, Michaël Levy15, Gilles Calament16, Fabien Fumex2, Bertrand Pujol2, Christine Lefort2, Laurent Poincloux17, Maël Pagenault18, Eduardo Aimé Bonin19, Monique Fabre20, Marc Barthet19.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: A new core biopsy needle for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling has recently been developed. The aim of this prospective multicenter study was to compare this needle with a standard needle in patients with solid pancreatic masses. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients with solid pancreatic masses referred to 17 centers for EUS-guided sampling were included. Each patient had two passes with a standard 22G needle and a single pass with a 22G core needle performed in a randomized order. Samples from both needles were separately processed for liquid-based cytology and cell-block preparation and were assessed independently by two blinded expert pathologists. The primary endpoint was the accuracy of the detection of malignancy. The reference standard was based on further cytohistological analysis obtained under ultrasound or computed tomography scanning, endoscopic or surgical guidance, and/or by clinical follow-up with repeated imaging examinations for at least 12 months. The secondary endpoints were the rate of technical failure and the quality of the cytohistological samples obtained.
RESULTS: Of the 80 patients included (49 men; mean age 67.1 ± 11.1), 87.5 % had final malignant diagnoses (adenocarcinoma n = 62, 77.5 %). There was no difference between the needles in diagnostic accuracy (standard needle 92.5 % vs. core needle 90 %; P = 0.68) or technical failure. Both pathologists found the overall sample quality significantly better for the standard needle (expert 1, P = 0.009; expert 2, P = 0.002).
CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy of EUS sampling for solid pancreatic masses using standard and core needles seems comparable but with a better overall histological sample quality for the former. ClinicalTrial.gov identifier: NCT01479803. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25098612     DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1377559

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endoscopy        ISSN: 0013-726X            Impact factor:   10.093


  33 in total

1.  Comparison of 22G reverse-beveled versus standard needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions.

Authors:  Abdullah Alatawi; Frédéric Beuvon; Sophie Grabar; Sarah Leblanc; Stanislas Chaussade; Benoit Terris; Maximilien Barret; Frédéric Prat
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 4.623

2.  Diagnostic yield of small histological cores obtained with a new EUS-guided fine needle biopsy system.

Authors:  Takuya Ishikawa; Rachid Mohamed; Steven J Heitman; Christian Turbide; Puja R Kumar; Hidemi Goto; Yoshiki Hirooka; Paul J Belletrutti
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-05-10       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 3.  Imaging modalities for characterising focal pancreatic lesions.

Authors:  Lawrence Mj Best; Vishal Rawji; Stephen P Pereira; Brian R Davidson; Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-04-17

4.  The presence of rapid on-site evaluation did not increase the adequacy and diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic lesions with core needle.

Authors:  Carlo Fabbri; Lorenzo Fuccio; Adele Fornelli; Filippo Antonini; Rosa Liotta; Leonardo Frazzoni; Alberto Larghi; Antonella Maimone; Silvia Paggi; Paolo Gusella; Luca Barresi; Anna Maria Polifemo; Elio Iovine; Giampiero Macarri; Vincenzo Cennamo; Ilaria Tarantino
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-05-18       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Cumulative sum learning curves guiding multicenter multidisciplinary quality improvement of EUS-guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic lesions.

Authors:  Hannah M Schutz; Rutger Quispel; Bart J Veldt; Frank M M Smedts; Marie-Paule G F Anten; Klaas J Hoogduin; Pieter Honkoop; Francien H van Nederveen; Lieke Hol; Mike Kliffen; Claire E Fitzpatrick; Nicole S Erler; Marco J Bruno; Lydi M J W van Driel
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2022-04-14

6.  Comparative diagnostic accuracy of EUS needles in solid pancreatic masses: a network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Samuel Han; Furqan Bhullar; Omar Alaber; Ayesha Kamal; Puanani Hopson; Kavin Kanthasamy; Sarah Coughlin; Livia Archibugi; Nikhil Thiruvengadam; Christopher Moreau; David Jin; Pedram Paragomi; Francisco Valverde-López; Sajan Nagpal; Cemal Yazici; Georgios Papchristou; Peter J Lee; Venkata Akshintala
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2021-05-27

7.  A randomized controlled cross-over trial and cost analysis comparing endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration and fine needle biopsy.

Authors:  A Aziz Aadam; Sachin Wani; Ashley Amick; Janak N Shah; Yasser M Bhat; Christopher M Hamerski; Jason B Klapman; V Raman Muthusamy; Rabindra R Watson; Alfred W Rademaker; Rajesh N Keswani; Laurie Keefer; Ananya Das; Srinadh Komanduri
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2016-05

8.  Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration vs. fine-needle biopsy: tissue is always the issue.

Authors:  Eduardo Rodrigues-Pinto; Ian S Grimm; Todd H Baron
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2016-05

9.  Mapping international practice patterns in EUS-guided tissue sampling: outcome of a global survey.

Authors:  Priscilla A van Riet; Djuna L Cahen; Jan-Werner Poley; Marco J Bruno
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2016-03

10.  Feasibility and Diagnostic Yield of Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy With a New Core Biopsy Needle Device in Patients With Gastric Subepithelial Tumors.

Authors:  Minju Lee; Byung-Hoon Min; Hyuk Lee; Sangjeong Ahn; Jun Haeng Lee; Poong-Lyul Rhee; Jae J Kim; Tae Sung Sohn; Sung Kim; Kyoung-Mee Kim
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 1.817

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.