Yoko Abe1, Hiroshi Kawakami1, Koji Oba2, Tsuyoshi Hayashi3, Ichiro Yasuda4, Tsuyoshi Mukai5, Hiroyuki Isayama6, Hirotoshi Ishiwatari3, Shinpei Doi4, Masanori Nakashima5, Natsuyo Yamamoto6, Masaki Kuwatani1, Tomoko Mitsuhashi7, Tadashi Hasegawa8, Yoshinobu Hirose9, Tetsuya Yamada10, Mariko Tanaka11, Naoya Sakamoto1. 1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo, Japan. 2. Research and Clinical Trial Center, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo, Japan. 3. Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Sapporo Medical University, Sapporo, Japan. 4. The First Department of Internal Medicine, Gifu University Hospital, Gifu, Japan. 5. Department of Gastroenterology, Gifu Municipal Hospital, Gifu, Japan. 6. Department of Gastroenterology, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. 7. Department of Surgical Pathology, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo, Japan. 8. Department of Surgical Pathology, Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan. 9. Department of Tumor Pathology, Gifu University Hospital, Gifu, Japan. 10. Department of Pathology, Gifu Municipal Hospital, Gifu, Japan. 11. Department of Pathology, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) has become the most efficacious way to obtain specimens from a solid lesion adjacent to the GI tract. Previous reports regarding the use of a stylet during EUS-FNA were all based on cytological diagnosis and have showed no significant superiority in terms of diagnostic yield. OBJECTIVE: To clarify the noninferiority of EUS-FNA without a stylet (S-) compared with EUS-FNA with a stylet (S+) on histological assessment. DESIGN: A prospective, single-blind, randomized, controlled crossover study. SETTING:Five tertiary referral centers in Japan. PATIENTS: Patients referred for EUS-FNA of a solid lesion. INTERVENTION: EUS-FNA S+ and S- in a total of 4 alternate passes with randomization to S+ first or S- first. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The primary endpoint was the acquisition rate of an appropriate and sufficient specimen for histological assessment. The secondary endpoints were cellularity, contamination, bloodiness, diagnostic ability, and diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: We enrolled 107 patients (110 lesions) and analyzed 220 specimens each in the S+ and S- groups. The acquisition rate of appropriate and sufficient specimens in the S+ group was 121 of 220 (55.0%) and 122 of 220 (55.5%) in the S- group. The difference in the acquisition rate of the specimen (S- minus S+) based on the generalized estimating equation was 0.42% (95% confidence interval, -6.72% to 7.56%), which was less than 10% of the prespecified noninferiority margin of this study. With regard to cellularity, contamination, bloodiness score, diagnostic ability, and diagnostic accuracy, there were no significant differences between both groups. There were no dropouts in the study. LIMITATIONS: A variety of target lesions, multiple pathologists, lack of an assessment of intraobserver and interobserver variability, and a single-blind study for the pathologists. CONCLUSION: EUS-FNA S- is noninferior to EUS-FNA S+ on histological assessment. ( CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000008695.).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) has become the most efficacious way to obtain specimens from a solid lesion adjacent to the GI tract. Previous reports regarding the use of a stylet during EUS-FNA were all based on cytological diagnosis and have showed no significant superiority in terms of diagnostic yield. OBJECTIVE: To clarify the noninferiority of EUS-FNA without a stylet (S-) compared with EUS-FNA with a stylet (S+) on histological assessment. DESIGN: A prospective, single-blind, randomized, controlled crossover study. SETTING: Five tertiary referral centers in Japan. PATIENTS: Patients referred for EUS-FNA of a solid lesion. INTERVENTION: EUS-FNA S+ and S- in a total of 4 alternate passes with randomization to S+ first or S- first. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The primary endpoint was the acquisition rate of an appropriate and sufficient specimen for histological assessment. The secondary endpoints were cellularity, contamination, bloodiness, diagnostic ability, and diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: We enrolled 107 patients (110 lesions) and analyzed 220 specimens each in the S+ and S- groups. The acquisition rate of appropriate and sufficient specimens in the S+ group was 121 of 220 (55.0%) and 122 of 220 (55.5%) in the S- group. The difference in the acquisition rate of the specimen (S- minus S+) based on the generalized estimating equation was 0.42% (95% confidence interval, -6.72% to 7.56%), which was less than 10% of the prespecified noninferiority margin of this study. With regard to cellularity, contamination, bloodiness score, diagnostic ability, and diagnostic accuracy, there were no significant differences between both groups. There were no dropouts in the study. LIMITATIONS: A variety of target lesions, multiple pathologists, lack of an assessment of intraobserver and interobserver variability, and a single-blind study for the pathologists. CONCLUSION: EUS-FNA S- is noninferior to EUS-FNA S+ on histological assessment. ( CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000008695.).
Authors: Eric L Scholten; Roy Semaan; Peter Illei; Christopher Mallow; Sixto Arias; David Feller-Kopman; Karen Oakjones-Burgess; Bernice Frimpong; Ricardo Ortiz; Hans Lee; Lonny Yarmus Journal: Chest Date: 2016-10-18 Impact factor: 9.410
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
Authors: Irina Mihaela Cazacu; Adriana Alexandra Luzuriaga Chavez; Adrian Saftoiu; Peter Vilmann; Manoop S Bhutani Journal: Endosc Ultrasound Date: 2018 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.628