OBJECTIVES:Contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography (CEH-EUS) has been used to diagnose solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs). The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of CEH-EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (CEH-EUS-FNA) compared with that of conventional EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of SPLs. METHODS:Forty patients with solid pancreatic lesions who visited Fukushima Medical University between September 2013 and June 2014 were recruited for this prospective study. Twenty patients underwentCEH-EUS-FNA, and 20 patients underwent conventional EUS-FNA. The sampling rate, sensitivity, accuracy, and number of needle passes required to obtain sufficient samples were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Patient characteristics, sampling rate, accuracy, and sensitivity were not significantly different between the two groups. The final diagnosis of patients who underwent CEH-EUS-FNA was pancreatic cancer in 19 and intraductal papillary mucinous carcinoma in one. Nineteen patients who underwentconventional EUS-FNA were finally diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and one was diagnosed as cancer of the common bile duct. There was a significant difference in the number of needle passes required. A sufficient sample was obtained on one needle pass in 60% (12/20) of CEH-EUS-FNA group compared with 25% (5/20) of the conventional EUS-FNA group. CONCLUSIONS: Fewer needle passes were required to obtain samples from solid pancreatic lesions using CEH-EUS-FNA than those required using conventional EUS-FNA. Therefore, CEH-EUS-FNA may be more efficient and safer than conventional EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography (CEH-EUS) has been used to diagnose solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs). The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of CEH-EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (CEH-EUS-FNA) compared with that of conventional EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of SPLs. METHODS: Forty patients with solid pancreatic lesions who visited Fukushima Medical University between September 2013 and June 2014 were recruited for this prospective study. Twenty patients underwent CEH-EUS-FNA, and 20 patients underwent conventional EUS-FNA. The sampling rate, sensitivity, accuracy, and number of needle passes required to obtain sufficient samples were compared between the two groups. RESULTS:Patient characteristics, sampling rate, accuracy, and sensitivity were not significantly different between the two groups. The final diagnosis of patients who underwent CEH-EUS-FNA was pancreatic cancer in 19 and intraductal papillary mucinous carcinoma in one. Nineteen patients who underwent conventional EUS-FNA were finally diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and one was diagnosed as cancer of the common bile duct. There was a significant difference in the number of needle passes required. A sufficient sample was obtained on one needle pass in 60% (12/20) of CEH-EUS-FNA group compared with 25% (5/20) of the conventional EUS-FNA group. CONCLUSIONS: Fewer needle passes were required to obtain samples from solid pancreatic lesions using CEH-EUS-FNA than those required using conventional EUS-FNA. Therefore, CEH-EUS-FNA may be more efficient and safer than conventional EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of solid 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