Mirko D'Onofrio1, Riccardo De Robertis2, Emilio Barbi3, Enrico Martone1, Erminia Manfrin4, Stefano Gobbo5, Gino Puntel1, Franco Bonetti4, Roberto Pozzi Mucelli1. 1. Department of Radiology, G.B. Rossi Hospital, University of Verona, Piazzale L.A. Scuro 10, 37134, Verona, Italy. 2. Department of Radiology, Casa di cura Pederzoli, Peschiera del Garda, Italy. riccardo.derobertis@hotmail.it. 3. Department of Radiology, Casa di cura Pederzoli, Peschiera del Garda, Italy. 4. Department of Pathology, G.B. Rossi Hospital, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. 5. Department of Pathology, Casa di cura Pederzoli, Peschiera del Garda, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and complication rate of percutaneous ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (US-FNA) of solid pancreatic neoplasms through the analysis of 10-year experiences of two centres. METHODS: Clinical, radiological and pathologic data of 2,024 patients with solid pancreatic masses who underwent US-FNAs were retrospectively evaluated. Indications for aspiration were: unresectable lesions before neo-adjuvant therapy; doubtful imaging findings; and suspicion of uncommon neoplasms with prognostic or therapeutic implications such as metastases or lymphoma. US-FNAs were performed using aspiration needles with a cytopathologist present in centre 1. In centre 2, cytologic samples were collected with Chiba needles and separately evaluated by a cytopathologist. RESULTS: US-FNA had a diagnostic sample rate of 92.2 % (centre 1: 95.9 %; centre 2: 87.2 %). US-FNA repetition after non-diagnostic samples provided a diagnosis in 86.3 % of cases. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy were 98.7 %, 100 %, 100 %, 75.5 %, and 98.7 %, respectively. The complication rate was 0.8 %. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous US-FNA is a sensitive, accurate and safe method for the invasive diagnosis of solid pancreatic neoplasms. The use of aspiration needles and the on-site presence of a cytopathologist may lead to a high rate of diagnostic samples, thus reducing the need for US-FNA repetition. KEY POINTS: • Percutaneous ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic neoplasms is sensitive and accurate. • The short-term complication rate of percutaneous ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration is low. • Technical aspects may influence the rate of diagnostic samples.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and complication rate of percutaneous ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (US-FNA) of solid pancreatic neoplasms through the analysis of 10-year experiences of two centres. METHODS: Clinical, radiological and pathologic data of 2,024 patients with solid pancreatic masses who underwent US-FNAs were retrospectively evaluated. Indications for aspiration were: unresectable lesions before neo-adjuvant therapy; doubtful imaging findings; and suspicion of uncommon neoplasms with prognostic or therapeutic implications such as metastases or lymphoma. US-FNAs were performed using aspiration needles with a cytopathologist present in centre 1. In centre 2, cytologic samples were collected with Chiba needles and separately evaluated by a cytopathologist. RESULTS: US-FNA had a diagnostic sample rate of 92.2 % (centre 1: 95.9 %; centre 2: 87.2 %). US-FNA repetition after non-diagnostic samples provided a diagnosis in 86.3 % of cases. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy were 98.7 %, 100 %, 100 %, 75.5 %, and 98.7 %, respectively. The complication rate was 0.8 %. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous US-FNA is a sensitive, accurate and safe method for the invasive diagnosis of solid pancreatic neoplasms. The use of aspiration needles and the on-site presence of a cytopathologist may lead to a high rate of diagnostic samples, thus reducing the need for US-FNA repetition. KEY POINTS: • Percutaneous ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic neoplasms is sensitive and accurate. • The short-term complication rate of percutaneous ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration is low. • Technical aspects may influence the rate of diagnostic samples.
Authors: M C Garre Sánchez; P Rendón Unceta; A López Cano; M Gómez Rubio; B de Cuenca Morón; J M Segura Cabral; M Crespo Sánchez; L A Gil Grande; M J Varas Lorenzo; J Just Timoneda; R Gómez Rodríguez; J Galcera Tomás; A Abraldes Bechiarelli; M Macías Rodríguez; A Muñoz Benvenuty; M Tejada Cabrera; A Olveira; E Palacios Lázaro Journal: Rev Esp Enferm Dig Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 2.086
Authors: Ali A Siddiqui; Thomas E Kowalski; Haroon Shahid; Sean O'Donnell; Joanna Tolin; David E Loren; Anthony Infantolino; Shih-Kuang Hong; Mohamad A Eloubeidi Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2011-07-07 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Kajsa E Affolter; Robert L Schmidt; Anna P Matynia; Douglas G Adler; Rachel E Factor Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2012-10-21 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: David A Schwartz; K Krishnan Unni; Michael J Levy; Jonathan E Clain; Maurits J Wiersema Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 9.427