Literature DB >> 26694852

Randomized Noninferiority Trial Comparing Diagnostic Yield of Cytopathologist-guided versus 7 passes for EUS-FNA of Pancreatic Masses.

Linda S Lee1, Jose Nieto2, Rabindra R Watson3, Allen L Hwang4, Venkatara R Muthusamy3, Laura Walter2, Kunal Jajoo1, Marvin K Ryou1, John R Saltzman1, Michael D Saunders5, Shadeah Suleiman1, Vivek Kadiyala1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIM: To improve diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in solid pancreatic lesions, on-site cytology review has been recommended. Because this is not widely available throughout the world, the aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA performed with rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) versus 7 FNA passes without ROSE in pancreatic masses.
METHODS: In this multicenter randomized noninferiority trial, patients were randomized to ROSE versus 7 passes into a solid pancreatic mass. On the basis of the absolute difference in diagnostic yield with 7 passes versus cytopathologist-guidance, the noninferiority margin for the difference in diagnostic yield was defined as -15%. Definite diagnosis was defined to include positive for malignancy, neoplastic cells present, and negative for malignancy.
RESULTS: A total of 142 patients were randomized with 73 in the cytopathologist arm and 69 in the 7 passes arm. Diagnostic yield for definite diagnosis was 78.3% with 7 passes and 78.1% with cytopathology guidance. With an absolute difference 0.2%, 95% CI -14.4 to 14.6, performing 7 passes was noninferior to cytopathologist-guided EUS-FNA. There was no significant difference in complications or time to perform FNA. A median of 5 passes were performed with ROSE. The median charge with onsite cytopathology was significantly greater than performing 7 passes [$1058 (958, 1445) versus $375 (275, 460), p<0.001].
CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic yield for performing 7 passes during EUS-FNA into solid pancreatic masses is noninferior with lower charge compared to cytopathologist-guidance. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cytology; EUS-FNA; diagnosis; pancreas; randomized trial

Year:  2015        PMID: 26694852     DOI: 10.1111/den.12594

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dig Endosc        ISSN: 0915-5635            Impact factor:   7.559


  12 in total

1.  Rapid on-site evaluation of cytology for EUS- and EBUS-guided fine-needle aspiration.

Authors:  Kartik Ramakrishna
Journal:  Indian J Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-03-14

Review 2.  The Impact of Recent Advances in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition on the Management of Pancreatic Cancer.

Authors:  Susana Marques; Miguel Bispo; Ricardo Rio-Tinto; Paulo Fidalgo; Jacques Devière
Journal:  GE Port J Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-10-23

3.  Endoscopic Ultrasound and Related Technologies for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Pancreatic Disease - Research Gaps and Opportunities: Summary of a National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Workshop.

Authors:  Linda S Lee; Dana K Andersen; Reiko Ashida; William R Brugge; Mimi I Canto; Kenneth J Chang; Suresh T Chari; John DeWitt; Joo Ha Hwang; Mouen A Khashab; Kang Kim; Michael J Levy; Kevin McGrath; Walter G Park; Aatur Singhi; Tyler Stevens; Christopher C Thompson; Mark D Topazian; Michael B Wallace; Sachin Wani; Irving Waxman; Dhiraj Yadav; Vikesh K Singh
Journal:  Pancreas       Date:  2017 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.327

4.  Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic lesions with 22 versus 25 Gauge needles: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Antonio Facciorusso; Elisa Stasi; Marianna Di Maso; Gaetano Serviddio; Mohammed Salah Ali Hussein; Nicola Muscatiello
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2016-11-17       Impact factor: 4.623

Review 5.  Endoscopic ultrasound-guided techniques for diagnosing pancreatic mass lesions: Can we do better?

Authors:  Andrew C Storm; Linda S Lee
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-10-21       Impact factor: 5.742

6.  Interobserver agreement among cytopathologists in the evaluation of pancreatic endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration cytology specimens.

Authors:  Rawad Mounzer; Roy Yen; Carrie Marshall; Sharon Sams; Sanjana Mehrotra; Mohamed Sherif Said; Joshua C Obuch; Brian Brauer; Augustin Attwell; Norio Fukami; Raj Shah; Stuart Amateau; Matthew Hall; Lindsay Hosford; Robert Wilson; Amit Rastogi; Sachin Wani
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2016-06-21

Review 7.  Challenging biliary strictures: pathophysiological features, differential diagnosis, diagnostic algorithms, and new clinically relevant biomarkers - part 1.

Authors:  Jean-Marc Dumonceau; Myriam Delhaye; Nicolas Charette; Annarita Farina
Journal:  Therap Adv Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-06-16       Impact factor: 4.409

Review 8.  A quarter century of EUS-FNA: Progress, milestones, and future directions.

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

Review 9.  Efforts to improve the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic tumors.

Authors:  Akane Yamabe; Atsushi Irisawa; Manoop S Bhutani; Goro Shibukawa; Mariko Fujisawa; Ai Sato; Yoshitsugu Yoshida; Noriyuki Arakawa; Tsunehiko Ikeda; Ryo Igarashi; Takumi Maki; Shogo Yamamoto
Journal:  Endosc Ultrasound       Date:  2016 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.628

10.  European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology guidelines 2015 on interventional endoscopic ultrasound.

Authors:  Christoph F Dietrich; Pietro Fusaroli; Christian Jenssen
Journal:  Endosc Ultrasound       Date:  2016 May-Jun       Impact factor: 5.628

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.