Kyong Joo Lee1, Yong Seok Kang1, Mee Yon Cho2, Jae Woo Kim3. 1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Pathology, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Republic of Korea. 3. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: jawkim96@yonsei.ac.kr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are few studies about the diagnostic yield of cytologic preparation method of pancreatic samples obtained by Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of ThinPrep(®) and smear method in diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. METHODS: A total of 125 EUS-FNA procedures were performed between July 2010 and June 2015. Patients in group I (n = 36; July 2010 to June 2014) had cytology slides prepared by consecutive allocation of samples. Patients in group II (n = 12; July 2014 to June 2015) had cytology slides prepared by alternately allocation of samples. RESULTS: There were 24 men and 24 women (median age: 67 years; range 39-84). The median size of lesions was 3.9 cm (range; 1.4-7.2 cm). The locations of the pancreatic cancer were 10 in head (20.8%), 21 in body (43.8%), and 17 in tail (35.4%). The ThinPrep(®) method confirmed malignancy in 35 of 48 cases (72.9%). On the other hand, the smear method confirmed malignancy in 44 of 48 cases (91.7%). The diagnostic yield of smear method was statistically higher than liquid method (P = 0.012). Also, smear method is superior to liquid method in both consecutive and alternative allocation method. ThinPrep(®) provided a correct diagnosis in one case where the smear method was incorrect. CONCLUSIONS: Smear method was a superior preparation method to liquid method in diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, even if splitting method was not used and variable allocation method was used.
BACKGROUND: There are few studies about the diagnostic yield of cytologic preparation method of pancreatic samples obtained by Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of ThinPrep(®) and smear method in diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. METHODS: A total of 125 EUS-FNA procedures were performed between July 2010 and June 2015. Patients in group I (n = 36; July 2010 to June 2014) had cytology slides prepared by consecutive allocation of samples. Patients in group II (n = 12; July 2014 to June 2015) had cytology slides prepared by alternately allocation of samples. RESULTS: There were 24 men and 24 women (median age: 67 years; range 39-84). The median size of lesions was 3.9 cm (range; 1.4-7.2 cm). The locations of the pancreatic cancer were 10 in head (20.8%), 21 in body (43.8%), and 17 in tail (35.4%). The ThinPrep(®) method confirmed malignancy in 35 of 48 cases (72.9%). On the other hand, the smear method confirmed malignancy in 44 of 48 cases (91.7%). The diagnostic yield of smear method was statistically higher than liquid method (P = 0.012). Also, smear method is superior to liquid method in both consecutive and alternative allocation method. ThinPrep(®) provided a correct diagnosis in one case where the smear method was incorrect. CONCLUSIONS: Smear method was a superior preparation method to liquid method in diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, even if splitting method was not used and variable allocation method was used.
Authors: Priscilla A van Riet; Rutger Quispel; Djuna L Cahen; Mieke C Snijders-Kruisbergen; Petri van Loenen; Nicole S Erler; Jan-Werner Poley; Lydi M J W van Driel; Sanna A Mulder; Bart J Veldt; Ivonne Leeuwenburgh; Marie-Paule G F Anten; Pieter Honkoop; Annemieke Y Thijssen; Lieke Hol; Mohammed Hadithi; Claire E Fitzpatrick; Ingrid Schot; Jilling F Bergmann; Abha Bhalla; Marco J Bruno; Katharina Biermann Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2020-01-22
Authors: Moon Jae Chung; Se Woo Park; Seong-Hun Kim; Chang Min Cho; Jun-Ho Choi; Eun Kwang Choi; Tae Hoon Lee; Eunae Cho; Jun Kyu Lee; Tae Jun Song; Jae Min Lee; Jun Hyuk Son; Jin Suk Park; Chi Hyuk Oh; Dong-Ah Park; Jeong-Sik Byeon; Soo Teik Lee; Ho Gak Kim; Hoon Jai Chun; Ho Soon Choi; Chan Guk Park; Joo Young Cho Journal: Clin Endosc Date: 2021-03-24
Authors: Moon Jae Chung; Se Woo Park; Seong-Hun Kim; Chang Min Cho; Jun-Ho Choi; Eun Kwang Choi; Tae Hoon Lee; Eunae Cho; Jun Kyu Lee; Tae Jun Song; Jae Min Lee; Jun Hyuk Son; Jin Suk Park; Chi Hyuk Oh; Dong-Ah Park; Jeong-Sik Byeon; Soo Teik Lee; Ho Gak Kim; Hoon Jai Chun; Ho Soon Choi; Chan Guk Park; Joo Young Cho Journal: Gut Liver Date: 2021-05-15 Impact factor: 4.519