BACKGROUND & AIMS: It is not clear exactly how many passes are required to determine whether pancreatic masses are malignant using endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). We aimed to define the per-pass diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA for establishing the malignancy of a pancreatic mass, and identify factors associated with detection of malignancies. METHODS: In a prospective study, 239 patients with solid pancreatic masses were randomly assigned to groups that underwent EUS-FNA, with the number of passes determined by an on-site cytopathology evaluation or set at 7 passes, at 3 tertiary referral centers. A final diagnosis of pancreatic malignancy was made based on findings from cytology, surgery, or a follow-up evaluation at least 1 year after EUS-FNA. The cumulative sensitivity of detection of malignancy by EUS-FNA was calculated after each pass; in the primary analysis, lesions categorized as malignant or suspicious were considered as positive findings. RESULTS:Pancreatic malignancies were found in 202 patients (84.5% of the study population). EUS-FNA detected malignancies with 96% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI], 92%-98%); 4 passes of EUS-FNA detected malignancies with 92% sensitivity (95% CI, 87%-95%). Tumor size greater than 2 cm was the only variable associated with positive results from cytology analysis (odds ratio, 7.8; 95% CI, 1.9-31.6). In masses larger than 2 cm, 4 passes of EUS-FNA detected malignancies with 93% sensitivity (95% CI, 89%-96%) and in masses ≤2 cm, 6 passes was associated with 82% sensitivity (95% CI, 61%-93%). Sensitivity of detection did not increase with increasing number of passes. CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective study, we found 4 passes of EUS-FNA to be sufficient to detect malignant pancreatic masses; increasing the number of passes did not increase the sensitivity of detection. Tumor size greater than 2 cm was associated with malignancy, and a greater number of passes may be required to evaluate masses 2 cm or less. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01386931.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND & AIMS: It is not clear exactly how many passes are required to determine whether pancreatic masses are malignant using endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). We aimed to define the per-pass diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA for establishing the malignancy of a pancreatic mass, and identify factors associated with detection of malignancies. METHODS: In a prospective study, 239 patients with solid pancreatic masses were randomly assigned to groups that underwent EUS-FNA, with the number of passes determined by an on-site cytopathology evaluation or set at 7 passes, at 3 tertiary referral centers. A final diagnosis of pancreatic malignancy was made based on findings from cytology, surgery, or a follow-up evaluation at least 1 year after EUS-FNA. The cumulative sensitivity of detection of malignancy by EUS-FNA was calculated after each pass; in the primary analysis, lesions categorized as malignant or suspicious were considered as positive findings. RESULTS:Pancreatic malignancies were found in 202 patients (84.5% of the study population). EUS-FNA detected malignancies with 96% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI], 92%-98%); 4 passes of EUS-FNA detected malignancies with 92% sensitivity (95% CI, 87%-95%). Tumor size greater than 2 cm was the only variable associated with positive results from cytology analysis (odds ratio, 7.8; 95% CI, 1.9-31.6). In masses larger than 2 cm, 4 passes of EUS-FNA detected malignancies with 93% sensitivity (95% CI, 89%-96%) and in masses ≤2 cm, 6 passes was associated with 82% sensitivity (95% CI, 61%-93%). Sensitivity of detection did not increase with increasing number of passes. CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective study, we found 4 passes of EUS-FNA to be sufficient to detect malignant pancreatic masses; increasing the number of passes did not increase the sensitivity of detection. Tumor size greater than 2 cm was associated with malignancy, and a greater number of passes may be required to evaluate masses 2 cm or less. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01386931.
Authors: Herve Tiriac; Juan Carlos Bucobo; Demetrios Tzimas; Suman Grewel; Joseph F Lacomb; Leahana M Rowehl; Satish Nagula; Maoxin Wu; Joseph Kim; Aaron Sasson; Shivakumar Vignesh; Laura Martello; Maria Munoz-Sagastibelza; Jonathan Somma; David A Tuveson; Ellen Li; Jonathan M Buscaglia Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2018-01-09 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Sherif Elhanafi; Nadim Mahmud; Norge Vergara; Michael L Kochman; Koushik K Das; Gregory G Ginsberg; Michael Rajala; Vinay Chandrasekhara Journal: J Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2018-12-10 Impact factor: 4.369
Authors: Alexander Semaan; Vincent Bernard; Jaewon J Lee; Justin W Wong; Jonathan Huang; Daniel B Swartzlander; Bret M Stephens; Maria E Monberg; Brian R Weston; Manoop S Bhutani; Kyle Chang; Paul A Scheet; Anirban Maitra; Yasminka A Jakubek; Paola A Guerrero Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-11-13 Impact factor: 13.801
Authors: Rutger Quispel; Lydi M J W van Driel; Pieter Honkoop; Mohamad Hadithi; Marie-Paule Anten; Frank Smedts; Margreet C Kerkmeer; Bart J Veldt; Marco J Bruno Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2019-06-12
Authors: Samuel Han; Furqan Bhullar; Omar Alaber; Ayesha Kamal; Puanani Hopson; Kavin Kanthasamy; Sarah Coughlin; Livia Archibugi; Nikhil Thiruvengadam; Christopher Moreau; David Jin; Pedram Paragomi; Francisco Valverde-López; Sajan Nagpal; Cemal Yazici; Georgios Papchristou; Peter J Lee; Venkata Akshintala Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2021-05-27