W F W Kappelle1, M E Van Leerdam1, M P Schwartz1, M Bülbül1, W A Buikhuisen1, M A Brink1, D M D S Sie-Go1, H J M Pullens1, S Nikolakopoulos1, P J Van Diest1, M Leenders1, L M G Moons1, A Bogte1, P D Siersema1,1, F P Vleggaar1. 1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, The Netherlands Cancer institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, The Netherlands. Department of Respiratory Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Department of Thorax Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Department of Biostatistics, Julius Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Studies on the impact of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of lymph nodes are retrospective and have shown conflicting results. We aimed to compare the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA of lymph nodes with ROSE (ROSE+) and without ROSE (ROSE-). METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Consecutive patients who were scheduled to undergo EUS-FNA of mediastinal or abdominal lymph nodes were randomized to ROSE+ or ROSE-. In the ROSE+ group, the number of passes was dictated by the on-site cytotechnician. In the ROSE- group, five passes were performed without interference from the cytotechnician. All samples were reviewed by a single-expert cytopathologist, blinded to group allocation. Primary endpoint was diagnostic yield with and without ROSE. RESULTS: After inclusion of 90 patients, interim analysis showed futility of study continuation since diagnostic yield of ROSE+ and ROSE- were comparable. A total of 91 patients were randomized to ROSE+ (N = 45) or ROSE- (N = 46). Diagnostic yield of ROSE+ and ROSE- and diagnostic accuracy were comparable: 93.3% vs. 95.7% (P = 0.68) and 97.6% vs. 93.2% (P = 0.62), respectively. Two major complications (one per group) occurred (p = 0.99). ROSE- patients more often reported self-limiting post-procedural pain (p < 0.001). Median procedure time for ROSE+ (20 min) and ROSE- (23 min) was comparable (P = 0.06). Median time to review slides in the ROSE- group (12:47 min) was longer than with ROSE+ (7:52 min) (P < 0.001). Mean costs of ROSE- and ROSE+ were comparable: €938.29 (±172.70) vs. €945.98 (±223.38) (P = 0.91), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic yield and accuracy of EUS-FNA of mediastinal and abdominal lymph nodes with and without ROSE are comparable. Time needed to review slides was shorter and post-procedural pain was less often reported in the ROSE+ group. Based on the primary outcome, the implementation of ROSE during EUS-FNA of mediastinal and abdominal lymph nodes cannot be advised. (Dutch Trial Register: NTR4876).
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Studies on the impact of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of lymph nodes are retrospective and have shown conflicting results. We aimed to compare the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA of lymph nodes with ROSE (ROSE+) and without ROSE (ROSE-). METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Consecutive patients who were scheduled to undergo EUS-FNA of mediastinal or abdominal lymph nodes were randomized to ROSE+ or ROSE-. In the ROSE+ group, the number of passes was dictated by the on-site cytotechnician. In the ROSE- group, five passes were performed without interference from the cytotechnician. All samples were reviewed by a single-expert cytopathologist, blinded to group allocation. Primary endpoint was diagnostic yield with and without ROSE. RESULTS: After inclusion of 90 patients, interim analysis showed futility of study continuation since diagnostic yield of ROSE+ and ROSE- were comparable. A total of 91 patients were randomized to ROSE+ (N = 45) or ROSE- (N = 46). Diagnostic yield of ROSE+ and ROSE- and diagnostic accuracy were comparable: 93.3% vs. 95.7% (P = 0.68) and 97.6% vs. 93.2% (P = 0.62), respectively. Two major complications (one per group) occurred (p = 0.99). ROSE- patients more often reported self-limiting post-procedural pain (p < 0.001). Median procedure time for ROSE+ (20 min) and ROSE- (23 min) was comparable (P = 0.06). Median time to review slides in the ROSE- group (12:47 min) was longer than with ROSE+ (7:52 min) (P < 0.001). Mean costs of ROSE- and ROSE+ were comparable: €938.29 (±172.70) vs. €945.98 (±223.38) (P = 0.91), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic yield and accuracy of EUS-FNA of mediastinal and abdominal lymph nodes with and without ROSE are comparable. Time needed to review slides was shorter and post-procedural pain was less often reported in the ROSE+ group. Based on the primary outcome, the implementation of ROSE during EUS-FNA of mediastinal and abdominal lymph nodes cannot be advised. (Dutch Trial Register: NTR4876).
Authors: Francine E M Voncken; Erik Vegt; Johanna W van Sandick; Jolanda M van Dieren; Cecile Grootscholten; Annemarieke Bartels-Rutten; Steven L Takken; Jan-Jakob Sonke; Jeroen B van de Kamer; Berthe M P Aleman Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2021-04-07 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Jintao Guo; Anand V Sahai; Anthony Teoh; Paolo Giorgio Arcidiacono; Alberto Larghi; Adrian Saftoiu; Ali A Siddiqui; Brenda Lucia Arturo Arias; Christian Jenssen; Douglas G Adler; Sundeep Lakhtakia; Dong-Wan Seo; Fumihide Itokawa; Marc Giovannini; Girish Mishra; Luis Sabbagh; Atsushi Irisawa; Julio Iglesias-Garcia; Jan Werner Poley; Juan J Vila; Lachter Jesse; Kensuke Kubota; Evangelos Kalaitzakis; Mitsuhiro Kida; Mohamed El-Nady; Sh Untaro Mukai; Takeshi Ogura; Pietro Fusaroli; Peter Vilmann; Praveer Rai; Nam Q Nguyen; Ryan Ponnudurai; Chalapathi Rao Achanta; Todd H Baron; Ichiro Yasuda; Hsiu-Po Wang; Jinlong Hu; Bowen Duan; Manoop S Bhutani; Siyu Sun Journal: Endosc Ultrasound Date: 2020 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.628
Authors: Benedetto Mangiavillano; Leonardo Frazzoni; Thomas Togliani; Carlo Fabbri; Ilaria Tarantino; Luca De Luca; Teresa Staiano; Cecilia Binda; Marianna Signoretti; Leonardo H Eusebi; Francesco Auriemma; Laura Lamonaca; Danilo Paduano; Milena Di Leo; Silvia Carrara; Lorenzo Fuccio; Alessandro Repici Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2021-05-27