Kosuke Minaga1,2, Tomoe Yoshikawa3,4, Yukitaka Yamashita3, Hiroko Akamatsu5, Maiko Ikenouchi3, Tatsuya Ishii3, Hisakazu Matsumoto3, Hiroyoshi Iwagami3, Yasuki Nakatani3, Keiichi Hatamaru3, Mamoru Takenaka4, Takuji Akamatsu3, Yoshito Uenoyama3, Tomohiro Watanabe4, Kazuo Ono5, Yasutaka Chiba6, Masatoshi Kudo4. 1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Japanese Red Cross Wakayama Medical Center, Wakayama, Japan. kousukeminaga@med.kindai.ac.jp. 2. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Faculty of Medicine, Kindai University, 377-2 Ohno-Higashi, Osaka-Sayama, Osaka, 589-8511, Japan. kousukeminaga@med.kindai.ac.jp. 3. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Japanese Red Cross Wakayama Medical Center, Wakayama, Japan. 4. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Faculty of Medicine, Kindai University, 377-2 Ohno-Higashi, Osaka-Sayama, Osaka, 589-8511, Japan. 5. Department of Pathology, Japanese Red Cross Wakayama Medical Center, Wakayama, Japan. 6. Clinical Research Center, Kindai University Hospital, Osaka-Sayama, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has been widely used for the diagnosis of pancreatic tumors, the ability to obtain adequate pancreatic tumor tissue needs to be improved. AIMS: This study was performed to compare a newly designed 21-gauge needle (EUS Sonopsy CY; Hakko Medical, Nagano, Japan) and a standard 22-gauge needle for tissue sampling of solid pancreatic masses. METHODS: Consecutive patients with solid pancreatic masses who underwent EUS-FNA with either the EUS Sonopsy CY or the 22-gauge needle from June 2014 to December 2016 were enrolled. The primary outcome was comparison of the diagnostic yield of the FNA samples. The secondary outcomes were comparison of technical success, diagnostic ability for malignancy, and complications. RESULTS: A total of 93 patients (40.9% female; mean age, 70.1 years) underwent EUS-FNA with the EUS Sonopsy CY (n = 47) or the standard 22-gauge needle (n = 46). The technical success rate was 100% in both groups, and the overall diagnostic accuracy for malignancy was similar between the groups (100% in the EUS Sonopsy CY group vs. 95.7% in the 22-gauge needle group, P = 0.242). Nevertheless, the EUS Sonopsy CY resulted in significantly higher scores for cellularity (P = 0.006) and lower scores for blood contamination (P < 0.001). The procedure-related complication rate was comparable between the groups (P = 0.148). CONCLUSIONS: The EUS Sonopsy CY provided higher-quality specimens for histological evaluation in terms of both sample cellularity and blood contamination for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered in a clinical trial registry, No. UMIN000032598.
BACKGROUND: Although endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has been widely used for the diagnosis of pancreatic tumors, the ability to obtain adequate pancreatic tumor tissue needs to be improved. AIMS: This study was performed to compare a newly designed 21-gauge needle (EUS Sonopsy CY; Hakko Medical, Nagano, Japan) and a standard 22-gauge needle for tissue sampling of solid pancreatic masses. METHODS: Consecutive patients with solid pancreatic masses who underwent EUS-FNA with either the EUS Sonopsy CY or the 22-gauge needle from June 2014 to December 2016 were enrolled. The primary outcome was comparison of the diagnostic yield of the FNA samples. The secondary outcomes were comparison of technical success, diagnostic ability for malignancy, and complications. RESULTS: A total of 93 patients (40.9% female; mean age, 70.1 years) underwent EUS-FNA with the EUS Sonopsy CY (n = 47) or the standard 22-gauge needle (n = 46). The technical success rate was 100% in both groups, and the overall diagnostic accuracy for malignancy was similar between the groups (100% in the EUS Sonopsy CY group vs. 95.7% in the 22-gauge needle group, P = 0.242). Nevertheless, the EUS Sonopsy CY resulted in significantly higher scores for cellularity (P = 0.006) and lower scores for blood contamination (P < 0.001). The procedure-related complication rate was comparable between the groups (P = 0.148). CONCLUSIONS: The EUS Sonopsy CY provided higher-quality specimens for histological evaluation in terms of both sample cellularity and blood contamination for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered in a clinical trial registry, No. UMIN000032598.
Entities:
Keywords:
EUS; EUS–FNA; Endoscopic ultrasound; Fine needle aspiration; Pancreatic mass
Authors: Peter B Cotton; Glenn M Eisen; Lars Aabakken; Todd H Baron; Matt M Hutter; Brian C Jacobson; Klaus Mergener; Albert Nemcek; Bret T Petersen; John L Petrini; Irving M Pike; Linda Rabeneck; Joseph Romagnuolo; John J Vargo Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: M Voss; P Hammel; G Molas; L Palazzo; A Dancour; D O'Toole; B Terris; C Degott; P Bernades; P Ruszniewski Journal: Gut Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Julio Iglesias-Garcia; J Enrique Dominguez-Munoz; Ihab Abdulkader; Jose Larino-Noia; Elena Eugenyeva; Antonio Lozano-Leon; Jeronimo Forteza-Vila Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2011-04-12 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Ferga C Gleeson; Benjamin R Kipp; Jill L Caudill; Jonathan E Clain; Amy C Clayton; Kevin C Halling; Michael R Henry; Elizabeth Rajan; Mark D Topazian; Kenneth K Wang; Maurits J Wiersema; Jun Zhang; Michael J Levy Journal: Gut Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Alberto Larghi; Elizabeth C Verna; Stavros N Stavropoulos; Heidrun Rotterdam; Charles J Lightdale; Peter D Stevens Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Thomas J Savides; Michael Donohue; Gordon Hunt; Mohammed Al-Haddad; Harry Aslanian; Tamir Ben-Menachem; Victor K Chen; Walter Coyle; John Deutsch; John DeWitt; Manish Dhawan; Alexander Eckardt; Mohamad Eloubeidi; Alec Esker; Stuart R Gordon; Frank Gress; Steven Ikenberry; Ann Marie Joyce; Jason Klapman; Simon Lo; Fauze Maluf-Filho; Nicholas Nickl; Virmeet Singh; Jason Wills; Cynthia Behling Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 9.427