Diogo T H de Moura1, Thomas R McCarty2, Pichamol Jirapinyo2, Igor B Ribeiro3, Victor K Flumignan4, Fedaa Najdawai5, Marvin Ryou2, Linda S Lee2, Christopher C Thompson2. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women's Hospital-Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Endoscopy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Gastrointestinal Department, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 2. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women's Hospital-Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Endoscopy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 3. Gastrointestinal Department, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 4. Endoscopy Unit, Hospital Santa Marcelina, São Paulo, Brazil. 5. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Endoscopy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Although conventional EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) has previously been considered first-line for sampling subepithelial lesions (SELs), variable accuracy has resulted in increased use of fine-needle biopsy (FNB) sampling to improve diagnostic yield. The primary aim of this study was to compare FNA versus FNB sampling for the diagnosis of SELs. METHODS: This was a multicenter, retrospective study to evaluate the outcomes of EUS-FNA and EUS-guided FNB sampling (EUS-FNB) of SELs over a 3-year period. Demographics, lesion characteristics, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, number of needle passes, diagnostic adequacy of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), cell block accuracy, and adverse events were analyzed. Subgroup analyses were performed comparing FNA versus FNB sampling by location and diagnostic yield with or without ROSE. Multivariable logistic regression was also performed. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-nine patients with SELs (115 FNA and 114 FNB sampling) underwent EUS-guided sampling. Mean patient age was 60.86 ± 12.84 years. Most lesions were gastric in location (75.55%) and from the fourth layer (71.18%). Cell block for FNB sampling required fewer passes to achieve conclusive diagnosis (2.94 ± 1.09 vs 3.55 ± 1.55; P = .003). The number of passes was not different for ROSE adequacy (P = .167). Immunohistochemistry was more able to be successfully performed in more FNB sampling samples (69.30% vs 40.00%; P < .001). Overall, sensitivity and accuracy were superior for FNB sampling versus FNA (79.41% vs 51.92% [P = .001] and 88.03% vs 77.19% [P = .030], respectively). On subgroup analysis, sensitivity and accuracy of FNB sampling alone was superior to FNA + ROSE (79.03% vs 46.67% [P = .001] and 87.25% vs 68.00% [P = .024], respectively). There was no significant difference in diagnostic yield of FNB sampling alone versus FNB sampling + ROSE (P > .05). Multivariate analysis showed no predictors associated with accuracy. One minor adverse event was reported in the FNA group. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNB was superior to EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of SELs. EUS-FNB was also superior to EUS-FNA alone and EUS-FNA + ROSE. These results suggest EUS-FNB should be considered a first-line modality and may suggest a reduced role for ROSE in the diagnosis of SELs. However, a large randomized controlled trial is required to confirm our findings.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Although conventional EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) has previously been considered first-line for sampling subepithelial lesions (SELs), variable accuracy has resulted in increased use of fine-needle biopsy (FNB) sampling to improve diagnostic yield. The primary aim of this study was to compare FNA versus FNB sampling for the diagnosis of SELs. METHODS: This was a multicenter, retrospective study to evaluate the outcomes of EUS-FNA and EUS-guided FNB sampling (EUS-FNB) of SELs over a 3-year period. Demographics, lesion characteristics, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, number of needle passes, diagnostic adequacy of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), cell block accuracy, and adverse events were analyzed. Subgroup analyses were performed comparing FNA versus FNB sampling by location and diagnostic yield with or without ROSE. Multivariable logistic regression was also performed. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-nine patients with SELs (115 FNA and 114 FNB sampling) underwent EUS-guided sampling. Mean patient age was 60.86 ± 12.84 years. Most lesions were gastric in location (75.55%) and from the fourth layer (71.18%). Cell block for FNB sampling required fewer passes to achieve conclusive diagnosis (2.94 ± 1.09 vs 3.55 ± 1.55; P = .003). The number of passes was not different for ROSE adequacy (P = .167). Immunohistochemistry was more able to be successfully performed in more FNB sampling samples (69.30% vs 40.00%; P < .001). Overall, sensitivity and accuracy were superior for FNB sampling versus FNA (79.41% vs 51.92% [P = .001] and 88.03% vs 77.19% [P = .030], respectively). On subgroup analysis, sensitivity and accuracy of FNB sampling alone was superior to FNA + ROSE (79.03% vs 46.67% [P = .001] and 87.25% vs 68.00% [P = .024], respectively). There was no significant difference in diagnostic yield of FNB sampling alone versus FNB sampling + ROSE (P > .05). Multivariate analysis showed no predictors associated with accuracy. One minor adverse event was reported in the FNA group. CONCLUSIONS:EUS-FNB was superior to EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of SELs. EUS-FNB was also superior to EUS-FNA alone and EUS-FNA + ROSE. These results suggest EUS-FNB should be considered a first-line modality and may suggest a reduced role for ROSE in the diagnosis of SELs. However, a large randomized controlled trial is required to confirm our findings.
Authors: Paul S Sepe; Bhavani Moparty; Martha B Pitman; John R Saltzman; William R Brugge Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2009-05-30 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Jeong Hoon Lee; Charles J Cho; Young Soo Park; Ji Yong Ahn; Do Hoon Kim; Hee Kyong Na; Kee Don Choi; Ho June Song; Gin Hyug Lee; Hwoon-Yong Jung Journal: Scand J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-06-10 Impact factor: 2.423
Authors: Abdul Hamid El Chafic; David Loren; Ali Siddiqui; Rawad Mounzer; Natalie Cosgrove; Thomas Kowalski Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2017-01-25 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Shyam Varadarajulu; Ji Young Bang; Bronte A Holt; Muhammad K Hasan; Amy Logue; Robert H Hawes; Shantel Hebert-Magee Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2014-06-25 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Marcin Polkowski; Christian Jenssen; Philip Kaye; Silvia Carrara; Pierre Deprez; Angels Gines; Gloria Fernández-Esparrach; Pierre Eisendrath; Guruprasad P Aithal; Paolo Arcidiacono; Marc Barthet; Pedro Bastos; Adele Fornelli; Bertrand Napoleon; Julio Iglesias-Garcia; Andrada Seicean; Alberto Larghi; Cesare Hassan; Jeanin E van Hooft; Jean-Marc Dumonceau Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2017-09-12 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Vitor Ottoboni Brunaldi; Martin Coronel; Danielle Azevedo Chacon; Eduardo Turiani Hourneaux De Moura; Sérgio E Matuguma; Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux De Moura; Diogo Turiani Hourneaux De Moura Journal: J Med Case Rep Date: 2017-03-05
Authors: Diogo Turiani Hourneaux De Moura; Martin Coronel; Igor Braga Ribeiro; Galileu Ferreira Ayala Farias; Maria Auxiliadora Choez; Rodrigo Rocha; Marcello Pecoraro Toscano; Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux De Moura Journal: J Med Case Rep Date: 2018-04-26