Literature DB >> 33390343

Comparison between EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology and EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy histology for the evaluation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

Stefano Francesco Crinò1, Serena Ammendola2, Anna Meneghetti3, Laura Bernardoni3, Maria Cristina Conti Bellocchi3, Armando Gabbrielli3, Luca Landoni4, Salvatore Paiella4, Federico Pin3, Alice Parisi2, Maria Gaia Mastrosimini2, Antonio Amodio3, Luca Frulloni3, Antonio Facciorusso5, Alberto Larghi6, Erminia Manfrin2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND/
OBJECTIVES: Studies comparing EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) with EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for the evaluation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) are lacking. We aimed at comparing EUS-FNA with EUS-FNB in terms of Ki-67 proliferative index (PI) estimation capability, cellularity of the samples, and reliability of Ki-67 PI/tumor grading compared with surgical specimens.
METHODS: Patients diagnosed with pNETs on EUS and/or surgical specimens were retrospectively identified. Specimens were re-evaluated to assess Ki-67 PI feasibility, sample cellularity by manual counting, and determination of Ki-67 PI value. Outcomes in the EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB groups were compared. Kendall rank test was used for Ki-67 PI correlation between EUS and surgical specimens. Subgroup analysis including small (≤20 mm), non-functioning pNETs was performed.
RESULTS: Three-hundred samples from 292 lesions were evaluated: 69 EUS-FNA cytology and 231 EUS-FNB histology. Ki-67 PI feasibility was similar for EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB (91.3% vs. 95.7%, p = 0.15), while EUS-FNB performed significantly better in the subgroup of 179 small pNETs (88.2% vs. 96.1%, p = 0.04). Rate of poor cellulated (<500 cells) specimens was equal between EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB. A significant correlation for Ki-67 PI values between EUS and 92 correspondent surgical specimens was found in both groups, but it was stronger with EUS-FNB (tau = 0.626, p < 0.0001 vs. tau = 0.452, p = 0.031). Correct grading estimation was comparable between the two groups (p = 0.482).
CONCLUSION: Our study showed stronger correlation for Ki-67 values between EUS-FNB and surgical specimens, and that EUS-FNB outperformed EUS-FNA in the evaluation of small pNETs. EUS-FNB should become standard of care for grading assessment of suspected pNETs.
Copyright © 2020 IAP and EPC. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Endoscopic ultrasound tissue acquisition; Ki-67 proliferative index; Pancreatic surgery; Small pNET

Year:  2020        PMID: 33390343     DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2020.12.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pancreatology        ISSN: 1424-3903            Impact factor:   3.996


  22 in total

1.  Clinical Management of Neuroendocrine Neoplasms in Clinical Practice: A Formal Consensus Exercise.

Authors:  Mirco Bartolomei; Alfredo Berruti; Massimo Falconi; Nicola Fazio; Diego Ferone; Secondo Lastoria; Giovanni Pappagallo; Ettore Seregni; Annibale Versari
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-19       Impact factor: 6.575

2.  The Role of MRI Pancreatic Protocol in Assessing Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy for Patients With Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer.

Authors:  Nervana Hussien; Rasha S Hussien; Darine Helmy Amin Saad; Mohamed El Kassas; Walid F Elkhatib; Mai Ezz El Din
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-01-13       Impact factor: 6.244

3.  Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy as a tool for studying the intra-tumoral microbiome in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a pilot study.

Authors:  Chia-Sheng Chu; Chi-Ying Yang; Chun-Chieh Yeh; Ro-Ting Lin; Chi-Ching Chen; Li-Yuan Bai; Mien-Chie Hung; Chun-Che Lin; Chun-Ying Wu; Jaw-Town Lin
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-01-07       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Evaluation of a novel radial echoendosonoscope with a piezoelectric-composite transducer: An open-label, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, noninferiority clinical trial.

Authors:  Sheng Wang; Jintao Guo; Xiang Liu; Nan Ge; Guoxin Wang; Jinlong Hu; Kai Zhang; Siyu Sun
Journal:  Endosc Ultrasound       Date:  2021 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.628

5.  Development and Validation of a Simple-to-Use Nomogram to Predict Early Death in Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Zhong Zhang; Juan Pu; Haijun Zhang
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-09-09       Impact factor: 6.244

6.  Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration vs fine needle biopsy in solid lesions: A multi-center analysis.

Authors:  Diogo Turiani Hourneaux Moura; Thomas R McCarty; Pichamol Jirapinyo; Igor Braga Ribeiro; Galileu Ferreira Ayala Farias; Antonio Coutinho Madruga-Neto; Marvin Ryou; Christopher C Thompson
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2021-12-06       Impact factor: 1.337

7.  Nomogram for Predicting the Prognoses of Patients With Pancreatic Head Cancer After Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Population-Based Study on SEER Data.

Authors:  Wei Zhang; Lin Xu; Xu Che
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-11-04       Impact factor: 6.244

8.  Diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA in the evaluation of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms grading: Possible clinical impact of misclassification.

Authors:  Matteo Tacelli; Maria Chiara Petrone; Gabriele Capurso; Francesca Muffatti; Valentina Andreasi; Stefano Partelli; Claudio Doglioni; Massimo Falconi; Paolo Giorgio Arcidiacono
Journal:  Endosc Ultrasound       Date:  2021 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.628

9.  Case Report: Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumor With Liver Metastasis and Portal Vein Thrombosis.

Authors:  Yulong Tian; Xingshun Qi; Afaf Aljbri; Ke Xu; Hongshan Zhong
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-02-14       Impact factor: 6.244

Review 10.  Impact of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition on Decision-Making in Precision Medicine for Pancreatic Cancer: Beyond Diagnosis.

Authors:  Hiroshi Imaoka; Mitsuhito Sasaki; Yusuke Hashimoto; Kazuo Watanabe; Shoichi Miyazawa; Taro Shibuki; Shuichi Mitsunaga; Masafumi Ikeda
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2021-06-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.