Fulvia Terracciano1, Antonella Marra2, Antonio Massimo Ippolito2, Fabrizio Bossa2, Krizia Sitajolo3, Annabianca Amoruso4, Paola Parente5, Maria Rosa Valvano2, Paolo Graziano5, Angelo Andriulli2. 1. Division of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy, IRCCS, Fondazione Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza, Viale Cappuccini 1, 71024, San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy. terracciano74@hotmail.com. 2. Division of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy, IRCCS, Fondazione Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza, Viale Cappuccini 1, 71024, San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy. 3. Hepatology and Biomolecular Clinics, "G. Martino" Hospital, Messina, Italy. 4. Endoscopy Unit, "San Carlo" Hospital, Potenza, Italy. 5. Department of Human Pathology, IRCCS, Fondazione Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza, San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For solid pancreatic masses, ultrasound endoscopic fine-needle biopsy is suggested as the front-line investigation for tissue achievement, notwithstanding the optimal performance of transabdominal ultrasound (TUS)-guided biopsy. PURPOSE: To reassess the efficacy and effectiveness of TUS-guided sampling and to determine the factors predictive of accurate histology. METHODS: In total, 142 patients with an indication for a TUS-guided biopsy of a pancreatic mass were analyzed. A single pass of an 18-gauge Biomol needle was carried out by the Menghini technique. The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the procedure in terms of correctly diagnosing an inflammatory or neoplastic lesion were determined. The patients' characteristics, the size and location of the mass, and the sonographers' experience in performing TUS were recorded. RESULTS: The sampling was unsuccessful in 24 cases, owing to the deep localization of lesions (57%), bloating (33%), or low patient compliance (10%). The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the 118 successful biopsies were 81%, 79%, and 100%, respectively. A biopsy core was obtained in 90 of the 118 patients (76%) in whom the procedure was attempted. In the multivariate analysis, lesion size (≤ 20 mm vs. > 20 mm) (OR = 5.3 [1.7-17.0]) and operator experience (OR = 4.4 [1.6-12.1]) predicted the acquisition of adequate samples. With an expert sonographer, the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 87%, 85%, and 100%, respectively. Two adverse events were registered: mild abdominal pain and a hypotensive crisis. CONCLUSIONS: The present investigation highlights the optimal performance of a TUS-guided biopsy of a pancreatic mass. Because of its simplicity and safety, the procedure needs to be included among the recommended investigative options.
BACKGROUND: For solid pancreatic masses, ultrasound endoscopic fine-needle biopsy is suggested as the front-line investigation for tissue achievement, notwithstanding the optimal performance of transabdominal ultrasound (TUS)-guided biopsy. PURPOSE: To reassess the efficacy and effectiveness of TUS-guided sampling and to determine the factors predictive of accurate histology. METHODS: In total, 142 patients with an indication for a TUS-guided biopsy of a pancreatic mass were analyzed. A single pass of an 18-gauge Biomol needle was carried out by the Menghini technique. The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the procedure in terms of correctly diagnosing an inflammatory or neoplastic lesion were determined. The patients' characteristics, the size and location of the mass, and the sonographers' experience in performing TUS were recorded. RESULTS: The sampling was unsuccessful in 24 cases, owing to the deep localization of lesions (57%), bloating (33%), or low patient compliance (10%). The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the 118 successful biopsies were 81%, 79%, and 100%, respectively. A biopsy core was obtained in 90 of the 118 patients (76%) in whom the procedure was attempted. In the multivariate analysis, lesion size (≤ 20 mm vs. > 20 mm) (OR = 5.3 [1.7-17.0]) and operator experience (OR = 4.4 [1.6-12.1]) predicted the acquisition of adequate samples. With an expert sonographer, the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 87%, 85%, and 100%, respectively. Two adverse events were registered: mild abdominal pain and a hypotensive crisis. CONCLUSIONS: The present investigation highlights the optimal performance of a TUS-guided biopsy of a pancreatic mass. Because of its simplicity and safety, the procedure needs to be included among the recommended investigative options.
Authors: Sukru Mehmet Erturk; Koenraad J Mortelé; Kemal Tuncali; John R Saltzman; Roger Lao; Stuart G Silverman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Margaret A Tempero; Mokenge P Malafa; Mahmoud Al-Hawary; Horacio Asbun; Andrew Bain; Stephen W Behrman; Al B Benson; Ellen Binder; Dana B Cardin; Charles Cha; E Gabriela Chiorean; Vincent Chung; Brian Czito; Mary Dillhoff; Efrat Dotan; Cristina R Ferrone; Jeffrey Hardacre; William G Hawkins; Joseph Herman; Andrew H Ko; Srinadh Komanduri; Albert Koong; Noelle LoConte; Andrew M Lowy; Cassadie Moravek; Eric K Nakakura; Eileen M O'Reilly; Jorge Obando; Sushanth Reddy; Courtney Scaife; Sarah Thayer; Colin D Weekes; Robert A Wolff; Brian M Wolpin; Jennifer Burns; Susan Darlow Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: S Hébert-Magee; S Bae; S Varadarajulu; J Ramesh; A R Frost; M A Eloubeidi; I A Eltoum Journal: Cytopathology Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 2.073
Authors: Jean-Marc Dumonceau; Pierre H Deprez; Christian Jenssen; Julio Iglesias-Garcia; Alberto Larghi; Geoffroy Vanbiervliet; Guruprasad P Aithal; Paolo G Arcidiacono; Pedro Bastos; Silvia Carrara; László Czakó; Gloria Fernández-Esparrach; Paul Fockens; Àngels Ginès; Roald F Havre; Cesare Hassan; Peter Vilmann; Jeanin E van Hooft; Marcin Polkowski Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2017-05-16 Impact factor: 10.093