Re: Assessment of preoperative pancreatic biopsy, cytological/histological review of cell‐block‐specimens obtained by endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle aspiration: Laboratory based study

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (11) ◽  
pp. 1153-1154
Author(s):  
Antonio Ieni ◽  
Giovanni Tuccari
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Cell Block ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Pancreatic Biopsy

scholarly journals Pull vs. wet: rendimiento diagnóstico y calidad de las muestras de las PAAF guiadas por USE en las masas sólidas del páncreas

2021 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Cecilia Curvale ◽  
Ignacio Málaga ◽  
Paloma Rojas Saunero ◽  
Viviana Tassi ◽  
Enrique Martins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Cell Block ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Significant Difference

Differential diagnosis of pancreatic masses is challenging. The endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration method with the highest diagnostic yield has not been established. It was realized a prospective, randomized, double-blind study of the endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in solid lesions of the pancreas to compare and evaluate diagnostic yield and aspirate quality between wet and pull technique. Forty-one patients were enrolled. The wet technique presented a sensitivity, a specificity, a positive and negative predictive value, and a diagnostic accuracy of 58.3%, 100%, 100%, 25% and 63.4%, respectively. In the capillary technique they were: 75%, 100%, 100%, 35.7% and 78.1%, respectively. Comparing the diagnostic yield between both techniques, there was no statistically significant difference (McNemar’s test p = 0.388). Regarding the cellularity of the specimen, both in cytology and the cell block samples, no significant difference was observed between the techniques (p = 0.84 and 0.61, respectively). With respect to contaminating blood in the specimen, there was no difference in cytology samples (p = 0.89) and no difference in cell block samples (p = 0.08). The suitability of cytology samples for diagnosis was similar in both techniques (wet = 57.5% and capillary = 56.7%, p = 0.94) and there was no difference in cell block samples (wet = 75% and capillary = 66.1%, p = 0.38). In this study we did not observe differences in diagnostic yield or sample quality. Since both techniques are effective, we suggest the simultaneous and alternate use of both methods.

Su1326 Efficacy of Cell-Block Approach in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration

2016 ◽  
Vol 83 (5) ◽  
pp. AB353
Author(s):  
Elia Armellini ◽  
Marco Ballarè ◽  
Monica Leutner ◽  
Marco Orsello ◽  
Silvia Saettone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Cell Block ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Block Approach

scholarly journals Comparison of Diagnostic Yield of Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Aspiration Cytology and Cell Block in Solid Lesions

2017 ◽  
Vol 08 (04) ◽  
pp. 176-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Avinash Bhat Balekuduru ◽  
Amit Kumar Dutta ◽  
Sanjeev Kumar Nagaruru ◽  
Shamim Sheik ◽  
Suneetha Parandhamaiah Kurella ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Tissue Sample ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Cell Block ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Submucosal Lesions ◽  
Solid Lesions

ABSTRACT Background and Aim: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a procedure of choice for the diagnostic evaluation of submucosal and periluminal lesions. Tissue sample can be obtained by EUS-FNA cytology (FNAC) or cell block (CB). The aim of the present study is to compare diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA CB and cytology in the absence of onsite pathologist following a protocol-based EUS-FNA approach in solid lesions. Patients and Methods: Participants who underwent EUS-FNA at our center for solid submucosal or periluminal lesions (pancreas, lymph node, and liver) between 2014 and 2016 were included, retrospectively. The indication for the procedure along with the clinical and other investigation details and the final etiological diagnosis were recorded on uniform structured data forms. The diagnostic yield of cytology and CB were compared using McNemar’s test. The P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: EUS-FNA for solid lesion was performed in 130 lesions in 101 patients during the study period. Their mean age was 52.5 ± 12 years and 42.5% were female. Pancreatic masses were the most common lesions (37.7%) followed by lymph nodes (36.9%). Submucosal lesions (17.7%) and liver lesions (7.7%) accounted for rest of the cases. The overall diagnostic yield for EUS-FNAC (70%) and CB (74.6%) was not significantly different (P = 0.3) and their combined yield was 85.3%. For the 23 patients with submucosal lesion, diagnostic yield of CB (82.6%) was significantly better than cytology (47.8%, P = 0.04). Conclusions: EUS-guided CB has better yield compared to cytology in gastrointestinal submucosal lesions. The combination of CB with cytology improves the overall yield of the procedure; and hence, they should be considered complimentary rather than alternatives.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document