scholarly journals Addition of Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration and On-Site Cytology to EUS-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy Increases Procedure Time but Not Diagnostic Accuracy

2014 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rajesh N. Keswani ◽  
Kumar Krishnan ◽  
Sachin Wani ◽  
Laurie Keefer ◽  
Srinadh Komanduri
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Needle Biopsy ◽  
Fine Needle Biopsy ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Procedure Time ◽  
Fine Needle

scholarly journals A Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration and Fine-Needle Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lachlan R. Ayres ◽  
Elizabeth K. Kmiotek ◽  
Eric Lam ◽  
Jennifer J. Telford
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Needle Biopsy ◽  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Fine Needle Biopsy ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
True Positive ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Fine Needle

Background and Aims. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is the method of choice for sampling pancreatic lesions. This study compares the diagnostic accuracy and safety of FNB using a novel core needle to FNA in solid pancreatic lesions. Methods. A retrospective review of patients in whom EUS FNA or FNB was performed for solid pancreatic lesions was conducted. Diagnostic performance was calculated based upon a dual classification system: classification 1, only malignant pathology considered a true positive, versus classification 2, atypical, suspicious, and malignant pathology considered a true positive. Results. 43 patients underwent FNB compared with 51 FNA. Using classification 1, sensitivity was 74.0% versus 80.0%, specificity 100% versus 100%, and diagnostic accuracy 77.0% versus 80.0% for FNB versus FNA, respectively (all p>0.05). Using classification 2, sensitivity was 97% versus 94.0%, specificity 100% versus 100%, and diagnostic accuracy 98.0% versus 94.0% for FNB versus FNA, respectively (all p>0.05). FNB required significantly fewer needle passes (median = 2) compared to FNA (median = 3; p<0.001). Adverse events occurred in two (4.5%) FNB patients compared with none in the FNA group (p>0.05). Conclusion. FNA and FNB have comparable sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy. FNB required fewer passes.

scholarly journals Endoscopic Ultrasound Fine-Needle Biopsy versus Fine-Needle Aspiration for Tissue Sampling of Abdominal Lymph Nodes: A Propensity Score Matched Multicenter Comparative Study

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (17) ◽  
pp. 4298
Author(s):  
Antonio Facciorusso ◽  
Stefano Francesco Crinò ◽  
Nicola Muscatiello ◽  
Paraskevas Gkolfakis ◽  
Jayanta Samanta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Propensity Score ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Needle Biopsy ◽  
Fine Needle Biopsy ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Tissue Sampling ◽  
Fine Needle

There is a paucity of evidence on the comparison between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle biopsy (FNB) and fine-needle aspiration (FNA) for lymph node (LNs) sampling. The aim of this study was to compare these two approaches in a multicenter series of patients with abdominal tumors. Out of 502 patients undergoing EUS sampling, two groups following propensity score matching were compared: 105 undergoing EUS-FNB and 105 undergoing EUS-FNA. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, sample adequacy, optimal histological core procurement, number of passes, and adverse events. Median age was 64.6 years, and most patients were male in both groups. Final diagnosis was LN metastasis (mainly from colorectal cancer) in 70.4% of patients in the EUS-FNB group and 66.6% in the EUS-FNA group (p = 0.22). Diagnostic accuracy was significantly higher in the EUS-FNB group as compared to the EUS-FNA group (87.62% versus 75.24%, p = 0.02). EUS-FNB outperformed EUS-FNA also in terms of diagnostic sensitivity (84.71% vs. 70.11%; p = 0.01), whereas specificity was 100% in both groups (p = 0.6). Sample adequacy analysis showed a non-significant trend in favor of EUS-FNB (96.1% versus 89.5%, p = 0.06) whereas the histological core procurement rate was significantly higher with EUS-FNB (94.2% versus 51.4%; p < 0.001). No procedure-related adverse events were observed. These findings show that EUS-FNB is superior to EUS-FNA in tissue sampling of abdominal LNs.

Comparison of fine-needle aspiration and fine-needle biopsy devices for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid lesions: a systemic review and meta-analysis

Endoscopy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Priscilla A. van Riet ◽  
Nicole S. Erler ◽  
Marco J. Bruno ◽  
Djuna L. Cahen
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Needle Biopsy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Fine Needle Biopsy ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Systemic Review ◽  
Sampling Device ◽  
Fine Needle

Abstract Background Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition is extensively used, but the optimal sampling device is still a matter of debate. We performed meta-analyses on studies comparing fine-needle aspiration (FNA) with fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles, and studies comparing different FNB needles. Methods Online databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 50 cases with a suspected solid pancreatic or nonpancreatic lesion that compared FNA with FNB needles. Outcome measures included diagnostic accuracy, adequacy, number of passes, presence of tissue cores, and adverse events. We also performed meta-regression analysis on the effect of FNB design on diagnostic accuracy. Quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Results 18 RCTs comparing FNA with FNB needles were included. FNB provided a higher pooled diagnostic accuracy (87 % vs. 80 %; P = 0.02) and tissue core rate (80 % vs. 62 %; P = 0.002), and allowed diagnosis with fewer passes (P = 0.03), in both pancreatic and nonpancreatic lesions. A total of 93 studies were included comparing different FNB devices. Pooled diagnostic accuracy was higher for forward-facing bevel needles than for the reverse bevel needle. In this analysis, study quality was low and heterogeneity was high (I2  = 80 %). Conclusion FNB outperformed FNA when sampling pancreatic and nonpancreatic lesions. Forward-facing bevel FNB needles seemed to outperform the reverse bevel FNB needle, but the low quality of evidence prevents us from making strong recommendations on the optimal FNB design.

Combined versus single use 20 G fine-needle biopsy and 25 G fine-needle aspiration for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling of solid gastrointestinal lesions

Endoscopy ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 52 (01) ◽  
pp. 37-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Priscilla A. van Riet ◽  
Paolo Giorgio Arcidiacono ◽  
Mariachiara Petrone ◽  
Nam Quoc Nguyen ◽  
Masayuki Kitano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Needle Biopsy ◽  
Fine Needle Biopsy ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Gastrointestinal Lesions ◽  
First Choice ◽  
Diagnostic Benefit

Abstract Background Instead of choosing one endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) needle over the other, some advocate the use of fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (FNB) consecutively. We explored the yield of combined use of 20 G FNB and 25 G FNA needles in patients with a suspicious solid gastrointestinal lesion. Methods Patients from the ASPRO study who were sampled with both needles during the same procedure were included. The incremental yield of dual sampling compared with the yield of single needle use on the diagnostic accuracy for malignancy was assessed for both dual sampling approaches – FNA followed by FNB, and vice versa. Results 73 patients were included. There were 39 (53 %) pancreatic lesions, 18 (25 %) submucosal masses, and 16 (22 %) lymph nodes. FNA was used first in 24 patients (33 %) and FNB was used first in 49 (67 %). Generally, FNB was performed after FNA to collect tissue for ancillary testing (75 %), whereas FNA was used after FNB to allow for on-site pathological assessment (76 %). Diagnostic accuracy for malignancy of single needle use increased from 78 % to 92 % with dual sampling (P = 0.002). FNA followed by FNB improved the diagnostic accuracy for malignancy (P = 0.03), whereas FNB followed by FNA did not (P = 0.13). Conclusion Dual sampling only improved diagnostic accuracy when 25 G FNA was followed by 20 G FNB and not vice versa. As the diagnostic benefit of the 20 G FNB over the 25 G FNA needle has recently been proven, sampling with the FNB needle seems a logical first choice.

46 Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound Fine-Needle Aspiration and Fine-Needle Biopsy for Solid Pancreatic Masses

2019 ◽  
Vol 114 (1) ◽  
pp. S26-S27
Author(s):  
Fitsum Woldesellassie ◽  
Rios Cristian ◽  
Surosree Ganguli ◽  
Chandler Thomas ◽  
Stephen Furmanek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Needle Biopsy ◽  
Fine Needle Biopsy ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Pancreatic Masses
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document