Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;94(2):303-310.
Comparison of contrast-enhanced versus conventional EUS-guided FNA/fine-needle biopsy in diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions: a randomized controlled trial.
제1저자 조인래 · 교신저자 조재희
소속 (4)
- Department of Internal Medicine and Liver Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
- Department of Internal Medicine, Catholic Kwandong University International Saint Mary's Hospital, Incheon, Korea.
- Department of Internal Medicine, Gachon University Gil Medical Center, Incheon, Korea.
- Department of Internal Medicine, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS Contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS (CEH-EUS) is useful in the differential diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs). However, there is lack of verification about the usefulness of CEH-EUS-guided FNA/fine-needle biopsy (FNB) sampling. This study aimed to investigate the usefulness of CEH-EUS-guided FNA/FNB sampling without on-site cytopathology.
METHODS Patients with SPLs were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned (1:1) to 2 parallel groups, the interventional group (CEH-EUS) or the control group (conventional EUS). The diagnostic sensitivity and optimal number of needle passes for pathologic diagnosis were investigated and compared between groups.
RESULTS Two hundred forty patients were enrolled from March 2016 to September 2019, with 120 patients assigned to each group. Pancreatic malignancies and neuroendocrine tumors were found in 202 (90.83%) and 9 (3.75%) patients, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of age, sex, lesion size (30.96 ± 12.09 mm in the CEH-EUS group vs 33.09 ± 16.39 mm in the conventional EUS group; P = .252), lesion location, adverse event rate, and disease distribution. The diagnostic sensitivity values in the CEH-EUS and conventional EUS groups were 85.8% and 88.3%, respectively (P = .564). All patients in the conventional EUS group and most in the CEH-EUS group received a pathologic diagnosis within 3 needle passes.
CONCLUSIONS Diagnostic sensitivity for SPLs was not different between the CEH-EUS and conventional EUS groups, and no independent factors were found that could improve diagnostic sensitivity. CEH-EUS-guided FNA/FNB sampling does not need to be used routinely and may be selectively considered for small, indeterminate lesions. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT 0001840.).
Copyright © 2021 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Comment · 정정
- Comment in Gastrointest Endosc. 2021 Jul;94(1):200-201. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2021.02.016.
- Comment in Gastrointest Endosc. 2021 Jul;94(1):201. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2021.03.930.
- Comment in Gastrointest Endosc. 2021 Aug;94(2):437-438. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2021.03.016.
- Comment in Gastrointest Endosc. 2021 Aug;94(2):438-439. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2021.04.012.
그 밖의 정보
- 출판 형태
- Comparative Study, Journal Article, Randomized Controlled Trial
- 저널
- Gastrointestinal endoscopy · eISSN 1097-6779
- 전자 출판
- 2021-01-23
- MeSH
- Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration / methods · Humans · Neuroendocrine Tumors* / diagnostic imaging · Pancreas / diagnostic imaging · Pancreatic Neoplasms* / diagnostic imaging