Comparison of the Diagnostic Yield of the Standard 22-Gauge Needle and the New 20-Gauge Forward-Bevel Core Biopsy Needle for Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition from Pancreatic Lesions.
Biopsy
Core biopsy needle
Diagnostic yield
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration
Pancreas
fine-needle
Journal
Gut and liver
ISSN: 2005-1212
Titre abrégé: Gut Liver
Pays: Korea (South)
ID NLM: 101316452
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 05 2019
15 05 2019
Historique:
received:
29
04
2018
revised:
30
08
2018
accepted:
24
09
2018
pubmed:
3
1
2019
medline:
15
1
2020
entrez:
3
1
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare the diagnostic yield of 20-gauge forward-bevel core biopsy needle (CBN) and 22-gauge needle for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) of solid pancreatic masses. The use of 20-gauge CBN was prospectively evaluated for 50 patients who underwent EUS-FNA from June 2016 to December 2016. Data were compared with those obtained by a retrospective study of 50 consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNA using standard 22-gauge needles between December 2016 and April 2017. At least two punctures were performed for each patient; the sample from the first pass was used for cytology with or without histology and that from the second pass was used for histology. Sample quantity was evaluated using the sample obtained from the second pass. There was no significant difference in the diagnostic accuracy rate between the first and second passes (20-gauge CBN: 96% [48/50]; standard 22-gauge needle: 88% [44/50]). Samples >10× power fields in length were obtained from 90% (43/48) and 60% (30/50) of patients using the 20-gauge CBN and standard 22-gauge needle, respectively (p=0.01). Technical failure occurred for two patients with the 20-gauge CBN. Diagnostic accuracy of the 20-gauge CBN was comparable to that of the 22-gauge needle. However, two passes with the 20-gauge CBN yielded a correct diagnosis for 100% of patients when technically feasible. Moreover, the 20-gauge CBN yielded core tissue for 90% patients, which was a performance superior to that of the 22-gauge needle.
Sections du résumé
Background/Aims
To compare the diagnostic yield of 20-gauge forward-bevel core biopsy needle (CBN) and 22-gauge needle for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) of solid pancreatic masses.
Methods
The use of 20-gauge CBN was prospectively evaluated for 50 patients who underwent EUS-FNA from June 2016 to December 2016. Data were compared with those obtained by a retrospective study of 50 consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNA using standard 22-gauge needles between December 2016 and April 2017. At least two punctures were performed for each patient; the sample from the first pass was used for cytology with or without histology and that from the second pass was used for histology. Sample quantity was evaluated using the sample obtained from the second pass.
Results
There was no significant difference in the diagnostic accuracy rate between the first and second passes (20-gauge CBN: 96% [48/50]; standard 22-gauge needle: 88% [44/50]). Samples >10× power fields in length were obtained from 90% (43/48) and 60% (30/50) of patients using the 20-gauge CBN and standard 22-gauge needle, respectively (p=0.01). Technical failure occurred for two patients with the 20-gauge CBN.
Conclusions
Diagnostic accuracy of the 20-gauge CBN was comparable to that of the 22-gauge needle. However, two passes with the 20-gauge CBN yielded a correct diagnosis for 100% of patients when technically feasible. Moreover, the 20-gauge CBN yielded core tissue for 90% patients, which was a performance superior to that of the 22-gauge needle.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30600677
pii: gnl18189
doi: 10.5009/gnl18189
pmc: PMC6529169
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
349-355Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013 Apr;28(4):656-63
pubmed: 23301574
Gastroenterology. 1997 Apr;112(4):1087-95
pubmed: 9097990
United European Gastroenterol J. 2017 Oct;5(6):854-858
pubmed: 29026599
Gastrointest Endosc. 2005 Mar;61(3):467-72
pubmed: 15758927
Cytopathology. 2010 Dec;21(6):395-7
pubmed: 20105208
Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 Dec;80(6):1030-7.e1
pubmed: 24890422
Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Oct;84(4):670-8
pubmed: 26995688
Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 Dec;80(6):939-59.e7
pubmed: 25434654
Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2018 Feb;17(1):70-74
pubmed: 29428108
Cytopathology. 2010 Feb;21(1):44-51
pubmed: 19456845
Gut. 2010 May;59(5):586-93
pubmed: 20427392
Endoscopy. 2011 Oct;43(10):897-912
pubmed: 21842456
Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Mar;71(3):446-54
pubmed: 20189503
Endoscopy. 2017 Oct;49(10):989-1006
pubmed: 28898917
Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Aug;76(2):321-7
pubmed: 22658389
Am J Gastroenterol. 2010 Aug;105(8):1739-45
pubmed: 20216532
Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Jun;69(7):1264-70
pubmed: 19243768
Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Feb;75(2):319-31
pubmed: 22248600
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Jan;81(1):177-85
pubmed: 25440688
Endoscopy. 2014 Dec;46(12):1063-70
pubmed: 25098612
Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Jun;73(6):1189-96
pubmed: 21420083
Endoscopy. 2014 Dec;46(12):1056-62
pubmed: 25098611