Macroscopic on-site evaluation of biopsy specimens for accurate pathological diagnosis during EUS-guided fine needle biopsy using 22-G Franseen needle.
EUS
EUS-FNA
Franseen needle
fine-needle biopsy
macroscopic on-site evaluation
Journal
Endoscopic ultrasound
ISSN: 2303-9027
Titre abrégé: Endosc Ultrasound
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101622292
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
pubmed:
12
9
2020
medline:
12
9
2020
entrez:
11
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Measuring a visible core length during macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) can be useful for accurate diagnoses during an EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). We aimed to estimate visible core cutoff lengths predictive of a correct diagnosis when using 22-gauge Franseen needles for biopsies from pancreatic masses. We assessed 77 consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNB using 22-gauge Franseen needles for pancreatic masses between March 2018 and October 2018. At least two needle passes were performed in all patients, irrespective of the findings on MOSE. The endoscopists measured the visible cores using a ruler during MOSE. The first two passes were analyzed on a per pass basis, and the correlation between visible core lengths and diagnostic accuracy was evaluated. We evaluated 150 needle passes of 75 patients. The accuracy per pass was 92% (138/150). The median length of the visible cores was 15 (range: 0-60) mm and they were significantly longer in the correct diagnosis group than in the incorrect diagnosis group. The accuracy correlated positively with the visible core length. Receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis of the visible core length for accuracy demonstrated an optimal cutoff value of 10 mm. On multivariate logistic regression, visible core lengths >10 mm independently affected the correct diagnosis (odds ratio: 5.1, P= 0.02). Visible cores exceeding 10 mm may be useful for correct diagnosis while using a 22-gauge Franseen needle for EUS-FNB from pancreatic masses.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
Measuring a visible core length during macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) can be useful for accurate diagnoses during an EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). We aimed to estimate visible core cutoff lengths predictive of a correct diagnosis when using 22-gauge Franseen needles for biopsies from pancreatic masses.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
We assessed 77 consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNB using 22-gauge Franseen needles for pancreatic masses between March 2018 and October 2018. At least two needle passes were performed in all patients, irrespective of the findings on MOSE. The endoscopists measured the visible cores using a ruler during MOSE. The first two passes were analyzed on a per pass basis, and the correlation between visible core lengths and diagnostic accuracy was evaluated.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We evaluated 150 needle passes of 75 patients. The accuracy per pass was 92% (138/150). The median length of the visible cores was 15 (range: 0-60) mm and they were significantly longer in the correct diagnosis group than in the incorrect diagnosis group. The accuracy correlated positively with the visible core length. Receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis of the visible core length for accuracy demonstrated an optimal cutoff value of 10 mm. On multivariate logistic regression, visible core lengths >10 mm independently affected the correct diagnosis (odds ratio: 5.1, P= 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Visible cores exceeding 10 mm may be useful for correct diagnosis while using a 22-gauge Franseen needle for EUS-FNB from pancreatic masses.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32913149
pii: 294598
doi: 10.4103/eus.eus_49_20
pmc: PMC7811705
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
385-391Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
None
Références
J Gastroenterol. 2010 Aug;45(8):868-75
pubmed: 20177713
Endosc Int Open. 2016 Mar;4(3):E360-70
pubmed: 27227103
Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Mar;71(3):446-54
pubmed: 20189503
Endosc Int Open. 2019 Aug;7(8):E955-E963
pubmed: 31367675
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2019 Jan;54(1):108-113
pubmed: 30676114
Gut. 2018 Dec;67(12):2081-2084
pubmed: 28988195
Am J Gastroenterol. 2015 Oct;110(10):1429-39
pubmed: 26346868
Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Feb 3;2019:8581743
pubmed: 30854353
Korean J Gastroenterol. 2018 Sep 25;72(3):135-140
pubmed: 30270595
Gut Liver. 2018 May 15;12(3):353-359
pubmed: 29409308
Endosc Ultrasound. 2019 Jan-Feb;8(1):50-57
pubmed: 29786033
Clin Endosc. 2018 Nov;51(6):576-583
pubmed: 30001616
Pancreas. 2013 Jan;42(1):20-6
pubmed: 23254913
Endoscopy. 2017 Oct;49(10):989-1006
pubmed: 28898917
Endoscopy. 2013 Jun;45(6):445-50
pubmed: 23504490
Dig Endosc. 2017 May;29(3):338-346
pubmed: 27878861
Endosc Int Open. 2019 Feb;7(2):E189-E194
pubmed: 30705952
Cancer J. 2017 Nov/Dec;23(6):321-325
pubmed: 29189327
Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Jun;87(6):1432-1438
pubmed: 29305893
Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Oct;84(4):670-8
pubmed: 26995688
Pancreatology. 2019 Jan;19(1):191-195
pubmed: 30528644
Gastrointest Endosc. 2004 Apr;59(4):475-81
pubmed: 15044881
Dig Endosc. 2020 Jul;32(5):801-811
pubmed: 31876309
World J Gastroenterol. 2016 Jan 14;22(2):628-40
pubmed: 26811612
Oncology. 2017;93 Suppl 1:107-112
pubmed: 29258068
Gastroenterology. 2019 May;156(7):2085-2096
pubmed: 30721663
Gut. 2000 Feb;46(2):244-9
pubmed: 10644320
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Jul;15(7):1071-1078.e2
pubmed: 28025154
Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Feb;75(2):319-31
pubmed: 22248600
Gut Liver. 2019 May 15;13(3):349-355
pubmed: 30600677
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Jan;81(1):177-85
pubmed: 25440688