Efficacy of EUS-guided FNB using a Franseen needle for tissue acquisition and microsatellite instability evaluation in unresectable pancreatic lesions.
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Diagnostic Tests, Routine
/ methods
Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration
/ methods
Female
Humans
Image-Guided Biopsy
/ methods
Male
Microsatellite Instability
Middle Aged
Pancreatic Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Prognosis
Research Design
Retrospective Studies
EUS-FNA
EUS-FNB
Microsatellite instability
Unresectable pancreatic lesion
Journal
BMC cancer
ISSN: 1471-2407
Titre abrégé: BMC Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967800
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Nov 2020
11 Nov 2020
Historique:
received:
23
07
2020
accepted:
29
10
2020
entrez:
12
11
2020
pubmed:
13
11
2020
medline:
11
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade in the treatment of microsatellite instability (MSI)-high tumors was recently reported. Therefore, the acquisition of histological specimens is desired in cases of unresectable solid pancreatic lesions (UR SPLs). This study investigated the efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) using a Franseen needle for UR SPL tissue acquisition and MSI evaluation. A total of 195 SPL patients who underwent EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) or EUS-FNB (EUS-FNAB) between January 2017 and March 2020 were enrolled in this study. Among them, 89 SPL patients (FNB: 28, FNA: 61) underwent EUS-FNAB using a 22-G needle (UR SPLs: 58, FNB: 22, FNA: 36) (UR SPLs after starting MSI evaluation: 23, FNB: 9, FNA: 14). The puncture number was significantly lower with FNB than with FNA (median (range): 3 (2-5) vs 4 (1-8), P < 0.01, UR SPLs: 3 (2-5) vs 4 (1-8), P = 0.036). Histological specimen acquisition was more commonly achieved with FNB than with FNA (92.9% (26/28) vs 68.9% (42/61), P = 0.015, UR SPLs: 100% (22/22) vs 72.2% (26/36), P < 0.01). The histological specimen required for MSI evaluation was acquired more often with FNB than with FNA (88.9% (8/9) vs 35.7% (5/14), P = 0.03). EUS-FNB using a Franseen needle is efficient for histological specimen acquisition and sampling the required amount of specimen for MSI evaluation in UR SPL patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade in the treatment of microsatellite instability (MSI)-high tumors was recently reported. Therefore, the acquisition of histological specimens is desired in cases of unresectable solid pancreatic lesions (UR SPLs). This study investigated the efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) using a Franseen needle for UR SPL tissue acquisition and MSI evaluation.
METHODS
METHODS
A total of 195 SPL patients who underwent EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) or EUS-FNB (EUS-FNAB) between January 2017 and March 2020 were enrolled in this study. Among them, 89 SPL patients (FNB: 28, FNA: 61) underwent EUS-FNAB using a 22-G needle (UR SPLs: 58, FNB: 22, FNA: 36) (UR SPLs after starting MSI evaluation: 23, FNB: 9, FNA: 14).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The puncture number was significantly lower with FNB than with FNA (median (range): 3 (2-5) vs 4 (1-8), P < 0.01, UR SPLs: 3 (2-5) vs 4 (1-8), P = 0.036). Histological specimen acquisition was more commonly achieved with FNB than with FNA (92.9% (26/28) vs 68.9% (42/61), P = 0.015, UR SPLs: 100% (22/22) vs 72.2% (26/36), P < 0.01). The histological specimen required for MSI evaluation was acquired more often with FNB than with FNA (88.9% (8/9) vs 35.7% (5/14), P = 0.03).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
EUS-FNB using a Franseen needle is efficient for histological specimen acquisition and sampling the required amount of specimen for MSI evaluation in UR SPL patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33176750
doi: 10.1186/s12885-020-07588-5
pii: 10.1186/s12885-020-07588-5
pmc: PMC7659127
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1094Références
J Mol Diagn. 2006 Jul;8(3):305-11
pubmed: 16825502
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jun 25;372(26):2509-20
pubmed: 26028255
World J Gastroenterol. 2012 May 21;18(19):2357-63
pubmed: 22654426
Endoscopy. 2013 Jun;45(6):445-50
pubmed: 23504490
Diagn Cytopathol. 2020 Mar;48(3):197-202
pubmed: 31850666
Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013 Mar;48(3):452-8
pubmed: 23208313
J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jun 10;37(17):1470-1478
pubmed: 30943124
Ultraschall Med. 2017 Apr;38(2):174-182
pubmed: 26274382
J Gastroenterol. 2005 Sep;40(9):907-11
pubmed: 16211348
Gastroenterology. 2019 Jun;156(8):2242-2253.e4
pubmed: 30836094
Science. 2017 Jul 28;357(6349):409-413
pubmed: 28596308
Ann Surg Oncol. 2006 Aug;13(8):1035-46
pubmed: 16865597
J Gastroenterol. 2020 Apr;55(4):369-382
pubmed: 31997007
Cancer Cytopathol. 2016 Feb;124(2):110-21
pubmed: 26430767
Cancer. 2003 Oct 25;99(5):285-92
pubmed: 14579295
Endosc Ultrasound. 2019 Jan-Feb;8(1):50-57
pubmed: 29786033
Clin Endosc. 2018 Nov;51(6):576-583
pubmed: 30001616
J Gastroenterol. 2013 Aug;48(8):973-81
pubmed: 23090002
Endoscopy. 2004 May;36(5):397-401
pubmed: 15100946
Gut. 1999 May;44(5):720-6
pubmed: 10205212
Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 1998 Jun;22(2):138-44
pubmed: 9598801
PLoS One. 2015 Mar 20;10(3):e0121236
pubmed: 25793739
Clin Cancer Res. 1998 Apr;4(4):1071-4
pubmed: 9563904
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011 Aug;26(8):1256-61
pubmed: 21501226
Front Pharmacol. 2020 Feb 10;11:23
pubmed: 32116700
Am J Pathol. 1998 Jun;152(6):1501-7
pubmed: 9626054
Endosc Ultrasound. 2016 Jan-Feb;5(1):30-4
pubmed: 26879164
J Gastroenterol. 2009;44(4):322-8
pubmed: 19274426
Dig Endosc. 2011 May;23 Suppl 1:29-33
pubmed: 21535197
Gastrointest Endosc. 2020 Feb;91(2):373-381.e2
pubmed: 31654634
Endoscopy. 2020 Nov;52(11):978-985
pubmed: 32583394
Cancer Res. 2001 Apr 1;61(7):3139-44
pubmed: 11306499
Pancreatology. 2015 Sep-Oct;15(5):538-541
pubmed: 26145837
Gut Liver. 2017 Jul 15;11(4):559-566
pubmed: 28208006