Author:
Yang Min Jae,Kim Jaihwan,Park Se Woo,Cho Jae Hee,Kim Eui Joo,Lee Yun Nah,Lee Dong Wook,Park Chan Hyuk,Lee Sang Soo
Abstract
AbstractIt is debatable which needle has clear superiority of diagnostic performance in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle biopsy (FNB) of solid pancreatic masses. This study aimed to compare the performance of three needles and determine the variables that affect diagnostic accuracy. From March 2014 to May 2020, 746 patients with solid pancreatic masses who underwent EUS-FNB using three types of needles (Franseen needle, Menghini-tip needle, and Reverse-bevel needle) were retrospectively reviewed. Multivariate analysis using a logistic regression model was used to identify factors related to diagnostic accuracy. There were significant differences between the groups regarding the procurement rate of the histologic and optimal quality cores (Franseen vs. Menghini-tip vs. Reverse-bevel: 98.0% [192/196] vs. 85.8% [97/113] vs. 91.9% [331/360], P < 0.001 and 95.4% [187/196] vs. 65.5% [74/113] vs. 88.3% [318/360], P < 0.001, respectively). The sensitivity and accuracy using histologic samples were 95.03% and 95.92% for Franseen, 82.67% and 88.50% for Menghini-tip, and 82.61% and 85.56% for Reverse-bevel needles, respectively. In direct comparison between the needles using histologic samples, the Franseen needle showed significantly superior accuracy than the Menghini-tip (P = 0.018) and Reverse-bevel needles (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis indicated that tumor size ≥ 2 cm (odds ratio [OR] 5.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.40–8.47, P < 0.001) and fanning technique (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.00–2.86, P = 0.047) were significantly associated with an accurate diagnosis. EUS-FNB using the Franseen needle enables the acquisition of a larger and more adequate histologic core tissue and achieves an accurate histological diagnosis when using the fanning technique.
Funder
the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference26 articles.
1. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee et al. The role of endoscopy in the evaluation and management of patients with solid pancreatic neoplasia. Gastrointest. Endosc. 83, 17–28 (2016).
2. Bang, J. Y., Hawes, R. & Varadarajulu, S. A meta-analysis comparing ProCore and standard fine-needle aspiration needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition. Endoscopy 48, 339–349 (2016).
3. Chung, M. J. et al. Clinical and technical guideline for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor: Korean society of gastrointestinal endoscopy (KSGE). Gut Liver 15, 354–374 (2021).
4. Polkowski, M. et al. Technical aspects of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Guideline—March 2017. Endoscopy 49, 989–1006 (2017).
5. Dim, D. C. et al. The usefulness of S100P, mesothelin, fascin, prostate stem cell antigen, and 14-3-3 sigma in diagnosing pancreatic adenocarcinoma in cytological specimens obtained by endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration. Diagn. Cytopathol. 42, 193–199 (2014).
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献