Mo1108 A Pilot Study of Biopsy Protocol for Upper Gastrointestinal Subepithelial Tumors: Diagnostic Accuracy of Endoscopic Ultrosonography-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy Versus Unroofing Biopsy

2017 ◽  
Vol 85 (5) ◽  
pp. AB431
Author(s):  
Jihye Park ◽  
Jun Chul Park ◽  
Sung Kwan Shin ◽  
Sang Kil Lee ◽  
Yong Chan Lee
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Needle Biopsy ◽  
Fine Needle Biopsy ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Biopsy Protocol ◽  
Upper Gastrointestinal ◽  
Subepithelial Tumors

scholarly journals EUS-guided 22-gauge fine needle biopsy versus single-incision with needle knife for the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions: a randomized controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 08 (03) ◽  
pp. E266-E273
Author(s):  
Omid Sanaei ◽  
Glòria Fernández-Esparrach ◽  
Carlos De La Serna-Higuera ◽  
Silvia Carrara ◽  
Vivek Kumbhari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Abdominal Pain ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Needle Biopsy ◽  
Single Incision ◽  
Fine Needle Biopsy ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Delayed Bleeding ◽  
Needle Knife ◽  
Upper Gastrointestinal

Abstract Background and study aims EUS-FNA has suboptimal accuracy in diagnosing gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors (SETs). EUS-guided 22-gauge fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) and single-incision with needle knife (SINK) were proposed to increase accuracy of diagnosis. This study aimed to prospectively compare the diagnostic accuracy and safety of EUS-FNB with SINK in patients with upper gastrointestinal SETs. Patients and methods All adult patients referred for EUS evaluation of upper gastrointestinal SETs ≥ 15 mm in size were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomized to undergo EUS-FNB or SINK. Lesions were sampled with a 22-gauge reverse beveled core needle in the EUS-FNB group and by a conventional needle-knife sphincterotome and biopsy forceps in the SINK group. Patients were blinded to the technique used. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, histological yield and procedure duration. Study enrollment was terminated early due to poor recruitment. Results A total of 56 patients (31 male (55.37 %); mean age, 67.41 ± 12.70 years) were randomized to either EUS-FNB (n = 26) or SINK (n = 30). Technical success was 96.15 % and 96.66 %, respectively. The majority of lesions were gastrointestinal stromal tumors (51.78 %). No significant difference was found between EUS-FNB and SINK in terms of diagnostic accuracy for a malignant or benign disease (76 % vs. 89.28 %, respectively; P = 0.278). The rate of adverse events (none severe) was also comparable (7.69 % vs. 10 %, respectively; P = 1.0) including two abdominal pain episodes in the EUS-FNB group compared to two delayed bleeding (one requiring hospitalization and radiologic embolization) and 1 abdominal pain in the SINK group. Conclusion EUS-FNB and SINK are equally effective techniques for upper gastrointestinal SETs sampling. SINK can be associated with mild to moderate delayed bleeding.

Does ProCore fine needle biopsy really improve the clinical outcome of endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of pancreatic masses?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriele Delconte ◽  
Federica Cavalcoli ◽  
Andrea Magarotto ◽  
Giovanni Centonze ◽  
Cristina Bezzio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Needle Biopsy ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Negative Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Fine Needle Biopsy ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

Introduction: Fine Needle Biopsy (FNB) has been suggested to provide better histological samples as compared to endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). However, studies comparing EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for pancreatic lesions reported contrasting results. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical performance of EUS-FNA versus EUS-FNB with ProCore needle for the investigation of pancreatic lesions. Methods: We reviewed all patients undergoing EUS for the investigation of pancreatic lesions from August 2012 to September 2018. From August 2012 to January 2015 all procedures were performed with standard needles, whereas from February 2015 to September 2018 the use of ProCore needles had been introduced. Data on diagnostic accuracy, number of needle passes and/or adverse events were collected. Results: 324 patients were retrospectively evaluated: 190 (58.6%) underwent EUS-FNA and 134 (41.4%) EUS-FNB. Both EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB showed high diagnostic accuracy for malignancy [94% (CI 95%:89-97%) vs 94% (CI 95%:89-98%)]. Notable, there were no differences between EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio, histological core tissue retrieval, adverse events or number of needle passes. However, subgroup analysis noted a higher diagnostic accuracy for 25G EUS-FNB as compared to 25G EUS-FNA (85,7% vs 55,5%; *p=0.023). Conclusion: EUS-FNB with ProCore needle is safe and feasible in pancreatic lesions. ProCore needle did not provide any advantage in terms of diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and/or negative likelihood ratio, or acquisition of core specimen, therefore its routine application is not

Mammographic Fine Needle Biopsy of Non-Palpable Breast Lesions

1984 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 273-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Kehler ◽  
U. Albrechtsson
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Needle Biopsy ◽  
Fine Needle Biopsy ◽  
Breast Lesions ◽  
Malignant Cells ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
The Past ◽  
Palpable Breast ◽  
Short Time ◽  
Observation Period

Results with a previously described device for fine needle biopsies of non-palpable breast lesions are reported. During the past 5 years 182 biopsies were performed and 133 of these yielded diagnostic cell material. In the series, 41 carcinomas were found and fine needle biopsy in all demonstrated malignant or probably malignant cells. In the biopsies evaluated as benign or probably benign, malignancy has not been found during the observation period of 4 to 59 months (mean 21.5 months). The device described is cheap and biopsy is easily performed and, if necessary, repeated in a short time. The diagnostic accuracy is high and carcinomas as small as 3 mm in diameter have been diagnosed.

scholarly journals Su1297 ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND-GUIDED FINE NEEDLE BIOPSY: DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY OF CYTOLOGY AND HISTOLOGY

2020 ◽  
Vol 91 (6) ◽  
pp. AB319
Author(s):  
Liza Plafsky ◽  
Tara Keihanian ◽  
Jinendra L. Satiya ◽  
Liege I. Diaz ◽  
Mohit Girotra
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Needle Biopsy ◽  
Fine Needle Biopsy ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Fine Needle

scholarly journals Diagnostic Accuracy of Fine-Needle Biopsy for Salivary Gland Neoplasms in a Community Otolaryngology Practice

OTO Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 2473974X2094918
Author(s):  
Jennifer L. Harb ◽  
Dara Bakar ◽  
Jagdish K. Dhingra
Keyword(s):  
Salivary Gland ◽  
Parotid Gland ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Submandibular Gland ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Needle Biopsy ◽  
Fine Needle Biopsy ◽  
Salivary Gland Neoplasms ◽  
Community Practice ◽  
Fine Needle

Objective To assess the diagnostic accuracy of fine-needle biopsy (FNB) of salivary gland neoplasms via ultrasound (US) or palpation guidance by an otolaryngologist in a community practice. Study Design Retrospective chart review. Setting Community otolaryngology practice. Methods Retrospective analysis was conducted for all office-based salivary gland FNBs from a community practice from 2005 through 2018. There were 433 FNBs performed among 370 patients. The likelihood of achieving a diagnostic result based on method (US vs palpation guidance) was calculated. Of this cohort, 196 cases had surgical follow-up (parotid gland, n = 168; submandibular gland, n = 28). Correlation of preoperative FNB results to final surgical pathology was performed and measures of diagnostic accuracy computed. Results US-guided FNBs were more likely to achieve a diagnostic result than FNBs obtained via palpation guidance ( P = .00002). Parotid gland FNBs demonstrated a sensitivity and specificity of 78.57% and 92.44%, respectively. Submandibular FNBs demonstrated a sensitivity and specificity of 57.14% and 93.74%. Conclusion FNBs performed under US guidance are more likely to achieve a diagnostic specimen than those performed under palpation guidance. FNBs of parotid gland tumors may be assessed with diagnostic accuracy in the community setting that is similar to that achieved at tertiary care centers. Further research is needed to ascertain whether this finding extends to FNBs of submandibular gland tumors. Offering this procedure at point of care in the community may improve compliance and reduce wait time.

scholarly journals A Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration and Fine-Needle Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lachlan R. Ayres ◽  
Elizabeth K. Kmiotek ◽  
Eric Lam ◽  
Jennifer J. Telford
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Needle Biopsy ◽  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Fine Needle Biopsy ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
True Positive ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Fine Needle

Background and Aims. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is the method of choice for sampling pancreatic lesions. This study compares the diagnostic accuracy and safety of FNB using a novel core needle to FNA in solid pancreatic lesions. Methods. A retrospective review of patients in whom EUS FNA or FNB was performed for solid pancreatic lesions was conducted. Diagnostic performance was calculated based upon a dual classification system: classification 1, only malignant pathology considered a true positive, versus classification 2, atypical, suspicious, and malignant pathology considered a true positive. Results. 43 patients underwent FNB compared with 51 FNA. Using classification 1, sensitivity was 74.0% versus 80.0%, specificity 100% versus 100%, and diagnostic accuracy 77.0% versus 80.0% for FNB versus FNA, respectively (all p>0.05). Using classification 2, sensitivity was 97% versus 94.0%, specificity 100% versus 100%, and diagnostic accuracy 98.0% versus 94.0% for FNB versus FNA, respectively (all p>0.05). FNB required significantly fewer needle passes (median = 2) compared to FNA (median = 3; p<0.001). Adverse events occurred in two (4.5%) FNB patients compared with none in the FNA group (p>0.05). Conclusion. FNA and FNB have comparable sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy. FNB required fewer passes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document