scholarly journals Multicenter prospective study of the efficacy of stereomicroscopic on-site evaluation in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition in patients with pancreatic cancer

Pancreatology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masafumi Watanabe ◽  
Kosuke Okuwaki ◽  
Mitsuhiro Kida ◽  
Hiroshi Imaizumi ◽  
Takaaki Matsumoto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Prospective Study ◽  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Tissue Acquisition ◽  
Site Evaluation ◽  
Multicenter Prospective Study

scholarly journals New Era of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition: Next-Generation Sequencing by Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Sampling for Pancreatic Cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. 1173 ◽  
Author(s):  
Imaoka ◽  
Sasaki ◽  
Hashimoto ◽  
Watanabe ◽  
Ikeda
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Next Generation Sequencing ◽  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Next Generation ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Tissue Samples ◽  
Genomic Biomarkers ◽  
Tissue Acquisition ◽  
Chemotherapy Patients ◽  
Generation Sequencing

Pancreatic cancer is a lethal cancer with an increasing incidence. Despite improvements in chemotherapy, patients with pancreatic cancer continue to face poor prognoses. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) is the primary method for obtaining tissue samples of pancreatic cancer. Due to advancements in next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies, multiple parallel sequencing can be applied to EUS-TA samples. Genomic biomarkers for therapeutic stratification in pancreatic cancer are still lacking, however, NGS can unveil potential predictive genomic biomarkers of treatment response. Thus, the importance of NGS using EUS-TA samples is becoming recognized. In this review, we discuss the recent advances in EUS-TA application for NGS of pancreatic cancer.

scholarly journals Prospective Study for Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition Using 25- and 22-Gauge Core Biopsy Needles in Solid Pancreatic Masses

PLoS ONE ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. e0154401 ◽  
Author(s):  
Se Woo Park ◽  
Moon Jae Chung ◽  
Sang Hoon Lee ◽  
Hee Seung Lee ◽  
Hyun Jik Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prospective Study ◽  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Core Biopsy ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Pancreatic Masses ◽  
Tissue Acquisition ◽  
Biopsy Needles

scholarly journals A269 EUS-GUIDED ROSE FNA AND CNB FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF PANCREATIC CANCER: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 146-147
Author(s):  
A Almudaires ◽  
G Williams ◽  
S E Gruchy ◽  
A Morgenthau
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Correct Diagnosis ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Pancreatic Tumors ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Pancreatic Lesion ◽  
Site Evaluation

Abstract Background Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with Rapid On Site Evaluation (ROSE EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided core-needle biopsy (EUS-CNB) are widely used for the diagnosis of pancreatic tumors. There is no known published randomized control trial that compares between the two modalities. Given the aggressive nature of pancreatic cancer, it is crucial to make a prompt diagnosis in order to initiate treatment in a timely fashion. Aims This study compares the diagnostic performance of ROSE EUS-FNA and EUS-CNB for diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Methods A retrospective review was performed for patients who underwent ROSE EUS-FNA and/ or EUS-CNB for solid pancreatic lesion. Diagnostic yield (defined as percentage of diagnostic samples), diagnostic accuracy (defined as percentage of correct diagnosis), sensitivity and specificity for malignancy were compared between ROSE EUS- FNA and EUS- CNB. Baseline characteristics for both patients and lesions were also obtained. Results A total of 82 patients with solid pancreatic lesions were reviewed. 84 EUS with 61 FNA and 74 CNB were performed. The diagnostic yield was 42/61 (69%) and 59/74 (79.7%) for FNA and CNB respectively (P 0.166). The diagnostic accuracy was 33/61 (54%) and 53/74 (71%) for FNA and CNB respectively (P 0.0326). 50 patients underwent both FNA and CNB during the same EUS. The calculated diagnostic yield among this subgroup was 33/50 (66%) and 39/50 (78%) for FNA and CNB respectively (P 0.265); with diagnostic accuracy of 26/50 (52%) for FNA and 34/50 (68%) for CNB (P 0.152). The diagnostic accuracy after combining both techniques was 40/50 (80%). The incremental increase in diagnostic yield by combining both methods was 12/50 (24%) and 6/50 (12%) relative to FNA and CNB respectively. The sensitivity for the diagnosis of malignancy for FNA and CNB was 60.8% and 92.7%, respectively. The specificity was 100% for both methods. Conclusions EUS-guided CNB is a superior method of assessing solid pancreatic lesion and pancreatic malignancy with better diagnostic yield and accuracy and higher sensitivity than ROSE EUS-FNA. Funding Agencies None

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document