P.05.1 PANCREATIC CANCER AND PSEUDOTUMORAL MASSES IN CHRONIC PANCREATITIS: DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY OF ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND AND FINE NEEDLE BIOPSY (EUS-FNB)

2019 ◽  
Vol 51 ◽  
pp. e183-e184
Author(s):  
R. Grassia ◽  
N. Imperatore ◽  
P. Capone ◽  
F. Cereatti ◽  
E. Forti ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriele Delconte ◽  
Federica Cavalcoli ◽  
Andrea Magarotto ◽  
Giovanni Centonze ◽  
Cristina Bezzio ◽  
...  

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


2021 ◽  
Vol 93 (6) ◽  
pp. AB247-AB248
Author(s):  
Jin Woo (Gene) Yoo ◽  
Govind Krishna Kumar Nair ◽  
Evan Shorr ◽  
Joseph LaComb ◽  
Vivek Kesar ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. ii35
Author(s):  
R. Byrne ◽  
A. Garcia Alonso ◽  
L. Turnbull ◽  
R. Kodavatiganti ◽  
S. Walters

HPB Surgery ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 309-317 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michele Carlucci ◽  
Alessandro Zerbi ◽  
Danilo Parolini ◽  
Sandro Sironi ◽  
Angelo Vanzulli ◽  
...  

Differential diagnosis between pancreatic cancer and chronic pancreatitis is still difficult to establish. In 63 patients with suspected pancreatic neoplasm we performed: serum CA 19-9 assessment, abdominal ultrasound, CT scan and CT-guided pancreatic percutaneous fine-needle biopsy. The conclusive diagnosis was pancreatic cancer in 40 patients and chronic pancreatitis in 23 patients. With regard to the differential diagnosis, sensitivity and specificity were respectively 80% and 78% for serum CA 19-9, 75% and 65% for abdominal US, 85% and 70% for CT scan, 00% and 87% for percutaneous fine-needle biopsy. We conclude that CT-guided percutaneous fine-needle biopsy is the most reliable method for differential diagnosis between pancreatic cancer and chronic pancreatitis.


2020 ◽  
Vol 91 (6) ◽  
pp. AB319
Author(s):  
Liza Plafsky ◽  
Tara Keihanian ◽  
Jinendra L. Satiya ◽  
Liege I. Diaz ◽  
Mohit Girotra

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lachlan R. Ayres ◽  
Elizabeth K. Kmiotek ◽  
Eric Lam ◽  
Jennifer J. Telford

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.


Radiology ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 178 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
A DelMaschio ◽  
A Vanzulli ◽  
S Sironi ◽  
M Castrucci ◽  
R Mellone ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document