scholarly journals Does Onsite Cytotechnology Evaluation Improve the Accuracy of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsy?

2009 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fahad Alsohaibani ◽  
Safwat Girgis ◽  
Gurpal Singh Sandha
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Final Diagnosis ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Tissue Sampling ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Group I ◽  
Group Ii

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the preferred modality for the cytological diagnosis of various cancers. Onsite cytopathology interpretation is not available in most centres.OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the the adequacy of tissue sampling assessed by an onsite cytotechnologist improves the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA.METHODS: The present study is a retrospective review of all patients undergoing solid mass EUS-FNA between September 2005 and August 2007. Patients in group I (September 2005 to August 2006) had cytology slides prepared by an endoscopy nurse. Patients in group II (September 2006 to August 2007) had cytology slides prepared, stained and assessed for adequacy of tissue sampling by a cytotechnologist in the endoscopy suite. The final cytopathological diagnosis (definitely positive, definitely negative or inconclusive) was compared between the two groups.RESULTS: A total of 49 EUS-FNA procedures were performed in 47 patients in group I and 60 EUS-FNA procedures in 55 patients in group II. Pancreatic masses were the most common target site in both groups. The total number of needle passes was 105 in group I (mean 2.14 passes per patient; range one to five needle passes) and 158 in group II (mean 2.63 passes per patient; range one to four needle passes). The difference in the number of needle passes was not statistically significant between groups. The final diagnosis was definite in 53% in group I compared with 77% in group II (P=0.01). The percentage of inconclusive diagnoses was 47% in group I and 23% in group II (P=0.001).CONCLUSION: Onsite cytotechnologist interpretation of adequacy of tissue sampling significantly improves the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA. This appears to be independent of the total number of needle passes undertaken for tissue sampling.

scholarly journals Pull vs. wet: rendimiento diagnóstico y calidad de las muestras de las PAAF guiadas por USE en las masas sólidas del páncreas

2021 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Cecilia Curvale ◽  
Ignacio Málaga ◽  
Paloma Rojas Saunero ◽  
Viviana Tassi ◽  
Enrique Martins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Cell Block ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Significant Difference

Differential diagnosis of pancreatic masses is challenging. The endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration method with the highest diagnostic yield has not been established. It was realized a prospective, randomized, double-blind study of the endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in solid lesions of the pancreas to compare and evaluate diagnostic yield and aspirate quality between wet and pull technique. Forty-one patients were enrolled. The wet technique presented a sensitivity, a specificity, a positive and negative predictive value, and a diagnostic accuracy of 58.3%, 100%, 100%, 25% and 63.4%, respectively. In the capillary technique they were: 75%, 100%, 100%, 35.7% and 78.1%, respectively. Comparing the diagnostic yield between both techniques, there was no statistically significant difference (McNemar’s test p = 0.388). Regarding the cellularity of the specimen, both in cytology and the cell block samples, no significant difference was observed between the techniques (p = 0.84 and 0.61, respectively). With respect to contaminating blood in the specimen, there was no difference in cytology samples (p = 0.89) and no difference in cell block samples (p = 0.08). The suitability of cytology samples for diagnosis was similar in both techniques (wet = 57.5% and capillary = 56.7%, p = 0.94) and there was no difference in cell block samples (wet = 75% and capillary = 66.1%, p = 0.38). In this study we did not observe differences in diagnostic yield or sample quality. Since both techniques are effective, we suggest the simultaneous and alternate use of both methods.

Dynamic telecytopathology for on-site preliminary diagnosis of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic masses

2012 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 253-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kamal K Khurana ◽  
Rong Rong ◽  
Dongliang Wang ◽  
Ajoy Roy
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Final Diagnosis ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Neuroendocrine Neoplasms ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Preliminary Diagnosis ◽  
Site Evaluation ◽  
Conventional Microscopy

We evaluated dynamic telecytopathology for on-site-evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) samples of the pancreas. Realtime images of stained cytology smears were assessed by a cytopathologist while communicating with the on-site operator by telephone. A total of 55 consecutive cases was assessed; preliminary diagnoses of benign, atypical/suspicious and positive for malignancy were 69%, 7% and 24%. We also reviewed 55 consecutive cases of EUS-guided FNA of pancreas which had had conventional microscopic on-site evaluation prior to the introduction of telecytopathology. Preliminary diagnoses of benign, atypical/suspicious and positive for malignancy were 60%, 9% and 31%. The overall concordance between the preliminary and final diagnosis was 84% for telecytopathology and 87% for conventional microscopy. Neuroendocrine neoplasms and well-differentiated adenocarcinoma were diagnostically challenging for both telecytopathology and conventional microscopy. Telecytopathology was similar in accuracy of preliminary diagnosis to conventional microscopy during EUS-FNA of pancreas.

Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Fine Needle Aspiration (EUS-FNA) of Masses Located in the Lung Parenchyma: Diagnostic Yield and Safety

2007 ◽  
Vol 65 (5) ◽  
pp. AB102
Author(s):  
Enrique Vazquez-Sequeiros ◽  
Daniel Boixeda-Miquel ◽  
Jose Ramon Foruny-Olcina ◽  
Diego Juzgado-Lucas ◽  
Victor Moreira-Vicente ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Lung Parenchyma ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Fine Needle

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration: What variables influence diagnostic yield?

2017 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 293-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sambit K. Mohanty ◽  
Dinesh Pradhan ◽  
Shivani Sharma ◽  
Anurag Sharma ◽  
Niharika Patnaik ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Fine Needle

Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsy Specimens: Adequate Diagnostic Yield and Accuracy Can Be Achieved without On-Site Evaluation

2015 ◽  
Vol 59 (4) ◽  
pp. 305-310 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate O'Connor ◽  
Danny G. Cheriyan ◽  
Hector H. Li-Chang ◽  
Steven E. Kalloger ◽  
John Garrett ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration Biopsy ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Aspiration Biopsy ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Site Evaluation ◽  
Needle Aspiration Biopsy

Background: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNA) is the preferred method for biopsying the gastrointestinal tract, and rapid on-site cytological evaluation is considered standard practice. Our institution does not perform on-site evaluation; this study analyzes our overall diagnostic yield, accuracy, and incidence of nondiagnostic cases to determine the validity of this strategy. Design: Data encompassing clinical information, procedural records, and cytological assessment were analyzed for gastrointestinal EUS-FNA procedures (n = 85) performed at Vancouver General Hospital from January 2012 to January 2013. We compared our results with those of studies that had on-site evaluation and studies that did not have on-site evaluation. Results: Eighty-five biopsies were performed in 78 patients, from sites that included the pancreas, the stomach, the duodenum, lymph nodes, and retroperitoneal masses. Malignancies were diagnosed in 45 (53%) biopsies, while 24 (29%) encompassed benign entities. Suspicious and atypical results were recorded in 8 (9%) and 6 (7%) cases, respectively. Only 2 (2%) cases received a cytological diagnosis of ‘nondiagnostic'. Our overall accuracy was 72%, our diagnostic yield was 98%, and our nondiagnostic rate was 2%. Our results did not significantly differ from those of studies that did have on-site evaluation. Conclusion: Our study highlights that adequate diagnostic accuracy can be achieved without on-site evaluation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document