scholarly journals Diagnostic Yields of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Tissue Acquisition according to the Gastric Location

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dong Hyun Kim ◽  
Chang-Hwan Park ◽  
Seon-Young Park ◽  
Eunae Cho ◽  
Hyun Soo Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
English Literature ◽  
Gastric Antrum ◽  
Gastric Body ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Common Location ◽  
Common Diagnosis ◽  
Tissue Acquisition

Abstract AimThe histologic diagnosis of sub-epithelial tumors (SETs) in stomach has been achieved via endoscopic or surgical resection. We evaluated the efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle tissue acquisition (EUS-FNTA) for the diagnosis of gastric SETs according to the gastric location.MethodThirty-three patients diagnosed with gastric SETs via EUS-FNTA from January 2016 to May 2018 were analyzed retrospectively. Demographic characteristics, diagnostic yields and complications were evaluated.ResultsNineteen patients (57.6%) were female, with a median age of 57.7 years. EUS revealed a mean longitudinal diameter of 25.6 mm. The most common location of SETs was gastric body (n = 18, 54.5%), followed by cardia and fundus (n = 10, 30.3%), and antrum (n = 5, 15.2%). Twenty-gauge biopsy needle was used most frequently (90.9%). The diagnostic yield was obtained in 23 patients (69.7%). The most common diagnosis was gastrointestinal stromal tumor (69.5%), followed by leiomyoma (13.0%), and ectopic pancreas (8.7%). The diagnostic yield of SETs in gastric antrum (0/5, 0%) was significantly lower than in the gastric body and cardia (23/28, 82.1%, p = 0.001). A case of immediate bleeding after EUS-FNTA occurred in one patient (3.0%) who recovered uneventfully. According to studies reported in English literature, the overall diagnostic yield of SETs in gastric antrum was significantly lower than in the gastric body, fundus, and cardia (29.7% vs. 71.4%, p < 0.001, n = 191)ConclusionsAlthough EUS-FNTA is an advanced diagnostic tool for gastric SETs, it is essential to develop more effective methods for the diagnosis of antral SETs.

scholarly journals Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition for small solid pancreatic lesions

2020 ◽  
Vol 08 (10) ◽  
pp. E1359-E1364
Author(s):  
Takafumi Mie ◽  
Takashi Sasaki ◽  
Ryo Kanata ◽  
Takaaki Furukawa ◽  
Tsuyoshi Takeda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Fine Needle Biopsy ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Pancreatic Abscess ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Tissue Acquisition ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

Abstract Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition is sometimes required to diagnose small solid pancreatic lesions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided tissue acquisition for small solid pancreatic lesions and the differences in diagnostic yield among different needles. Patients and method We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients who had undergone EUS-guided tissue acquisition for solid pancreatic lesions less than 2 cm between November 2012 and June 2019. Three types of needles were evaluated in this study: a 22-gauge fine-needle aspiration (FNA) Lancet needle, a 20-gauge fine-needle biopsy (FNB) Menghini needle with a lateral forward bevel, and a 22-gauge FNB Franseen needle. We evaluated the diagnostic yield and safety of the procedure using these needles. Results We analyzed 160 patients with 163 lesions. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 92.0 %, 100 %, and 92.6 %, respectively. In the histological plus cytological diagnosis, accuracies of the Lancet, Menghini, and Franseen needles were 92.7 %, 97.0 %, and 85.7 %, respectively (P = 0.10). In the histological diagnosis alone, the negative predictive values (NPVs) of the Lancet, Menghini, and Franseen needles were 13.3 %, 53.3 %, and 27.3 %, respectively (P = 0.08). Adverse events occurred in four cases (2.5 %): one postprocedural bleeding, two cases of pancreatitis, and one pancreatic abscess. Conclusions EUS-guided tissue acquisition for small solid pancreatic lesions has a high diagnostic yield and safety. This study suggested a difference in the diagnostic yield of each needle for small solid pancreatic lesions.

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.

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