scholarly journals Endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses: the fine needle aspiration or fine needle biopsy dilemma. Is the best needle yet to come?

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. 454-471
Author(s):  
Clara Benedetta Conti ◽  
Fabrizio Cereatti ◽  
Roberto Grassia
2019 ◽  
Vol 114 (1) ◽  
pp. S26-S27
Author(s):  
Fitsum Woldesellassie ◽  
Rios Cristian ◽  
Surosree Ganguli ◽  
Chandler Thomas ◽  
Stephen Furmanek ◽  
...  

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document