Premium
Prospective evaluation of the optimal number of 25‐gauge needle passes for endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle aspiration biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions in the absence of an onsite cytopathologist
Author(s) -
Suzuki Rei,
Irisawa Atsushi,
Bhutani Manoop S.,
Hikichi Takuto,
Takagi Tadayuki,
Sato Ai,
Sato Masaki,
Ikeda Tsunehiko,
Watanabe Ko,
Nakamura Jun,
Tasaki Kazuhiro,
Obara Katsutoshi,
Ohira Hiromasa
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
digestive endoscopy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.5
H-Index - 56
eISSN - 1443-1661
pISSN - 0915-5635
DOI - 10.1111/j.1443-1661.2012.01311.x
Subject(s) - medicine , cytopathology , fine needle aspiration , biopsy , endoscopic ultrasound , needle biopsy , radiology , sampling (signal processing) , prospective cohort study , fine needle biopsy , surgery , nuclear medicine , cytology , pathology , filter (signal processing) , computer science , computer vision
Introduction: A prior study with 22‐gauge needles recommended more than seven needle passes for endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle aspiration biopsy (EUS‐FNA) of solid pancreatic lesions (SPL) without onsite cytopathology for optimal acquisition of cytopathological diagnosis. The feasibility of this recommendation should be re‐evaluated considering the later development and popularity of 25‐gauge EUS‐FNA needles. We aimed to determine the optimal number of needle passes for cytopathological specimen acquisition with 25‐gauge needles for EUS‐FNA of SPL. Methods: A preliminary prospective study of 22 patients with an onsite cytopathology technician showed a sensitivity of 93.3% and a specificity of 100% with four needle passes that was not statistically different from five needle passes. Based on our preliminary study, we fixed the number of needle passes to four (Group A). As a control group, we carried out sampling in consecutive patients using 25‐gauge needles with an onsite cytopathologist (Group B). Sampling rate, diagnostic value and complications were evaluated. Results: We enrolled 20 patients in each group. Sampling rate was higher in Group B (20/20, 100%) than in Group A (19/20, 95%), but there was no statistical difference between them ( P ‐value = 0.31). In Group A, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 100% among 19. In Group B, sensitivity was 94.1%, specificity 100%, accuracy 95%. There were also no statistical differences between the groups. No complications were seen. Conclusion: Our study suggests that four needle passes using a 25‐gauge needle may be sufficient for EUS‐FNA of SPL where onsite cytology is not available.