EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of gallbladder polypoid lesions.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kang SH
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7125392 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background and study aimDue to the scarcity of specific data on endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle biopsies (SharkCore) FNB in the evaluation of pancreatic lesions, we performed a prospective study of the diagnostic performance of EUS SharkCore FNB in patients with pancreatic lesions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy.Patients and methodsSingle-center prospective study of 41 consecutive patients referred for EUS-FNB from October 2015 to April 2016 at our center. EUS-FNB was obtained in a predefined setting regarding the procedure and pathological evaluation. Data regarding demographics, lesion, technical parameters, and diagnostic accuracy were obtained.ResultsThe study included 41 consecutive patients (22 males (54 %); median age 68 years). The average size of the lesions was 28 mm (median: 30 mm). A diagnostic specimen was identified in 40 (98 %) cases during microscopy with an average of 2.4 passes. The route was trans-duodenal in 20 cases (49 %). The histological diagnosis of the specimens was malignant in 29 cases (71 %), benign in 8 (20 %), suspicious in 2 (5 %), atypical in 1 (2 %) and in 1 (2 %) no material for microscopic evaluation was obtained. This led to a diagnostic accuracy of 93 %, sensitivity of 91 % and a specificity of 100 %. 2 cases (5 %) of self-limiting bleeding were observed. The diagnosis at follow up was malignant in 32 (78 %) of the patients.ConclusionsEUS-FNB of pancreatic mass lesions with the SharkCore needle produced specimens with a diagnostic accuracy of 93 %. The procedure was safe and easy to perform, and these data support the use of EUS-FNB in a routine setting.
| S-EPMC5803003 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsDifferentiating pancreatic cystic lesions remains a challenge when the current technique of EUS-guided FNA is used. Recently, a miniaturized biopsy forceps with an outer diameter of 0.8 mm has been developed, thus allowing it to be passed through the bore of a standard 19-gauge FNA needle to acquire tissue.MethodsThis study consisted of a retrospective review of all cases of EUS-guided through-the-needle forceps biopsy technique (TTNFB) performed for pancreatic cystic lesions at a single academic tertiary care center over a 12-month period. Technical success was defined as acquisition of adequate tissue for formal histologic analysis. Safety was assessed through the monitoring and recording of periprocedural and postprocedural adverse events.ResultsThe technical success of EUS-guided TTNFB was 87% (13/15). EUS-guided TTNFB with histologic analysis yielded pancreatic cyst diagnoses in 11 of 15 (73%) patients, compared with 0 of 15 (0%) patients with the use of EUS-FNA and cytologic analysis (P < .001). Of the 15 cystic lesions, 8 were diagnosed as intrapapillary mucinous neoplasm based on EUS-TTNFB.ConclusionThis TTNFB technique has the potential to improve the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA for pancreatic cystic neoplasms.
| S-EPMC6731357 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDiagnostic laparoscopy is often a necessary, albeit invasive, procedure to help resolve undiagnosed peritoneal diseases. Previous retrospective studies reported that EUS-FNA is feasible on peritoneal and omental lesions, however, EUS-FNA provided a limited amount of tissue for immunohistochemistry stain (IHC).AimThis pilot study aims to prospectively determine the effectiveness of EUS-FNB regarding adequacy of tissue for IHC staining, diagnostic rate and the avoidance rate of diagnostic laparoscopy or percutaneous biopsy in patients with these lesions.MethodsFrom March 2017 to June 2018, patients with peritoneal or omental lesions identified by CT or MRI at the King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand were prospectively enrolled in the study. All Patients underwent EUS-FNB. For those with negative pathological results of EUS-FNB, percutaneous biopsy or diagnostic laparoscopy was planned. Analysis uses percentages only due to small sample sizes.ResultsA total of 30 EUS-FNB passes were completed, with a median of 3 passes (range 2-3 passes) per case. For EUS-FNB, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of EUS-FNB from peritoneal lesions were 63.6%, 100%, 100%, 20% and 66.7% respectively. Adequate tissue for IHC stain was found in 25/30 passes (80%). The tissues from EUS results were found malignant in 7/12 patients (58.3%). IHC could be done in 10/12 patients (83.3%). Among the five patients with negative EUS results, two underwent either liver biopsy of mass or abdominal paracentesis, showing gallbladder cancer and adenocarcinoma. Two patients refused laparoscopy due to advanced pancreatic cancer and worsening ovarian cancer. The fifth patient had post-surgical inflammation only with spontaneous resolution. The avoidance rate of laparoscopic diagnosis was 58.3%. No major adverse event was observed.ConclusionsEUS-FNB from peritoneal lesions provided sufficient core tissue for diagnosis and IHC. Diagnostic laparoscopy can often be avoided in patients with peritoneal lesions.
| S-EPMC8542287 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9059799 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsAlthough conventional EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) has previously been considered first-line for sampling subepithelial lesions (SELs), variable accuracy has resulted in increased use of fine-needle biopsy (FNB) sampling to improve diagnostic yield. The primary aim of this study was to compare FNA versus FNB sampling for the diagnosis of SELs.MethodsThis was a multicenter, retrospective study to evaluate the outcomes of EUS-FNA and EUS-guided FNB sampling (EUS-FNB) of SELs over a 3-year period. Demographics, lesion characteristics, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, number of needle passes, diagnostic adequacy of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), cell block accuracy, and adverse events were analyzed. Subgroup analyses were performed comparing FNA versus FNB sampling by location and diagnostic yield with or without ROSE. Multivariable logistic regression was also performed.ResultsTwo hundred twenty-nine patients with SELs (115 FNA and 114 FNB sampling) underwent EUS-guided sampling. Mean patient age was 60.86 ± 12.84 years. Most lesions were gastric in location (75.55%) and from the fourth layer (71.18%). Cell block for FNB sampling required fewer passes to achieve conclusive diagnosis (2.94 ± 1.09 vs 3.55 ± 1.55; P = .003). The number of passes was not different for ROSE adequacy (P = .167). Immunohistochemistry was more able to be successfully performed in more FNB sampling samples (69.30% vs 40.00%; P < .001). Overall, sensitivity and accuracy were superior for FNB sampling versus FNA (79.41% vs 51.92% [P = .001] and 88.03% vs 77.19% [P = .030], respectively). On subgroup analysis, sensitivity and accuracy of FNB sampling alone was superior to FNA + ROSE (79.03% vs 46.67% [P = .001] and 87.25% vs 68.00% [P = .024], respectively). There was no significant difference in diagnostic yield of FNB sampling alone versus FNB sampling + ROSE (P > .05). Multivariate analysis showed no predictors associated with accuracy. One minor adverse event was reported in the FNA group.ConclusionsEUS-FNB was superior to EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of SELs. EUS-FNB was also superior to EUS-FNA alone and EUS-FNA + ROSE. These results suggest EUS-FNB should be considered a first-line modality and may suggest a reduced role for ROSE in the diagnosis of SELs. However, a large randomized controlled trial is required to confirm our findings.
| S-EPMC7340004 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLinear endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) allows the visualization, identification, and characterization of the extent of lesions of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and adjacent structures. EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) facilitates a more accurate diagnosis of mediastinal, intra-abdominal, and pancreatic lesions through the collection of the cytological material under direct visualization. Recent reports suggest that histological samples can be obtained by EUS-FNA with a reverse, bevel-tipped needle (the ProCore needle) to collect the core samples (fine needle biopsy, FNB), thereby adding a new dimension to the diagnostic usefulness of this technique. Certain neoplasms, such as lymphoma and stromal tumors, can be assessed by EUS-FNB to confirm the diagnosis. Here, we aimed to carry out a prospective, multicenter, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial to compare EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA.Methods/designA total of 408 patients will be enrolled from five endoscopic centers. Patients will be divided into two groups: (1) group A, which is the EUS regular needle group (EUS-FNA) and (2) group B, which is the EUS ProCore needle group (EUS-FNB). Patients in group A will be examined with a 22G EchoTip Ultra needle, and patients in group B, with a 22G EchoTip ProCore needle. For all included patients, four EUS-guided passes will be made in each lesion. In the first and second pass, a slow-pull suction method of the stylet will be done. The third and fourth pass will use manual suction of 5 cc. The primary objective is to compare the diagnostic yield of malignancy by EUS-FNA versus EUS-FNB.DiscussionThe trial will compare samples obtained by EUS-FNA versus EUS-FNB for the diagnostic yield of solid lesions. The efficacy of these two sampling methods will be assessed on various lesions, which may provide insights into developing practice guidelines for their future indications.Trial registrationClinical Trials.gov, NCT02327065 .
| S-EPMC4830051 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8098837 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of Endoscopic ultrasound elastography-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-EG-FNB) for the diagnosis of pancreatic mass lesions. EUS-EG images were classified into heterogeneous and homogeneous groups. For the heterogeneous group, EUS-FNB was separately performed in both hard areas and soft areas. Only samples obtained during the first two passes (hard/soft areas) were used to compare the diagnostic accuracy as well as the quality and quantity of the specimens. We investigated the association of EUS-EG findings using strain histogram analysis with the histological findings. Fifty-five patients were enrolled including 25 patients with heterogeneous group. The homogeneous group had significantly lower mean strain value (hard) lesions. The adequate sampling rates from hard and soft areas were 88 and 92%, respectively (P = 0.6374). Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy and the quality and quantity of the histological core between hard and soft areas showed no significant differences. In pancreatic adenocarcinoma cases, the proportion of fibrous stroma in the core tissue was significantly correlated with the elasticity of the region. (R2 = 0.1226: P = 0.0022) EUS-EG may reflect tissue composition in pancreatic tumors, however, EUS-EG did not affect either the quality and quantity of the tissues obtained.Clinical Trial Registry No: UMIN-000033073.
| S-EPMC9535001 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Video 1EUS fine-needle biopsy of a pancreatic solid lesion evaluated with fluorescence confocal microscopy.
| S-EPMC10020000 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and study aims ?EUS-FNA has suboptimal accuracy in diagnosing gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors (SETs). EUS-guided 22-gauge fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) and single-incision with needle knife (SINK) were proposed to increase accuracy of diagnosis. This study aimed to prospectively compare the diagnostic accuracy and safety of EUS-FNB with SINK in patients with upper gastrointestinal SETs. Patients and methods ?All adult patients referred for EUS evaluation of upper gastrointestinal SETs ??15?mm in size were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomized to undergo EUS-FNB or SINK. Lesions were sampled with a 22-gauge reverse beveled core needle in the EUS-FNB group and by a conventional needle-knife sphincterotome and biopsy forceps in the SINK group.?Patients were blinded to the technique used. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, histological yield and procedure duration. Study enrollment was terminated early due to poor recruitment. Results ?A total of 56 patients (31 male (55.37?%); mean age, 67.41?±?12.70 years) were randomized to either EUS-FNB (n?=?26) or SINK (n?=?30). Technical success was 96.15?% and 96.66?%, respectively. The majority of lesions were gastrointestinal stromal tumors (51.78?%). No significant difference was found between EUS-FNB and SINK in terms of diagnostic accuracy for a malignant or benign disease (76?% vs. 89.28?%, respectively; P ?=?0.278). The rate of adverse events (none severe) was also comparable (7.69?% vs. 10?%, respectively; P?=? 1.0) including two abdominal pain episodes in the EUS-FNB group compared to two delayed bleeding (one requiring hospitalization and radiologic embolization) and 1 abdominal pain in the SINK group. Conclusion ?EUS-FNB and SINK are equally effective techniques for upper gastrointestinal SETs sampling. SINK can be associated with mild to moderate delayed bleeding.
| S-EPMC7035036 | biostudies-literature