Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1255676
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York
A prospective comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration results obtained in the same lesion, with and without the needle stylet
Publication History
submitted 17 September 2009
accepted after revision 16 June 2010
Publication Date:
19 August 2010 (online)
Background and study aims: The effectiveness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) with (S+) and without (S–) a stylet has never been compared. We prospectively compared the yield for malignancy and sample quality of S+ and S– EUS-FNA.
Patients and methods: S+ or S– EUS-FNA was performed on consecutive solid lesions, with a 22-gauge needle, with systematic assignment of S+ or S– passes in a 1 : 2 ratio. Slides were read by a single, blinded cytologist and were rated for bloodiness, adequacy, and presence of malignancy. The yield for malignancy was compared only in lesions in which equal numbers of S+ and S– passes were performed.
Results: A total of 309 passes (mean 2.3 passes/lesion, range 1 – 6, 82 % adequate, 38 % S+, 62 % S–) were performed on 135 lesions (63 % malignant, 42 % nodes, 58 % masses [79 % pancreatic]) in 111 patients (mean age 62.9 years, range 30 – 86). In 46 lesions where an equal number (53 S+ and 53 S–) of passes was performed, there was no difference in the proportion of cases in which S+ FNA was “equal to or better than” S– FNA ([S+] 89 % vs. [S–] 87 %; P > 0.05). The results of the two methods agreed in 80 % cases (kappa 0.60). The sensitivities for malignancy were: S+ 87 % vs. S– 83 %, P > 0.05. Specificities were 100 %. Sample adequacy was significantly lower in S+ passes (75 % vs. 87 %, P = 0.013), and sample bloodiness was significantly higher (75 % vs. 52 %, P < 0.0001).
Conclusions: Use of the stylet with EUS-FNA does not increase the yield for malignancy and is associated with poorer sample quality. The value of the stylet for EUS-FNA is questionable and requires further investigation.
References
- 1 Chang K J, Katz K D, Durbin T E. et al . Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration. Gastrointest Endosc. 1994; 40 694-699
- 2 Erickson R A. EUS-guided FNA. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004; 60 267-279
- 3 Varadarajulu S, Fraig M, Schmulewitz N. et al . Comparison of EUS-guided 19-gauge Trucut needle biopsy with EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration. Endoscopy. 2004; 36 397-401
- 4 Wiersema M J, Kochman M L, Cramer H M. et al . Endosonography-guided real-time fine-needle aspiration biopsy. Gastrointest Endosc. 1994; 40 700-707
- 5 Yamao K, Ohashi K, Mizutani S. et al . Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for the diagnosis of digestive diseases. Endoscopy. 1998; 30 (Suppl 1) A176-A178
- 6 Gress F, Gottlieb K, Sherman S. et al . Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy of suspected pancreatic cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2001; 134 459-464
- 7 Eloubeidi M A, Chen V K, Eltoum I A. et al . Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy of patients with suspected pancreatic cancer: diagnostic accuracy and acute and 30-day complications. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003; 98 2663-2668
- 8 Chatzipantelis P, Salla C, Konstantinou P. et al . Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a study of 48 cases. Cancer. 2008; 114 255-262
- 9 Volmar K E, Vollmer R T, Jowell P S. et al . Pancreatic FNA in 1000 cases: a comparison of imaging modalities. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005; 61 854-861
- 10 Turner B G, Ciszginer S, Agarwal D. et al . Diagnosis of pancreatic neoplasia with EUS and FNA: a report of accuracy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009; 71 91-98
A. V. SahaiMD, MSc
CHUM – Hôpital St-Luc
1058 rue St-Denis
Montréal
Québec
H2X 3J4 Canada
Fax: +1-514-4127372
Email: anand.sahai@sympatico.ca