Subscribe to RSS
Randomized trial comparing fanning with standard technique for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic mass lesions
submitted 01 June 2012
accepted after revision 26 December 2012
15 March 2013 (online)
Background and study aims: The fanning technique for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS – FNA) involves sampling multiple areas within a lesion with each pass. The aim of this study was to compare the fanning and standard techniques for EUS – FNA of solid pancreatic masses.
Patients and methods: Consecutive patients with solid pancreatic mass lesions were randomized to undergo EUS – FNA using either the standard or the fanning technique. The main outcome measure was the median number of passes required to establish diagnosis. The secondary outcome measures were the diagnostic accuracy, technical failure, and complication rate of the two techniques.
Results: Of 54 patients, 26 were randomized to the standard technique and 28 to the fanning technique. There was no difference in diagnostic accuracy (76.9 % vs. 96.4 %; P = 0.05), technical failure or complication rates (none in either cohort). There was a significant difference in both the number of passes required to establish diagnosis (median 1 [interquartile range 1 – 3] vs. 1 [1 – 1]; P = 0.02) and the percentage of patients in whom a diagnosis was achieved on pass one (57.7 % vs. 85.7 %; P = 0.02) between the standard and fanning groups, respectively.
Conclusions: The fanning technique of FNA was superior to the standard approach because fewer passes were required to establish the diagnosis. If these promising data are confirmed by other investigators, consideration should be given to incorporating the fanning technique into routine practice of EUS – FNA.
Registered at Clinical Trials.gov (NCT 01501903).
- 1 Dumonceau J-M, Polkowski M, Larghi A et al. Indications, results, and clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) clinical guideline. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 897-909
- 2 Eloubeidi MA, Jhala D, Chhieng DC et al. Yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy in patients with suspected pancreatic carcinoma. Cancer 2003; 99: 285-292
- 3 Savides TJ, Donohue M, Hunt G et al. EUS-guided FNA diagnostic yield of malignancy in solid pancreatic masses: a benchmark for quality performance measurement. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 66: 277-282
- 4 Fisher L, Segarajasingam DS, Stewart C et al. Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions: performance and outcomes. J Gastroent Hepatol 2009; 24: 90-96
- 5 Turner BG, Cizginer S, Agarwal D et al. Diagnosis of pancreatic neoplasia with EUS and FNA: a report of accuracy. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 91-98
- 6 Hawes RH. The evolution of endoscopic ultrasound: improved imaging, higher accuracy for fine needle aspiration and the reality of endoscopic ultrasound-guided interventions. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2010; 26: 436-444
- 7 Harewood GC, Wiersema LM, Halling AC et al. Influence of EUS training and pathology interpretation on accuracy of EUS-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic masses. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 55: 669-673
- 8 Mertz H, Gautam S. The learning curve for EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: 33-37
- 9 Eloubeidi MA, Tamhane A. EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: a learning curve with 300 consecutive procedures. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 700-708
- 10 LeBlanc JK, Ciaccia D, Al-Assi MT et al. Optimal number of EUS-guided fine needle passes needed to obtain a correct diagnosis. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: 475-481
- 11 Ekberg O, Bergenfeldt M, Aspelin P et al. Reliability of ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy of pancreatic masses. Acta Radiol 1988; 29: 535-539
- 12 Wyse JM, Paquin SC, Joseph L et al. EUS–FNA without the stylet: the yield is comparable to that with the stylet and sampling of multiple sites during the same pass may improve sample quality and yield. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: AB330-AB331
- 13 Varadarajulu S, Blakely J, Latif S et al. Quality assessment of current EUS–FNA assembly performance: adequate for use or opportunity for improvement?. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: AB174-AB175
- 14 Polkowski M, Larghi A, Weynand B et al. Learning, techniques, and complications of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) technical guideline. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 190-206
- 15 Sepe PS, Moparty B, Pitman MB et al. EUS-guided FNA for the diagnosis of GI stromal tumors: sensitivity and cytologic yield. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 254-261
- 16 Sahai AV, Paquin SC, Gariépy G. A prospective comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration results obtained in the same lesion, with and without the needle stylet. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 900-903
- 17 Kundu S, Conway K, Gilbert K et al. Suction or no suction? Interval results from an ongoing prospective, partially blinded, randomized trial of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle sampling of solid lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 248-S249