Endoscopy 2013; 45(06): 445-450
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1326268
Original article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Randomized trial comparing fanning with standard technique for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic mass lesions

J. Y. Bang
1   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
,
S. H. Magee
2   Department of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
,
J. Ramesh
1   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
,
J. M. Trevino
1   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
,
S. Varadarajulu
3   Center for Interventional Endoscopy, Florida Hospital, Orlando, Florida, USA
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 01 June 2012

accepted after revision 26 December 2012

Publication Date:
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).