Endoscopy 2018; 50(04): S186
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1637609
ESGE Days 2018 ePosters
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

EVALUATION OF ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND-GUIDED FINE NEEDLE ASPIRATION AND BIOPSY WITH A 19-GAUGE PUNCTURE FORCEPS FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF PANCREATIC MASSES

E Dvoinikova
1   Pasific State Medical University, Institution of Surgery, Vladivostok, Russian Federation
,
R Goncharuk
1   Pasific State Medical University, Institution of Surgery, Vladivostok, Russian Federation
,
K Stegniy
1   Pasific State Medical University, Institution of Surgery, Vladivostok, Russian Federation
,
M Agapov
1   Pasific State Medical University, Institution of Surgery, Vladivostok, Russian Federation
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
27. März 2018 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
 

Aims:

Pancreatic masses include large group of surgical pancreatic diseases. A large-caliber needle such as a 19-gauge puncture forceps may help overcome the limitations of a fine needle aspiration by acquiring a larger amount of tissue sample. However, there has been no study for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy with a 19-gauge puncture forceps (EUS-FNB).

Aim of study: to compare results endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration and biopsy with a 19-gauge puncture forceps for the diagnosis of pancreatic masses.

Methods:

From March 2016 to September 2017, a total of 30 patients with solid and cystic pancreatic mass were included. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration and biopsy with a 19-gauge puncture forceps were performed using the standard technique without an on-site cytopathologist.

Results:

The diagnostic accuracy was significantly higher in EUS-FNA group (84,2 – 100% vs. 38,17 – 75,17%, P = 0.01). Foils negative results higher in the 19-gauge forceps group (6,67% vs. 43,33%, P = 0.01). Sensitivity of EUS-FNA was significantly higher than in a 19-gauge forceps group (84,2 – 100% vs. 38,17 – 75,17%, P = 0.01). The diagnostic accuracy by quality of diagnostic material, value of histological examination was not significantly different (FNA: 84,02 – 100%; 5,07 – 34,93% and FNB: 89,96 – 100%; 21,71 – 58,29%). The diagnostic accuracy by value of cytological examination and immunohistochemistry was significantly higher in EUS-FNA group (84,02 – 100% and 45,34 – 81,33% vs. 24,83 – 61,83% and 5,07 – 34,93%, p ≤0.01). However, frequency of bleeding was higher in EUS-FNB group (0% vs. 7,54% – 39,12%).

Conclusions:

EUS-FNA may be a valuable method for the diagnosis of pancreatic masses when an on-site cytopathologist is not available.