Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/s-0045-1805549
Contrast enhanced endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition versus conventional endoscopic ultrasound tissue acquisition in diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions in patients with chronic pancreatitis
Authors
Aims To assess the diagnostic rate of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition techniques with and without contrast enhancement in case of solid pancreatic lesions in patients with features chronic pancreatitis.
Methods This is a single-center retrospective (2021-2023) study which included patients with solid pancreatic masses (solid component>80%) in patients with features of chronic pancreatitis that required an endoscopic ultrasound(EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration/biopsy (FNA/FNB) using 22G EUS needles for pathologic diagnosis. We excluded patients with prior pancreatic surgery or chemotherapy for pancreatic diseases, and couagulation troubles. The final diagnosis was based on histopathological assessment of EUS-tissue acquisition, surgical specimens, and follow-up data for at least 6 months.
Results From a total of 67 patients, we compared the diagnostic results from patients with contrast-EUS-FNA/FNB(17 patients with CH-EUS-FNA and 12 patients with CH-EUS-FNB) with those from patients with conventional EUS-FNA/FNB (26 patients with EUS-FNA and 12 with EUS-FNB). The final diagnosis was ductal adenocarcinoma (n=34), malignant lymphoma (n=1),neuroendocrine (n=2) and chronic pancreatitis (n=30). There were 91.1% hypoechoic lesions and 8.9% isoechoic lesions. The main location was the pancreatic head (n=36, 53%), with a size of 2.24±0.8 cm. No difference was found between the contrast and conventional EUS-FNA/FNB groups concerning age, sex, tumor size, pancreatic lesion location or the severity of chronic pancreatitis features. Between the lesions assessed by contrast- EUS-FNA/FNB, the majority had arterial hypoenhancement (n=24, 82%). No side effects were reported. The diagnostic sensitivity was 88% for CH-EUS-FNA and 81% for conventional EUS-FNA, p=0.48 and 100% for both CH-EUS-FNB and EUS-FNB, p=1.0. The global accuracy for contrast-EUS-FNA/FNB was 96% and EUS-FNA/FNB was 92% (p=0.46). Both groups achieved a specificity and a positive predictive value of 100%.
Conclusions No superiority of CH-EUS-FNA/CH-EUS-FNB over EUS-FNA/FNB was demonstrated in diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions in patients with chronic pancreatitis.
Publication History
Article published online:
27 March 2025
© 2025. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved.
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany