Comparison of FNA and fine-needle biopsy for EUS-guided sampling of suspected GI stromal tumors

Chafic, Abdul Hamid El; Loren, David E.; Siddiqui, Ali A.; Mounzer, Rawad; Cosgrove, Natalie; Kowalski, Thomas E.

doi:10.1016/j.gie.2017.01.010

Cited by 79 publications

(86 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, there may be significant differences between FNB and FNA needles regarding the diagnostic yields associated with tumors that necessitate the acquisition of sufficient quantities of well-preserved tissue samples that must undergo highly detailed immunohistological evaluations, for example, SET. 3 Few studies have investigated the diagnostic yields associated with the use of FNB needles to sample SET, and only four published reports have described studies that have compared SET sampling using FNB and FNA needles 13,[18][19][20] (Table 4). Three of these studies included small sample sizes of approximately 10-20 cases, and the findings from two of these studies showed that the diagnosis rates associated with the use of FNB needles were significantly higher than those associated with the use of FNA needles (75% vs 20%, respectively; P = 0.01; and 87% vs 53%, respectively; P = 0.01), 18,19 but the other study's findings did not show a significant difference between the needle types regarding the diagnostic rate (82% vs 68%, respectively; P = 0.488).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle biopsy on the diagnosis of subepithelial tumors: A propensity score‐matching analysis

Inoue

Okumura

Sano

et al. 2018

Digestive Endoscopy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle biopsy on the diagnosis of subepithelial tumors: A propensity score‐matching analysis

Inoue

Okumura

Sano

et al. 2018

Digestive Endoscopy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[14][15][16] The patient underwent as many passes as necessary until an adequate specimen was obtained. Immunohistochemical studies were performed on all non-ductal carcinoma cases that had adequate histological specimens for staining.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This technique of ROSE on CNB has been previously described in literature for pancreatic NET, GI stromal tumors, and solid pancreatic mass lesions. [14][15][16] The patient underwent as many passes as necessary until an adequate specimen was obtained. This was determined by the cytopathologist and/or the endosonographer.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine‐needle aspiration vs core needle biopsy for solid pancreatic lesions: Comparison of diagnostic accuracy and procedural efficiency

Syed

Babich

Rao

et al. 2019

Diagnostic Cytopathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided core needle biopsies (CNB) are increasingly being performed to diagnose solid pancreatic lesions. However, studies have been conflicting in terms of CNB improving diagnostic accuracy and procedural efficiency vs fine-needle aspiration (FNA), which this study aims to elucidate.Methods: Data were prospectively collected on consecutive patients with solid pancreatic or peripancreatic lesions at a single tertiary care center from November 2015 to November 2016 that underwent either FNA or CNB. Patient demographics, characteristics of lesions, diagnostic accuracy, final and follow-up pathology, use of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), complications, and procedure variables were obtained.Results: A total of 75 FNA and 48 CNB were performed; of these, 13 patients had both. Mean passes were lower with CNB compared to FNA (2.4 vs 2.9, P = .02). Use of ROSE was higher for FNA (97.3% vs 68.1%, P = .001). Mean procedure time was shorter with CNB (34.1 minutes vs 51.2 minutes, P = .02) and diagnostic accuracy was similar (89.2% vs 89.4%, P = .98). There was no difference in diagnostic accuracy when ROSE was performed for CNB vs not performed (93.5% vs 85.7%, P = .58).Additionally, diagnostic accuracy of combined FNA and CNB procedures was 92.3%, which was comparable to FNA (P = .73) or CNB (P = .52) alone.Conclusion: FNA and CNB had comparable safety and diagnostic accuracy. Use of CNB resulted in less number of passes and shorter procedure time as compared to FNA. Moreover, diagnostic accuracy for CNB with or without ROSE was similar.K E Y W O R D S core biopsy, endoscopic ultrasound, fine-needle aspiration, pancreatic cancer, pancreatic mass

show abstract

“…Several studies con rmed the usefulness of EUS-FNTA. [18][19][20][21] EUS-guided ne-needle biopsy for suspected GI stromal tumors was technically similar and the safety was equivalent to that of ne-needle aspiration, with better tissue acquisition [18]. Needles of various sizes ranging from 19 to 25 gauge were used to perform EUS-FNTA [10,19,22,23].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic Yields of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Tissue Acquisition according to the Gastric Location

Kim

Park²,

Park

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimThe histologic diagnosis of sub-epithelial tumors (SETs) in stomach has been achieved via endoscopic or surgical resection. We evaluated the efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle tissue acquisition (EUS-FNTA) for the diagnosis of gastric SETs according to the gastric location.MethodThirty-three patients diagnosed with gastric SETs via EUS-FNTA from January 2016 to May 2018 were analyzed retrospectively. Demographic characteristics, diagnostic yields and complications were evaluated.ResultsNineteen patients (57.6%) were female, with a median age of 57.7 years. EUS revealed a mean longitudinal diameter of 25.6 mm. The most common location of SETs was gastric body (n = 18, 54.5%), followed by cardia and fundus (n = 10, 30.3%), and antrum (n = 5, 15.2%). Twenty-gauge biopsy needle was used most frequently (90.9%). The diagnostic yield was obtained in 23 patients (69.7%). The most common diagnosis was gastrointestinal stromal tumor (69.5%), followed by leiomyoma (13.0%), and ectopic pancreas (8.7%). The diagnostic yield of SETs in gastric antrum (0/5, 0%) was significantly lower than in the gastric body and cardia (23/28, 82.1%, p = 0.001). A case of immediate bleeding after EUS-FNTA occurred in one patient (3.0%) who recovered uneventfully. According to studies reported in English literature, the overall diagnostic yield of SETs in gastric antrum was significantly lower than in the gastric body, fundus, and cardia (29.7% vs. 71.4%, p < 0.001, n = 191)ConclusionsAlthough EUS-FNTA is an advanced diagnostic tool for gastric SETs, it is essential to develop more effective methods for the diagnosis of antral SETs.

show abstract

Comparison of FNA and fine-needle biopsy for EUS-guided sampling of suspected GI stromal tumors

Cited by 79 publications

References 16 publications

Impact of endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle biopsy on the diagnosis of subepithelial tumors: A propensity score‐matching analysis

Impact of endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle biopsy on the diagnosis of subepithelial tumors: A propensity score‐matching analysis

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine‐needle aspiration vs core needle biopsy for solid pancreatic lesions: Comparison of diagnostic accuracy and procedural efficiency

Diagnostic Yields of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Tissue Acquisition according to the Gastric Location

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About