Diagnostic yield of the SharkCore EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy

Fitzpatrick, Megan J.; Hernandez‐Barco, Yasmin G.; Krishnan, Kumar; Brugge, William R.; Casey, Brenna; Pitman, Martha B.

doi:10.1016/j.jasc.2019.03.001

Cited by 16 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Fitzpatrick et al also reported a diagnostic yield of 86% with FNB in a recent study involving a relatively large cohort of 179 lesions, of which 49% were pancreatic. Interestingly, for lesions that were concomitantly sampled by FNA in their study, the diagnostic yields did not statistically differ between FNA and FNB …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

“…In contrast, in a study of FNA with ROSE vs FNB without ROSE, on multivariate analysis, the lesion size did not influence the malignancy diagnosis . Fitzpatrick et al also concluded that the diagnostic yield with FNB was independent of lesion size …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…In a study of 33 patients, the authors concluded that FNB without ROSE yielded a higher (90%) diagnostic yield for malignancy as compared to FNA with ROSE (77.5%) although the difference was not statistically significant . ROSE did not significantly affect the diagnostic yield either, in the study by Fitzpatrick et al In contrast, in a study involving 194 cases, the diagnostic yield with FNB was superior when ROSE was used (85%) as compared to that when ROSE was not performed (69%) and the difference was statistically significant . Likewise, a high diagnostic sensitivity was reported both for FNB (98%) and FNA (91.5%) for the diagnosis of pancreatic malignancy in the presence of ROSE .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…EUS‐FNA has been the main modality for pancreatic solid mass lesion sampling for several years with a sensitivity of 85% to 87% and a specificity of 96% to 98% . In recent years, there has been a change in the paradigm of tissue acquisition for these lesions with the emergence of next generation core biopsy needles including ProCore (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana), SharkCore (Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland), and more recently, Acquire Franseen (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, Massachusetts) …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, most were limited by sample size and some included analysis of extrapancreatic lesions as well . Additionally, data regarding the impact of ROSE on the diagnostic yield of SharkCore needle varies across different studies . There is also little information about the relative efficacy of combined FNA and FNB sampling in pancreatic lesions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Endoscopic ultrasound‐guided tissue acquisition of solid mass lesions of the pancreas: A retrospective comparison study of fine‐needle aspiration and fine‐needle biopsy

Sweeney

Soong

Goyal

2020

Diagnostic Cytopathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Although endoscopic ultrasound guided fine‐needle biopsy (EUS‐FNB) has emerged as an alternative to fine‐needle aspiration (FNA) for the sampling of solid pancreatic mass lesions, it remains unclear which method is more effective. We compared the diagnostic yields of FNA, FNB, and combined FNA/FNB at a tertiary care institution. Methods Specimens from EUS‐FNA (04/2014‐08/2017) and EUS‐FNB (10/2015‐08/2017) with SharkCore needle of pancreatic solid mass lesions were retrieved. Clinical, radiologic, and pathologic data was recorded. Pathology results of malignancy/neoplasms with uncertain malignant potential were considered as true positive. The “negative” cases included were with ≥6 months of follow‐up. Nondiagnostic cases showed unremarkable pancreatic tissue, nonpancreatic elements, atypia, or features suspicious for malignancy. Diagnostic yield was defined as percentage of lesions sampled in which a benign or malignant tissue diagnosis, as defined above, was obtained. Statistical comparisons were performed using Fisher's exact test and univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results The study cohort included 76 FNA only cases, 88 FNB only cases, and 40 combined FNA/FNB cases. Diagnostic yields were 70% (FNA), 70% (FNB), and 83% (FNA/FNB), which were not statistically different. Increase in lesion size and presence of ROSE were significantly associated with a diagnostic outcome on both univariable and multivariable analysis, unlike the number of passes. Conclusion Our results demonstrate that for solid pancreatic lesions, the diagnostic yields of FNA, FNB, and combined FNA and FNB are comparable. Presence of ROSE and increasing lesion size increased the diagnostic yield while the number of passes had no significant impact.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Endoscopic ultrasound‐guided tissue acquisition of solid mass lesions of the pancreas: A retrospective comparison study of fine‐needle aspiration and fine‐needle biopsy

Sweeney

Soong

Goyal

2020

Diagnostic Cytopathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The World Health Organization classification of pancreaticobiliary cytopathology stratifies risk of malignancy and outcome for endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle aspiration of the pancreas

Lui,

Hargett,

Pharaa

et al. 2023

Cancer Cytopathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO) has recently published a classification for reporting pancreaticobiliary cytopathology with differences compared to the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology (PSC) classification.MethodsRetrospective data were collected from pancreatic endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle aspirations from 2014 to 2017 at a pancreatic cancer center. Absolute risk of malignancy (AROM), relative risk (to benign), performance characteristics, and overall survival were calculated for the entire cohort with comparison of cysts and solid lesions.ResultsIn total, 2562 cases were included: 16% cyst (n = 411) and 84% solid (n = 2151). The histologic confirmation rate was 43% (n = 1101) and the median follow‐up (for benign) was 56 months. For WHO I–VII, overall AROM (%) was 23, 22, 62, 13, 65, 97, and 100; cyst AROM was 7, 0, 19, 13, 38, 78, and 100; and solid AROM was 50, 29, 70, 15, 100, 99, and 100. For PSC I–VI, overall AROM (%) was 23, 29, 64, 0 (IVa), 60 (IVb), 97, and 100; cyst AROM was 7, 0, 19, 0, 21, 78, and 100; and solid AROM was 50, 35, 73, 0, 92, 99, and 100. The difference in relative risk for a cyst (vs. solid) overall was 0.38 for WHO and 0.26 for PSC. WHO and PSC categories showed stratification for the probability of overall survival.ConclusionsCystic versus solid lesion type can dramatically affect AROM, particularly for nondiagnostic (I), benign (II), atypical (III), and WHO V categories. WHO IV conveys a similarly low AROM for cystic and solid types. Both classifications stratify the probability of overall survival, including the newly introduced categories WHO IV and WHO V.

show abstract

Experience and future perspectives on the use of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology Terminology System for reporting pancreaticobiliary cytology

Saieg

Pitman

2020

Diagnostic Cytopathology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology developed a set of guidelines for reporting pancreaticobiliary cytology in 2014 (PB System), with a six‐tiered system: Nondiagnostic, Negative, Atypical, Neoplastic (Benign or Other), Suspicious, and Positive. This proposed scheme incorporates ancillary testing such as biochemical testing of cyst fluids for diagnosis and provides terminology that standardizes the category of the various diseases of the pancreas, some of which are difficult to diagnose specifically by cytology alone. Since its initial publication five and half years ago, several groups have published their experiences on the use of the PB System and have shown that most objectives proposed by the original publication have been achieved. They have shown that there is a better understanding and definition of the diagnostic categories with an associated distribution and risk of malignancy. The diagnostic categories of Neoplastic: Other, Suspicious, and Malignant show a high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of malignancy. The System also provides a multi‐specialist view of pancreatic lesions, with biochemical and radiological findings being incorporated into the final pathological report. The present review summarizes these findings and discusses the future perspectives and foreseen changes that are to be incorporated to a second edition of the reporting System.

show abstract

Diagnostic yield of the SharkCore EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy

Cited by 16 publications

References 24 publications

Endoscopic ultrasound‐guided tissue acquisition of solid mass lesions of the pancreas: A retrospective comparison study of fine‐needle aspiration and fine‐needle biopsy

Endoscopic ultrasound‐guided tissue acquisition of solid mass lesions of the pancreas: A retrospective comparison study of fine‐needle aspiration and fine‐needle biopsy

The World Health Organization classification of pancreaticobiliary cytopathology stratifies risk of malignancy and outcome for endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle aspiration of the pancreas

Experience and future perspectives on the use of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology Terminology System for reporting pancreaticobiliary cytology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About