Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy

Telecytopathology for On-Site Adequacy Evaluation Decreases the Nondiagnostic Rate in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration of Pancreatic Lesions

“…2,[10][11][12][13][14] It is difficult to distinguish the influence of other factors in a single cohort design and to compare the data between different institutions because of many variables (e.g., experience of the endoscopist, location, type of lesion, and cytologic processing). In contrast, our study compares the performance of two cohorts with and without on-site telecytopathology evaluation by a cytopathologist at a single study site and is much more likely to isolate the effect of adequacy assessment from centerrelated bias, which may vary from site to site.…”

Diagnostic yield of malignancy during EUS-guided FNA of solid lesions with and without a stylet: a prospective, single blind, randomized, controlled trial

“…[2][3][4][5] The reported accuracy rates of EUS-FNA vary and range from 71% to 98% for pancreatic masses, 85% to 90% for lymph nodes, and 67% to 92% for GI subepithelial lesions. 3,4,[6][7][8][9][10][11] The optimal technique for EUS-FNA has not been established, and various techniques have been described to optimize the accuracy, efficiency, and quality of EUS-FNA specimens. There are several reported variables that affect the overall diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA such as the skill and experience of the endosonographer and the cytopathologist, the diameter of the EUS-FNA needle, the use of suction as opposed to reliance on the capillary and shearing action of the needle, the number of passes, and availability of immediate on-site cytopathology assessment.…”

Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsy Specimens: Adequate Diagnostic Yield and Accuracy Can Be Achieved without On-Site Evaluation

“…In our malignant/neoplastic category, 44% (n = 20/45) had immunohistochemistry performed. Studies assessing the optimal number of needle passes vary in their conclusions, and the number ranges from 2.6 to 7 passes, with one paper showing that the number of needle passes increased when there was no on-site evaluation [10,20,21,22,23]. The average number of needle passes in our study was 2.6, which is low, and there were no postprocedural complications in any of our patients.…”