Protein tyrosine dephosphorylation during copper-induced cell death in rice roots.

W. Hung,Dinq-Ding Huang,Pei-Shan Chien,C. Yeh,P. Chen,Wen-Chang Chi,Hao-jen Huang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHEMOSPHERE.2007.04.073

IF: 8.8

2007-08-01

Chemosphere

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle biopsy alone vs. EUS-guided fine needle aspiration with rapid onsite evaluation in pancreatic lesions: a multicenter randomized trial

Yen-I Chen,Avijit Chatterjee,Robert Berger,Yonca Kanber,Jonathan Wyse,Eric Lam,Ian Gan,Manon Auger,Sana Kenshil,Jennifer Telford,Fergal Donnellan,James Quinlan,Gregory Lutzak,Fatma Alshamsi,Josee Parent,Kevin Waschke,Adel Alghamdi,Jeffrey Barkun,Peter Metrakos,Prosanto Chaudhury,Myriam Martel,Alastair Dorreen,Kristen Candido,Corey Miller,Viviane Adam,Alan Barkun,George Zogopoulos,Clarence Wong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1375-9775

2021-01-27

Endoscopy

Abstract:Abstract Background Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the standard in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions, in particular when combined with rapid onsite evaluation of cytopathology (ROSE). More recently, a fork-tip needle for core biopsy (FNB) has been shown to be associated with excellent diagnostic yield. EUS-FNB alone has however not been compared with EUS-FNA + ROSE in a large clinical trial. Our aim was to compare EUS-FNB alone to EUS-FNA + ROSE in solid pancreatic lesions. Methods A multicenter, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial involving seven centers was performed. Solid pancreatic lesions referred for EUS were considered for inclusion. The primary end point was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary end points included sensitivity/specificity, mean number of needle passes, and cost. Results 235 patients were randomized: 115 EUS-FNB alone and 120 EUS-FNA + ROSE. Overall, 217 patients had malignant histology. The diagnostic accuracy for malignancy of EUS-FNB alone was non-inferior to EUS-FNA + ROSE at 92.2 % (95 %CI 86.6 %–96.9 %) and 93.3 % (95 %CI 88.8 %–97.9 %), respectively (P = 0.72). Diagnostic sensitivity for malignancy was 92.5 % (95 %CI 85.7 %–96.7 %) for EUS-FNB alone vs. 96.5 % (93.0 %–98.6 %) for EUS-FNA + ROSE (P = 0.46), while specificity was 100 % in both. Adequate histological yield was obtained in 87.5 % of the EUS-FNB samples. The mean (SD) number of needle passes and procedure time favored EUS-FNB alone (2.3 [0.6] passes vs. 3.0 [1.1] passes [P < 0.001]; and 19.3 [8.0] vs. 22.7 [10.8] minutes [P = 0.008]). EUS-FNB alone cost on average 45 US dollars more than EUS-FNA + ROSE. Conclusion EUS-FNB alone is non-inferior to EUS-FNA + ROSE and is associated with fewer needle passes, shorter procedure time, and excellent histological yield at comparable cost.

gastroenterology & hepatology,surgery
Direct Comparison of Elastography Endoscopic Ultrasound Fine-Needle Aspiration and B-Mode Endoscopic Ultrasound Fine-Needle Aspiration in Diagnosing Solid Pancreatic Lesions

Marcel Gheorghiu,Zeno Sparchez,Ioana Rusu,Sorana D. Bolboacă,Radu Seicean,Cristina Pojoga,Andrada Seicean

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031302

IF: 4.614

2022-01-24

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Abstract:Elastography endoscopic ultrasound (E-EUS) has been proved to be a valuable supplement to endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in differentiating solid pancreatic lesions, but the improvement of EUS-FNA guided during E-EUS has not been proven. Our study aimed to evaluate whether E-EUS fine-needle aspiration (E-EUS-FNA) was superior to B-mode EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses and whether the diagnostic rate was affected by specific factors. Our prospective study was conducted between 2019–2020 by recruiting patients with solid pancreatic masses. E-EUS examination was followed by one pass of E-EUS-FNA towards the blue part of the lesion and a second pass of EUS-FNA. The final diagnosis was based on surgery, E-EUS-FNA or EUS-FNA results, or a 12-month follow-up. Sixty patients with solid pancreatic lesions were evaluated. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for diagnosing malignancy using E-EUS-FNA and EUS-FNA were 89.5%, 100%, 90%, 93%, 100%, and 93.3%, respectively, but the differences were not significant. Neither mass location nor the lesion size influenced the results. The lengths of the core obtained during E-EUS-FNA and EUS-FNA were similar. E-EUS-FNA in solid pancreatic lesions was not superior to B-mode EUS-FNA.

public, environmental & occupational health,environmental sciences
EUS-FNA Biopsy for Pancreatic Mass

Engin Altinkaya,Ebru Akay,Ali Koc,Erkan Caglar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.29271/jcpsp.2024.07.832

Abstract:Objective: To assess both solid and cystic pancreatic lesions using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and the effect of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in patient management. Study design: Descriptive study. Place and Duration of the Study: Department of Gastroenterology, Division of Internal Diseases, Sivas Cumhuriyet University Hospital, Sivas, Turkiye, from January 2018 to 2022. Methodology: Patients with pancreatic mass, who underwent EUS-FNA were inducted in the study. EUS-FNA was performed using a 22-gauge needle via both transgastric and transduodenal routes. The size of the pancreatic lesion, its location, and whether there was SMA or CA invasion were evaluated on CT and EUS scans. Biopsy results of 64 patients who received EUS-FNA due to pancreatic lesions were considered. The results were divided into malignancy or benign pathology. Results: A total of 64 cases were compared. Crosstable Chi-square analysis showed a statistically significant difference between CT and EUS (p <0.001). EUS-FNA results revealed that out of the 64 patients with pancreatic mass detected in EUS, 46 had adenocarcinoma, 7 were negative for malignancy, 4 had intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasia (IPMN), 3 had neuroendocrine tumour (NET), 2 had lymphoma, and 2 had solid pseudopapillary neoplasia (SPN). In the 2-year follow-up of the seven patients who were negative for malignancy in EUS-FNA, there were no clinical, laboratory or imaging findings indicating pancreatic malignancy or distant metastasis. Conclusion: Tissue sampling through EUS-FNA has minimal side effects and remains useful in managing preoperative patients with resectable or suspicious pancreatic masses. Key words: Pancreatic cancer, Abdominal CT, Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), Ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA).
A Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration and Fine-Needle Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions

Lachlan R. Ayres,Elizabeth K. Kmiotek,Eric Lam,Jennifer J. Telford

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/1415062

2018-01-01

Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Abstract:Background and Aims . Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is the method of choice for sampling pancreatic lesions. This study compares the diagnostic accuracy and safety of FNB using a novel core needle to FNA in solid pancreatic lesions. Methods . A retrospective review of patients in whom EUS FNA or FNB was performed for solid pancreatic lesions was conducted. Diagnostic performance was calculated based upon a dual classification system: classification 1, only malignant pathology considered a true positive, versus classification 2, atypical, suspicious, and malignant pathology considered a true positive. Results . 43 patients underwent FNB compared with 51 FNA. Using classification 1, sensitivity was 74.0% versus 80.0%, specificity 100% versus 100%, and diagnostic accuracy 77.0% versus 80.0% for FNB versus FNA, respectively (all p > 0.05 ). Using classification 2, sensitivity was 97% versus 94.0%, specificity 100% versus 100%, and diagnostic accuracy 98.0% versus 94.0% for FNB versus FNA, respectively (all p > 0.05 ). FNB required significantly fewer needle passes (median = 2) compared to FNA (median = 3; p < 0.001 ). Adverse events occurred in two (4.5%) FNB patients compared with none in the FNA group ( p > 0.05 ). Conclusion . FNA and FNB have comparable sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy. FNB required fewer passes.

gastroenterology & hepatology
Comparison of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for diagnosis of solid pancreatic mass lesions: a meta-analysis of prospective studies

Dun-Wei Yao,Min-Zhen Qin,Hai-Xing Jiang,Shan-Yu Qin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00365521.2024.2354908

2024-05-22

Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract:Objective: To quantitatively compare the diagnostic value of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) in solid pancreatic mass lesions using a systematic evaluation method. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted on public databases to include studies comparing the diagnostic value of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB in solid pancreatic mass lesions. The combined effect size was estimated using mean difference (MD) and risk difference (RD) respectively, and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. Results: The 12 articles (7 RCTs and 5 cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria of this study. The meta-analysis showed that compared with EUS-FNB, EUS-FNA had lower diagnostic accuracy (RD: −0.08, 95% CI: −0.15, −0.01) and specimen adequacy (RD: −0.08, 95% CI: −0.15, −0.02), while higher required number of needle passes (MD: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.12, 0.73). However, EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA presented similar overall complications (RD: 0.00, 95% CI: −0.01, 0.02) and technical failures (RD: −0.01, 95% CI: −0.02, 0.00), without statistically significant differences. Conclusions: Compared with EUS-FNA, EUS-FNB seems to be a better choice for diagnosing suspected pancreatic lesions.

gastroenterology & hepatology
Percutaneous ultrasound and endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions: An analysis of 1074 lesions

Wei-Lu Chai,Xiu-Feng Kuang,Li Yu,Chao Cheng,Xin-Yan Jin,Qi-Yu Zhao,Tian-An Jiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hbpd.2022.06.017

2022-07-04

Abstract:Backgrounds : Percutaneous ultrasound (US) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided pancreatic biopsies are widely accepted in the diagnosis of pancreatic diseases. Studies comparing the diagnostic performance of US- and EUS-guided pancreatic biopsies are lacking. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic yields of US- and EUS-guided pancreatic biopsies and identify the risk factors for inconclusive biopsies. Methods : Of the 1074 solid pancreatic lesions diagnosed from January 2017 to February 2021 in our center, 275 underwent EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), and 799 underwent US-guided core needle biopsy (US-CNB/FNA). The outcomes were inconclusive pathological biopsy, diagnostic accuracy and the need for repeat biopsy. The factors affecting diagnostic accuracy and diagnostic performance of both US-CNB/FNA and EUS-FNA were compared, and the independent predictors for the study outcomes were identified. Results : The diagnostic accuracy was 89.8% for EUS-FNA and 95.2% for US-CNB/FNA ( P = 0.001). Biopsy under EUS guidance [odds ratio (OR) = 1.808, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.083-3.019; P = 0.024], lesion size < 2 cm (OR = 2.069, 95% CI: 1.145-3.737; P = 0.016), hypoechoic appearance (OR = 0.274, 95% CI: 0.097-0.775; P = 0.015) and non-pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma carcinoma (PDAC) diagnosis (OR = 2.637, 95% CI: 1.563-4.449; P < 0.001) were identified as factors associated with inconclusive pathological biopsy. Hypoechoic appearance (OR = 0.236, 95% CI: 0.064-0.869; P = 0.030), lesions in the uncinate process of the pancreas (OR = 3.506, 95% CI: 1.831-6.713; P < 0.001) and non-PDAC diagnosis (OR = 2.622, 95% CI: 1.278-5.377; P = 0.009) were independent predictors for repeat biopsy. Biopsy under EUS guidance (OR = 2.024, 95% CI: 1.195-3.429; P = 0.009), lesions in the uncinate process of the pancreas (OR = 1.776, 95% CI: 1.014-3.108; P = 0.044) and hypoechoic appearance (OR = 0.127, 95% CI: 0.047-0.347; P < 0.001) were associated with diagnostic accuracy. Conclusions : In conclusion, both percutaneous US- and EUS-guided biopsies of solid pancreatic lesions are safe and effective; though the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA is inferior to US-CNB/FNA. A tailored pancreatic biopsy should be considered a part of the management algorithm for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic disease.

gastroenterology & hepatology
Endoscopic ultrasound in diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions: Elastography or contrast-enhanced harmonic alone versus the combination

Tanyaporn Chantarojanasiri,Yoshiki Hirooka,Hiroki Kawashima,Eizaburo Ohno,Takamichi Kuwahara,Takeshi Yamamura,Kohei Funasaka,Masanao Nakamura,Ryoji Miyahara,Masatoshi Ishigami,Osamu Watanabe,Senju Hashimoto,Akihiro Hirakawa,Thawee Ratanachu-ek,Hidemi Goto

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-118829

2017-11-01

Endoscopy International Open

Abstract:Abstract Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) elastography (EUS-E) and contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS (CH-EUS) are useful methods for the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions. This study aims to compare the accuracy of combined EUS-E and CH-EUS with that of EUS-E or CH-EUS alone in the differential diagnosis of pancreatic solid lesions. Patients and methods One hundred thirty-six patients with solid pancreatic lesions underwent EUS with both EUS-E and CH-EUS were included. Diagnoses were classified as adenocarcinoma, neuroendocrine tumor (NET), and inflammatory pseudotumor in 95, 22, and 19 patients, respectively. EUS records in each case were rearranged into 3 groups: EUS-E, CH-EUS, and combination. Each modality was randomly reviewed by 3 reviewers with different levels of clinical experience. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of each modality according to each diagnosis group were evaluated. For the combined diagnosis populations, the proportions of correct diagnoses among the 3 modalities were compared by using the multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results The accuracies of EUS-E, CH-EUS, and the combination of them were 68.4 %, 65.4 %, and 75.7 %, respectively, for adenocarcinoma group; 83.8 %, 82.4 %, and 86.8 % for NET group; 80.1 %, 78.7 %, and 81.6 % for inflammatory pseudotumor group. The multivariate logistic regression analysis for the combined diagnosis populations showed that the proportion of correct diagnoses when EUS-E and CH-EUS were combined was slightly higher than with the other 2 modalities, although the significant differences among them were not observed. Conclusion EUS-E and CH-EUS combined may improve differential diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions compared with use of the individual modalities.
A Prospective Multicenter Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing FNA and FNB in the Diagnosis of Solid Masses

Qian Chen,Bin Cheng,Tianan Jiang,Lizhou Dou,Jinglin Wang,Yawen Li,Yueming Zhang,Bo Sun,Hongbo Shan,Zhuang Deng,Guoliang Xu,Xiujiang Yang,Guiqi Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14309/00000434-201710001-00773

2017-01-01

Abstract:Introduction: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided fine needle biopsy (FNB) with side fenestration on the needle was developed aiming to obtain both cytological aspirates and histological core samples. To reveal the diagnostic yield of FNB sampling solid mass compared to standard fine needle aspiration (FNA), we conducted a large-scale multicenter study in patients with pancreatic and non-pancreatic masses. We also aimed to establish optimal techniques in EUS tissue acquisition. Methods: This was a prospective multicenter single-blind randomized controlled trial. Between December 2014 and January 2016, 408 patients were enrolled from five tertiary-care academic medical centers and randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive either 22G FNA or 22G FNB. Two tissue acquisition (TA) techniques (1st and 2nd passes using slow pull vs. 3rd and 4th passes using suction methods) were performed on all EUS needles. The primary outcome was the diagnostic yield comparing FNA and FNB on all solid lesions, pancreatic and non-pancreatic masses, respectively. Secondary endpoints were the quality of the histologic specimen (quantity of cell, tissue integrity, and blood contamination). Results: Among all lesion, FNB group (n=190) compared to FNA group (n=187) gained superior histological diagnostic yield (91.44% vs. 80%; p = 0.0015), and higher cytological diagnostic yield (85.56% vs. 78.95%; p = 0.093). For pancreatic mass, FNB group (n=123) achieved better histological diagnostic yield compared to FNA group (n=126) (92.68% vs. 81.75%; p = 0.0099), and also higher cytological diagnostic yield (88.62% vs. 79.37%; p = 0.00468), respectively. For non-pancreatic mass, there was no difference between FNB and FNA on diagnostic accuracy. Furthermore for pancreatic mass, when slow pull technique was applied in the first and second passes, FNB was superior to FNA on specimen quality and diagnostic yield. Conclusion: FNB needle achieved superior overall diagnostic yield compared to FNA needle among all studied solid lesions. For pancreatic masses, the 22G FNB needle also gained superior histological diagnostic accuracy and higher cytological diagnostic yield compared to 22G FNA. We further suggest choosing FNB over FNA on pancreatic lesion for TA when slow pull technique was applied in the first two passes.Table: Table. Technical characteristics and outcomes of EUS-FNA/FNB
Impact of Inconclusive Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration Results in the Management and Outcome of Patients with Solid Pancreatic Masses

Bo Sun,Xiujiang Yang,Bo Ping,Yiping He,Zhaozhen Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/den.12315

2014-01-01

Digestive Endoscopy

Abstract:Background and AimEndoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) can be inconclusive in diagnosing solid pancreatic masses. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the impact of an inconclusive EUS-FNA in the management of patients with solid pancreatic masses.MethodsThis is a retrospective analysis of a prospective database of patients with solid pancreatic masses referred for EUS-FNA between December 2011 and December 2013. Consecutive patients with inconclusive initial EUS-FNA were included. Demographic, clinical, procedural and outcome data were analyzed.ResultsOver the study period, 387 patients underwent EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic masses, of which 38 patients had inconclusive cytology. Of the 38 patients, 18 were categorized as atypical, two were categorized as indeterminate or suspicious for malignancy, and 18 were categorized as benign process. Subsequently, 24 (63.2%) patients achieved cytopathological diagnosis by repeat EUS-FNA (8), transcutaneous FNA (4) and surgery (12). Repeat EUS-FNA were done a median of 13 days after the index examination and resulted in conclusive diagnosis in 72.7% of cases. Five patients undergoing surgery were confirmed to have benign lesions. In 14 (36.8%) patients not receiving a positive cytopathological diagnosis, 11 were eventually confirmed to be malignant based on clinical outcome and imaging evidence.ConclusionsInconclusive EUS-FNA could lead to unnecessary surgical procedures in patients with resectable solid pancreatic masses if no cytopathological diagnosis is obtained through either repeat or alternative diagnostic modalities. Repeat EUS-FNA provided a conclusive diagnosis in a majority of cases, and therefore should be strongly considered ahead of other modalities.
Analysis of Fine-Needle Biopsy Vs Fine-Needle Aspiration in Diagnosis of Pancreatic and Abdominal Masses: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial.

Bin Cheng,Yueming Zhang,Qian Chen,Bo Sun,Zhuang Deng,Hongbo Shan,Lizhou Dou,Jinglin Wang,Yawen Li,Xiujiang Yang,Tianan Jiang,Guoliang Xu,Guiqi Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2017.07.010

IF: 13.576

2018-01-01

Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Abstract:BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needles with side fenestrations are used to collect aspirates for cytology analysis and biopsy samples for histologic analysis. We conducted a large, multicenter study to compare the accuracy of diagnosis via specimens collected with fine-needle biopsy (FNB) versus fine-needle aspiration (FNA) for patients with pancreatic and nonpancreatic masses. METHODS: We performed a prospective single-blind study at 5 tertiary care centers in China. The study comprised 408 patients undergoing EUS for a solid mass (>1 cm) in the pancreas, abdomen, mediastinum, or pelvic cavity, from December 2014 through January 2016. Patients were randomly assigned to groups (1:1) for assessment by FNA (n = 190) or FNB (n = 187). After lesions were identified by EUS, samples were collected in a total of 4 passes by each needle. All procedures were performed by experienced endosonographers; cytologists and pathologists were blinded to the sample collection method. Patients were followed for at least 48 weeks, and final diagnoses were obtained after surgery, imaging analysis, or resolution of lesion. The primary aim was to compare diagnostic yields of EUS-FNA with EUS-FNB for all solid masses, then separately as pancreatic and nonpancreatic masses. The secondary endpoint was the quality of histologic specimen. RESULTS: Findings from FNB analysis were accurate for 91.44% of all cases, compared with 80.00% for all FNA cases, based on final patient diagnoses (P = .0015). In patients with pancreatic masses (n = 249), findings from histologic analysis of FNBs were accurate for 92.68% of the cases, compared with 81.75% for FNAs (P = .0099). In cytology analysis of pancreatic masses, samples collected by FNB accurately identified 88.62% of all pancreatic lesions, whereas samples collected by FNA accurately identified 79.37% (P = .00468). Analyses of samples of nonpancreatic masses collected by FNA versus FNB produced similar diagnostic yields. CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective study of patients with pancreatic masses, we found EUS-guided FNB samples to produce more accurate diagnoses than samples collected by EUS-guided FNA samples. No difference in diagnostic yield was seen between EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for nonpancreatic masses.
Endoscopic Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound and Fine-Needle Aspiration or Biopsy for the Diagnosis of Pancreatic Solid Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Giorgio Esposto,Giuseppe Massimiani,Linda Galasso,Paolo Santini,Raffaele Borriello,Irene Mignini,Maria Elena Ainora,Alberto Nicoletti,Lorenzo Zileri Dal Verme,Antonio Gasbarrini,Sergio Alfieri,Giuseppe Quero,Maria Assunta Zocco

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16091658

2024-04-26

Cancers

Abstract:Introduction: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) are currently recommended for the pathologic diagnosis of pancreatic solid lesions (PSLs). The application of contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound (ECEUS) could aid the endoscopist during an FNA and/or FNB procedure. CEUS is indeed able to better differentiate the pathologic tissue from the surrounding healthy pancreatic parenchyma and to detect necrotic areas and vessels. Objectives: Our objective was to evaluate if ECEUS could reduce the number of needle passes and side effects and increase the diagnostic efficacy of FNA and/or FNB. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of clinical studies was performed to explore if ECEUS-FNA or FNB could increase diagnostic accuracy and reduce the number of needle passes and adverse effects compared to standard EUS-FNA or FNB. In accordance with the study protocol, a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the evidence was planned. Results: The proportion of established diagnoses of ECEUS was 90.9% compared to 88.3% of EUS, with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.14). The diagnosis was made through a single step in 70.9% of ECEUS patients and in 65.3% of EUS patients, without statistical significance (p = 0.24). The incidence of adverse reactions was substantially comparable across both groups (p = 0.89). Conclusion: ECEUS-FNA and FNB do not appear superior to standard EUS-FNA and FNB for the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions.

oncology
Value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound combined with percutaneous ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions

Yang Gui,Menghua Dai,Zhilan Meng,Xiaoyan Chang,Li Tan,Jing Zhang,Xueqi Chen,Tongtong Zhou,Qing Zhang,Mengsu Xiao,Ke Lyu,Yuxin Jiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/cm9.0000000000001638

IF: 6.133

2021-11-10

Chinese Medical Journal

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) can detect lesions hidden in inflammatory regions and find necrosis or areas of severe fibrosis within the lesion. This retrospective study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of solid pancreatic lesions using percutaneous ultrasound (US)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) with or without CEUS assessment.METHODS: Clinical, imaging, and pathologic data of 181 patients from January 2014 to December 2018 in Pecking Union Medical College Hospital, with solid pancreatic masses who underwent percutaneous US-FNA and ThinPrep cytologic test were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were divided into CEUS and US groups according to whether CEUS was performed before the biopsy. According to FNA cytology diagnoses, we combined non-diagnostic, neoplastic, and negative cases into a negative category. The positive category included malignant, suspicious, and atypical cases. The final diagnosis was confirmed by pathology or clinical and radiological follow-up for at least 12 months. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of US-FNA were evaluated between the two groups.RESULTS: This study enrolled 107 male and 74 female patients (average age: 60 years). There were 58 cases in the US group and 123 cases in the CEUS group. No statistically significant differences in age, gender, or lesion size were found between the two groups. The diagnostic accuracy of the CEUS group was 95.1% (117/123), which was higher than the 86.2% (50/58) observed in the US group (P = 0.036). The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of the CEUS group were increased by 7.5%, 16.7%, 3.4%, and 18.8%, respectively, compared with the US group. However, the differences of the two groups were not statistically significant.CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the conventional US, the use of CEUS could improve the biopsy accuracy and avoid the need for a repeat biopsy, especially for some complicated FNA cases.

medicine, general & internal
Diagnostic Accuracy of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration: A Single-Center Analysis

Songming Ding,Aili Lu,Xinhua Chen,Bingqian Xu,Ning Wu,Muhammad Ibrahim Alhadi Edoo,Shusen Zheng,Qiyong Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7150/ijms.48882

2020-01-01

International Journal of Medical Sciences

Abstract:Background: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNAB) has become an important modality for identification of intra-abdominal masses. This study analyzed the accuracy of EUS-FNAB in a single medical center and explored factors related to positive diagnosis. Materials and methods: In total, 77 patients with EUS-FNAB were retrospectively reviewed from July 2016 to February 2020. "Atypical (tends to be neoplasm/malignancy)," "suspicious (first consider neoplasm/malignancy)," and "malignant" were defined as positive cytology. The final diagnoses were based on histopathologic examination. The positive rate of EUS-FNAB for the diagnosis of neoplasm and its associations with age, sex, target puncture mass size, liver function, tumor markers, albumin, hypertension, and diabetes were examined. Results: Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of EUS-FNAB cytologic diagnoses in all patients were 77.9% (60/77), 76.1% (54/71), 100%, 100%, and 26.1% (6/23), respectively. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of EUS-FNAB cytologic diagnoses in the pancreas were 80.0% (48/60), 79.3% (46/58), 100%, 100%, and 14.3% (2/14), respectively. The results of EUS-FNAB in pancreatic masses showed that the level of CA19-9 was higher in the true positive group than in the false-negative group (p<0.05). There were no factors associated with the true positive cytologic diagnoses (p>0.05). Conclusions: Our single-medical center study showed that EUS-FNAB is an accurate diagnostic procedure for the evaluation of intra-abdominal masses. Further follow-up is required to explore factors associated with the true positive cytology.
EUS-FNA versus EUS-FNB in Pancreatic Solid Lesions ≤ 15 mm

Maria Cristina Conti Bellocchi,Micol Bernuzzi,Alessandro Brillo,Laura Bernardoni,Antonio Amodio,Nicolò De Pretis,Luca Frulloni,Armando Gabbrielli,Stefano Francesco Crinò

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14040427

IF: 3.6

2024-02-16

Diagnostics

Abstract:A small tumor size may impact the diagnostic performance of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) for diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs). We aimed to compare the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and biopsy (FNB) in SPLs with a diameter ≤ 15 mm. Consecutive patients who underwent EUS-TA for SPLs ≤ 15 mm between January 2015 and December 2022 in a tertiary referral center were retrospectively evaluated. The primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy. The final diagnosis was based on surgical pathology or disease evolution after a minimum follow-up of 6 months. Inadequate samples were all considered false negatives for the study. Secondary outcomes included sample adequacy, factors impacting accuracy, and safety. We included 368 patients (52.4% male; mean age: 60.2 years) who underwent FNA in 72 cases and FNB in 296. The mean size of SPLs was 11.9 ± 2.6 mm. More than three passes were performed in 5.7% and 61.5% of patients in the FNB and FNA groups, respectively (p < 0.0001). FNB outperformed FNA in terms of diagnostic accuracy (89.8% vs. 79.1%, p = 0.013) and sample adequacy (95.9% vs. 86.1%, p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, using FNA (OR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.07–4.48) and a final diagnosis (OR: 3.56, 95% CI: 1.82–6.94) of benign conditions negatively impacted accuracy. Overall, the adverse event rate was 0.8%, including one pancreatitis in the FNA group and one pancreatitis and one bleeding in the FNB group, all mild and conservatively managed. EUS-TA for SPLs ≤ 15 mm has a high diagnostic yield and safety. This study suggests the superiority of FNB over FNA, with better performance even with fewer passes performed.

medicine, general & internal
Factors Affecting the Accuracy of Endoscopic Ultrasound‐guided Fine Needle Aspiration for the Diagnosis of Small (≤20 Mm) Pancreatic Lesions

Hong Zhen Li,Chun Yan Peng,Shan,Lei Wang,Song Zhang,Gui Fang Xu,Bo Kong,Helmut Friess,Xiao Ping Zou,Ying Lv

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-2980.12875

2020-01-01

Journal of Digestive Diseases

Abstract:ObjectiveTo explore the diagnostic value of endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine needle aspiration (EUS‐FNA) for small, solid or semi‐solid pancreatic lesions (≤20 mm) and the factors affecting its accuracy.MethodsAltogether 92 patients with small, solid or semi‐solid pancreatic lesions who underwent EUS‐FNA at the Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital from November 2009 to January 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to determine the factors affecting the accuracy of EUS‐FNA for detecting these lesions.ResultsAmong the 92 cases, 56 (60.9%) were diagnosed as having malignant lesions and 36 (39.1%) as benign lesions, respectively. The overall sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of EUS‐FNA for the diagnosis of small, solid or semi‐solid pancreatic lesions were 71.4%, 100% and 82.6%, respectively. When considering the impact of the presence of a tissue core on the diagnosis, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of EUS‐FNA with tissue core compared with those based on cytology alone were 77.3% vs 50.0%; 100% vs 100%; and 86.8% vs 62.5%, respectively. The multivariate analysis showed that larger tumor size (>15‐20 mm) (odds ratio [OR] 4.200, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21‐14.53, P = 0.023) and histologic diagnosis based on tissue core (OR 4.593, 95% CI 1.03‐20.47, P = 0.046) were related to a higher accuracy of EUS‐FNA. Adverse events were observed in three patients, all were treated conservatively and recovered within 3 days.ConclusionsEUS‐FNA is effective and safe for diagnosing small pancreatic lesions. Tumor size and presence of tissue core are related to higher accuracy of the EUS‐FNA.
Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) from peritoneal lesions: a prospective cohort pilot study

Pradermchai Kongkam,Theerapat Orprayoon,Sirilak Yooprasert,Nakarin Sirisub,Naruemon Klaikaew,Anapat Sanpawat,Shahram Safa,Wiriyaporn Ridtitid,Pinit Kullavanijaya,Rungsun Rerknimitr

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-021-01953-9

2021-10-24

Abstract:Background: Diagnostic laparoscopy is often a necessary, albeit invasive, procedure to help resolve undiagnosed peritoneal diseases. Previous retrospective studies reported that EUS-FNA is feasible on peritoneal and omental lesions, however, EUS-FNA provided a limited amount of tissue for immunohistochemistry stain (IHC). Aim: This pilot study aims to prospectively determine the effectiveness of EUS-FNB regarding adequacy of tissue for IHC staining, diagnostic rate and the avoidance rate of diagnostic laparoscopy or percutaneous biopsy in patients with these lesions. Methods: From March 2017 to June 2018, patients with peritoneal or omental lesions identified by CT or MRI at the King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand were prospectively enrolled in the study. All Patients underwent EUS-FNB. For those with negative pathological results of EUS-FNB, percutaneous biopsy or diagnostic laparoscopy was planned. Analysis uses percentages only due to small sample sizes. Results: A total of 30 EUS-FNB passes were completed, with a median of 3 passes (range 2-3 passes) per case. For EUS-FNB, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of EUS-FNB from peritoneal lesions were 63.6%, 100%, 100%, 20% and 66.7% respectively. Adequate tissue for IHC stain was found in 25/30 passes (80%). The tissues from EUS results were found malignant in 7/12 patients (58.3%). IHC could be done in 10/12 patients (83.3%). Among the five patients with negative EUS results, two underwent either liver biopsy of mass or abdominal paracentesis, showing gallbladder cancer and adenocarcinoma. Two patients refused laparoscopy due to advanced pancreatic cancer and worsening ovarian cancer. The fifth patient had post-surgical inflammation only with spontaneous resolution. The avoidance rate of laparoscopic diagnosis was 58.3%. No major adverse event was observed. Conclusions: EUS-FNB from peritoneal lesions provided sufficient core tissue for diagnosis and IHC. Diagnostic laparoscopy can often be avoided in patients with peritoneal lesions.
S194 How Good is EUS Elastography for Discriminating Malignant From Benign Solid Pancreatic Masses? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Renato Beas,Eleazar Enrique. Montalvan-Sanchez,Dalton A. Norwood,Elit Quingalahua,Ana Vilela,Janice Lester,Jean M. Chalhoub,Jorge Machicado

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14309/01.ajg.0001029144.93927.33

2024-10-26

The American Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract:EUS elastography has shown promising results in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant pancreatic lesions. We aimed to systematically review and conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic performance of EUS elastography for discriminating malignant from benign solid pancreatic masses.

gastroenterology & hepatology
Detection Of Kras Gene Mutations In Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsy For Improving Pancreatic Cancer Diagnosis

Xiaowei Wang,Jun Gao,Yan Ren,Junjun Gu,Yiqi Du,Jie Chen,Zhendong Jin,Xianbao Zhan,Zhaoshen Li,Haojie Huang,Shunli Lv,Yanfang Gong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2011.281

2011-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNAB) is a useful tool in the diagnosis of pancreatic masses. Genetic analysis of these samples could increase the sensitivity and specificity of diagnosis. This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of a novel method for the detection of mutations in the KRAS (Kirsten rat sarcoma-2 virus) gene for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.METHODS: EUS-FNABs were performed on 82 patients with pancreatic masses, including 54 cases of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and 28 of non-malignant pancreatic masses. The biopsies were histopathologically and cytopathologically evaluated, and the detection of KRAS gene mutations (codons 12 and 13) was performed through peptide nucleic acid-directed polymerase chain reaction clamping and DNA sequencing.RESULTS: In the pancreatic cancer cases, 88.9% (48/54; 95% confidence interval (CI): 80.5-97.2%) had KRAS mutations, while 61.1% (33/54; 95% CI: 48.1-74.1%) were unequivocally diagnosed by histo/cytopathology. In the indeterminate patients (n = 49; diagnosed by EUS-FNA as either insufficient material to make a diagnosis, no malignancy, or suspicion of malignancy), there were 10 cases of pancreatic cancer with low serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) (<37 U/l) and 6 of these were KRAS mutations. The sensitivity of detection by KRAS mutations (76.2%) and the combination of KRAS mutations and serum CA19-9 (81%) were significantly higher than for serum CA19-9 alone (52.4%). A logistic regression model showed that the KRAS mutation was significant (odds ratio = 5.830; CI: 1.531-22.199, P = 0.01), but not serum CA19-9. In the non-malignant pancreatic masses (n = 28), KRAS mutations were detected in nine precancerous lesions.CONCLUSIONS: Our method for the detection of KRAS gene mutations may be useful to supplement histo/cytopathologic evaluations for pancreatic cancer, and is superior to serum CA19-9 in EUS-FNAB histo/cytopathology-indeterminate patients. Results warrant further verification in other patient populations.
Appraisal of EUS-guided needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy in the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions: A single Chinese center experience

Sijie Hao,Weiqun Ding,Yuqin Jin,Yang Di,Feng Yang,Hang He,Hengchao Li,Chen Jin,Deliang Fu,Liang Zhong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/eus.eus_9_20

2020-01-01

Endoscopic Ultrasound

Abstract:Background and Objectives: In the recent years, EUS is one of the routine procedures in the diagnosis of pancreatic diseases. EUS-guided needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (nCLE) is a novel minimally invasive imaging technique in diagnosis of pancreatic diseases. The pilot researches provided us some preliminary findings and conclusions with small samples, low rate of pathological correspondence. The aim of this current study was to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of EUS-guided nCLE in solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs) and pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) based on large samples. The date was obtained on nCLE imaging findings and high rate of correlation with pathology. Material and Methods: Patients enrolled in the study were underwent EUS-nCLE to achieve the nCLE images and diagnosis. Comparing with the final diagnosis, including surgical histopathological results or cyto-/histopathology through FNA, the efficacy and accuracy of nCLE in diagnosis in solid and cystic pancreatic lesions were evaluated. In other cases, clinical diagnoses were achieved based on the combination with clinical history, image findings and fluid analysis and cytology, by 3 independent committee members strongly agreed with a concordant diagnosis. Results: Totally 172 patients were enrolled into the study. The overall rate of final diagnosis was about 65% while 50% in cystic lesion. The mean sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value and accuracy of the nCLE in diagnosis of PDAC is 90.3%, 89.5%, 93.3%, 85.0% and 90.0% respectively. The efficacy and accuracy of pancreatic cystic lesions were very satisfying and some additional nCLE signs were found, including "black aggregates of cells, forming as gland-like structure, surrounding by fibro and vessels" in neuroendocrine tumors (NETs); "black columnar protrusions near vascular area" in the pseudopapillary solid tumor (SPT); macrophage in tuberculosis (TB) and small aggregate of black regular cells maybe corresponds to ovarian-like stroma in mucinous cystadenoma (MCN). In the study, 20 (11.6%) patients suffered complications, including symptomatic (5.2%) and asymptomatic (6.4%). Conclusions: nCLE observation could improve characterization of indeterminate cysts, or confirm the EUS impression, when cytological confirmation is missing. The technique may deliver information to better guide our clinical decisions.
Diagnostic Yield of Repeat Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy for Solid Pancreatic Lesions

Baptiste Camus,Anna Pellat,Alexandre Rouquette,Ugo Marchese,Anthony Dohan,Arthur Belle,Einas Abou Ali,Stanislas Chaussade,Romain Coriat,Maximilien Barret

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15143745

2023-07-25

Cancers

Abstract:Patients and methods: we performed a retrospective case-control study, including cases with repeat EUS FNB for a solid pancreatic lesion, matched on a 1:2 ratio on age, sex, tumor location and presence of chronic pancreatitis with cases diagnosed on the first EUS FNB. Results: thirty-four cases and 68 controls were included in the analysis. Diagnostic accuracies were 80% and 88% in the repeat and single EUS FNB groups, respectively (p = 0.824). The second EUS FNB had a sensitivity of 80%, a specificity of 75%, a positive predictive value of 96%, and a negative predictive value of 33%. Of the 34 patients in the repeat EUS FNB group, 25 (74%) had a positive diagnosis with the second EUS FNB, 4 (12%) after surgery due to a second negative EUS FNB, 4 (12%) during clinical follow-up, and 1 (3%) after a third EUS FNB. Of the 25 patients diagnosed on the repeat EUS FNB, 17 (68%) had pancreatic adenocarcinomas, 2 (8%) neuroendocrine tumors, 2 (8%) other autoimmune pancreatitis, 2 (8%) chronic pancreatitis nodules, 1 (4%) renal cancer metastasis, and 1 (4%) other malignant diagnostic. There were no complications reported after the second EUS FNB in this study. Conclusion: repeat EUS FNB made a diagnosis in three fourths of patients with solid pancreatic lesions and a first negative EUS FNB, with 26% of benign lesions. This supports the repetition of EUS FNB sampling in this clinical situation.

oncology

Protein tyrosine dephosphorylation during copper-induced cell death in rice roots.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle biopsy alone vs. EUS-guided fine needle aspiration with rapid onsite evaluation in pancreatic lesions: a multicenter randomized trial

Direct Comparison of Elastography Endoscopic Ultrasound Fine-Needle Aspiration and B-Mode Endoscopic Ultrasound Fine-Needle Aspiration in Diagnosing Solid Pancreatic Lesions

EUS-FNA Biopsy for Pancreatic Mass

A Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration and Fine-Needle Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions

Comparison of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for diagnosis of solid pancreatic mass lesions: a meta-analysis of prospective studies

Percutaneous ultrasound and endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions: An analysis of 1074 lesions

Endoscopic ultrasound in diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions: Elastography or contrast-enhanced harmonic alone versus the combination

A Prospective Multicenter Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing FNA and FNB in the Diagnosis of Solid Masses

Impact of Inconclusive Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration Results in the Management and Outcome of Patients with Solid Pancreatic Masses

Analysis of Fine-Needle Biopsy Vs Fine-Needle Aspiration in Diagnosis of Pancreatic and Abdominal Masses: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial.

Endoscopic Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound and Fine-Needle Aspiration or Biopsy for the Diagnosis of Pancreatic Solid Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound combined with percutaneous ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions

Diagnostic Accuracy of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration: A Single-Center Analysis

EUS-FNA versus EUS-FNB in Pancreatic Solid Lesions ≤ 15 mm

Factors Affecting the Accuracy of Endoscopic Ultrasound‐guided Fine Needle Aspiration for the Diagnosis of Small (≤20 Mm) Pancreatic Lesions

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) from peritoneal lesions: a prospective cohort pilot study

S194 How Good is EUS Elastography for Discriminating Malignant From Benign Solid Pancreatic Masses? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Detection Of Kras Gene Mutations In Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsy For Improving Pancreatic Cancer Diagnosis

Appraisal of EUS-guided needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy in the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions: A single Chinese center experience

Diagnostic Yield of Repeat Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy for Solid Pancreatic Lesions