» Articles » PMID: 26694852

Randomized Noninferiority Trial Comparing Diagnostic Yield of Cytopathologist-guided Versus 7 Passes for EUS-FNA of Pancreatic Masses

Overview
Journal Dig Endosc
Date 2015 Dec 24
PMID 26694852
Citations 24
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background And Aim: To improve diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in solid pancreatic lesions, on-site cytology review has been recommended. Because this is not widely available throughout the world, the aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA performed with rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) versus 7 FNA passes without ROSE in pancreatic masses.

Methods: In this multicenter randomized noninferiority trial, patients were randomized to ROSE versus 7 passes into a solid pancreatic mass. On the basis of the absolute difference in diagnostic yield with 7 passes versus cytopathologist-guidance, the noninferiority margin for the difference in diagnostic yield was defined as -15%. Definite diagnosis was defined to include positive for malignancy, neoplastic cells present, and negative for malignancy.

Results: A total of 142 patients were randomized with 73 in the cytopathologist arm and 69 in the 7 passes arm. Diagnostic yield for definite diagnosis was 78.3% with 7 passes and 78.1% with cytopathology guidance. With an absolute difference 0.2%, 95% CI -14.4 to 14.6, performing 7 passes was noninferior to cytopathologist-guided EUS-FNA. There was no significant difference in complications or time to perform FNA. A median of 5 passes were performed with ROSE. The median charge with onsite cytopathology was significantly greater than performing 7 passes [$1058 (958, 1445) versus $375 (275, 460), p<0.001].

Conclusions: The diagnostic yield for performing 7 passes during EUS-FNA into solid pancreatic masses is noninferior with lower charge compared to cytopathologist-guidance. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Citing Articles

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Pancreatic Tissue Sampling: Lesion Assessment, Needles, and Techniques.

Dhar J, Samanta J, Nabi Z, Aggarwal M, Conti Bellocchi M, Facciorusso A Medicina (Kaunas). 2025; 60(12.

PMID: 39768901 PMC: 11727853. DOI: 10.3390/medicina60122021.


Comparing the diagnostic adequacy of 25-Gauge fork-tip franseen reverse-bevel-type needles in EUS-guided tissue acquisition: A prospective randomized study with a retrospective control.

Haig A, John A, Vaska K, Banh X, Huelsen A Endosc Ultrasound. 2024; 13(1):22-27.

PMID: 38947121 PMC: 11213604. DOI: 10.1097/eus.0000000000000025.


Comparison of the diagnostic yield of rapid versus non-rapid onsite evaluation in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology of solid pancreatic lesions.

Jaleel R, George J, Thomas A, Patel L, John A, Kurien R Ann Gastroenterol. 2024; 37(3):371-376.

PMID: 38779649 PMC: 11107408. DOI: 10.20524/aog.2024.0879.


Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Diagnosis of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.

Chatterjee A, Shah J Diagnostics (Basel). 2024; 14(1).

PMID: 38201387 PMC: 10802852. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14010078.


Tissue processing of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration specimens from solid pancreatic lesions.

Notohara K, Nakamura K J Med Ultrason (2001). 2023; 51(2):261-274.

PMID: 38051462 DOI: 10.1007/s10396-023-01387-8.