高级检索
当前位置: 首页 > 详情页

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

文献详情

资源类型:
WOS体系:
Pubmed体系:

收录情况: ◇ SCIE

单位: [1]Huazhong Univ Sci & Technol,Tongji Hosp,Tongji Med Coll,Dept Gastroenterol & Hepatol,Endoscopy Unit,Wuhan,Hubei,Peoples R China [2]Chinese Acad Med Sci, Canc Inst & Hosp, Dept Endoscopy, PanjiayuanNanli 17, Beijing 100021, Peoples R China [3]Peking Union Med Coll, PanjiayuanNanli 17, Beijing 100021, Peoples R China [4]Fudan Univ, Shanghai Canc Ctr, Dept Endoscopy, Shanghai 200032, Peoples R China [5]Zhejiang Univ, Affiliated Hosp 1, Coll Med, Dept Hepatobiliary Surg, Hangzhou 310009, Zhejiang, Peoples R China [6]Sun Yat Sen Univ, Canc Ctr, Dept Endoscopy, Guangzhou 510060, Guangdong, Peoples R China
出处:
ISSN:

关键词: Comparison Pathology Prognostic Factor Slow Pull

摘要:
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.

基金:
语种:
被引次数:
WOS:
PubmedID:
中科院(CAS)分区:
出版当年[2017]版:
大类 | 1 区 医学
小类 | 2 区 胃肠肝病学
最新[2025]版:
大类 | 1 区 医学
小类 | 1 区 胃肠肝病学
JCR分区:
出版当年[2016]版:
Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
最新[2023]版:
Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY

影响因子: 最新[2023版] 最新五年平均 出版当年[2016版] 出版当年五年平均 出版前一年[2015版] 出版后一年[2017版]

第一作者:
第一作者单位: [1]Huazhong Univ Sci & Technol,Tongji Hosp,Tongji Med Coll,Dept Gastroenterol & Hepatol,Endoscopy Unit,Wuhan,Hubei,Peoples R China
通讯作者:
通讯机构: [2]Chinese Acad Med Sci, Canc Inst & Hosp, Dept Endoscopy, PanjiayuanNanli 17, Beijing 100021, Peoples R China [3]Peking Union Med Coll, PanjiayuanNanli 17, Beijing 100021, Peoples R China
推荐引用方式(GB/T 7714):
APA:
MLA:

资源点击量:426 今日访问量:2 总访问量:410 更新日期:2025-04-01 建议使用谷歌、火狐浏览器 常见问题

版权所有:重庆聚合科技有限公司 渝ICP备12007440号-3 地址:重庆市两江新区泰山大道西段8号坤恩国际商务中心16层(401121)