Accuracy and Quality Assessment of EUS-FNA: A Single-Center Large Cohort of Biopsies.

Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy Pub Date : 2012-01-01 Epub Date: 2012-10-31 DOI:10.1155/2012/139563
Benjamin Ephraim Bluen, Jesse Lachter, Iyad Khamaysi, Yassin Kamal, Leonid Malkin, Ruth Keren, Ron Epelbaum, Yoram Kluger
{"title":"Accuracy and Quality Assessment of EUS-FNA: A Single-Center Large Cohort of Biopsies.","authors":"Benjamin Ephraim Bluen,&nbsp;Jesse Lachter,&nbsp;Iyad Khamaysi,&nbsp;Yassin Kamal,&nbsp;Leonid Malkin,&nbsp;Ruth Keren,&nbsp;Ron Epelbaum,&nbsp;Yoram Kluger","doi":"10.1155/2012/139563","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Introduction. Thorough quality control (QC) study with systemic monitoring and evaluation is crucial to optimizing the effectiveness of EUS-FNA. Methods. Retrospective analysis was composed of investigating consecutive patient files that underwent EUS-FNA. QC specifically focused on diagnostic accuracy, impacts on preexisting diagnoses, and case management. Results. 268 patient files were evaluated. EUS-FNA cytology helped establish accurate diagnoses in 92.54% (248/268) of patients. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy were 83%, 100%, 100%, 91.6%, and 94%, respectively. The most common biopsy site was the pancreas (68%). The most accurate location for EUS-FNA was the esophagus, 13/13 (100%), followed by the pancreas (89.6%). EUS-FNA was least informative for abdominal lymph nodes (70.5%). After FNA and followup, eight false negatives for tumors were found (3%), while 7.5% of samples still lacked a definitive diagnosis. Discussion. QC suggests that the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA might be improved further by (1) taking more FNA passes from suspected lesions, (2) optimizing needle selection (3) having an experienced echo-endoscopist available during the learning curve, and (4) having a cytologist present during the procedure. QC also identified remediable reporting errors. In conclusion, QC study is valuable in identifying weaknesses and thereby augmenting the effectiveness of EUS-FNA.</p>","PeriodicalId":11288,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy","volume":"2012 ","pages":"139563"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2012/139563","citationCount":"23","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/139563","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2012/10/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 23

Abstract

Introduction. Thorough quality control (QC) study with systemic monitoring and evaluation is crucial to optimizing the effectiveness of EUS-FNA. Methods. Retrospective analysis was composed of investigating consecutive patient files that underwent EUS-FNA. QC specifically focused on diagnostic accuracy, impacts on preexisting diagnoses, and case management. Results. 268 patient files were evaluated. EUS-FNA cytology helped establish accurate diagnoses in 92.54% (248/268) of patients. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy were 83%, 100%, 100%, 91.6%, and 94%, respectively. The most common biopsy site was the pancreas (68%). The most accurate location for EUS-FNA was the esophagus, 13/13 (100%), followed by the pancreas (89.6%). EUS-FNA was least informative for abdominal lymph nodes (70.5%). After FNA and followup, eight false negatives for tumors were found (3%), while 7.5% of samples still lacked a definitive diagnosis. Discussion. QC suggests that the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA might be improved further by (1) taking more FNA passes from suspected lesions, (2) optimizing needle selection (3) having an experienced echo-endoscopist available during the learning curve, and (4) having a cytologist present during the procedure. QC also identified remediable reporting errors. In conclusion, QC study is valuable in identifying weaknesses and thereby augmenting the effectiveness of EUS-FNA.

EUS-FNA的准确性和质量评估:一项单中心大队列活检。
介绍。深入的质量控制研究和系统的监测和评价是优化EUS-FNA效果的关键。方法。回顾性分析包括调查连续接受EUS-FNA的患者档案。质量控制特别关注诊断的准确性、对已有诊断的影响和病例管理。结果:共评估268例患者档案。EUS-FNA细胞学对92.54%(248/268)患者的诊断有帮助。灵敏度为83%,特异性为100%,PPV为100%,NPV为91.6%,准确率为94%。最常见的活检部位是胰腺(68%)。EUS-FNA最准确的位置是食道,13/13(100%),其次是胰腺(89.6%)。EUS-FNA对腹部淋巴结的信息最少(70.5%)。FNA和随访后,发现8例肿瘤假阴性(3%),而7.5%的样本仍缺乏明确的诊断。讨论。QC建议,EUS-FNA的诊断准确性可以通过以下方式进一步提高:(1)从疑似病变处进行更多的FNA检查,(2)优化针头选择,(3)在学习曲线期间有经验丰富的超声内镜医师,(4)在手术过程中有细胞学家在场。QC还发现了可补救的报告错误。总之,质量控制研究对于识别EUS-FNA的缺陷从而提高其有效性是有价值的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信