Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration with Fine-Needle Biopsy for Solid Gastrointestinal Lesions: A Randomized Crossover Single-Center study

IF 0.4 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
S. Afzalpurkar, V. Rai, Nikhil Sonthalia, G. Rodge, Awanesh Tewary, Mahesh K Goenka
{"title":"Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration with Fine-Needle Biopsy for Solid Gastrointestinal Lesions: A Randomized Crossover Single-Center study","authors":"S. Afzalpurkar, V. Rai, Nikhil Sonthalia, G. Rodge, Awanesh Tewary, Mahesh K Goenka","doi":"10.1055/s-0042-1760276","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background/Aims  The purpose of this study was to compare the results of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (FNB) performed at the same site in a single session in the same patient. Methods  Consecutive patients with solid gastrointestinal lesions referred for EUS evaluation underwent EUS-FNA and FNB using 22G needles with three and two passes, respectively, in the same session. Patients were randomized to one group having EUS-FNA first followed by EUS-FNB, while other group had EUS-FNB first followed by EUS-FNA. Results  Total 50 patients (31 male) of mean age 56.58 ± 14.2 years and mean lesion size of 2.6 (±2) cm were included. The Kappa agreement for final diagnosis for FNA and FNB was 0.841 and 0.61, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of FNA versus FNB were 85.19 versus 62.96% and 100 versus 100%, respectively, in comparison with final diagnosis. Conclusion  Both EUS-FNA and FNB are equally safe when compared between the two techniques simultaneously in same lesion. EUS-FNA is better than FNB in terms of sensitivity, diagnostic accuracy, and tissue yield for solid GI lesion. However, the specificity and positive predictive value were equally good for both the modalities.","PeriodicalId":43098,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Digestive Endoscopy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Digestive Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1760276","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Background/Aims  The purpose of this study was to compare the results of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (FNB) performed at the same site in a single session in the same patient. Methods  Consecutive patients with solid gastrointestinal lesions referred for EUS evaluation underwent EUS-FNA and FNB using 22G needles with three and two passes, respectively, in the same session. Patients were randomized to one group having EUS-FNA first followed by EUS-FNB, while other group had EUS-FNB first followed by EUS-FNA. Results  Total 50 patients (31 male) of mean age 56.58 ± 14.2 years and mean lesion size of 2.6 (±2) cm were included. The Kappa agreement for final diagnosis for FNA and FNB was 0.841 and 0.61, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of FNA versus FNB were 85.19 versus 62.96% and 100 versus 100%, respectively, in comparison with final diagnosis. Conclusion  Both EUS-FNA and FNB are equally safe when compared between the two techniques simultaneously in same lesion. EUS-FNA is better than FNB in terms of sensitivity, diagnostic accuracy, and tissue yield for solid GI lesion. However, the specificity and positive predictive value were equally good for both the modalities.
内镜超声引导下细针抽吸与细针活检治疗胃肠道实性病变的比较:一项随机交叉单中心研究
背景/目的本研究的目的是比较内镜超声引导下同一部位行细针穿刺(EUS-FNA)和细针活检(FNB)的结果。方法连续有消化道实性病变的患者行EUS- fna和FNB,采用22G针,在同一疗程内分别进行3次和2次EUS- fna检查。患者被随机分为两组,一组先进行EUS-FNA后进行EUS-FNB,另一组先进行EUS-FNB后进行EUS-FNA。结果50例患者,男性31例,平均年龄56.58±14.2岁,平均病变大小2.6(±2)cm。最终诊断FNA和FNB的Kappa同意度分别为0.841和0.61。与最终诊断相比,FNA和FNB的敏感性和特异性分别为85.19和62.96%,100和100%。结论EUS-FNA与FNB在同一病灶同时应用时安全性相同。EUS-FNA对实性胃肠道病变的敏感性、诊断准确性和组织良率均优于FNB。然而,两种方式的特异性和阳性预测值同样好。
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
Journal of Digestive Endoscopy
Journal of Digestive Endoscopy GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
自引率
28.60%
发文量
35
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Digestive Endoscopy (JDE) is the official publication of the Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy of India that has over 1500 members. The society comprises of several key clinicians in this field from different parts of the country and has key international speakers in its advisory board. JDE is a double-blinded peer-reviewed, print and online journal publishing quarterly. It focuses on original investigations, reviews, case reports and clinical images as well as key investigations including but not limited to cholangiopancreatography, fluoroscopy, capsule endoscopy etc.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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