Suction versus slow-pull for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic tumors: a prospective randomized trial

Suction (S) is commonly used to improve cell acquisition during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). Slow-pull (SP) sampling is another technique that might procure good quality specimens with less bloodiness. We aimed to determine if SP improves the diagnostic yield of EUS...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:HPB (Oxford, England) England), 2020-05, Vol.22 (5), p.779-786
Hauptverfasser: Cheng, Spencer, Brunaldi, Vitor O., Minata, Mauricio K., Chacon, Danielle A., da Silveira, Eduardo B., de Moura, Diogo TH, dos Santos, Marcos EL, Matuguma, Sergio E., Chaves, Dalton M., França, Raony F., Jacomo, Alfredo L., Artifon, Everson LA
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 786
container_issue 5
container_start_page 779
container_title HPB (Oxford, England)
container_volume 22
creator Cheng, Spencer
Brunaldi, Vitor O.
Minata, Mauricio K.
Chacon, Danielle A.
da Silveira, Eduardo B.
de Moura, Diogo TH
dos Santos, Marcos EL
Matuguma, Sergio E.
Chaves, Dalton M.
França, Raony F.
Jacomo, Alfredo L.
Artifon, Everson LA
description Suction (S) is commonly used to improve cell acquisition during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). Slow-pull (SP) sampling is another technique that might procure good quality specimens with less bloodiness. We aimed to determine if SP improves the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses. Patients with pancreatic solid masses were randomized to four needle passes with both techniques in an alternate fashion. Sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values were calculated. Cellularity and bloodiness of cytological samples were assessed and compared according to the technique. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of suction vs. SP were 95.2% vs. 92.3%; 100% vs. 100; 95.7% vs. 93%, respectively. As to the association of methods, they were 95.6, 100 and 96%, respectively. Positive predictive values for S and SP were 100%. There was no difference in diagnostic yield between S and SP (p = 0.344). Cellularity of samples obtained with SP and Suction were equivalent in both smear evaluation (p = 0.119) and cell-block (0.980). Bloodiness of SP and suction techniques were similar as well. S and SP techniques provide equivalent sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. Association of methods seems to improve diagnostic yield. Suction does not increase the bloodiness of samples compared to slow-pull.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.hpb.2019.10.007
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2311924199</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1365182X19307385</els_id><sourcerecordid>2311924199</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-9573e661b31cbce7f386c9093c7dde0ae222004c745327a8e110eaf21e0f6dc63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE2PFCEQhonRuOvqD_BiOHrpkYJuGPRkNn4lm3hwTbwRBqqVCd200MxG7_u_ZZzV456gyFtPFQ8hz4FtgIF8td_8WHYbzkC3esOYekDOoVeq44PqH7a7kEMHW_7tjDwpZc8Yb236MTkTIJXS2-Gc3H6pbg1ppgfMpRZaYrrplhojHVOmOPtUXFqCozWu2ZZUZ999r8Gjp2OYsZsRfURqyxKy_QtKI13s7DK20tG1TimX19TSJaeyYBt2QJptA0_hd6OsOdj4lDwabSz47O68IF_fv7u-_Nhdff7w6fLtVeeElmunByVQStgJcDuHahRb6TTTwinvkVnknDPWO9UPgiu7RQCGduSAbJTeSXFBXp64bZmfFctqplAcxmhnTLUYLgA070HrFoVT1LW9S8bRLDlMNv8ywMzRvtmbZt8c7R-fmv3W8-IOX3cT-v8d_3S3wJtTANsnDwGzKS7g7NCH3NQYn8I9-D8ELZjI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2311924199</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Suction versus slow-pull for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic tumors: a prospective randomized trial</title><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Cheng, Spencer ; Brunaldi, Vitor O. ; Minata, Mauricio K. ; Chacon, Danielle A. ; da Silveira, Eduardo B. ; de Moura, Diogo TH ; dos Santos, Marcos EL ; Matuguma, Sergio E. ; Chaves, Dalton M. ; França, Raony F. ; Jacomo, Alfredo L. ; Artifon, Everson LA</creator><creatorcontrib>Cheng, Spencer ; Brunaldi, Vitor O. ; Minata, Mauricio K. ; Chacon, Danielle A. ; da Silveira, Eduardo B. ; de Moura, Diogo TH ; dos Santos, Marcos EL ; Matuguma, Sergio E. ; Chaves, Dalton M. ; França, Raony F. ; Jacomo, Alfredo L. ; Artifon, Everson LA</creatorcontrib><description>Suction (S) is commonly used to improve cell acquisition during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). Slow-pull (SP) sampling is another technique that might procure good quality specimens with less bloodiness. We aimed to determine if SP improves the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses. Patients with pancreatic solid masses were randomized to four needle passes with both techniques in an alternate fashion. Sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values were calculated. Cellularity and bloodiness of cytological samples were assessed and compared according to the technique. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of suction vs. SP were 95.2% vs. 92.3%; 100% vs. 100; 95.7% vs. 93%, respectively. As to the association of methods, they were 95.6, 100 and 96%, respectively. Positive predictive values for S and SP were 100%. There was no difference in diagnostic yield between S and SP (p = 0.344). Cellularity of samples obtained with SP and Suction were equivalent in both smear evaluation (p = 0.119) and cell-block (0.980). Bloodiness of SP and suction techniques were similar as well. S and SP techniques provide equivalent sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. Association of methods seems to improve diagnostic yield. Suction does not increase the bloodiness of samples compared to slow-pull.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1365-182X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1477-2574</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2019.10.007</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31677985</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><ispartof>HPB (Oxford, England), 2020-05, Vol.22 (5), p.779-786</ispartof><rights>2019 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2019 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-9573e661b31cbce7f386c9093c7dde0ae222004c745327a8e110eaf21e0f6dc63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-9573e661b31cbce7f386c9093c7dde0ae222004c745327a8e110eaf21e0f6dc63</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31677985$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cheng, Spencer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brunaldi, Vitor O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Minata, Mauricio K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chacon, Danielle A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>da Silveira, Eduardo B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Moura, Diogo TH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>dos Santos, Marcos EL</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Matuguma, Sergio E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chaves, Dalton M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>França, Raony F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jacomo, Alfredo L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Artifon, Everson LA</creatorcontrib><title>Suction versus slow-pull for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic tumors: a prospective randomized trial</title><title>HPB (Oxford, England)</title><addtitle>HPB (Oxford)</addtitle><description>Suction (S) is commonly used to improve cell acquisition during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). Slow-pull (SP) sampling is another technique that might procure good quality specimens with less bloodiness. We aimed to determine if SP improves the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses. Patients with pancreatic solid masses were randomized to four needle passes with both techniques in an alternate fashion. Sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values were calculated. Cellularity and bloodiness of cytological samples were assessed and compared according to the technique. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of suction vs. SP were 95.2% vs. 92.3%; 100% vs. 100; 95.7% vs. 93%, respectively. As to the association of methods, they were 95.6, 100 and 96%, respectively. Positive predictive values for S and SP were 100%. There was no difference in diagnostic yield between S and SP (p = 0.344). Cellularity of samples obtained with SP and Suction were equivalent in both smear evaluation (p = 0.119) and cell-block (0.980). Bloodiness of SP and suction techniques were similar as well. S and SP techniques provide equivalent sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. Association of methods seems to improve diagnostic yield. Suction does not increase the bloodiness of samples compared to slow-pull.</description><issn>1365-182X</issn><issn>1477-2574</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kE2PFCEQhonRuOvqD_BiOHrpkYJuGPRkNn4lm3hwTbwRBqqVCd200MxG7_u_ZZzV456gyFtPFQ8hz4FtgIF8td_8WHYbzkC3esOYekDOoVeq44PqH7a7kEMHW_7tjDwpZc8Yb236MTkTIJXS2-Gc3H6pbg1ppgfMpRZaYrrplhojHVOmOPtUXFqCozWu2ZZUZ999r8Gjp2OYsZsRfURqyxKy_QtKI13s7DK20tG1TimX19TSJaeyYBt2QJptA0_hd6OsOdj4lDwabSz47O68IF_fv7u-_Nhdff7w6fLtVeeElmunByVQStgJcDuHahRb6TTTwinvkVnknDPWO9UPgiu7RQCGduSAbJTeSXFBXp64bZmfFctqplAcxmhnTLUYLgA070HrFoVT1LW9S8bRLDlMNv8ywMzRvtmbZt8c7R-fmv3W8-IOX3cT-v8d_3S3wJtTANsnDwGzKS7g7NCH3NQYn8I9-D8ELZjI</recordid><startdate>202005</startdate><enddate>202005</enddate><creator>Cheng, Spencer</creator><creator>Brunaldi, Vitor O.</creator><creator>Minata, Mauricio K.</creator><creator>Chacon, Danielle A.</creator><creator>da Silveira, Eduardo B.</creator><creator>de Moura, Diogo TH</creator><creator>dos Santos, Marcos EL</creator><creator>Matuguma, Sergio E.</creator><creator>Chaves, Dalton M.</creator><creator>França, Raony F.</creator><creator>Jacomo, Alfredo L.</creator><creator>Artifon, Everson LA</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202005</creationdate><title>Suction versus slow-pull for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic tumors: a prospective randomized trial</title><author>Cheng, Spencer ; Brunaldi, Vitor O. ; Minata, Mauricio K. ; Chacon, Danielle A. ; da Silveira, Eduardo B. ; de Moura, Diogo TH ; dos Santos, Marcos EL ; Matuguma, Sergio E. ; Chaves, Dalton M. ; França, Raony F. ; Jacomo, Alfredo L. ; Artifon, Everson LA</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-9573e661b31cbce7f386c9093c7dde0ae222004c745327a8e110eaf21e0f6dc63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cheng, Spencer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brunaldi, Vitor O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Minata, Mauricio K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chacon, Danielle A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>da Silveira, Eduardo B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Moura, Diogo TH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>dos Santos, Marcos EL</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Matuguma, Sergio E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chaves, Dalton M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>França, Raony F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jacomo, Alfredo L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Artifon, Everson LA</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>HPB (Oxford, England)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cheng, Spencer</au><au>Brunaldi, Vitor O.</au><au>Minata, Mauricio K.</au><au>Chacon, Danielle A.</au><au>da Silveira, Eduardo B.</au><au>de Moura, Diogo TH</au><au>dos Santos, Marcos EL</au><au>Matuguma, Sergio E.</au><au>Chaves, Dalton M.</au><au>França, Raony F.</au><au>Jacomo, Alfredo L.</au><au>Artifon, Everson LA</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Suction versus slow-pull for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic tumors: a prospective randomized trial</atitle><jtitle>HPB (Oxford, England)</jtitle><addtitle>HPB (Oxford)</addtitle><date>2020-05</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>779</spage><epage>786</epage><pages>779-786</pages><issn>1365-182X</issn><eissn>1477-2574</eissn><abstract>Suction (S) is commonly used to improve cell acquisition during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). Slow-pull (SP) sampling is another technique that might procure good quality specimens with less bloodiness. We aimed to determine if SP improves the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses. Patients with pancreatic solid masses were randomized to four needle passes with both techniques in an alternate fashion. Sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values were calculated. Cellularity and bloodiness of cytological samples were assessed and compared according to the technique. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of suction vs. SP were 95.2% vs. 92.3%; 100% vs. 100; 95.7% vs. 93%, respectively. As to the association of methods, they were 95.6, 100 and 96%, respectively. Positive predictive values for S and SP were 100%. There was no difference in diagnostic yield between S and SP (p = 0.344). Cellularity of samples obtained with SP and Suction were equivalent in both smear evaluation (p = 0.119) and cell-block (0.980). Bloodiness of SP and suction techniques were similar as well. S and SP techniques provide equivalent sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. Association of methods seems to improve diagnostic yield. Suction does not increase the bloodiness of samples compared to slow-pull.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>31677985</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.hpb.2019.10.007</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1365-182X
ispartof HPB (Oxford, England), 2020-05, Vol.22 (5), p.779-786
issn 1365-182X
1477-2574
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2311924199
source EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection
title Suction versus slow-pull for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic tumors: a prospective randomized trial
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T05%3A11%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Suction%20versus%20slow-pull%20for%20endoscopic%20ultrasound-guided%20fine-needle%20aspiration%20of%20pancreatic%20tumors:%20a%20prospective%20randomized%20trial&rft.jtitle=HPB%20(Oxford,%20England)&rft.au=Cheng,%20Spencer&rft.date=2020-05&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=779&rft.epage=786&rft.pages=779-786&rft.issn=1365-182X&rft.eissn=1477-2574&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.hpb.2019.10.007&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2311924199%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2311924199&rft_id=info:pmid/31677985&rft_els_id=S1365182X19307385&rfr_iscdi=true