Factors predicting the number of EUS-guided fine-needle passes for diagnosis of pancreatic malignancies

Background:  The factors that affect the number of needle passes needed to diagnose pancreatic malignancies using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) –guided fine-needle aspiration are unknown. Methods:  Patient and endosonographic data were prospectively recorded on 121 consecutive patients with pancreatic...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Gastrointestinal endoscopy 2000-02, Vol.51 (2), p.184-190
Hauptverfasser: Erickson, Richard A., Sayage-Rabie, Lubna, Beissner, R.Stephen
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background:  The factors that affect the number of needle passes needed to diagnose pancreatic malignancies using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) –guided fine-needle aspiration are unknown. Methods:  Patient and endosonographic data were prospectively recorded on 121 consecutive patients with pancreatic malignancy. Of these, 110 underwent EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration. A cytopathologist was in attendance for all aspiration procedures. Results:  Initial EUS detected a pancreatic mass in 96% of cases; 23% of these were not seen by computed tomography. EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration was performed in 109 of 110 (99%) patients, including 95 masses, 7 lymph nodes, and 7 hepatic metastases. EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration provided a cytologic diagnosis of malignancy in 104 of 110 (95%). Only tumor differentiation and the site of aspiration affected the number of passes. Conclusions:  With the participation of a cytopathologist, EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration can diagnose pancreatic malignancies with a high degree of accuracy. Only the aspiration site (mass versus node/liver metastasis) can be used to direct the number of passes if a cytopathologist is not present. Without a cytopathologist in attendance, 5 to 6 passes should be made for pancreatic masses and 2 to 3 for liver metastases or lymph nodes; however, this approach will be associated with a 10% to 15% reduction in definitive cytologic diagnoses, extra procedure time, increased risk and additional needles. (Gastrointest Endosc 2000;51:184-90.)
ISSN:0016-5107
1097-6779
DOI:10.1016/S0016-5107(00)70416-0