Comparison of contrast-enhanced versus conventional EUS-guided FNA/fine-needle biopsy in diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions: a randomized controlled trial
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Cho, In Rae | - |
dc.contributor.author | Jeong, Seok-Hoo | - |
dc.contributor.author | Kang, Huapyong | - |
dc.contributor.author | Kim, Eui Joo | - |
dc.contributor.author | Kim, Yeon Suk | - |
dc.contributor.author | Cho, Jae Hee | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-07-24T14:40:36Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2021-07-24T14:40:36Z | - |
dc.date.created | 2021-04-19 | - |
dc.date.issued | 2021-08 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0016-5107 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/gachon/handle/2020.sw.gachon/81742 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Background and Aims: Contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS (CEH-EUS) is useful in the differential diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs). However, there is lack of verification about the usefulness of CEH-EUS–guided FNA/fine-needle biopsy (FNB) sampling. This study aimed to investigate the usefulness of CEH-EUS–guided FNA/FNB sampling without on-site cytopathology. Methods: Patients with SPLs were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned (1:1) to 2 parallel groups, the interventional group (CEH-EUS) or the control group (conventional EUS). The diagnostic sensitivity and optimal number of needle passes for pathologic diagnosis were investigated and compared between groups. Results: Two hundred forty patients were enrolled from March 2016 to September 2019, with 120 patients assigned to each group. Pancreatic malignancies and neuroendocrine tumors were found in 202 (90.83%) and 9 (3.75%) patients, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of age, sex, lesion size (30.96 ± 12.09 mm in the CEH-EUS group vs 33.09 ± 16.39 mm in the conventional EUS group; P = .252), lesion location, adverse event rate, and disease distribution. The diagnostic sensitivity values in the CEH-EUS and conventional EUS groups were 85.8% and 88.3%, respectively (P = .564). All patients in the conventional EUS group and most in the CEH-EUS group received a pathologic diagnosis within 3 needle passes. Conclusions: Diagnostic sensitivity for SPLs was not different between the CEH-EUS and conventional EUS groups, and no independent factors were found that could improve diagnostic sensitivity. CEH-EUS–guided FNA/FNB sampling does not need to be used routinely and may be selectively considered for small, indeterminate lesions. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT 0001840.) © 2021 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy | - |
dc.language | 영어 | - |
dc.language.iso | en | - |
dc.publisher | MOSBY-ELSEVIER | - |
dc.relation.isPartOf | Gastrointestinal Endoscopy | - |
dc.title | Comparison of contrast-enhanced versus conventional EUS-guided FNA/fine-needle biopsy in diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions: a randomized controlled trial | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.type.rims | ART | - |
dc.description.journalClass | 1 | - |
dc.identifier.wosid | 000672795700012 | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1016/j.gie.2021.01.018 | - |
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitation | Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, v.94, no.2, pp.303 - 310 | - |
dc.description.isOpenAccess | N | - |
dc.identifier.scopusid | 2-s2.0-85103976552 | - |
dc.citation.endPage | 310 | - |
dc.citation.startPage | 303 | - |
dc.citation.title | Gastrointestinal Endoscopy | - |
dc.citation.volume | 94 | - |
dc.citation.number | 2 | - |
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor | Kang, Huapyong | - |
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor | Kim, Eui Joo | - |
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor | Kim, Yeon Suk | - |
dc.type.docType | Article in Press | - |
dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | scie | - |
dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | scopus | - |
Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
1342, Seongnam-daero, Sujeong-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea(13120)031-750-5114
COPYRIGHT 2020 Gachon University All Rights Reserved.
Certain data included herein are derived from the © Web of Science of Clarivate Analytics. All rights reserved.
You may not copy or re-distribute this material in whole or in part without the prior written consent of Clarivate Analytics.