Comparison of the diagnostic efficacy between fine needle aspiration needles and end-cutting fine needle biopsy needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition for solid pancreatic lesions
10.3760/cma.j.cn321463-20240314-00331
- VernacularTitle:细针穿刺抽吸针与末端切割型细针穿刺活检针用于超声内镜引导胰腺实性占位诊断的效能比较
- Author:
Yundi PAN
1
;
Chunhua ZHOU
;
Minmin ZHANG
;
Taojing RAN
;
Xianzheng QIN
;
Kui WANG
;
Yao ZHANG
;
Tingting GONG
;
Ling ZHANG
;
Dong WANG
;
Xiangyi HE
;
Wei WU
;
Benyan ZHANG
;
Lili GAO
;
Duowu ZOU
Author Information
1. 上海交通大学医学院附属瑞金医院消化内科，上海 200025
- Keywords:
Biopsy, fine-needle;
Endoscopic ultrasound;
Fine needle aspiration/biopsy;
Solid pancreatic lesions
- From:
Chinese Journal of Digestive Endoscopy
2024;41(11):864-870
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the diagnostic efficacy of 22 G fine needle aspiration (FNA) needles and 22 G end-cutting fine needle biopsy (FNB) needles for solid pancreatic lesion using both cytological and histological examination.Methods:Clinical data of 116 patients who underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNA/FNB) at the Digestive Endoscopy Center of Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine from June 2022 to March 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. Sixty-three patients sampled with 22 G FNA needles were the FNA group, and 53 sampled with 22 G FNB needles were the FNB group. The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and cytological and histological diagnostic yield of FNA needles and FNB needles for solid pancreatic lesions were compared.Results:There were no significant differences in age, gender, lesion location, lesion size, or the number of passes between the FNA group and the FNB group ( P>0.05). There were no significant differences in the diagnostic accuracy [93.7% (59/63) VS 90.6% (48/53), P=0.730], sensitivity [93.0% (53/57) VS 90.2% (46/51), P=0.732], specificity [100.0% (6/6) VS 100.0% (2/2), P=1.000], positive predictive value [100.0% (53/53) VS 100.0% (46/46), P=1.000] and negative predictive value [60.0% (6/10) VS 28.6% (2/7), P=0.335] of combined cytology and histology in distinguishing benign and malignant lesions between the two groups. In the FNA group, the diagnostic accuracy of combined cytology and histology was higher than cytology alone [93.7% (59/63) VS 81.0% (51/63), P=0.008], and was higher than histology alone without statistical significance [93.7% (59/63) VS 87.3% (55/63), P=0.125]. In the FNB group, the diagnostic accuracy of combined cytology and histology was higher than cytology alone [90.6% (48/53) VS 69.8% (37/53), P=0.001], but not than histology alone [90.6% (48/53) VS 90.6% (48/53)， P=1.000]. For solid masses located in pancreatic body/tail, the diagnostic accuracy for malignancy by histology using FNB needles tended to be higher than that of FNA needles [100.0% (17/17) VS 81.3% (26/32), P=0.080]. Conclusion:Both FNA needles and FNB needles exhibit adequate diagnostic yield for solid pancreatic masses when combining cytology and histology. FNB needles may offer a higher histological diagnostic yield.
