Diagnostic yield and safety of pancreatic cystic lesions: A comparison between EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB.
10.11817/j.issn.1672-7347.2025.240036
- Author:
Xiaoyu YU
1
,
2
,
3
;
Mingmei YE
1
,
3
,
4
;
Yawen NI
5
;
Qianqi LIU
1
;
Pan GONG
1
;
Yuanyuan HUANG
1
;
Xiaoyan WANG
1
;
Li TIAN
1
,
6
Author Information
1. Department of Gastroenterology, Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha
2. yuxiaoyu232@
3. com.
4. 17320071569@
5. Nanchang University Queen Mary School, Nanchang 330027, China.
6. tianlixy3@csu.edu.cn.
- Publication Type:Comparative Study
- Keywords:
diagnostic yield;
endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration;
endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy;
pancreatic cystic lesions;
safety
- MeSH:
Humans;
Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration/adverse effects*;
Retrospective Studies;
Female;
Male;
Pancreatic Cyst/diagnostic imaging*;
Middle Aged;
Biopsy, Fine-Needle/adverse effects*;
Aged;
Pancreatic Neoplasms/diagnosis*;
Adult;
Endosonography/methods*;
Pancreas/pathology*;
Diagnosis, Differential
- From:
Journal of Central South University(Medical Sciences)
2025;50(2):227-236
- CountryChina
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVES:In recent years, the incidence and detection rate of pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) have increased significantly. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) plays an indispensable role in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of PCLs. However, evidence comparing the diagnostic performance of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (FNB) remains limited. This study aims to compare the diagnostic yield, adequacy of tissue acquisition, and safety between EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB in evaluating PCLs to inform clinical practice.
METHODS:A retrospective review was conducted on patients with PCLs who underwent either EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB between January 2014 and August 2021. The diagnostic yield, tissue acquisition adequacy, and incidence of adverse events were compared between the 2 groups.
RESULTS:A total of 90 patients with PCLs were included (52 in the FNA group and 38 in the FNB group). The diagnostic yield was similar between the FNA and FNB groups (94.2% vs 94.7%, P>0.05). The adequacy of tissue acquisition was 71.2% in the FNA group and 81.6% in the FNB group (P>0.05). No statistically significant difference was observed in the incidence of adverse events between the 2 groups (P>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS:Both EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB demonstrate equally high diagnostic yields and tissue adequacy in PCLs, with excellent safety profiles. Both methods are safe and effective diagnostic tools for evaluating PCLs.
