摘要
Background: EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) is an accurate technique for sampling extraintestinal masses and lymph nodes. The use of a Trucut needle to perform EUS-guided biopsy (EUS-TCB) may improve the results or simplify the procedure. To date, few studies have prospectively assessed the performance and the safety of EUS-TCB. Methods: Patients with a known or a suspected malignancy referred for a diagnostic and/or staging EUS examination were enrolled in a prospective study. EUS-guided biopsy was performed first with a 19-gauge Trucut needle. If the Trucut failed to obtain an adequate sample orwhen the “ in room" touch preparation was benign, EUS-FNA was performed with a standard 22-gauge FNA needle. The objective of the study was to assess the yield of detection of malignancy and the safety of EUS-TCB in patients with known or suspected malignancies and to investigate if EUS-FNA has a role for rescue in cases of Trucut failure. Observations: Thirty-nine lesions underwent EUS-TCB in 30 patients. Sufficient follow-up was available for all patients. By using EUS-TCB, we were able to obtain a sample for diagnosis in all but 3 patients (one pancreatic mass and two lymph nodes) in which technical problems arose. In these patients, the diagnosis was obtained in two cases by EUS-FNA and in the other one by EUS-TCB from the primary pancreatic tumor. The yield of detection of malignancy for EUS-TCB was 84% . No complications were recorded in any patients at 1 and 7 days of follow-up. The sample size is limited to generalize conclusions. Conclusions: EUS-TCB is a safe and an accurate procedure to obtain a histologic diagnosis in patients with known or suspected malignancies. EUS-FNA can serve as a rescue technique in cases of Trucut failure.
Background: EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) is an accurate technique for sampling extraintestinal masses and lymph nodes. The use of a Trucut needle to perform EUS-guided biopsy (EUS-TCB) may improve the results or simplify the procedure. To date, few studies have prospectively assessed the performance and the safety of EUS-TCB. Methods: Patients with a known or a suspected malignancy referred for a diagnostic and/or staging EUS examination were enrolled in a prospective study. EUS-guided biopsy was performed first with a 19-gauge Trucut needle. If the Trucut failed to obtain an adequate sample orwhen the “ in room' touch preparation was benign, EUS-FNA was performed with a standard 22-gauge FNA needle. The objective of the study was to assess the yield of detection of malignancy and the safety of EUS-TCB in patients with known or suspected malignancies and to investigate if EUS-FNA has a role for rescue in cases of Trucut failure. Observations: Thirty-nine lesions underwent EUS-TCB in 30 patients. Sufficient follow-up was available for all patients. By using EUS-TCB, we were able to obtain a sample for diagnosis in all but 3 patients (one pancreatic mass and two lymph nodes) in which technical problems arose. In these patients, the diagnosis was obtained in two cases by EUS-FNA and in the other one by EUS-TCB from the primary pancreatic tumor. The yield of detection of malignancy for EUS-TCB was 84% . No complications were recorded in any patients at 1 and 7 days of follow-up. The sample size is limited to generalize conclusions. Conclusions: EUS-TCB is a safe and an accurate procedure to obtain a histologic diagnosis in patients with known or suspected malignancies. EUS-FNA can serve as a rescue technique in cases of Trucut failure.
