Abstract Abstract Background: EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) is the most accurate method for lymph-node staging of esophageal carcinoma; however, it may not be necessary when EUS features are present that strongly suggest a...Abstract Abstract Background: EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) is the most accurate method for lymph-node staging of esophageal carcinoma; however, it may not be necessary when EUS features are present that strongly suggest a benign or a malignant origin. Aims: (1) To identify a combination of EUS criteria that have a sufficient sensitivity and specificity to preclude the need for EUS-FNA and (2) to assess the cost savings derived from a selective EUS-FNA approach. Methods: A total of 144 patients with esophageal carcinoma were prospectively evaluated with EUS. Accuracy of standard (hypoechoic, smooth border, round, or width > 5 mm) and modified (4 standard plus EUS identified celiac lymph nodes, > 5 lymph nodes, or EUS T3/4 tumor) criteria were compared (receiver operating characteristic curves). Resource utilization of two diagnostic strategies, routine (all patients with lymph nodes) and selective EUS-FNA (FNA only in those patients in whom the number of EUS malignant criteria provides a sensitivity and a specificity< 100% ),were compared. Results: Modified EUS criteria for lymph-node staging were more accurate than standard criteria (area under the curve 0.88 vs. 0.78, respectively). No criterion alone was predictive ofmalignancy; sensitivity and specificity reached 100% when a cutoff value of > 1 and > 6 modified criteria were used, respectively. The EUS-FNA selective approach may avoid performing FNA in 61 patients (42% ). Conclusions: Modified EUS lymph-node criteria are more accurate than standard criteria. A selective EUS-FNA approach reduced the cost by avoiding EUS-FNA in 42% of patients with esophageal carcinoma. These results require confirmation in future studies.展开更多
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 ...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.展开更多
文摘Abstract Abstract Background: EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) is the most accurate method for lymph-node staging of esophageal carcinoma; however, it may not be necessary when EUS features are present that strongly suggest a benign or a malignant origin. Aims: (1) To identify a combination of EUS criteria that have a sufficient sensitivity and specificity to preclude the need for EUS-FNA and (2) to assess the cost savings derived from a selective EUS-FNA approach. Methods: A total of 144 patients with esophageal carcinoma were prospectively evaluated with EUS. Accuracy of standard (hypoechoic, smooth border, round, or width > 5 mm) and modified (4 standard plus EUS identified celiac lymph nodes, > 5 lymph nodes, or EUS T3/4 tumor) criteria were compared (receiver operating characteristic curves). Resource utilization of two diagnostic strategies, routine (all patients with lymph nodes) and selective EUS-FNA (FNA only in those patients in whom the number of EUS malignant criteria provides a sensitivity and a specificity< 100% ),were compared. Results: Modified EUS criteria for lymph-node staging were more accurate than standard criteria (area under the curve 0.88 vs. 0.78, respectively). No criterion alone was predictive ofmalignancy; sensitivity and specificity reached 100% when a cutoff value of > 1 and > 6 modified criteria were used, respectively. The EUS-FNA selective approach may avoid performing FNA in 61 patients (42% ). Conclusions: Modified EUS lymph-node criteria are more accurate than standard criteria. A selective EUS-FNA approach reduced the cost by avoiding EUS-FNA in 42% of patients with esophageal carcinoma. These results require confirmation in future studies.
文摘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.
