AIM： To assess the characteristics and quality of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration （EUS-FNA） in a large panel of endosonographers.METHODS： A survey was conducted during the 13th annual live...AIM： To assess the characteristics and quality of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration （EUS-FNA） in a large panel of endosonographers.METHODS： A survey was conducted during the 13th annual live course of endoscopic ultrasonography （EUS） held in Amsterdam, Netherlands. A 2-page question- naire was developed for the study. Content validity of the questionnaire was determined based on input by experts in the field and a review of the relevant literature. It contained 30 questions that pertained to demographics and the current practice for EUS-FNA of responders, including sampling technique, sample processing, cytopathological diagnosis and sensitivity of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of solid mass lesions. One hundred and sixty-one endosonographers whoattended the course were asked to answer the survey. This allowed assessing the current practice of EUS-FNA as well as the self-reported sensitivity of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of solid mass lesions. We also examined which factors were associated with a self-reported sensitivity of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of solid mass lesions 〉 80%.RESULTS： Completed surveys were collected from 92 （57.1%） of 161 endosonographers who attended the conference. The endosonographers had been practio ing endoscopy and EUS for 22.5 4. 7.8 years and 4.8 4- 4.1 years, respectively; one third of them worked in a hospital with an annual caseload 〉 100 EUS-FNA. Endoscopy practices were located in 29 countries, in- cluding 13 countries in Western Europe that totaled 75.3% of the responses. Only one third of endosonog raphers reported a sensitivity for the diagnosis of solid mass lesions 〉 80% （interquartile range of sensitivities, 25.0%-75.0%）. Factors independently associated with a sensitivity 〉 80% were （1） 〉 7 needle passes for pancreatic lesions or rapid on-site cytopathological evaluation （ROSE） （P 〈 0.0001）, （2） a high annual hospital caseload （P = 0.024） and （3） routine isolation of microcores from EUS-FNA samples （P = 0.042）. ROSE was routinely available to 27.9% of respondents. For lymph nodes and pancreatic masses, a maximum of three needle passes was performed by approximately two thirds of those who did not have ROSE. Microcores were routinely harvested from EUS-FNA samples by approximately one third （37.2%） of survey respondents.CONCLUSION： EUS-FNA sensitivity was considerably lower than reported in the literature. Low EUS-FNA sensitivity was associated with unavailability of ROSE, few needle passes, absence of microcore isolation and low hospital caseload.展开更多
AIM:To investigate the usefulness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration(EUS-FNA) in the differentiation of autoimmune pancreatitis(AIP).METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed 47 of 56 AIP patients who un...AIM:To investigate the usefulness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration(EUS-FNA) in the differentiation of autoimmune pancreatitis(AIP).METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed 47 of 56 AIP patients who underwent EUS-FNA and met the Asian diagnostic criteria.On 47 EUS-FNA specimens,we evaluated the presence of adequate material and characteristic features of lymphoplasmacytic sclerosing pancreatitis(LPSP) and idiopathic duct-centric pancreatitis(IDCP) mentioned in the International Consensus Diagnostic Criteria and examined if these findings make a contribution to the differential diagnosis of type 1 and type 2 AIP.A disposable 22-gauge needle was used for EUS-FNA.RESULTS:Adequate specimens including pancreatic tissue for differentiating AIP from cancer were obtained from 43 of 47 patients who underwent EUSFNA.EUS-FNA was performed from the pancreatic head in 21 cases,which is known to be technically difficult when performed by core biopsy;there was no significant difference in the results compared with pancreatic body-tail.Nine of 47 patients met level 1 findings of LPSP and 5 patients met level 2 findings of LPSP.No one met level 1 findings of IDCP,but 3 patients met level 2 findings of IDCP.Of 10 seronegative cases,2 cases were diagnosed with "definitive type 1 AIP",and 3 cases were diagnosed with "probable type 2 AIP" when considering both the level 2 histological findings and response to steroids.CONCLUSION:EUS-FNA is useful in the differentiation of type 1 and type 2 AIP,particularly in seronegative cases.展开更多
文摘AIM： To assess the characteristics and quality of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration （EUS-FNA） in a large panel of endosonographers.METHODS： A survey was conducted during the 13th annual live course of endoscopic ultrasonography （EUS） held in Amsterdam, Netherlands. A 2-page question- naire was developed for the study. Content validity of the questionnaire was determined based on input by experts in the field and a review of the relevant literature. It contained 30 questions that pertained to demographics and the current practice for EUS-FNA of responders, including sampling technique, sample processing, cytopathological diagnosis and sensitivity of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of solid mass lesions. One hundred and sixty-one endosonographers whoattended the course were asked to answer the survey. This allowed assessing the current practice of EUS-FNA as well as the self-reported sensitivity of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of solid mass lesions. We also examined which factors were associated with a self-reported sensitivity of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of solid mass lesions 〉 80%.RESULTS： Completed surveys were collected from 92 （57.1%） of 161 endosonographers who attended the conference. The endosonographers had been practio ing endoscopy and EUS for 22.5 4. 7.8 years and 4.8 4- 4.1 years, respectively; one third of them worked in a hospital with an annual caseload 〉 100 EUS-FNA. Endoscopy practices were located in 29 countries, in- cluding 13 countries in Western Europe that totaled 75.3% of the responses. Only one third of endosonog raphers reported a sensitivity for the diagnosis of solid mass lesions 〉 80% （interquartile range of sensitivities, 25.0%-75.0%）. Factors independently associated with a sensitivity 〉 80% were （1） 〉 7 needle passes for pancreatic lesions or rapid on-site cytopathological evaluation （ROSE） （P 〈 0.0001）, （2） a high annual hospital caseload （P = 0.024） and （3） routine isolation of microcores from EUS-FNA samples （P = 0.042）. ROSE was routinely available to 27.9% of respondents. For lymph nodes and pancreatic masses, a maximum of three needle passes was performed by approximately two thirds of those who did not have ROSE. Microcores were routinely harvested from EUS-FNA samples by approximately one third （37.2%） of survey respondents.CONCLUSION： EUS-FNA sensitivity was considerably lower than reported in the literature. Low EUS-FNA sensitivity was associated with unavailability of ROSE, few needle passes, absence of microcore isolation and low hospital caseload.
基金Supported by The Research Committee of Intractable Pancreatic Diseases provided by the Ministry of Health,Labour,and Welfare of Japan
文摘AIM:To investigate the usefulness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration(EUS-FNA) in the differentiation of autoimmune pancreatitis(AIP).METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed 47 of 56 AIP patients who underwent EUS-FNA and met the Asian diagnostic criteria.On 47 EUS-FNA specimens,we evaluated the presence of adequate material and characteristic features of lymphoplasmacytic sclerosing pancreatitis(LPSP) and idiopathic duct-centric pancreatitis(IDCP) mentioned in the International Consensus Diagnostic Criteria and examined if these findings make a contribution to the differential diagnosis of type 1 and type 2 AIP.A disposable 22-gauge needle was used for EUS-FNA.RESULTS:Adequate specimens including pancreatic tissue for differentiating AIP from cancer were obtained from 43 of 47 patients who underwent EUSFNA.EUS-FNA was performed from the pancreatic head in 21 cases,which is known to be technically difficult when performed by core biopsy;there was no significant difference in the results compared with pancreatic body-tail.Nine of 47 patients met level 1 findings of LPSP and 5 patients met level 2 findings of LPSP.No one met level 1 findings of IDCP,but 3 patients met level 2 findings of IDCP.Of 10 seronegative cases,2 cases were diagnosed with "definitive type 1 AIP",and 3 cases were diagnosed with "probable type 2 AIP" when considering both the level 2 histological findings and response to steroids.CONCLUSION:EUS-FNA is useful in the differentiation of type 1 and type 2 AIP,particularly in seronegative cases.
