Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
EUS-FNA versus EUS-FNB in Pancreatic Solid Lesions ≤ 15 mm
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
EUS-FNA versus EUS-FNB in Pancreatic Solid Lesions ≤ 15 mm
Do you wish to request the book?
EUS-FNA versus EUS-FNB in Pancreatic Solid Lesions ≤ 15 mm
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
EUS-FNA versus EUS-FNB in Pancreatic Solid Lesions ≤ 15 mm
2024
Overview
A small tumor size may impact the diagnostic performance of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) for diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs). We aimed to compare the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and biopsy (FNB) in SPLs with a diameter ≤ 15 mm. Consecutive patients who underwent EUS-TA for SPLs ≤ 15 mm between January 2015 and December 2022 in a tertiary referral center were retrospectively evaluated. The primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy. The final diagnosis was based on surgical pathology or disease evolution after a minimum follow-up of 6 months. Inadequate samples were all considered false negatives for the study. Secondary outcomes included sample adequacy, factors impacting accuracy, and safety. We included 368 patients (52.4% male; mean age: 60.2 years) who underwent FNA in 72 cases and FNB in 296. The mean size of SPLs was 11.9 ± 2.6 mm. More than three passes were performed in 5.7% and 61.5% of patients in the FNB and FNA groups, respectively (p < 0.0001). FNB outperformed FNA in terms of diagnostic accuracy (89.8% vs. 79.1%, p = 0.013) and sample adequacy (95.9% vs. 86.1%, p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, using FNA (OR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.07–4.48) and a final diagnosis (OR: 3.56, 95% CI: 1.82–6.94) of benign conditions negatively impacted accuracy. Overall, the adverse event rate was 0.8%, including one pancreatitis in the FNA group and one pancreatitis and one bleeding in the FNB group, all mild and conservatively managed. EUS-TA for SPLs ≤ 15 mm has a high diagnostic yield and safety. This study suggests the superiority of FNB over FNA, with better performance even with fewer passes performed.
Publisher
MDPI AG
Subject
