Comparison of the diagnostic yield of rapid versus non-rapid onsite evaluation in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology of solid pancreatic lesions.

Autor:	Jaleel R; Department of Gastroenterology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India., George JT; Department of Gastroenterology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India., Thomas A; Department of Gastroenterology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India., Patel L; Department of Gastroenterology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India., John A; Department of Gastroenterology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India., Kurien RT; Department of Gastroenterology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India., Simon EG; Department of Gastroenterology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India., Joseph AJ; Department of Gastroenterology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India., Dutta AK; Department of Gastroenterology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India., Chowdhury SD; Department of Gastroenterology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Annals of gastroenterology [Ann Gastroenterol] 2024 May-Jun; Vol. 37 (3), pp. 371-376. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Apr 22.
DOI:	10.20524/aog.2024.0879
Abstrakt:	Background: The role of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of pancreatic lesions is debatable. In this study, we aimed to compare the diagnostic yield of ROSE vs. non-ROSE in solid pancreatic lesions. Methods: This retrospective single-center study included patients undergoing EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions from 2019-2021. Patients with cystic lesions, those undergoing fine-needle core biopsy, those undergoing repeat procedures, and patients with non-diagnostic smears with less than 6-month follow up were excluded. The diagnostic yield, need for repeat procedures and number of passes required with and without ROSE were analyzed in these patients. Results: Of the 111 patients included, 56 underwent ROSE. The majority of lesions were malignant in both groups (79.6% ROSE vs. 75% non-ROSE). The diagnostic yield was 96.4% in the ROSE group and 94.5% in the non-ROSE group. Repeat samples were needed in 1 ROSE and 2 non-ROSE patients. The median number of passes made was significantly fewer in the ROSE group (3.5, interquartile range - 3,4) compared with the non-ROSE group (4, interquartile range - 3,5) P=0.01. However, the frequency of procedure-related complications was similar in both groups. Conclusion: The utilization of ROSE during EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions does not affect the diagnostic yield or the need for repeat samples, but reduces the number of passes needed for acquiring samples. Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest: None (Copyright: © Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu Plný text ve formátu PDF