Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024
EUS-guided FNA and biopsy for cytohistologic diagnosis of gallbladder cancer: a multicenter retrospective study.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kang Huapyong, Kim So Jeong, Do Min Young, Kim Eui Joo, Kim Yeon Suk, Jang Sung Ill, Bang Seungmin, Cho Jae Hee
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-guided FNA and biopsy (EUS-FNAB) is a standard diagnostic procedure for pancreatic masses but not gallbladder (GB) cancer (GBC). The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of EUS-FNAB for patients with suspected GBC.
METHODS: Data were analyzed from patients who underwent EUS-FNAB for suspected GBC in 3 hospitals between 2010 and 2023. The diagnostic performance and safety of EUS-FNAB according to characteristic factors were calculated and compared.
RESULTS: Of 170 patients, 163 had GBC. EUS-FNAB samples were obtained from the GB in 125 patients and sites other than the GB in 45 patients. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 83.4%, 100%, and 84.1%, respectively. The sensitivity and accuracy for patients with GB samples were 80.8% and 81.6%; for patients without GB samples, these values were 90.7% and 91.1%. The sensitivity and accuracy were higher with fine-needle biopsy needles than with FNA needles and with ≤22-gauge needles than with 25-gauge needles. However, no significant differences were observed between the GB and lymph node samples. GB lesions <40 mm in size, wall-thickening type, fundal location, absence of extensive liver invasion, and distant metastasis were more frequent in patients without GB samples than in patients with GB samples. Four mild bleeding events were the only reported adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNAB was safe and showed high diagnostic performance for patients with suspected GBC, regardless of the target site. When appropriate GB targeting is difficult, targeting the lymph nodes would be a good strategy with comparable outcomes.
METHODS: Data were analyzed from patients who underwent EUS-FNAB for suspected GBC in 3 hospitals between 2010 and 2023. The diagnostic performance and safety of EUS-FNAB according to characteristic factors were calculated and compared.
RESULTS: Of 170 patients, 163 had GBC. EUS-FNAB samples were obtained from the GB in 125 patients and sites other than the GB in 45 patients. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 83.4%, 100%, and 84.1%, respectively. The sensitivity and accuracy for patients with GB samples were 80.8% and 81.6%; for patients without GB samples, these values were 90.7% and 91.1%. The sensitivity and accuracy were higher with fine-needle biopsy needles than with FNA needles and with ≤22-gauge needles than with 25-gauge needles. However, no significant differences were observed between the GB and lymph node samples. GB lesions <40 mm in size, wall-thickening type, fundal location, absence of extensive liver invasion, and distant metastasis were more frequent in patients without GB samples than in patients with GB samples. Four mild bleeding events were the only reported adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNAB was safe and showed high diagnostic performance for patients with suspected GBC, regardless of the target site. When appropriate GB targeting is difficult, targeting the lymph nodes would be a good strategy with comparable outcomes.