Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2018
Same-session endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-based tissue sampling in suspected malignant biliary obstruction: A multicenter experience.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание 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.
Jo Jung Hyun, Cho Chang Min, Jun Jae Hyuck, Chung Moon Jae, Kim Tae Hyeon, Seo Dong Wan, Kim Jaihwan, Park Do Hyun, Research Group for Endoscopic Ultrasonography in KSGE
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Few studies compared endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-based tissue sampling in terms of diagnostic accuracy in suspected malignant biliary obstruction. We evaluated and compared the diagnostic performance of EUS-FNA and ERCP-based tissue sampling.
METHODS: This multicenter study included 263 patients with suspected malignant biliary obstruction who underwent same-session EUS and ERCP between 2012 and 2016.
RESULTS: Malignancies were confirmed in 239 patients (90.9%) and benign in 24 patients (9.1%). Overall diagnostic sensitivity and accuracy were 73.6% and 76.1% for EUS-FNA, 56.5% and 60.5% for ERCP, and 85.8% and 87.1% for EUS/ERCP combination. EUS-FNA showed higher overall performances compared with ERCP (P < 0.001), whereas EUS/ERCP combination was superior to EUS-FNA alone (P-value < 0.001). EUS-FNA showed higher sensitivity and accuracy compared with ERCP for pancreatic masses (n = 187, both P-values < 0.001) but not for biliary lesions (n = 76, both P-values = 0.847). Sensitivity and accuracy of EUS/ERCP combination were superior to those of EUS-FNA for both pancreatic and biliary lesions (both P-values < 0.001). For patients with large mass (≥ 4 cm), there was no significant differences between ERCP/EUS combination and EUS-FNA (P-value = 0.31).
CONCLUSIONS: Same-session EUS-FNA and ERCP combination was superior to EUS-FNA for both pancreatic masses and biliary lesions. Same-session EUS/ERCP combination can be considered a proper diagnostic method for suspected malignant biliary obstruction regardless of the origin of lesions. On the other hand, EUS-FNA alone was sufficient for diagnosis compared with EUS/ERCP combination in cases with large mass. Strategic diagnostic approach, according to clinical features of individual patient, is required.
METHODS: This multicenter study included 263 patients with suspected malignant biliary obstruction who underwent same-session EUS and ERCP between 2012 and 2016.
RESULTS: Malignancies were confirmed in 239 patients (90.9%) and benign in 24 patients (9.1%). Overall diagnostic sensitivity and accuracy were 73.6% and 76.1% for EUS-FNA, 56.5% and 60.5% for ERCP, and 85.8% and 87.1% for EUS/ERCP combination. EUS-FNA showed higher overall performances compared with ERCP (P < 0.001), whereas EUS/ERCP combination was superior to EUS-FNA alone (P-value < 0.001). EUS-FNA showed higher sensitivity and accuracy compared with ERCP for pancreatic masses (n = 187, both P-values < 0.001) but not for biliary lesions (n = 76, both P-values = 0.847). Sensitivity and accuracy of EUS/ERCP combination were superior to those of EUS-FNA for both pancreatic and biliary lesions (both P-values < 0.001). For patients with large mass (≥ 4 cm), there was no significant differences between ERCP/EUS combination and EUS-FNA (P-value = 0.31).
CONCLUSIONS: Same-session EUS-FNA and ERCP combination was superior to EUS-FNA for both pancreatic masses and biliary lesions. Same-session EUS/ERCP combination can be considered a proper diagnostic method for suspected malignant biliary obstruction regardless of the origin of lesions. On the other hand, EUS-FNA alone was sufficient for diagnosis compared with EUS/ERCP combination in cases with large mass. Strategic diagnostic approach, according to clinical features of individual patient, is required.