Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2025
Diagnostic yield and safety of pancreatic cystic lesions: A comparison between EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB.
СтатьяСравнительное 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.
Yu Xiaoyu, Ye Mingmei, Ni Yawen, Liu Qianqi, Gong Pan, Huang Yuanyuan, Wang Xiaoyan, Tian Li
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: In recent years, the incidence and detection rate of pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) have increased significantly. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) plays an indispensable role in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of PCLs. However, evidence comparing the diagnostic performance of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (FNB) remains limited. This study aims to compare the diagnostic yield, adequacy of tissue acquisition, and safety between EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB in evaluating PCLs to inform clinical practice.
METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on patients with PCLs who underwent either EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB between January 2014 and August 2021. The diagnostic yield, tissue acquisition adequacy, and incidence of adverse events were compared between the 2 groups.
RESULTS: A total of 90 patients with PCLs were included (52 in the FNA group and 38 in the FNB group). The diagnostic yield was similar between the FNA and FNB groups (94.2% vs 94.7%, P>0.05). The adequacy of tissue acquisition was 71.2% in the FNA group and 81.6% in the FNB group (P>0.05). No statistically significant difference was observed in the incidence of adverse events between the 2 groups (P>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Both EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB demonstrate equally high diagnostic yields and tissue adequacy in PCLs, with excellent safety profiles. Both methods are safe and effective diagnostic tools for evaluating PCLs.
METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on patients with PCLs who underwent either EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB between January 2014 and August 2021. The diagnostic yield, tissue acquisition adequacy, and incidence of adverse events were compared between the 2 groups.
RESULTS: A total of 90 patients with PCLs were included (52 in the FNA group and 38 in the FNB group). The diagnostic yield was similar between the FNA and FNB groups (94.2% vs 94.7%, P>0.05). The adequacy of tissue acquisition was 71.2% in the FNA group and 81.6% in the FNB group (P>0.05). No statistically significant difference was observed in the incidence of adverse events between the 2 groups (P>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Both EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB demonstrate equally high diagnostic yields and tissue adequacy in PCLs, with excellent safety profiles. Both methods are safe and effective diagnostic tools for evaluating PCLs.