Tissue Acquisition for Histologic Diagnosis


Author (year)

Nation

Number

Technique

Diagnostic yield

Levy (2006) [6]

United States

14

EUS-trucut

Diagnostic 57 % (8/14)

Suggestive 29 % (4/14)

Inconclusive 14 % (2/14)

Hirano (2009) [5]

Japan

15

Percutaneous

Diagnostic 47 % (7/15)

Suggestive 20 % (3/15)

Inconclusive 33 % (5/15)

Mizuno (2009) [7]

Japan

8

EUS-trucut

Diagnostic 50 % (4/8)

Suggestive 50 % (4/8)

Inconclusive 0 % (0/8)

Detlefsen (2009) [4]

Germany

26

Percutaneous

Diagnostic 81 % (21/26)

Denmark

Intraoperative

Suggestive 19 % (5/26)

EUS-trucut

Inconclusive 0 % (0/26)

Iwashita (2012) [9]

Japan

44

EUS-FNA (19G)a

Diagnostic 43 % (19/44)

Suggestive 43 % (19/44)

Inconclusive 7 % (3/44)

Analysis impossible 7 % (3/44)

Song (2012) [10]

Korea

54

Percutaneous

Diagnostic 72 % (39/54)

EUS-trucut

Suggestive 0 % (0/54)

Inconclusive 28 % (15/54

Fujii (2013) [11]

United States

7

EUS-trucut

Diagnostic 72 % (5/7)

Suggestive 14 % (1/7)

Inconclusive 14 % (1/7)


aEUS-guided tissue acquisition by using a conventional 19-gauge needle



In order to overcome the limitation of the 19-gauge needle, a EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) device (Echotip Procore; Wilson Cook Medical Inc., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA) was developed. In a randomized trial, diagnostic sufficiency, technical performance, and safety profiles of the 22-gauge biopsy needle were comparable to those of the conventional 22-gauge aspiration needle for sampling of pancreatic mass [12]. In another prospective comparison study, the correct diagnosis rate of EUS-FNB was higher than that of EUS-FNA in the pancreatic mass group (86.8 % vs. 75 %, P = 0.046) [13]. Larghi et al. reported the prospective result of EUS-FNB in 61 patients with pancreatic masses [14]. EUS-FNB was technically feasible in 98 % of patients with a solid pancreatic mass. A suitable sample for histological evaluation was obtained in 88.5 % of the cases after only one single needle pass. However, no article was published on the yield of EUS-FNB using the new needle for AIP diagnosis. Further studies are required to assess the diagnostic performance of EUS-FNB and comparison study between EUS-TCB and EUS-FNB for the better histologic diagnosis of AIP is necessary.

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Jun 3, 2017 | Posted by in GENERAL SURGERY | Comments Off on Tissue Acquisition for Histologic Diagnosis

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access