3.8 Article

High Sensitivity of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration and Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy in Lymphadenopathy Caused by Metastatic Disease: A Prospective Comparative Study

期刊

CLINICAL ENDOSCOPY
卷 54, 期 5, 页码 722-729

出版社

KOREAN SOC GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
DOI: 10.5946/ce.2020.283

关键词

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration; Endosonography; Fine-needle biopsy; Lymphadenopathy

资金

  1. Health and Medical Care Committee of the Regional Executive Board, Region Vastra Gotaland [VG-FOUREG-564381, VGFOUREG-144591]
  2. Sahlgrenska University Hospital LUA-ALF [ALFGBG-875671]
  3. Assar Gabrielsson Foundation [17-20]
  4. Magtarmfonden [79211]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the accuracy and safety of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling (EUS-FNB) in intrathoracic and intraabdominal lymphadenopathy, showing that both EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA are safe and highly sensitive for detecting metastatic lymph nodes, but diagnosing lymphoma remains challenging regardless of the needle used.
Background/Aims: The diagnostic work-up of lymphadenopathy is challenging but important to determine the correct therapy. Nevertheless, few studies have addressed the topic of endosonography (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition in lymphadenopathy. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the accuracy and safety of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling (EUS-FNB) in intrathoracic and intraabdominal lymphadenopathy. Methods: In a tertiary care center, patients with lymphadenopathy referred for EUS-guided sampling were included prospectively from 2014 to 2019 (NCT02360839). In all cases, EUS-FNB (22 gauge) and EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) (25 gauge) were performed. The patients were randomized to the first needle pass with FNB or FNA. Study outcomes were the diagnostic accuracy and adverse event rate. Results: Forty-eight patients were included (median age: 69 years [interquartile range, 59-76]; 24/48 females [50%]). The final diagnoses were metastasis (n=17), lymphoma (n=11), sarcoidosis (n=6), and inflammatory disease (n=14). The diagnostic performance of the two modalities was comparable, including a high sensitivity for metastatic nodes (EUS-FNB: 87% vs. EUSFNA: 100%, p=0.5). The sensitivity for lymphoma was borderline superior in favor of EUS-FNB (EUS-FNB: 55% vs. EUS-FNA: 9%, p=0.06). No adverse events were recorded. Conclusions: In lymphadenopathy, both EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA are safe and highly sensitive for metastatic lymph node detection. Lymphoma diagnosis is challenging regardless of the needle used.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据