4.6 Article

Utility of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration and Biopsy for Histological Diagnosis of Type 2 Autoimmune Pancreatitis

期刊

DIAGNOSTICS
卷 12, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12102464

关键词

granulocytic epithelial lesions; main pancreatic duct narrowing; inflammatory bowel disease; ulcerative colitis; International Consensus Diagnostic Criteria

资金

  1. Japan Society for Promotion of Science [21K15915]
  2. Ministry of Health, labour and Welfare Research Program on Rare and Intractable Diseases [20FC1040]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to investigate the usefulness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and biopsy (EUS-FNAB) for the diagnosis of type 2 autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP). The results showed that EUS-FNAB provided sufficient tissue samples and had high diagnostic accuracy for patients suspected to have ICDC level 1 and 2 findings.
In Japan, type 1 autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is the most common type of AIP; type 2 AIP is rare. The aim of this study was to clarify the usefulness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and biopsy (EUS-FNAB) for the diagnosis of type 2 AIP. We analyzed the tissue specimens of 10 patients with suspected type 2 AIP who underwent EUS-FNAB at our hospital between April 2009 and March 2021 for tissue volume and histopathological diagnostic performance. The male-to-female ratio of the patients was 8:2, and the patient age (mean +/- standard deviation) was 35.6 +/- 15.5 years. EUS-FNAB provided sufficient tissue volume, with high-power field >10 in eight patients (80.0%). Based on the International Consensus Diagnostic Criteria (ICDC), four patients (40.0%) had histological findings corresponding to ICDC level 1, and five patients (50.0%) had histological findings corresponding to ICDC level 2. The results of this study show that EUS-FNB can be considered an alternative method to resection and core-needle biopsy for the collection of tissue samples of type 2 AIP.

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

4.6
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