Cited 20 times in
Comparison of contrast-enhanced versus conventional EUS-guided FNA/fine-needle biopsy in diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions: a randomized controlled trial
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | 조재희 | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-09-29T01:59:08Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2021-09-29T01:59:08Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2021-08 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0016-5107 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/184649 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Background and aims: Contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS (CEH-EUS) is useful in the differential diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs). However, there is lack of verification about the usefulness of CEH-EUS-guided FNA/fine-needle biopsy (FNB) sampling. This study aimed to investigate the usefulness of CEH-EUS-guided FNA/FNB sampling without on-site cytopathology. Methods: Patients with SPLs were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned (1:1) to 2 parallel groups, the interventional group (CEH-EUS) or the control group (conventional EUS). The diagnostic sensitivity and optimal number of needle passes for pathologic diagnosis were investigated and compared between groups. Results: Two hundred forty patients were enrolled from March 2016 to September 2019, with 120 patients assigned to each group. Pancreatic malignancies and neuroendocrine tumors were found in 202 (90.83%) and 9 (3.75%) patients, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of age, sex, lesion size (30.96 ± 12.09 mm in the CEH-EUS group vs 33.09 ± 16.39 mm in the conventional EUS group; P = .252), lesion location, adverse event rate, and disease distribution. The diagnostic sensitivity values in the CEH-EUS and conventional EUS groups were 85.8% and 88.3%, respectively (P = .564). All patients in the conventional EUS group and most in the CEH-EUS group received a pathologic diagnosis within 3 needle passes. Conclusions: Diagnostic sensitivity for SPLs was not different between the CEH-EUS and conventional EUS groups, and no independent factors were found that could improve diagnostic sensitivity. CEH-EUS-guided FNA/FNB sampling does not need to be used routinely and may be selectively considered for small, indeterminate lesions. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT 0001840.). | - |
dc.description.statementOfResponsibility | restriction | - |
dc.language | English | - |
dc.publisher | Mosby Yearbook | - |
dc.relation.isPartOf | GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY | - |
dc.rights | CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 KR | - |
dc.title | Comparison of contrast-enhanced versus conventional EUS-guided FNA/fine-needle biopsy in diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions: a randomized controlled trial | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.contributor.college | College of Medicine (의과대학) | - |
dc.contributor.department | Dept. of Internal Medicine (내과학교실) | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | In Rae Cho | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Seok-Hoo Jeong | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Huapyong Kang | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Eui Joo Kim | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Yeon Suk Kim | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Jae Hee Cho | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1016/j.gie.2021.01.018 | - |
dc.contributor.localId | A03902 | - |
dc.relation.journalcode | J00920 | - |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1097-6779 | - |
dc.identifier.pmid | 33497643 | - |
dc.identifier.url | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016510721000456 | - |
dc.contributor.alternativeName | Cho, Jae Hee | - |
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor | 조재희 | - |
dc.citation.volume | 94 | - |
dc.citation.number | 2 | - |
dc.citation.startPage | 303 | - |
dc.citation.endPage | 310 | - |
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitation | GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, Vol.94(2) : 303-310, 2021-08 | - |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.