Endoscopic Ultrasound–Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Biopsy of Patients With Suspected Pancreatic Cancer: Diagnostic Accuracy and Acute and 30-Day Complications
Top Cited Papers
- 1 December 2003
- journal article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in American Journal of Gastroenterology
- Vol. 98 (12) , 2663-2668
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2003.08666.x
Abstract
The aims of this study were to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound–guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in patients with suspected pancreatic cancer, and to assess immediate, acute, and 30-day complications related to EUS-FNA. All patients with suspected pancreatic cancer were prospectively evaluated. A single gastroenterologist performed all EUS-FNAs in the presence of a cytopathologist. Immediate complications were evaluated in all patients. An experienced nurse called patients 24–72 h and 30 days after the procedure. Reference standard for the classification of the final diagnosis included: surgery (n = 48), clinical or imaging follow-up (n = 63), or death from the disease (n = 47). A total of 158 patients (mean age 62.3 yr) underwent EUS-FNA during the study period. The mean tumor size was 32 × 26 mm. The median number of passes was three (range one to 10). Of these patients, 44% had at least one failed attempt at tissue diagnosis before EUS-FNA. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of EUS-FNA in solid pancreatic masses were 84.3%, 97%, 99%, 64%, and 84%, respectively. Immediate self-limited complications occurred in 10 of the 158 EUS-FNAs (6.3%). Of 90 patients contacted at 24–72 h, 78 patients (87%) responded. Of the 90 patients, 20 (22%) reported at least one symptom, all of which were minor except in three cases (one self-limited acute pancreatitis and two emergency room visits, one of which led to admission). In all, 83 patients were contacted at 30 days, and 82% responded. No additional or continued complications were reported. EUS-FNA is highly accurate in identifying patients with suspected pancreatic cancer, especially when other modalities have failed. Major complications after EUS-FNA are rare, and minor complications are similar to those reported for upper endoscopy. It seems that follow-up at 1 wk might capture all of the adverse events related to EUS-FNA.Keywords
This publication has 22 references indexed in Scilit:
- Endosonography-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in the evaluation of pancreatic massesAmerican Journal of Gastroenterology, 2002
- Impact of endoscopic ultrasound on the management and outcome of pancreatic carcinomaAmerican Journal of Gastroenterology, 2000
- Endoscopic Ultrasound for Differential Diagnosis of Focal Pancreatic Lesions, Confirmed by SurgeryScandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, 2000
- Pancreatic tumors: comparison of dual-phase helical CT and endoscopic sonography.American Journal of Roentgenology, 1998
- Endoscopic ultrasound–guided, 18-gauge, fine needle aspiration biopsy of the pancreas using a 2.8 mm channel convex array echoendoscopeGastrointestinal Endoscopy, 1998
- Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Fine Needle Aspiration of Malignant Pancreatic LesionsEndoscopy, 1997
- The clinical utility of endoscopic ultrasound–guided fine-needle aspiration in the diagnosisand staging of pancreatic carcinomaGastrointestinal Endoscopy, 1997
- Impact of endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration on the surgical management of pancreatic cancerThe American Journal of Surgery, 1996
- Fine‐needle aspiration biopsy of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Loss of diagnostic accuracy with small tumorsJournal of Surgical Oncology, 1994
- Localization of Pancreatic Endocrine Tumors by Endoscopic UltrasonographyNew England Journal of Medicine, 1992