Usefulness of a target sample check illuminator in the detection of target specimens in endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle biopsy samples: Multicenter prospective study
- 29 November 2020
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Digestive Endoscopy
- Vol. 33 (6) , 970-976
Abstract
Objectives Endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle biopsy (EUS‐FNB) uses a thin needle, rendering unclear whether the collected sample contains pathological evidence. We examined the usefulness of our target sample check illuminator (TSCI) through a multicenter prospective trial. Methods We included 52 consecutive patients. After assessing EUS‐FNB samples by conventional (visual observation) and TSCI methods, we evaluated consistency with the histopathological diagnosis. We compared the target sample confirmation rate between conventional and TSCI methods and evaluated the diagnostic ability separately. Results Comparison between the conventional and TSCI methods revealed the following: 1) for all cases, sensitivity: 51.0% (25/49) vs. 95.9% (47/49) (p=0.001), specificity: 100% (3/3) vs. 66.7% (2/3), positive predictive value (PPV): 100% (25/25) vs. 97.9% (47/48), and negative predictive value (NPV): 11.1% (3/27) vs. 50.0% (2/4) (p=0.002); 2) for pancreatic masses, sensitivity: 28.0% (7/25) vs. 96.0% (24/25) (p<0.001), specificity: 100% (2/2) vs. 100% (2/2), PPV: 100% (7/7) vs. 100% (24/24), and NPV: 10.0% (2/20) vs. 66.7% (2/3) (p<0.001) (the TSCI method showed significantly better sensitivity and NPV than the conventional method); and 3) for lymph node tumors, sensitivity: 75.0% (18/24) vs. 95.8% (23/24) (p=0.025), specificity: 100% (1/1) vs. 0% (0/1), PPV: 100% (18/18) vs. 95.8% (23/24), and NPV: 14.3% (1/7) vs. 0% (0/1). Conclusions The TSCI improved the sensitivity, NPV, and accuracy of target sample confirmation for pancreatic mass EUS‐FNB. Although the proportion of samples not including a target region was quite low, which could strongly influence our results, the TSCI method can be used in EUS‐FNB when rapid on‐site evaluation cannot be performed. (A multicenter prospective study for the utility of a target sample check illuminator, Clinical Trial ID: UMIN000023349)Keywords
This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit:
- Endoscopic Ultrasound Fine-Needle Aspiration versus Fine-Needle Biopsy for Lymph Node Diagnosis: A Large Multicenter Comparative AnalysisClinical Endoscopy, 2020
- Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy - Recent topics and technical tipsWorld Journal of Clinical Cases, 2019
- Guidelines Insights: Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Version 1.2019Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 2019
- Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline UpdateJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2018
- Role of the preoperative usefulness of the pathological diagnosis of pancreatic diseasesWorld Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology, 2016
- Development of a device for detecting target specimens from EUS-guided FNA samplesEndoscopy International Open, 2015
- 1039 A Multicenter Prospective Randomized Controlled Cross-Over Trial Comparing Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration (FNA) and Fine Needle Biopsy (FNB) for Pancreatic and Non-Pancreatic MassesGastrointestinal Endoscopy, 2014
- A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshopGastrointestinal Endoscopy, 2010
- Endoscopic ultrasonography with guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in pancreatic diseaseGastrointestinal Endoscopy, 1992
- Note on the Sampling Error of the Difference Between Correlated Proportions or PercentagesPsychometrika, 1947