COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF EUS-GUIDED FINE NEEDLE ASPIRATION AT PANCREATIC DISEASES
https://doi.org/ 10.17238/issn2072-3180.2018.1.10-14
Abstract
Background: Most often pancreatic cancer is diagnosed at later stages, the average detection rate at stages III and IV in Russia is 59.5% [1]. The “gold” stan- dard for the verification of pathological processes is histological examination, but, in connection with the localization of the pancreas, obtaining tissue with the least amount of complications is difficult.Methods: It was evaluated the results of eUS - guided fine needle aspiration at pancreatic diseases with examination on the material of 124 clinical observa- tions.Results: When comparing the three different diameter needle for eUS - guided fine needle aspiration with the “gold” standard: with a histological examina- tion based on the results of surgical intervention, or with the data of a catamnesis, the accuracy of setting the correct diagnosis in the group of fine needle aspiration biopsy with 19G needle (group 1) was within the confidence interval from 80.31% to 98.41 %, in group 2 - from 92.29% to 100%, in group 3 - 100%. In 46 cases (36.5%) revealed malignant neoplasms of the pancreas, 22 persons (17.5%) with pseudocysts of the pancreas, and 18 (14.3%) patients with inflammatory pseudotumor of the pancreas.Conclusions: eUS - guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy of the pancreas with different diameter needle allow verifying the pathological process of the pancreas.
About the Authors
E. R. Dvoynikova
Pacific State Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
K. V. Stegniy
Pacific State Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
R. A. Goncharuk
Pacific State Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
M. YU. Agapov
JSC Russian Railways hospital branch at the Vladivostok station
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Состояние онкологической помощи населению России в 2016 году, под редакцией А.Д. Каприна, В.В. Старинского, Г.В. Петровой. - Москва. - 2017. - С. 58
2. Mallery J.S., Centeno B.A., Hahn P.F. Pancreatic tissue sampling guided by eUS, CT/US, and surgery: a comparison of sensitivity and speci- ficity. Gastrointest. Endosc., 2002, Vol. 56, No 2, pp 218-224
3. Antillon M.R. endoscopic and endosonography guided fine-needle aspiration. Gastrointest. Endosc. Clin. N. Am, 2000, Vol. 10, No 4, pp 619-636
4. Baron P.L., Aabakken L.E., Cole D.J. Differentiation of benign from malignant pancreatic masses by endoscopic ultrasound. B. J. Ann. Surg. On- col., 1997, Vol. 4, No 8, pp 639-643
5. Bentz J.S., Kochman M.L., Faigel D.O. endoscopic ultrasound- guided real-time fine-needle aspiration: clinicopathologic features of 60 patients. Diagn. Cytopathol., 1998, Vol. 18, No 2, pp 98-109
6. Raut C.P., Grau A.M., Staerkel G.A. Diagnostic accuracy of endo- scopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in patients with presumed pancreatic cancer. J. Gastrointest. Surg, 2003, Vol. 7, No 1, pp. 118-126
7. evy M.J. eUS-guided Trucut biopsy. Gastrointest Endosc., 2005, Vol. 62, No 13, pp 417-426
8. Sahani D.V., Kadavigere R., Saokar A. Cystic pancreatic lesions: A simple imaging-based classification system for guiding management, Ra- diographics, 2005, Vol. 25, No 6, pp. 1471
9. Affolter K.E., Schmidt R.L., Matynia A.P. Needle size has only a limited effect on outcomes in eUS-guided fine needle aspiration: a system- atic review and meta-analysis, Dig. Dis. Sci, 2013, Vol. 58, No 4, pp. 1026- 1034
10. Pitman M.B., Centeno B.A., Ali S.Z. Standardized terminology and nomenclature for pancreatobiliary cytology: the Papanicolaou society of cytopathology guidelines, Cytojournal., 2014, Vol. 42, No 4, pp 338-350
11. Zhang MM, Yang H, Jin ZD, Yu JG, Cai ZY. Differential diagnosis of pancreatic cancer from normal tissue with digital imaging processing and Pattern recognition based on a support vector machine of eUS images. Gastrointest Endosc, 2010, No 72, pp 978-985
12. Song TJ, Kim JH, Lee SS. The prospective randomized, controlled trial of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration using 22G and 19G aspiration needles for solid pancreatic or peripancreatic masses. Am J Gastroenterol., 2010, No105, pp 1739- 1745
13. Siddiqui U.D., Rossi F., Rosenthal L.S. eUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: A prospective, randomized trial comparing 22-gauge and 25-gauge needles. Gastrointest Endosc., 2009, No 70, pp1093-1097
14. Camellini L., Carlinfante G., Azzolini F. A randomized clinical trial comparing 22G and 25G needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid lesions. Endoscopy, 2011, No 43, pp 709-715
15. Vilmann P., Saftoiu A., Hollerbach S. Multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing the performance of 22 gauge versus 25 gauge eUS-FNA needles in solid masses. Scand J Gastroenterol., 2013, No 48, pp 877-883
16. Madhoun M.F., Wani S.B., Maple J.T. The diagnostic accuracy of 22-gauge and 25-gauge needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine nee- dle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions: a meta-analysis. Endoscopy, 2013, No 45, pp 86-92
17. Affolter K.E., Schmidt R.L., Matynia A.P. Needle size has only a limited effect on outcomes in eUS-guided fine needle aspiration: a system- atic review and meta-analysis. Dig Dis Sci., 2013, No 58, pp 1026-1034
Review
For citations:
Dvoynikova E.R., Stegniy K.V., Goncharuk R.A., Agapov M.Yu. COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF EUS-GUIDED FINE NEEDLE ASPIRATION AT PANCREATIC DISEASES. Moscow Surgical Journal. 2018;(1):10-14. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/ 10.17238/issn2072-3180.2018.1.10-14
Views:
319
Email this article 