Contrast-Enhanced Harmonic Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration versus Standard Fine-Needle Aspiration in Pancreatic Masses: A Propensity Score Analysis
Background: Whether endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) contrast-enhanced fine-needle aspiration (CH-EUS-FNA) determines superior results in comparison to standard EUS-FNA in tissue acquisition of pancreatic masses remains unclear. The aim of this study was to compare these two techniques on a series of pat...
Main Authors: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
MDPI AG
2020-10-01
|
Series: | Diagnostics |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/10/10/792 |
id |
doaj-f1adbc4232c646f286423022c569cd4c |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-f1adbc4232c646f286423022c569cd4c2020-11-25T03:57:21ZengMDPI AGDiagnostics2075-44182020-10-011079279210.3390/diagnostics10100792Contrast-Enhanced Harmonic Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration versus Standard Fine-Needle Aspiration in Pancreatic Masses: A Propensity Score AnalysisAntonio Facciorusso0Christian Cotsoglou1Andrea Chierici2Ruxandra Mare3Stefano Francesco Crinò4Nicola Muscatiello5Gastroenterology Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, Ospedali Riuniti di Foggia, 71122 Foggia, ItalyGeneral Surgery Department, ASST-Vimercate, 20871 Vimercate, ItalyGeneral Surgery Department, ASST-Vimercate, 20871 Vimercate, ItalyDepartment of Internal Medicine II, Gastroenterology Unit, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 300226 Timisoara, RomaniaDepartment of Medicine, Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, The Pancreas Institute, University Hospital of Verona, 37100 Verona, ItalyGastroenterology Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, Ospedali Riuniti di Foggia, 71122 Foggia, ItalyBackground: Whether endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) contrast-enhanced fine-needle aspiration (CH-EUS-FNA) determines superior results in comparison to standard EUS-FNA in tissue acquisition of pancreatic masses remains unclear. The aim of this study was to compare these two techniques on a series of patients with solid pancreatic lesions. Methods: 362 patients underwent EUS-FNA (2008–2019), after the propensity score matching of two groups were compared; 103 treated with CH-EUS-FNA (group 1) and 103 with standard EUS-FNA (group 2). The primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and sample adequacy. Results: Diagnostic sensitivity was 87.6% in group 1 and 80% in group 2 (<i>p </i>= 0.18). The negative predictive value was 56% in group 1 and 41.5% in group 2 (<i>p </i>= 0.06). The specificity and positive predictive values were 100% for both groups. Diagnostic accuracy was 89.3% and 82.5%, respectively (<i>p </i>= 0.40). Sample adequacy was 94.1% in group 1 and 91.2% in group 2 (<i>p </i>= 0.42). The rate of adequate core histologic samples was 33% and 28.1%, respectively (<i>p </i>= 0.44), and the number of needle passes to obtain adequate samples were 2.4 ± 0.6 and 2.7 ± 0.8, respectively (<i>p </i>= 0.76). These findings were confirmed in subgroup analyses, conducted according to lesion size and contrast enhancement pattern. Conclusions: CH-EUS-FNA does not appear to be superior to standard EUS-FNA in patients with pancreatic masses.https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/10/10/792endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)fine-needle aspiration (FNA)pancreasendoscopycontrast-enhanced fine-needle aspiration (CH-FNA). |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Antonio Facciorusso Christian Cotsoglou Andrea Chierici Ruxandra Mare Stefano Francesco Crinò Nicola Muscatiello |
spellingShingle |
Antonio Facciorusso Christian Cotsoglou Andrea Chierici Ruxandra Mare Stefano Francesco Crinò Nicola Muscatiello Contrast-Enhanced Harmonic Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration versus Standard Fine-Needle Aspiration in Pancreatic Masses: A Propensity Score Analysis Diagnostics endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle aspiration (FNA) pancreas endoscopy contrast-enhanced fine-needle aspiration (CH-FNA). |
author_facet |
Antonio Facciorusso Christian Cotsoglou Andrea Chierici Ruxandra Mare Stefano Francesco Crinò Nicola Muscatiello |
author_sort |
Antonio Facciorusso |
title |
Contrast-Enhanced Harmonic Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration versus Standard Fine-Needle Aspiration in Pancreatic Masses: A Propensity Score Analysis |
title_short |
Contrast-Enhanced Harmonic Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration versus Standard Fine-Needle Aspiration in Pancreatic Masses: A Propensity Score Analysis |
title_full |
Contrast-Enhanced Harmonic Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration versus Standard Fine-Needle Aspiration in Pancreatic Masses: A Propensity Score Analysis |
title_fullStr |
Contrast-Enhanced Harmonic Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration versus Standard Fine-Needle Aspiration in Pancreatic Masses: A Propensity Score Analysis |
title_full_unstemmed |
Contrast-Enhanced Harmonic Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration versus Standard Fine-Needle Aspiration in Pancreatic Masses: A Propensity Score Analysis |
title_sort |
contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration versus standard fine-needle aspiration in pancreatic masses: a propensity score analysis |
publisher |
MDPI AG |
series |
Diagnostics |
issn |
2075-4418 |
publishDate |
2020-10-01 |
description |
Background: Whether endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) contrast-enhanced fine-needle aspiration (CH-EUS-FNA) determines superior results in comparison to standard EUS-FNA in tissue acquisition of pancreatic masses remains unclear. The aim of this study was to compare these two techniques on a series of patients with solid pancreatic lesions. Methods: 362 patients underwent EUS-FNA (2008–2019), after the propensity score matching of two groups were compared; 103 treated with CH-EUS-FNA (group 1) and 103 with standard EUS-FNA (group 2). The primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and sample adequacy. Results: Diagnostic sensitivity was 87.6% in group 1 and 80% in group 2 (<i>p </i>= 0.18). The negative predictive value was 56% in group 1 and 41.5% in group 2 (<i>p </i>= 0.06). The specificity and positive predictive values were 100% for both groups. Diagnostic accuracy was 89.3% and 82.5%, respectively (<i>p </i>= 0.40). Sample adequacy was 94.1% in group 1 and 91.2% in group 2 (<i>p </i>= 0.42). The rate of adequate core histologic samples was 33% and 28.1%, respectively (<i>p </i>= 0.44), and the number of needle passes to obtain adequate samples were 2.4 ± 0.6 and 2.7 ± 0.8, respectively (<i>p </i>= 0.76). These findings were confirmed in subgroup analyses, conducted according to lesion size and contrast enhancement pattern. Conclusions: CH-EUS-FNA does not appear to be superior to standard EUS-FNA in patients with pancreatic masses. |
topic |
endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle aspiration (FNA) pancreas endoscopy contrast-enhanced fine-needle aspiration (CH-FNA). |
url |
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/10/10/792 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT antoniofacciorusso contrastenhancedharmonicendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationversusstandardfineneedleaspirationinpancreaticmassesapropensityscoreanalysis AT christiancotsoglou contrastenhancedharmonicendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationversusstandardfineneedleaspirationinpancreaticmassesapropensityscoreanalysis AT andreachierici contrastenhancedharmonicendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationversusstandardfineneedleaspirationinpancreaticmassesapropensityscoreanalysis AT ruxandramare contrastenhancedharmonicendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationversusstandardfineneedleaspirationinpancreaticmassesapropensityscoreanalysis AT stefanofrancescocrino contrastenhancedharmonicendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationversusstandardfineneedleaspirationinpancreaticmassesapropensityscoreanalysis AT nicolamuscatiello contrastenhancedharmonicendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationversusstandardfineneedleaspirationinpancreaticmassesapropensityscoreanalysis |
_version_ |
1724461415085899776 |