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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Antonio Facciorusso, Christian Cotsoglou, Andrea Chierici, Ruxandra Mare, Stefano Francesco Crinò, Nicola Muscatiello
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