EUS-FNA versus biliary brushings and assessment of simultaneous performance in jaundiced patients with suspected malignant obstruction.

CONTEXT

Individuals with suspected malignant biliary obstruction commonly undergo ERCP for drainage and tissue sampling via biliary brushings. EUS with EUS-FNA facilitates staging and potentially more accurate tissue sampling.

OBJECTIVE

The aim is to compare the diagnostic performance of EUS-FNA and ERCP with biliary brushings (ERCP-BB) in the diagnosis of pancreatobiliary carcinoma and the utility of combining the two procedures under conscious sedation.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database.

PATIENTS

Thirty-seven patients with suspected malignant obstructive jaundice underwent 39 paired procedures, either combined (n=22) or within a few days (n=17).

RESULTS

Using strict cytological criteria the sensitivity of EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of malignancy was 52.9% (95% CI: 35.1-70.2%) versus 29.4% (95% CI: 15.1-47.5%) for ERCP-BB. Combining the two tests improved sensitivity to 64.7% (95% CI: 46.5-80.3%) which was significantly better than ERCP-BB alone (P=0.001) but not EUS-FNA alone (P=0.125). When both procedures were performed under the same conscious sedation, there was a significant difference (P=0.031) between the sensitivity of EUS-FNA (52.6%; 95% CI: 28.9-75.6%) and that of ERCP-BB (21.1%; 95% CI: 6.1-45.6%). When both procedures were performed together the mean±SD in-room time was 79±14 min (range: 45-105 min). Two of the patients (9.1%) had a complication.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing EUS-FNA and ERCP-BB under the same sedation, EUS-FNA was significantly more sensitive in diagnosing malignancy. Combining the results of both tests improved diagnostic accuracy. Combining therapeutic ERCP and EUS-FNA under the same conscious sedation is feasible, with a complication rate similar to that of ERCP alone.