Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration versus Percutaneous Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration in Diagnosis of Focal Pancreatic Masses.

OBJECTIVE

Pancreatic carcinoma is one of the leading cancer morbidity and mortality world-wide. Controversy has arisen about whether the percutaneous approach with computed tomography/ultrasonography-guidance fine needle aspiration (US-FNA) or endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the preferred method to obtain diagnostic tissue. Our purpose of this study is to compare between the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA and percutaneous US-FNA in diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 197 patients with pancreatic masses were included in the study, 125 patients underwent US-FNA (Group 1) and 72 patients underwent EUS-FNA (Group 2).

RESULTS

EUS-FNA has nearly the same accuracy (88.9%) as US-FNA (87.2%) in diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for EUS-FNA was 84%, 100%, 100%, 73.3% respectively. It was 85.5%, 90.4%, 94.7%, 76% respectively for US-FNA. EUS-FNA had a lower complication rate (1.38%) than US-FNA (5.6%).

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNA has nearly the same accuracy as US-FNA of pancreatic masses with a lower complication rate.