Wani Sachin, Mullady Daniel, Early Dayna S, Rastogi Amit, Collins Brian, Wang Jeff F, Marshall Carrie, Sams Sharon B, Yen Roy, Rizeq Mona, Romanas Maria, Ulusarac Ozlem, Brauer Brian, Attwell Augustin, Gaddam Srinivas, Hollander Thomas G, Hosford Lindsay, Johnson Sydney, Kushnir Vladimir, Amateau Stuart K, Kohlmeier Cara, Azar Riad R, Vargo John, Fukami Norio, Shah Raj J, Das Ananya, Edmundowicz Steven A
Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Am J Gastroenterol. 2015 Oct;110(10):1429-39. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2015.262. Epub 2015 Sep 8.
Observational data on the impact of on-site cytopathology evaluation (OCE) during endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of pancreatic masses have reported conflicting results. We aimed to compare the diagnostic yield of malignancy and proportion of inadequate specimens between patients undergoing EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses with and without OCE.
In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, consecutive patients with solid pancreatic mass underwent randomization for EUS-FNA with or without OCE. The number of FNA passes in the OCE+ arm was dictated by the on-site cytopathologist, whereas seven passes were performed in OCE- arm. EUS-FNA protocol was standardized, and slides were reviewed by cytopathologists using standardized criteria for cytologic characteristics and diagnosis.
A total of 241 patients (121 OCE+, 120 OCE-) were included. There was no difference between the two groups in diagnostic yield of malignancy (OCE+ 75.2% vs. OCE- 71.6%, P=0.45) and proportion of inadequate specimens (9.8 vs. 13.3%, P=0.31). Procedures in OCE+ group required fewer EUS-FNA passes (median, OCE+ 4 vs. OCE- 7, P<0.0001). There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to overall procedure time, adverse events, number of repeat procedures, costs (based on baseline cost-minimization analysis), and accuracy (using predefined criteria for final diagnosis of malignancy). There was no difference between the two groups with respect to cytologic characteristics of cellularity, bloodiness, number of cells/slide, and contamination.
Results of this study demonstrated no significant difference in the diagnostic yield of malignancy, proportion of inadequate specimens, and accuracy in patients with pancreatic mass undergoing EUS-FNA with or without OCE.
关于内镜超声引导下细针穿刺活检(EUS-FNA)胰腺肿块时现场细胞病理学评估(OCE)的影响,观察性数据报告的结果相互矛盾。我们旨在比较接受有或无OCE的胰腺肿块EUS-FNA患者之间恶性肿瘤的诊断率以及标本不合格的比例。
在这项多中心随机对照试验中,连续的胰腺实性肿块患者被随机分为接受有或无OCE的EUS-FNA组。OCE+组的FNA穿刺次数由现场细胞病理学家决定,而OCE-组进行7次穿刺。EUS-FNA方案标准化,玻片由细胞病理学家根据细胞学特征和诊断的标准化标准进行审查。
共纳入241例患者(121例OCE+,120例OCE-)。两组在恶性肿瘤诊断率(OCE+ 75.2%对OCE- 71.6%,P = 0.45)和标本不合格比例(9.8对13.3%,P = 0.31)方面无差异。OCE+组的操作需要更少的EUS-FNA穿刺次数(中位数,OCE+ 4次对OCE- 7次,P<0.0001)。两组在总体操作时间、不良事件、重复操作次数、成本(基于基线成本最小化分析)和准确性(使用预定义的恶性肿瘤最终诊断标准)方面无显著差异。两组在细胞丰富度、血性、每张玻片细胞数量和污染的细胞学特征方面无差异。
本研究结果表明,接受有或无OCE的胰腺肿块EUS-FNA患者在恶性肿瘤诊断率、标本不合格比例和准确性方面无显著差异。