Suppr超能文献

细针活检与细针抽吸在胰腺和腹部肿块诊断中的对比分析:一项前瞻性、多中心、随机对照试验。

Analysis of Fine-Needle Biopsy vs Fine-Needle Aspiration in Diagnosis of Pancreatic and Abdominal Masses: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial.

机构信息

Endoscopy Unit, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.

Department of Endoscopy, Cancer Institute and Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.

出版信息

Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Aug;16(8):1314-1321. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.07.010. Epub 2017 Jul 19.

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needles with side fenestrations are used to collect aspirates for cytology analysis and biopsy samples for histologic analysis. We conducted a large, multicenter study to compare the accuracy of diagnosis via specimens collected with fine-needle biopsy (FNB) versus fine-needle aspiration (FNA) for patients with pancreatic and nonpancreatic masses.

METHODS

We performed a prospective single-blind study at 5 tertiary care centers in China. The study comprised 408 patients undergoing EUS for a solid mass (>1 cm) in the pancreas, abdomen, mediastinum, or pelvic cavity, from December 2014 through January 2016. Patients were randomly assigned to groups (1:1) for assessment by FNA (n = 190) or FNB (n = 187). After lesions were identified by EUS, samples were collected in a total of 4 passes by each needle. All procedures were performed by experienced endosonographers; cytologists and pathologists were blinded to the sample collection method. Patients were followed for at least 48 weeks, and final diagnoses were obtained after surgery, imaging analysis, or resolution of lesion. The primary aim was to compare diagnostic yields of EUS-FNA with EUS-FNB for all solid masses, then separately as pancreatic and nonpancreatic masses. The secondary endpoint was the quality of histologic specimen.

RESULTS

Findings from FNB analysis were accurate for 91.44% of all cases, compared with 80.00% for all FNA cases, based on final patient diagnoses (P = .0015). In patients with pancreatic masses (n = 249), findings from histologic analysis of FNBs were accurate for 92.68% of the cases, compared with 81.75% for FNAs (P = .0099). In cytology analysis of pancreatic masses, samples collected by FNB accurately identified 88.62% of all pancreatic lesions, whereas samples collected by FNA accurately identified 79.37% (P = .00468). Analyses of samples of nonpancreatic masses collected by FNA versus FNB produced similar diagnostic yields.

CONCLUSIONS

In a prospective study of patients with pancreatic masses, we found EUS-guided FNB samples to produce more accurate diagnoses than samples collected by EUS-guided FNA samples. No difference in diagnostic yield was seen between EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for nonpancreatic masses. Clinical Trials.gov no: NCT02327065.

摘要

背景与目的

内镜超声(EUS)引导下的细针具有侧窗,用于收集细胞学分析的抽吸物和组织学分析的活检样本。我们进行了一项大型的多中心研究,比较了通过细针活检(FNB)和细针抽吸(FNA)收集的标本对胰腺和非胰腺肿块患者的诊断准确性。

方法

我们在中国的 5 家三级护理中心进行了一项前瞻性单盲研究。该研究纳入了 2014 年 12 月至 2016 年 1 月期间因胰腺、腹部、纵隔或盆腔内实体肿块(>1cm)接受 EUS 检查的 408 例患者。患者被随机分为两组(1:1),分别接受 FNA(n=190)或 FNB(n=187)评估。通过 EUS 识别病变后,用每种针进行 4 次穿刺采集样本。所有操作均由经验丰富的超声内镜医生进行;细胞学家和病理学家对样本采集方法不知情。对患者进行至少 48 周的随访,在手术、影像学分析或病变消退后获得最终诊断。主要目的是比较 EUS-FNA 和 EUS-FNB 对所有实体肿块的诊断效果,然后分别对胰腺和非胰腺肿块进行比较。次要终点是组织学标本的质量。

结果

根据最终的患者诊断,FNB 分析的结果对所有病例的准确率为 91.44%,而所有 FNA 病例的准确率为 80.00%(P=0.0015)。在胰腺肿块患者(n=249)中,FNB 组织学分析的结果对 92.68%的病例准确,而 FNA 为 81.75%(P=0.0099)。在胰腺肿块的细胞学分析中,FNB 采集的样本准确识别了所有胰腺病变的 88.62%,而 FNA 采集的样本准确识别了 79.37%(P=0.00468)。FNA 和 FNB 采集的非胰腺肿块样本的分析产生了类似的诊断效果。

结论

在一项对胰腺肿块患者的前瞻性研究中,我们发现 EUS 引导下的 FNB 样本比 EUS 引导下的 FNA 样本产生了更准确的诊断。EUS-FNA 和 EUS-FNB 对非胰腺肿块的诊断效果无差异。临床试验.gov 编号:NCT02327065。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验