Suppr超能文献

内镜超声引导下胰腺肿瘤细针抽吸术的吸引法与慢拉法:一项前瞻性随机试验

Suction versus slow-pull for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic tumors: a prospective randomized trial.

作者信息

Cheng Spencer, Brunaldi Vitor O, Minata Mauricio K, Chacon Danielle A, da Silveira Eduardo B, de Moura Diogo Th, Dos Santos Marcos El, Matuguma Sergio E, Chaves Dalton M, França Raony F, Jacomo Alfredo L, Artifon Everson LA

机构信息

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, Gastroenterology Department, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, Gastroenterology Department, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.

出版信息

HPB (Oxford). 2020 May;22(5):779-786. doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2019.10.007. Epub 2019 Oct 31.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Suction (S) is commonly used to improve cell acquisition during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). Slow-pull (SP) sampling is another technique that might procure good quality specimens with less bloodiness. We aimed to determine if SP improves the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses.

METHODS

Patients with pancreatic solid masses were randomized to four needle passes with both techniques in an alternate fashion. Sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values were calculated. Cellularity and bloodiness of cytological samples were assessed and compared according to the technique.

RESULTS

Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of suction vs. SP were 95.2% vs. 92.3%; 100% vs. 100; 95.7% vs. 93%, respectively. As to the association of methods, they were 95.6, 100 and 96%, respectively. Positive predictive values for S and SP were 100%. There was no difference in diagnostic yield between S and SP (p = 0.344). Cellularity of samples obtained with SP and Suction were equivalent in both smear evaluation (p = 0.119) and cell-block (0.980). Bloodiness of SP and suction techniques were similar as well.

CONCLUSIONS

S and SP techniques provide equivalent sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. Association of methods seems to improve diagnostic yield. Suction does not increase the bloodiness of samples compared to slow-pull.

摘要

背景

在超声内镜引导下细针穿刺活检(EUS-FNA)过程中,抽吸(S)常用于提高细胞获取量。慢拉(SP)采样是另一种技术,可能以较少的血性获取高质量标本。我们旨在确定SP是否能提高胰腺肿块EUS-FNA的诊断率。

方法

将胰腺实性肿块患者随机分为两组,交替采用两种技术各进行4次针穿刺。计算敏感性、特异性、阳性和阴性预测值。根据技术评估并比较细胞学样本的细胞数量和血性。

结果

抽吸与SP的敏感性、特异性和准确性分别为95.2%对92.3%;100%对100%;95.7%对93%。就方法的联合而言,分别为95.6%、100%和96%。S和SP的阳性预测值均为100%。S和SP之间的诊断率无差异(p = 0.344)。在涂片评估(p = 0.119)和细胞块(p = 0.980)中,SP和抽吸获得的样本细胞数量相当。SP和抽吸技术的血性也相似。

结论

S和SP技术提供了相当的敏感性、特异性和准确性。方法的联合似乎能提高诊断率。与慢拉相比,抽吸不会增加样本的血性。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验