About this item:

204 Views | 208 Downloads

Author Notes:

Corresponding author. Division of Digestive Diseases, Emory University School of Medicine, 1365 Clifton Road, B1262, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA. Email: gcai@emory.edu

Conflict of interest statement: none declared.

Subject:

Keywords:

  • endoscopic ultrasound
  • fine needle aspiration
  • pancreatic mass
  • rapid on-site evaluation

The efficacy of rapid on-site evaluation during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic masse

Tools:

Journal Title:

Gastroenterology Report

Volume:

Volume 6, Number 1

Publisher:

, Pages 45-48

Type of Work:

Article | Final Publisher PDF

Abstract:

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) has become the preferred method to diagnose pancreatic masses due to its minimally invasive approach and diagnostic accuracy. Many studies have shown that rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) improves diagnostic yield by 10-30%; however, more recent studies have demonstrated effective diagnostic accuracy rates without ROSE. Our study aims to examine whether the current standard of performing ROSE after each FNA pass adds diagnostic value during EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic masses. Methods: We conducted a retrospective case series on patients who underwent EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic masses between February 2011 and October 2014. All cases were performed by one of three endoscopists at Emory University Hospital. Patient demographics, radiologic details of pancreatic masses and pathology reports of the biopsied pancreatic masses were examined. Results: A total of 184 procedures performed in 171 patients were reviewed. The final pathology reports of the biopsied pancreatic masses showed 128 (70%) with confirmed malignancy. Only 64 (50%) of these 128 cases initially showed malignant cells during ROSE. Among these 64 cases, 23% required 5 or more FNA passes to first detect malignant cells. Conclusions: The use of ROSE during EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic masses may increase the diagnostic yield, since malignant cells were often detected during later FNA passes that would otherwise be missed if tissue sampling stopped prematurely. In addition, sample preparation for ROSE may be suboptimal, since malignant cells were only detected in 50% of cases.

Copyright information:

© The Author(s) 2017. Published by Oxford University Press and Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University

This is an Open Access work distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).

Creative Commons License

Export to EndNote