Effect of a stylet on a histological specimen in EUS-guided fine-needle tissue acquisition by using 22-gauge needles: a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial

Yoko Abe, Hiroshi Kawakami, Koji Oba, Tsuyoshi Hayashi, Ichiro Yasuda, Tsuyoshi Mukai, Hiroyuki Isayama, Hirotoshi Ishiwatari, Shinpei Doi, Masanori Nakashima, Natsuyo Yamamoto, Masaki Kuwatani, Tomoko Mitsuhashi, Tadashi Hasegawa, Yoshinobu Hirose, Tetsuya Yamada, Mariko Tanaka, Naoya Sakamoto
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2015, 82 (5): 837-844.e1

BACKGROUND: EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) has become the most efficacious way to obtain specimens from a solid lesion adjacent to the GI tract. Previous reports regarding the use of a stylet during EUS-FNA were all based on cytological diagnosis and have showed no significant superiority in terms of diagnostic yield.

OBJECTIVE: To clarify the noninferiority of EUS-FNA without a stylet (S-) compared with EUS-FNA with a stylet (S+) on histological assessment.

DESIGN: A prospective, single-blind, randomized, controlled crossover study.

SETTING: Five tertiary referral centers in Japan.

PATIENTS: Patients referred for EUS-FNA of a solid lesion.

INTERVENTION: EUS-FNA S+ and S- in a total of 4 alternate passes with randomization to S+ first or S- first.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The primary endpoint was the acquisition rate of an appropriate and sufficient specimen for histological assessment. The secondary endpoints were cellularity, contamination, bloodiness, diagnostic ability, and diagnostic accuracy.

RESULTS: We enrolled 107 patients (110 lesions) and analyzed 220 specimens each in the S+ and S- groups. The acquisition rate of appropriate and sufficient specimens in the S+ group was 121 of 220 (55.0%) and 122 of 220 (55.5%) in the S- group. The difference in the acquisition rate of the specimen (S- minus S+) based on the generalized estimating equation was 0.42% (95% confidence interval, -6.72% to 7.56%), which was less than 10% of the prespecified noninferiority margin of this study. With regard to cellularity, contamination, bloodiness score, diagnostic ability, and diagnostic accuracy, there were no significant differences between both groups. There were no dropouts in the study.

LIMITATIONS: A variety of target lesions, multiple pathologists, lack of an assessment of intraobserver and interobserver variability, and a single-blind study for the pathologists.

CONCLUSION: EUS-FNA S- is noninferior to EUS-FNA S+ on histological assessment. (


Full Text Links

Find Full Text Links for this Article


You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Related Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read

Save your favorite articles in one place with a free QxMD account.


Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"