COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

Conventional versus contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration for diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions: A prospective randomized trial

Mitsuru Sugimoto, Tadayuki Takagi, Takuto Hikichi, Rei Suzuki, Ko Watanabe, Jun Nakamura, Hitomi Kikuchi, Naoki Konno, Yuichi Waragai, Hiroshi Watanabe, Katsutoshi Obara, Hiromasa Ohira
Pancreatology: Official Journal of the International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) ... [et Al.] 2015, 15 (5): 538-541
26145837

OBJECTIVES: Contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography (CEH-EUS) has been used to diagnose solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs). The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of CEH-EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (CEH-EUS-FNA) compared with that of conventional EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of SPLs.

METHODS: Forty patients with solid pancreatic lesions who visited Fukushima Medical University between September 2013 and June 2014 were recruited for this prospective study. Twenty patients underwent CEH-EUS-FNA, and 20 patients underwent conventional EUS-FNA. The sampling rate, sensitivity, accuracy, and number of needle passes required to obtain sufficient samples were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS: Patient characteristics, sampling rate, accuracy, and sensitivity were not significantly different between the two groups. The final diagnosis of patients who underwent CEH-EUS-FNA was pancreatic cancer in 19 and intraductal papillary mucinous carcinoma in one. Nineteen patients who underwent conventional EUS-FNA were finally diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and one was diagnosed as cancer of the common bile duct. There was a significant difference in the number of needle passes required. A sufficient sample was obtained on one needle pass in 60% (12/20) of CEH-EUS-FNA group compared with 25% (5/20) of the conventional EUS-FNA group.

CONCLUSIONS: Fewer needle passes were required to obtain samples from solid pancreatic lesions using CEH-EUS-FNA than those required using conventional EUS-FNA. Therefore, CEH-EUS-FNA may be more efficient and safer than conventional EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions.

Full Text Links

Find Full Text Links for this Article

Discussion

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

Trending Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
26145837
×

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"