Comparison of Ultrasound‐Guided Core Needle Biopsy and Endoscopic Ultrasound‐Guided Fine‐Needle Aspiration for Solid Pancreatic Lesions. (21st October 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sur, Young Keun; Kim, Young Chul; Kim, Jai Keun; Lee, Jei Hee; Yoo, Byung Moo; Kim, Young Bae
• Is Part Of: Journal of ultrasound in medicine. Volume 34:Number 12(2015)
• Page Start: 2163
• Page End: 2169
• Publication Date: 2015-10-21
• Subjects: diagnostic yield -- endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration -- gastrointestinal ultrasound -- pancreatic malignancy -- pancreatitis -- ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy; Ultrasonics in medicine -- Periodicals; Ultrasonics; Ultrasonography; Ultrasonics in medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; 616.07543
• DOI: 10.7863/ultra.14.11030
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0278-4297

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: The objective of our study was to compare the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)‐guided fine‐needle aspiration (FNA) using a 25‐gauge needle and ultrasound (US)‐guided core needle biopsy (CNB) using an 18‐gauge core needle for diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions. Methods: This retrospective study was approved by our Institutional Review Board, and the requirement for informed consent was waived. Patients who underwent either EUS‐guided FNA or US‐guided CNB for a solid pancreatic lesion from January 2008 to December 2012 were included and reviewed. Fine‐needle aspirations and CNBs were performed by experienced endoscopists and radiologists. The diagnostic yield, accuracy, technical failure rate, sensitivity, and specificity for malignancy were calculated and compared. Results: A total of 106 biopsy attempts were undertaken in 89 patients (EUS‐guided FNA, n = 70; US‐guided CNB, n = 36). Biopsy specimens were successfully obtained in 98 biopsy attempts (EUS‐guided FNA, n = 63; US‐guided CNB, n = 35). The accuracy, technical failure rate, sensitivity, and specificity of EUS‐guided FNA for malignancy (73.02%, 10.00%, 77.78%, and 44.44%, respectively) was not significantly different from those of US‐guided CNB (88.57%, 2.78%, 87.10%, and 100%, respectively; P ≥ .089). Diagnostic performance did not differ between the modalities according to the size and the location of the lesion in the pancreas. However, the diagnostic yield of US‐guided CNB (86.11%) was higher than that of EUS‐guided FNA (65.71%, P = .035). Conclusions: The diagnostic yield of US‐guided CNB for solid pancreatic lesions is superior to that of EUS‐guided FNA.