Usefulness of a target sample check illuminator in the detection of target specimens in endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle biopsy samples: Multicenter prospective study. Issue 6 (28th December 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Matsumoto, Kazuya; Hara, Kazuo; Yasuda, Ichiro; Itoi, Takao; Kurumi, Hiroki; Matsumoto, Shimpei; Doi, Shinpei; Honjo, Mitsuyoshi; Takeda, Yohei; Shibuya, Jin; Noma, Hisashi; Isomoto, Hajime
• Is Part Of: Digestive endoscopy. Volume 33:Issue 6(2021)
• Page Start: 970
• Page End: 976
• Publication Date: 2020-12-28
• Subjects: endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle aspiration -- endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle biopsy -- pancreatic masses and lymph node tumors -- rapid on‐site evaluation -- target sample check illuminator; Digestive organs -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Digestive organs -- Diseases -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; Endoscopy -- Periodicals; Digestive System Diseases -- diagnosis -- Periodicals; Digestive System Diseases -- therapy -- Periodicals; Endoscopy -- Periodicals; 616.3
• DOI: 10.1111/den.13903
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0915-5635

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: Endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle biopsy (EUS‐FNB) uses a thin needle, rendering unclear whether the collected sample contains pathological evidence. We examined the usefulness of our target sample check illuminator (TSCI) through a multicenter prospective trial. Methods: We included 52 consecutive patients. After assessing EUS‐FNB samples by conventional (visual observation) and TSCI methods, we evaluated consistency with the histopathological diagnosis. We compared the target sample confirmation rate between conventional and TSCI methods and evaluated the diagnostic ability separately. Results: Comparison between the conventional and TSCI methods revealed the following: (i) for all cases: sensitivity, 51.0% (25/49) vs. 95.9% (47/49) ( P = 0.001); specificity, 100% (3/3) vs. 66.7% (2/3); positive predictive value (PPV), 100% (25/25) vs. 97.9% (47/48); and negative predictive value (NPV), 11.1% (3/27) vs. 50.0% (2/4) ( P = 0.002); (ii) for pancreatic masses: sensitivity, 28.0% (7/25) vs. 96.0% (24/25) ( P < 0.001); specificity, 100% (2/2) vs. 100% (2/2); PPV, 100% (7/7) vs. 100% (24/24); and NPV, 10.0% (2/20) vs. 66.7% (2/3) ( P < 0.001) (the TSCI method showed significantly better sensitivity and NPV than the conventional method); and (iii) for lymph node tumors: sensitivity, 75.0% (18/24) vs. 95.8% (23/24) ( P = 0.025); specificity, 100% (1/1) vs. 0% (0/1); PPV, 100% (18/18) vs. 95.8% (23/24); and NPV, 14.3% (1/7) vs. 0% (0/1). Conclusions: The TSCI improved the sensitivity, NPV, and accuracy of target sample confirmation for pancreatic mass EUS‐FNB. Although the proportion of samples not including a target region was quite low, which could strongly influence our results, the TSCI method can be used in EUS‐FNB when rapid on‐site evaluation cannot be performed. (A multicenter prospective study for the utility of a target sample check illuminator, Clinical Trial ID: UMIN000023349).