Abstract

There is a paucity of evidence on the comparison between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle biopsy (FNB) and fine-needle aspiration (FNA) for lymph node (LNs) sampling. The aim of this study was to compare these two approaches in a multicenter series of patients with abdominal tumors. Out of 502 patients undergoing EUS sampling, two groups following propensity score matching were compared: 105 undergoing EUS-FNB and 105 undergoing EUS-FNA. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, sample adequacy, optimal histological core procurement, number of passes, and adverse events. Median age was 64.6 years, and most patients were male in both groups. Final diagnosis was LN metastasis (mainly from colorectal cancer) in 70.4% of patients in the EUS-FNB group and 66.6% in the EUS-FNA group (p = 0.22). Diagnostic accuracy was significantly higher in the EUS-FNB group as compared to the EUS-FNA group (87.62% versus 75.24%, p = 0.02). EUS-FNB outperformed EUS-FNA also in terms of diagnostic sensitivity (84.71% vs. 70.11%; p = 0.01), whereas specificity was 100% in both groups (p = 0.6). Sample adequacy analysis showed a non-significant trend in favor of EUS-FNB (96.1% versus 89.5%, p = 0.06) whereas the histological core procurement rate was significantly higher with EUS-FNB (94.2% versus 51.4%; p < 0.001). No procedure-related adverse events were observed. These findings show that EUS-FNB is superior to EUS-FNA in tissue sampling of abdominal LNs.

Highlights

  • Assessing lymph nodes (LNs) involvement from a neoplastic disease has a fundamental impact on tumor staging and treatment

  • The diagnostic accuracy rate was significantly higher in the endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-fine-needle biopsy (FNB) group as compared to the EUS-fine-needle aspiration (FNA) group (87.62% versus 75.24%, p = 0.02)

  • The diagnostic accuracy rate was significantly higher in the EUS-FNB group as compared to the EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) group (87.62% versus 75.24%, p = 0.02) and EUS-FNB outperformed EUS-FNA in terms of diagnostic sensitivity (84.71% vs. 70.11%; p = 0.01), whereas, as expected, specificity was 100% in both groups (p = 0.6)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Assessing lymph nodes (LNs) involvement from a neoplastic disease has a fundamental impact on tumor staging and treatment. Accurate imaging-guided LN sampling is important to ascertain the underlying diagnosis and to enable adequate clinical management. Among these techniques, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling plays a pivotal role in the diagnostic management of thoracic and of abdominal LNs and has currently superseded more invasive methods, such as mediastinoscopy or laparotomy [2]. Endosonographic characteristics of malignant lymph nodes include a large size, hypoechogenicity, distinct border, round shape, and high tissue stiffness on elastography [3,4]. Simple LN morphology assessed through EUS is not sufficient to definitively distinguish benign nodes from malignant ones, an appropriate tissue sampling-aimed technique with concomitant pathological confirmation is often employed [5,6]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call