Comparison of Ultrasound-Guided Core Needle Biopsy and Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration for Solid Pancreatic Lesions.
Author(s): Sur YK, Kim YC, Kim JK, Lee JH, Yoo BM, Kim YB
Publication: J Ultrasound Med, 2015, Vol. 34, Page 2163-9
PubMed ID: 26491091 PubMed Review Paper? No
Purpose of Paper
The purpose of this paper was to compare diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity between ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy (US-CNB) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspirations (EUS-FNA) of solid pancreatic lesions.
Conclusion of Paper
The proportion of specimens with an accurate diagnosis was higher for US-CNB than EUS-FNA specimens when those that failed due to technical issues were included (86.11% versus 65.71%). However, the diagnostic accuracy (for successful specimens), sensitivity and specificity were higher, albeit not significantly, for specimens procured by US-CNB compared to EUS-FNA specimens.
Studies
-
Study Purpose
The purpose of this study was to compare diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity between US-CNB and EU-FNA specimens of solid pancreatic lesions. A total of 63 EUS-guided FNA specimens procured with a 25-gauge needle, and 35 US-guided CNB specimens procured with an 18-gauge needle were obtained from 89 patients with solid pancreatic lesions identified by CT or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Biopsy method was determined by the clinician, but clinicians favored EUS-FNA when possible based on location unless the lesion was suspect for pancreatitis. The 35 US-CNB specimens included 10 cases in which the initial diagnosis by EUS-FNA was presumed inaccurate. Malignant lesions were confirmed after surgical resection. Benign pancreatic lesions were confirmed by US-CNB or by clinical or imaging follow-up after 1 year.
Summary of Findings:
Overall the diagnostic accuracy of US-guided CNB was 88.57% (31 of 35 cases), which did not differ significantly from EUS-guided FNA (73.02%, 46 of 63 cases). However, when specimens that failed due to technical issues were included the proportion of specimens with an accurate diagnosis was significantly higher for US-CNB than EUS-FNA (86.11% versus 65.71%, p=0.035). US-CNB rather than EUS-FNA was more likely to correctly diagnose malignant (sensitivity of 87.10% versus 77.78%) and benign lesions (specificity of 100% versus 44.44%), but the differences were not significant, regardless of lesion size or location within the pancreas. Generally, diagnostic accuracy and diagnosis rate increased with increasing the lesion size.
Biospecimens
Preservative Types
- Formalin
Diagnoses:
- Other diagnoses
- Neoplastic - Benign
- Neoplastic - Carcinoma
- Normal
Platform:
Analyte Technology Platform Morphology Light microscopy Pre-analytical Factors:
Classification Pre-analytical Factor Value(s) Biospecimen Acquisition Method of tissue acquisition Fine needle aspiration
Core needle biopsy
Ultrasound-guided biopsy
Ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration
Preaquisition Prognostic factor <2 cm lesion
2-4 cm lesion
>4 cm lesion
Biospecimen Acquisition Biospecimen location Pancreatic head and uncinate
Pancreatic body and neck