Dataset Information

Single-Pass vs 2-Pass Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy Sample Collection for Creation of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Organoids.

ABSTRACT: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has one of the poorest prognoses of all malignancies, with a 5-year survival rate <8%.¹^,² Suspicious lesions are typically diagnosed via endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration or endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB).³ Fewer needle passes decreases the risk of postprocedure complications, including pancreatitis and hemorrhage, while allowing additional needle passes to be used for adjuvant tissue testing, such as organoid creation and DNA sequencing.

SUBMITTER: Lacomb JF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7483221 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Single-Pass vs 2-Pass Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy Sample Collection for Creation of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Organoids.

Lacomb Joseph F JF Plenker Dennis D Tiriac Hervé H Bucobo Juan Carlos JC D'souza Lionel S LS Khokhar Asim S AS Patel Hardik H Channer Breana B Joseph Dimitri D Wu Maoxin M Tuveson David A DA Li Ellen E Buscaglia Jonathan M JM

Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association 20200229 4

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has one of the poorest prognoses of all malignancies, with a 5-year survival rate <8%.1,2 Suspicious lesions are typically diagnosed via endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration or endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB).3 Fewer needle passes decreases the risk of postprocedure complications, including pancreatitis and hemorrhage, while allowing additional needle passes to be used for ...[more]

PMID: 32119924

Similar Datasets

Project description:Abstract Background Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition represents the choice of methods for suspected lymph nodes (LNs) located next to the gastrointestinal tract. This study aimed to compare the pooled diagnostic performance of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) and fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for LNs sampling. Methods We searched PubMed/MedLine and Embase databases through August 2021. Primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy; secondary outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, sample adequacy, optimal histological core procurement, number of passes, and adverse events. We performed a pairwise meta-analysis using a random-effects model. The results are presented as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference along with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results We identified nine studies (1,276 patients) in this meta-analysis. Among these patients, 66.4% were male; the median age was 67 years. Diagnostic accuracy was not significantly different between the two approaches (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.81–2.10; P = 0.270). The accuracy of EUS-FNB was significantly higher when being performed with newer end-cutting needles (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.17–3.00; P = 0.009) and in abdominal LNs (OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.52–4.05; P < 0.001) than that of EUS-FNA. No difference in terms of sample adequacy was observed between the two approaches (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.46–4.26; P = 0.550); however, histological core procurement and diagnostic sensitivity with EUS-FNB were significantly higher than those with EUS-FNA (OR, 6.15; 95% CI, 1.51–25.07; P = 0.010 and OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.27–2.74, P = 0.001). The number of needle passes needed was significantly lower in the EUS-FNB group than in the EUS-FNA group (mean difference, −0.54; 95% CI, −0.97 to −0.12; P = 0.010). Conclusions EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB perform similarly in LN sampling; however, FNB performed with end-cutting needles outperformed FNA in terms of diagnostic accuracy.

Project description:Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) is traditionally considered a first-line strategy for diagnosing pancreatic lesions; however, given less than ideal accuracy rates, fine-needle biopsy (FNB) has been recently developed to yield histological tissue. The aim of this study was to compare diagnostic yield and safety between EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB in sampling of pancreatic masses. Patients and methods This was a multicenter retrospective study to evaluate efficacy and safety of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for pancreatic lesions. Baseline characteristics including sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy, were evaluated. Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) diagnostic adequacy, cell-block accuracy, and adverse events were analyzed. Subgroup analyses comparing FNA versus FNB route of tissue acquisition and comparison between methods with or without ROSE were performed. Multivariable logistic regression was also performed. Results A total of 574 patients (n = 194 FNA, n = 380 FNB) were included. Overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of FNB versus FNA were similar [(89.09 % versus 85.62 %; P = 0.229), (98.04 % versus 96.88 %; P = 0.387), and 90.29 % versus 87.50 %; P = 0.307)]. Number of passes for ROSE adequacy and cell-block accuracy were comparable for FNA versus FNB [(3.06 ± 1.62 versus 3.04 ± 1.88; P = 0.11) and (3.08 ± 1.63 versus 3.35 ± 2.02; P = 0.137)]. FNA + ROSE was superior to FNA alone regarding sensitivity and accuracy [91.96 % versus 70.83 %; P < 0.001) and (91.80 % versus 80.28 %; P = 0.020)]. Sensitivity of FNB + ROSE and FNB alone were superior to FNA alone [(92.17 % versus 70.83 %; P < 0.001) and (87.44 % versus 70.83 %; P < 0.001)]. There was no difference in sensitivity though improved accuracy between FNA + ROSE versus FNB alone [(91.96 % versus 87.44 %; P = 0.193) and (91.80 % versus 80.72 %; P = 0.006)]. FNB + ROSE was more accurate than FNA + ROSE (93.13 % versus 91.80 % ; P = 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed ROSE was a significant predictor of accuracy [OR 2.60 (95 % CI, 1.41-4.79)]. One adverse event occurred after FNB resulting in patient death. Conclusion EUS-FNB allowed for more consistent cell-block evaluation as compared to EUS-FNA. EUS-FNA + ROSE was found to have a similar sensitivity to EUS-FNB alone suggesting a reduced need for ROSE as part of the standard algorithm of pancreatic sampling. While FNB alone produced similar diagnostic findings to EUS-FNA + ROSE, FNB + ROSE still was noted to increase diagnostic yield. This finding may favor a unique role for FNB + ROSE, suggesting it may be useful in cases when previous EUS-guided sampling may have been indeterminate.

Dataset Information

Single-Pass vs 2-Pass Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy Sample Collection for Creation of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Organoids.

Publications

Single-Pass vs 2-Pass Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy Sample Collection for Creation of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Organoids.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets