These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison between EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology and EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy histology for the evaluation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.
    Author: Crinò SF, Ammendola S, Meneghetti A, Bernardoni L, Conti Bellocchi MC, Gabbrielli A, Landoni L, Paiella S, Pin F, Parisi A, Mastrosimini MG, Amodio A, Frulloni L, Facciorusso A, Larghi A, Manfrin E.
    Journal: Pancreatology; 2021 Mar; 21(2):443-450. PubMed ID: 33390343.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Studies comparing EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) with EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for the evaluation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) are lacking. We aimed at comparing EUS-FNA with EUS-FNB in terms of Ki-67 proliferative index (PI) estimation capability, cellularity of the samples, and reliability of Ki-67 PI/tumor grading compared with surgical specimens. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with pNETs on EUS and/or surgical specimens were retrospectively identified. Specimens were re-evaluated to assess Ki-67 PI feasibility, sample cellularity by manual counting, and determination of Ki-67 PI value. Outcomes in the EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB groups were compared. Kendall rank test was used for Ki-67 PI correlation between EUS and surgical specimens. Subgroup analysis including small (≤20 mm), non-functioning pNETs was performed. RESULTS: Three-hundred samples from 292 lesions were evaluated: 69 EUS-FNA cytology and 231 EUS-FNB histology. Ki-67 PI feasibility was similar for EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB (91.3% vs. 95.7%, p = 0.15), while EUS-FNB performed significantly better in the subgroup of 179 small pNETs (88.2% vs. 96.1%, p = 0.04). Rate of poor cellulated (<500 cells) specimens was equal between EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB. A significant correlation for Ki-67 PI values between EUS and 92 correspondent surgical specimens was found in both groups, but it was stronger with EUS-FNB (tau = 0.626, p < 0.0001 vs. tau = 0.452, p = 0.031). Correct grading estimation was comparable between the two groups (p = 0.482). CONCLUSION: Our study showed stronger correlation for Ki-67 values between EUS-FNB and surgical specimens, and that EUS-FNB outperformed EUS-FNA in the evaluation of small pNETs. EUS-FNB should become standard of care for grading assessment of suspected pNETs.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]