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: Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle biopsy was not more cost-effective than fine-needle aspiration with rapid on-site evaluation in gastrointestinal lesions diagnosis.
    Author: Sbeit W, Khoury T.
    Journal: Diagn Cytopathol; 2021 Aug; 49(8):944-947. PubMed ID: 33973746.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND AND AIM: Cost-effectiveness comparison between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided acquisition techniques by fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) in gastrointestinal lesions is still scarce. EUS-FNB has been shown to be more cost-effective than EUS-FNA, however, when adding rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) to EUS-FNA, it is unclear whether EUS-FNB remains more cost-effective. Our aim was to assess cost-efficacy of EUS-FNB as compared to EUS-FNA with ROSE in gastrointestinal lesions. METHOD: All patients who underwent EUS-FNA with ROSE or EUS-FNB at Galilee Medical Center were retrospectively reviewed. Cost-effectiveness analysis was based on the additional EUS sessions needed and on the average cost expenditure to achieve one final pathological diagnosis. RESULTS: Seventy-four cases were included in the final analysis. Of them, 21 patients (28.4%) were in the EUS-FNB group (group A), as compared to 53 patients (71.6%) who underwent EUS-FNA with ROSE (group B). Additional EUS sessions needed to achieve one final pathological diagnosis were needed in 14.3% of group A patients vs 9.4% in group B patients (P = .5). and, the average cost for achieving one final pathological diagnosis was similar in both groups (1226 ± 369$ for group A vs 1158 ± 309.6.7$ for group B, P = .2). Notably, even after analyzing pancreatic and non-pancreatic gastrointestinal lesions separately, there was no cost benefit of EUS-FNB over EUS-FNA with ROSE. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness analysis was not different between EUS-FNB vs EUS-FNA with ROSE. Thus, the preference of one modality over the other should be based on availability and local expertise.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]