UpToDate
Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2017 UpToDate, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

Medline ® Abstract for Reference 26

of '超声内镜引导下胃肠道细针抽吸活检'

26
TI
The clinical utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic carcinoma.
AU
Chang KJ, Nguyen P, Erickson RA, Durbin TE, Katz KD
SO
Gastrointest Endosc. 1997;45(5):387.
 
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) of pancreatic lesions is being increasingly used. Our aim was to determine the safety, accuracy, and clinical utility of EUS-guided FNA in both the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer.
METHODS: Forty-four patients (24 men/20 women) had EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic lesions (39 head/neck, 5 body, 3 tail) and/or associated lymph nodes. The mean age was 61 (range, 28 to 88 years). The indication for EUS-guided FNA was a pancreatic lesion seen initially on CT (39%), ERCP (43%), or EUS (18%). Follow-up data were collected on all patients for mean of 14.5 months (range 1 to 33 months).
RESULTS: CT detected only 15 of 61 (25%) focal lesions seen by EUS, Adequate specimens were obtained by EUS-guided FNA in 44 of 47 (94%) pancreatic lesions and 14 of 14 (100%) associated lymph nodes (overall adequacy was 95%). Of the 46 lesions in which specimens were adequate and a final diagnosis was available (32 malignant, 14 benign), EUS-guided FNA had a sensitivity of 92%, specificity of 100%, and diagnostic accuracy of 95% for pancreaticlesions and 83%, 100%, and 88% for lymph nodes, respectively. Six percent of pancreatic cases had inadequate specimens and, if included, lowered the sensitivity to 83%, specificity to 80%, and diagnostic accuracy to 88% for pancreatic lesions. In 3 patients with enlarged celiac nodes on EUS, EUS-guided FNA was able to make a tissue diagnosis of metastasis, which changed the preoperative staging and precluded surgery. EUS in combination with EUS-guided FNA precluded surgery in 12 of 44 (27%) and may have precluded surgery in an additional 6 of 44 (14%). EUS-guided FNA avoided the need for further diagnostic tests, thus expediting therapy in a total of 25 (57%) patients and influenced clinical decisions in 30 of 44 (68%) patients. The estimated cost savings based on surgeries avoided was approximately $3300 per patient. There was only one complication (2%), a post-FNA fever.
CONCLUSION: EUS-guided FNA of the pancreas appears to be a safe and effective method that increases both the diagnostic and staging capability of EUS in pancreatic cancer. The clinical impact of EUS-guided FNA includes avoiding surgery and additional imaging studies with a substantial cost savings.
AD
Division of Gastroenterology, University of California, Irvine Medical Center, USA.
PMID