Publication History View all
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 08/2014; 80(2):331.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Both EUS and ERCP sampling techniques may provide tissue diagnoses in suspected malignant biliary obstruction. However, there are scant data comparing these 2 methods.
To compare EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) and ERCP tissue sampling for the diagnosis of malignant biliary obstruction.
Prospective, comparative, single-blind study.
Fifty-one patients undergoing same-session EUS and ERCP for the evaluation of malignant biliary obstruction over a 1-year period.
EUS-FNA and ERCP tissue sampling with biliary brush cytology and intraductal forceps biopsies.
Diagnostic sensitivity and accuracy of each sampling method compared with final diagnoses.
EUS-FNA was more sensitive and accurate than ERCP tissue sampling (P < .0001) in 51 patients with pancreatic cancers (n = 34), bile duct cancers (n = 14), and benign biliary strictures (n = 3). The overall sensitivity and accuracy were 94% and 94% for EUS-FNA, and 50% and 53% for ERCP sampling, respectively. EUS-FNA was superior to ERCP tissue sampling for pancreatic masses (sensitivity, 100% vs 38%; P < .0001) and seemed comparable for biliary masses (79% sensitivity for both) and indeterminate strictures (sensitivity, 80% vs 67%).
EUS-FNA is superior to ERCP tissue sampling in evaluating suspected malignant biliary obstruction, particularly for pancreatic masses. EUS-FNA appears similar to ERCP sampling for biliary tumors and indeterminate strictures. Given the superior performance characteristics of EUS-FNA and the higher incidence of pancreatic cancer compared with cholangiocarcinoma, EUS-FNA should be performed before ERCP in all patients with suspected malignant biliary obstruction (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01356030.).
Gastrointestinal endoscopy 02/2014;
San Francisco, United States
Information provided on this web page is aggregated encyclopedic and bibliographical information relating to the named institution. Information provided is not approved by the institution itself. The institution’s logo (and/or other graphical identification, such as a coat of arms) is used only to identify the institution in a nominal way. Under certain jurisdictions it may be property of the institution.