Optimal number of EUS-guided fine needle passes needed to obtain a correct diagnosis

Julia Kim LeBlanc, Donato Ciaccia, Mohammed T. Al-Assi, Kevin McGrath, Thomas Imperiale, Liang Che Tao, Steve Vallery, John DeWitt, Stuart Sherman, Edith Collins

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

202 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The immediate assistance of a cytologist during EUS-guided FNA is not universal. The optimal number of fine needle passes during EUS-guided FNA has not been determined in a prospective study. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal number of passes required to obtain a correct diagnosis. Methods: Seven or more passes were made with a fine needle into a variety of lesions during EUS-guided FNA. Adequacy of the aspirate, diagnosis, and a "certainty score" were recorded after each pass and interpreted sequentially by a cytopathologist. Surgical histopathology and 1-year clinical follow-up were used as reference standards. The percentage of correctly diagnosed cases was calculated and stratified according to organ, disease group, and EUS characteristics of the lesion. Results: Lesions from 95 patients were categorized into the following locations: pancreas, lymph node, and miscellaneous. The sensitivity and specificity for 7 passes from the pancreas and miscellaneous lesion groups were, respectively, 83% and 100%. The sensitivity and specificity for 5 passes from the lymph node group were, respectively, 77% and 100%. Conclusions: During EUS-guided FNA, at least 7 passes with a fine needle into pancreatic and miscellaneous lesions, and 5 passes into lymph nodes are needed to ensure a high degree of certainty for making a correct diagnosis.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)475-481
Number of pages7
JournalGastrointestinal Endoscopy
Volume59
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2004
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration
Needles
Lymph Nodes
Pancreas
Sensitivity and Specificity
Prospective Studies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

LeBlanc, J. K., Ciaccia, D., Al-Assi, M. T., McGrath, K., Imperiale, T., Tao, L. C., ... Collins, E. (2004). Optimal number of EUS-guided fine needle passes needed to obtain a correct diagnosis. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 59(4), 475-481. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5107(03)02863-3

Optimal number of EUS-guided fine needle passes needed to obtain a correct diagnosis. / LeBlanc, Julia Kim; Ciaccia, Donato; Al-Assi, Mohammed T.; McGrath, Kevin; Imperiale, Thomas; Tao, Liang Che; Vallery, Steve; DeWitt, John; Sherman, Stuart; Collins, Edith.

In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Vol. 59, No. 4, 04.2004, p. 475-481.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

LeBlanc, Julia Kim ; Ciaccia, Donato ; Al-Assi, Mohammed T. ; McGrath, Kevin ; Imperiale, Thomas ; Tao, Liang Che ; Vallery, Steve ; DeWitt, John ; Sherman, Stuart ; Collins, Edith. / Optimal number of EUS-guided fine needle passes needed to obtain a correct diagnosis. In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2004 ; Vol. 59, No. 4. pp. 475-481.
@article{c2fef0521f3348be8d685a6ee3cc94af,
title = "Optimal number of EUS-guided fine needle passes needed to obtain a correct diagnosis",
abstract = "Background: The immediate assistance of a cytologist during EUS-guided FNA is not universal. The optimal number of fine needle passes during EUS-guided FNA has not been determined in a prospective study. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal number of passes required to obtain a correct diagnosis. Methods: Seven or more passes were made with a fine needle into a variety of lesions during EUS-guided FNA. Adequacy of the aspirate, diagnosis, and a {"}certainty score{"} were recorded after each pass and interpreted sequentially by a cytopathologist. Surgical histopathology and 1-year clinical follow-up were used as reference standards. The percentage of correctly diagnosed cases was calculated and stratified according to organ, disease group, and EUS characteristics of the lesion. Results: Lesions from 95 patients were categorized into the following locations: pancreas, lymph node, and miscellaneous. The sensitivity and specificity for 7 passes from the pancreas and miscellaneous lesion groups were, respectively, 83{\%} and 100{\%}. The sensitivity and specificity for 5 passes from the lymph node group were, respectively, 77{\%} and 100{\%}. Conclusions: During EUS-guided FNA, at least 7 passes with a fine needle into pancreatic and miscellaneous lesions, and 5 passes into lymph nodes are needed to ensure a high degree of certainty for making a correct diagnosis.",
author = "LeBlanc, {Julia Kim} and Donato Ciaccia and Al-Assi, {Mohammed T.} and Kevin McGrath and Thomas Imperiale and Tao, {Liang Che} and Steve Vallery and John DeWitt and Stuart Sherman and Edith Collins",
year = "2004",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1016/S0016-5107(03)02863-3",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "59",
pages = "475--481",
journal = "Gastrointestinal Endoscopy",
issn = "0016-5107",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Optimal number of EUS-guided fine needle passes needed to obtain a correct diagnosis

AU - LeBlanc, Julia Kim

AU - Ciaccia, Donato

AU - Al-Assi, Mohammed T.

AU - McGrath, Kevin

AU - Imperiale, Thomas

AU - Tao, Liang Che

AU - Vallery, Steve

AU - DeWitt, John

AU - Sherman, Stuart

AU - Collins, Edith

PY - 2004/4

Y1 - 2004/4

N2 - Background: The immediate assistance of a cytologist during EUS-guided FNA is not universal. The optimal number of fine needle passes during EUS-guided FNA has not been determined in a prospective study. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal number of passes required to obtain a correct diagnosis. Methods: Seven or more passes were made with a fine needle into a variety of lesions during EUS-guided FNA. Adequacy of the aspirate, diagnosis, and a "certainty score" were recorded after each pass and interpreted sequentially by a cytopathologist. Surgical histopathology and 1-year clinical follow-up were used as reference standards. The percentage of correctly diagnosed cases was calculated and stratified according to organ, disease group, and EUS characteristics of the lesion. Results: Lesions from 95 patients were categorized into the following locations: pancreas, lymph node, and miscellaneous. The sensitivity and specificity for 7 passes from the pancreas and miscellaneous lesion groups were, respectively, 83% and 100%. The sensitivity and specificity for 5 passes from the lymph node group were, respectively, 77% and 100%. Conclusions: During EUS-guided FNA, at least 7 passes with a fine needle into pancreatic and miscellaneous lesions, and 5 passes into lymph nodes are needed to ensure a high degree of certainty for making a correct diagnosis.

AB - Background: The immediate assistance of a cytologist during EUS-guided FNA is not universal. The optimal number of fine needle passes during EUS-guided FNA has not been determined in a prospective study. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal number of passes required to obtain a correct diagnosis. Methods: Seven or more passes were made with a fine needle into a variety of lesions during EUS-guided FNA. Adequacy of the aspirate, diagnosis, and a "certainty score" were recorded after each pass and interpreted sequentially by a cytopathologist. Surgical histopathology and 1-year clinical follow-up were used as reference standards. The percentage of correctly diagnosed cases was calculated and stratified according to organ, disease group, and EUS characteristics of the lesion. Results: Lesions from 95 patients were categorized into the following locations: pancreas, lymph node, and miscellaneous. The sensitivity and specificity for 7 passes from the pancreas and miscellaneous lesion groups were, respectively, 83% and 100%. The sensitivity and specificity for 5 passes from the lymph node group were, respectively, 77% and 100%. Conclusions: During EUS-guided FNA, at least 7 passes with a fine needle into pancreatic and miscellaneous lesions, and 5 passes into lymph nodes are needed to ensure a high degree of certainty for making a correct diagnosis.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=12144288869&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=12144288869&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0016-5107(03)02863-3

DO - 10.1016/S0016-5107(03)02863-3

M3 - Article

C2 - 15044881

AN - SCOPUS:12144288869

VL - 59

SP - 475

EP - 481

JO - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

JF - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

SN - 0016-5107

IS - 4

ER -