首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Oncology Letters >Diagnostic accuracies of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with distinct negative pressure suction techniques in solid lesions: A retrospective study
【2h】

Diagnostic accuracies of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with distinct negative pressure suction techniques in solid lesions: A retrospective study

机译:内镜超声引导下细针穿刺抽吸负压吸引技术对实体病变的诊断准确性:一项回顾性研究

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is highly accurate in obtaining specific diagnoses for various diseases. The present study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic yields, accuracies and sampling adequacies, of slow-pull, 5 ml suction and 10 ml suction techniques in EUS-FNA of solid lesions. The present study was a retrospective comparative study, which was performed in tertiary academic centers, recognized for their expertise in EUS and EUS-guided FNA. The present study involved 149 patients who underwent EUS-FNA of solid masses. A total of 34 (22.8%), 37 (24.8%) and 78 (52.4%) patients underwent EUS-FNA with slow-pull, 5 ml suction and 10 ml suction techniques, respectively. The EUS-FNA cytology and histology results were compared with those from the gold standard of surgical histopathology [hematoxylin-eosin staining; immunohistochemical test of cluster of differentiation (CD) 79a, CD20 and flow cytometry test] or long-term clinical follow-up. The present retrospective comparative study demonstrated that the diagnostic yields and accuracies of EUS-FNA with slow-pull (86.1%) were significantly superior to those achieved with 5 ml suction (83.3%) or 10 ml suction (69.9%; P<0.0001; χ2 test). Consistently, 86.5% (32/37) of the samples obtained from the 5 ml suction group were adequate for histological diagnosis. By contrast, 70.6 (24/34) and 85.9% (67/78) of samples from the slow-pull and 10 ml suction groups were adequate for histological diagnosis, respectively. The samples obtained using 10 ml suction contained more blood compared with those obtained via slow-pull and 5 ml suction (P=0.0056; χ2 test). No complications were noted in any of the three groups. The samples that were obtained for histopathological diagnosis using 5 ml suction were superior to those obtained using slow-pull or 10 ml suction. Additional multi-central prospective studies in which EUS-FNA is performed with variable negative pressures are required to improve the defining of the diagnostic roles of those techniques.
机译:内窥镜超声(EUS)引导的细针抽吸(EUS-FNA)在获得各种疾病的特定诊断方面非常准确。本研究旨在评估慢拉,5 ml抽吸和10 ml抽吸技术在实体病变的EUS-FNA中的诊断率,准确度和采样率。本研究是一项回顾性比较研究,该研究在三级学术中心进行,以其在EUS和EUS指导的FNA方面的专业知识而受到认可。本研究纳入了149例行EUS-FNA实体检查的患者。分别对34例(22.8%),37例(24.8%)和78例(52.4%)的患者进行了EUS-FNA慢速牵引,5 ml抽吸和10 ml抽吸技术。将EUS-FNA细胞学和组织学结果与手术组织病理学的金标准[苏木精-伊红染色;分化簇(CD)79a,CD20的免疫组织化学测试和流式细胞术测试]或长期临床随访。本回顾性比较研究表明,慢拉力EUS-FNA的诊断率和准确度(86.1%)显着优于5 ml抽吸(83.3%)或10 ml抽吸(69.9%; P <0.0001; χ2检验)。一致地,从5 ml抽吸组获得的样本中有86.5%(32/37)足以进行组织学诊断。相比之下,慢速抽吸组和10 ml抽吸组分别有70.6(24/34)和85.9%(67/78)的样本足以进行组织学诊断。与通过慢拉和5 ml抽吸获得的样品相比,使用10 ml抽吸获得的样品包含更多的血液(P = 0.0056;χ2测试)。三组中的任何一组均未发现并发症。使用5 ml抽吸获得的用于组织病理学诊断的样品优于使用慢速抽吸或10 ml抽吸获得的样品。需要进行额外的多中心前瞻性研究,以可变负压进行EUS-FNA,以改善对这些技术的诊断作用的定​​义。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号