首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Journal of Clinical Medicine >Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration for Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: A Safe Tissue Sampling Modality
【2h】

Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration for Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: A Safe Tissue Sampling Modality

机译:内镜超声引导下细针抽吸术治疗肝外胆管癌:一种安全的组织采样方式

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

Few studies have compared the diagnostic utility of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) tissue sampling for extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ECC). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of EUS-FNA for diagnosing ECC compared with ERCP tissue sampling. Patients who underwent EUS-FNA or ERCP tissue sampling to differentiate ECC from benign biliary disease were enrolled retrospectively between October 2011 and March 2017. We evaluated diagnostic performances of EUS-FNA and ERCP tissue sampling based on pathological evaluation. We compared adverse events in EUS-FNA and ERCP tissue sampling. We enrolled 73 patients with biliary disease and performed EUS-FNA and ERCP in 19 and 54 patients, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of ERCP tissue sampling were 76.0%, 100%, and 88.9%, respectively, and for EUS-FNA these were 81.8%, 87.5%, and 84.2%, respectively. Statistical values of ERCP tissue sampling and EUS-FNA were not significantly different. The adverse event frequency of EUS-FNA was significantly lower than that of ERCP tissue sampling (0% vs. 25.9%, p = 0.033). The diagnostic ability of EUS-FNA for ECC is similar to that of ERCP tissue sampling. EUS-FNA is a safer tissue sampling modality than ERCP for evaluating biliary disease.
机译:很少有研究比较内镜超声引导下细针穿刺术(EUS-FNA)和内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP)组织取样对肝外胆管癌(ECC)的诊断作用。与ERCP组织取样相比,我们评估了EUS-FNA诊断ECC的有效性和安全性。回顾性分析2011年10月至2017年3月接受EUS-FNA或ERCP组织取样以区分ECC与良性胆道疾病的患者。我们根据病理评估评估EUS-FNA和ERCP组织取样的诊断性能。我们比较了EUS-FNA和ERCP组织采样中的不良事件。我们招募了73例胆道疾病患者,分别对19例和54例患者进行了EUS-FNA和ERCP。 ERCP组织取样的灵敏度,特异性和准确性分别为76.0%,100%和88.9%,对于EUS-FNA,分别为81.8%,87.5%和84.2%。 ERCP组织取样和E​​US-FNA的统计值无显着差异。 EUS-FNA的不良事件发生频率明显低于ERCP组织采样(0%比25.9%,p = 0.033)。 EUS-FNA对ECC的诊断能力类似于ERCP组织采样的诊断能力。与ERCP相比,EUS-FNA在评估胆道疾病方面是一种更安全的组织采样方法。

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