首页> 外文期刊>Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology >Same‐session endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine needle aspiration and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography‐based tissue sampling in suspected malignant biliary obstruction: A multicenter experience
【24h】

Same‐session endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine needle aspiration and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography‐based tissue sampling in suspected malignant biliary obstruction: A multicenter experience

机译:同性内窥镜超声引导的细针吹针和内镜逆行胆管痴呆的基于疑似恶性胆道阻塞的组织抽样:多中心经验

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Abstract Background and Aim Few studies compared endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)‐guided fine needle aspiration (EUS‐FNA) with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)‐based tissue sampling in terms of diagnostic accuracy in suspected malignant biliary obstruction. We evaluated and compared the diagnostic performance of EUS‐FNA and ERCP‐based tissue sampling. Methods This multicenter study included 263 patients with suspected malignant biliary obstruction who underwent same‐session EUS and ERCP between 2012 and 2016. Results Malignancies were confirmed in 239 patients (90.9%) and benign in 24 patients (9.1%). Overall diagnostic sensitivity and accuracy were 73.6% and 76.1% for EUS‐FNA, 56.5% and 60.5% for ERCP, and 85.8% and 87.1% for EUS/ERCP combination. EUS‐FNA showed higher overall performances compared with ERCP ( P ??0.001), whereas EUS/ERCP combination was superior to EUS‐FNA alone ( P ‐value??0.001). EUS‐FNA showed higher sensitivity and accuracy compared with ERCP for pancreatic masses ( n ?=?187, both P ‐values??0.001) but not for biliary lesions ( n ?=?76, both P ‐values?=?0.847). Sensitivity and accuracy of EUS/ERCP combination were superior to those of EUS‐FNA for both pancreatic and biliary lesions (both P ‐values??0.001). For patients with large mass (≥?4?cm), there was no significant differences between ERCP/EUS combination and EUS‐FNA ( P ‐value?=?0.31). Conclusions Same‐session EUS‐FNA and ERCP combination was superior to EUS‐FNA for both pancreatic masses and biliary lesions. Same‐session EUS/ERCP combination can be considered a proper diagnostic method for suspected malignant biliary obstruction regardless of the origin of lesions. On the other hand, EUS‐FNA alone was sufficient for diagnosis compared with EUS/ERCP combination in cases with large mass. Strategic diagnostic approach, according to clinical features of individual patient, is required.
机译:摘要背景和目的少数研究与内窥镜逆行胆管桥(EUS-FID)与内窥镜逆行胆管胰岛素(EUS-FNA)进行了基于疑似恶性胆管障碍的诊断准确性的组织采样。我们评估并比较了EUS-FNA和基于ERCP的组织采样的诊断性能。方法该多中心研究包括263例疑似恶性胆道阻塞的患者,涉嫌恶性胆管阻塞2012年至2016年间欧洲央行欧盟和EUS和ERCP。结果在239名患者(90.9%)和24名患者良性(9.1%)中确认了恶性肿瘤。整体诊断敏感性和精度为EUS-FNA的73.6%和76.1%,EUS / ERCP组合的85.8%和87.1%,85.8%和87.1%。与ERCP相比,EUS-FNA表现出更高的总体性能(P?<0.001),而EUS / ERCP组合单独优于EUS-FNA(P-value?<0.001)。与胰腺质量的ERCP相比,EUS-FNA显示出更高的灵敏度和精度(n?= 187,两个P夸度?<0.001)但不适用于胆道病变(n?=Δ76,两个p -values?=? 0.847)。 EUS / ERCP组合的敏感性和准确性优于胰腺和胆道病变的EUS-FNA(两个P-Values?<0.001)。对于大量质量(≥≤4Ωcm)的患者,ERCP / EUS组合和EUS-FNA之间没有显着差异(P-value?= 0.31)。结论相同会话EUS-FNA和ERCP组合优于胰腺质量和胆道病变的EUS-FNA。相同会话EUS / ERCP组合可以被认为是可疑恶性胆道阻塞的适当诊断方法,无论病变的起源如何。另一方面,与大量质量大的情况下,与EUS / ERCP组合相比,单独的EUS-FNA足以诊断。需要战略诊断方法,根据个体患者的临床特征。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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