Endoscopic ultrasound cytologic brushing vs endoscopic ultrasound - fine needle aspiration for cytological diagnosis of cystic pancreatic lesions. A multicenter, randomized open-label trial.
Published in
Revista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas, January 2018
José Lariño-Noia, Daniel de la Iglesia, Julio Iglesias-García, Manuel Macías, Aurelio López Martín, María Luisa Legaz, Juan Vila, Antonio Reyes, Ihab Abdulkader, J Enrique Domínguez-Muñoz
Abstract
the incidence of cystic pancreatic lesions (CPL) in the asymptomatic population is increasing. Achieving a preoperative diagnosis of CPL still remains a challenge.
to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the cytological diagnosis of CPL from samples obtained by cytology brush versus standard endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA).
a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial was performed of EUS-cytology brush (EUS-EB) versus EUS-FNA for the cytological diagnosis of CPL. Patients that underwent EUS-FNA with a CPL > 15 mm were included and randomized into two groups: group I, EUS-EB; group II, EUS-FNA. The final diagnosis was based on the histological evaluation of surgical specimens and clinical parameters, imaging and a five year follow-up in non-operated patients. The main outcome was the diagnostic accuracy of both methods. Secondary outcomes were the diagnostic adequacy of specimens and the rate of adverse events. Data were compared using the Chi-squared test. An intention to treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analysis were performed.
sixty-five patients were included in the study, 31 in group I and 34 in group II. Three patients initially randomized to group I were changed to group II as it was impossible to obtain a sample using the brush. The mean size of the CPL was 28.2 mm (range 16-60 mm). The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-EB was not superior to EUS-FNA, neither in the ITT nor the PP analysis (44.8% vs 41.1%, p = 0.77 and 38.4% vs 45.9%, p = 0.55).
EUS-EB does not improve the diagnostic accuracy of CPL in comparison with EUS-FNA.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 April 2018.
All research outputs
#23,214,800
of 25,870,940 outputs
Outputs from Revista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas
#649
of 902 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#393,461
of 453,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas
#37
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,870,940 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 902 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 453,241 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
