Skip to content
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Publication Details
AFRICAN RESEARCH NEXUS
SHINING A SPOTLIGHT ON AFRICAN RESEARCH
medicine
Agreement on endoscopic ultrasonography-guided tissue specimens: Comparing a 20-G fine-needle biopsy to a 25-G fine-needle aspiration needle among academic and non-academic pathologists
Digestive Endoscopy, Volume 31, No. 6, Year 2019
Notification
URL copied to clipboard!
Description
Background and Aim: A recently carried out randomized controlled trial showed the benefit of a novel 20-G fine-needle biopsy (FNB) over a 25-G fine-needle aspiration (FNA) needle. The current study evaluated the reproducibility of these findings among expert academic and non-academic pathologists. Methods: This study was a side-study of the ASPRO (ASpiration versus PROcore) study. Five centers retrieved 74 (59%) consecutive FNB and 51 (41%) FNA samples from the ASPRO study according to randomization; 64 (51%) pancreatic and 61 (49%) lymph node specimens. Samples were re-reviewed by five expert academic and five non-academic pathologists and rated in terms of sample quality and diagnosis. Ratings were compared between needles, expert academic and non-academic pathologists, target lesions, and cytology versus histological specimens. Results: Besides a higher diagnostic accuracy, FNB also provided for a better agreement on diagnosing malignancy (ĸ = 0.59 vs ĸ = 0.76, P < 0.001) and classification according to Bethesda (ĸ = 0.45 vs ĸ = 0.61, P < 0.001). This equally applied for expert academic and non-academic pathologists and for pancreatic and lymph node specimens. Sample quality was also rated higher for FNB, but agreement ranged from poor (ĸ = 0.04) to fair (ĸ = 0.55). Histology provided better agreement than cytology, but only when a core specimen was obtained with FNB (P = 0.004 vs P = 0.432). Conclusion: This study shows that the 20-G FNB outperforms the 25-G FNA needle in terms of diagnostic agreement, independent of the background and experience of the pathologist. This endorses use of the 20-G FNB needle in both expert and lower volume EUS centers. © 2019 The Authors. Digestive Endoscopy published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society.
Authors & Co-Authors
van Riet, Priscilla A.
Netherlands, Rotterdam
Erasmus Mc
Hansen, Bettina E.
Netherlands, Rotterdam
Erasmus Mc
Larghi, Alberto
Italy, Rome
Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli Irccs
Fellegara, Giovanni
Unknown Affiliation
Arcidiacono, Paolo Giorgio
Italy, Milan
Università Vita-salute San Raffaele
Doglioni, Claudio
Italy, Milan
Università Vita-salute San Raffaele
Iglesias-García, Júlio J.
Spain, Santiago de Compostela
Hospital Clínico Universitario de Santiago
Kitano, Masayuki
Japan, Higashiosaka
Kindai University
Nguyen, Nam Quoc
Australia, Adelaide
Royal Adelaide Hospital
Ruszkiewicz, Andrew R.
Australia, Adelaide
Royal Adelaide Hospital
Giovannini, Marco H.
France, Marseille
Institut Paoli-calmettes
Poizat, Flora
France, Marseille
Institut Paoli-calmettes
van der Merwe, Schalk Willem
Belgium, Leuven
Ku Leuven– University Hospital Leuven
Roskams, Tania A.D.
Belgium, Leuven
Ku Leuven– University Hospital Leuven
Santo, Erwin Florina
Israel, Tel Aviv-yafo
Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center
Robert, Marie Ève
United States, New Haven
Yale School of Medicine
Fernández Moro, Carlos
Sweden, Stockholm
Karolinska Universitetssjukhuset
Bruno, Marco J.
Netherlands, Rotterdam
Erasmus Mc
Statistics
Citations: 5
Authors: 18
Affiliations: 15
Identifiers
Doi:
10.1111/den.13424
ISSN:
09155635
Study Design
Randomised Control Trial
Study Approach
Quantitative