Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Fine-needle Aspiration of Lymph Nodes and Solid Masses

Wee, Eric; Lakhtakia, Sandeep; Gupta, Rajesh; Sekaran, Anuradha; Kalapala, Rakesh; Monga, Amitabh; Arjunan, Saravanan; Reddy, D. Nageshwar

doi:10.1097/mcg.0b013e31824432cb

Cited by 29 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A further study demonstrated equivalency of 25 G needles and 22 G needles in lymph node biopsies, a nonsignificant advantage of 25 G needles in solid pancreatic lesions and a non-significant advantage of 22 G needles in SETs [494]. This agrees with two studies showing similar diagnostic yields for 22 G needles and 25 G needles for EUS-FNA of various nonpancreatic lesions and lymph nodes, but a higher yield of the 25 G aspiration needle for pancreatic lesions [291,499]. In conclusion, the advantage of the 25 G needle appears to be limited to pancreatic lesions, in particular within the pancreatic head.…”

Section: G Vs 25 G Aspiration Needlessupporting

confidence: 82%

EFSUMB Guidelines on Interventional Ultrasound (INVUS), Part IV – EUS-guided Interventions: General aspects and EUS-guided sampling (Long Version)

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The fourth part of the European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (EFSUMB) Guidelines on Interventional Ultrasound describes general aspects of endoscopic ultrasound-guided diagnostic and therapeutic interventions and assesses the evidence for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling. Endoscopic ultrasound combines the most advanced high-resolution ultrasound imaging of lesions within the wall and in the vicinity of the gastrointestinal tract and safe and effective fine needle based tissue acquisition from these lesions. The guideline addresses the indications, contraindications, techniques, adverse events, training and clinical impact of EUS-guided sampling. Advantages and drawbacks are weighed in comparison with image-guided percutaneous biopsy. Based on the most current evidence, clinical practice recommendations are given for crucial preconditions and steps of EUS-guided sampling as well as for safe performance. Additionally, the guideline deals with the principles and reliability of cytopathological reporting in endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling (long version).

show abstract

Section: G Vs 25 G Aspiration Needlessupporting

confidence: 82%

EFSUMB Guidelines on Interventional Ultrasound (INVUS), Part IV – EUS-guided Interventions: General aspects and EUS-guided sampling (Long Version)

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3 Cellularity was assessed by using a 4-point scale (0 Z no cells, 1 Z sparsely cellular, 2 Z moderately cellular, 3 Z highly cellular). Blood contamination was graded on a 3-point scale (0 Z free of blood, 1 Z contaminated with red blood cells, 2 Z blood clots present).…”

Section: Cytopathological Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Wet suction technique (WEST)”: a novel way to enhance the quality of EUS-FNA aspirate. Results of a prospective, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial using a 22-gauge needle for EUS-FNA of solid lesions

Attam

Arain

Bloechl

et al. 2015

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

123

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…[39] As a function of the study and categorization of “suspicious” result, diagnostic samples are reported in 91-100% of performed procedures. [8404142] While the presence of a pathologist on site may improve sample adequacy in a retrospective study,[40] no correlation between LN characteristics and cellularity of samples was reported.…”

Section: Performance Of Eus-fna According Type Of Pathologymentioning

confidence: 99%

How good is fine needle aspiration? What results should you expect?

Eisendrath

2014

Endosc Ultrasound

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tissue acquisition plays a key role before treatment decision in most of oncological pathologies but also in several benign diseases. By offering tissue sampling, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has become an essential tool in the diagnostic processes. One of the reasons for the success of the technique is related to its excellent diagnostic performance. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA is above 80% for most of the usual indications. These performances are however dependent on some factors related to both the disease and patient's medical history but also related to medical staff expertise. Endoscopist needs to know how to reach a lesion but also how to efficiently acquire good tissue samples. This review aims to report general recommendations available in the literature for high quality EUS-FNA. Sample processing and sample interpretation also influence diagnostic accuracy of FNA. This paper includes a discussion on sample processing and benefits of the on-site pathology examination. It also provides the results reported in the literature of sample adequacy and diagnostic performance of EUS-FNA for most common indications: Pancreatic diseases, sub-mucosal lesion, mucosal thickenings, lymph nodes, cystic lesion and free fluids.

show abstract

Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Fine-needle Aspiration of Lymph Nodes and Solid Masses

Cited by 29 publications

References 26 publications

EFSUMB Guidelines on Interventional Ultrasound (INVUS), Part IV – EUS-guided Interventions: General aspects and EUS-guided sampling (Long Version)

EFSUMB Guidelines on Interventional Ultrasound (INVUS), Part IV – EUS-guided Interventions: General aspects and EUS-guided sampling (Long Version)

“Wet suction technique (WEST)”: a novel way to enhance the quality of EUS-FNA aspirate. Results of a prospective, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial using a 22-gauge needle for EUS-FNA of solid lesions

How good is fine needle aspiration? What results should you expect?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About