2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.01.016
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Prospective multicenter study on the usefulness of EUS-guided FNA biopsy for the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

2
76
0
2

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 90 publications
(80 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
2
76
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…In the report of Kanno et al (12), the percentage of the diagnostic ability of EUS-FNA for Level 1 LPSP and level 1 or 2 LPSP was 41% (32/78) and 57.7% (45/78) in 78 cases of suspected AIP, respectively, while in the report of Morishima et al (13), these respective values were 7.9% (3/38) and 65.8% (25/38) in 38 cases of definitive AIP. These findings indicate that level 2 or more LPSP can be diagnosed in almost 60% of patients with AIP in whom EUS-FNA has been performed, and that EUS-FNA can improve the diagnostic ability for AIP for many patients with AIP.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In the report of Kanno et al (12), the percentage of the diagnostic ability of EUS-FNA for Level 1 LPSP and level 1 or 2 LPSP was 41% (32/78) and 57.7% (45/78) in 78 cases of suspected AIP, respectively, while in the report of Morishima et al (13), these respective values were 7.9% (3/38) and 65.8% (25/38) in 38 cases of definitive AIP. These findings indicate that level 2 or more LPSP can be diagnosed in almost 60% of patients with AIP in whom EUS-FNA has been performed, and that EUS-FNA can improve the diagnostic ability for AIP for many patients with AIP.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Recently, two multicenter prospective studies on the diagnostic ability of EUS-FNA using a 22-G needle for patients with suspected AIP have been reported (12,13). In the report of Kanno et al (12), the percentage of the diagnostic ability of EUS-FNA for Level 1 LPSP and level 1 or 2 LPSP was 41% (32/78) and 57.7% (45/78) in 78 cases of suspected AIP, respectively, while in the report of Morishima et al (13), these respective values were 7.9% (3/38) and 65.8% (25/38) in 38 cases of definitive AIP.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Only surgical or core biopsies are adequate for definitive diagnosis (specimens extracted through EUS-FNA providing too little tissue). [31] Nevertheless, there is recent evidence that EUS-FNA is safe and reliable in histologic documentation of AIP. [32] The diagnostic yield is not high, but surgery may be avoided in those patients who lack distinctive features of AIP[33]…”
Section: Clinical Indicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Whether the higher incidence of AIP-type 1 in Korea and Japan is a matter of different diagnostic approaches or genetic background is an ongoing debate. However, a prospective multicenter study from Japan showed that endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration was only able to diagnose AIP in 3 out of 38 patients (sensitivity of 7%) [6]. This study highlights the current dilemma in the diagnosis of AIP-type 2 and, also explains why almost one third of patients with AIP underwent surgical procedures unnecessarily.…”
mentioning
confidence: 95%