TY - JOUR
T1 - Diagnostic yield of malignancy during EUS-guided FNA of solid lesions with and without a stylet
T2 - A prospective, single blind, randomized, controlled trial
AU - Wani, Sachin
AU - Early, Dayna
AU - Kunkel, Julie
AU - Leathersich, Ann
AU - Hovis, Christine E.
AU - Hollander, Thomas G.
AU - Kohlmeier, Cara
AU - Zelenka, Cynthia
AU - Azar, Riad
AU - Edmundowicz, Steven
AU - Collins, Brian
AU - Liu, Jingxia
AU - Hall, Matthew
AU - Mullady, Daniel
PY - 2012/8
Y1 - 2012/8
N2 - Background: Use of a stylet during EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) is believed to improve the quality and diagnostic yield of specimens. Objective: To compare samples obtained by EUS-FNA with (S+) and without (S-) a stylet for diagnostic yield of malignancy and cytological characteristics. Design: Randomized, controlled trial. Setting: Tertiary referral center. Patients: Consecutive patients referred for EUS-FNA of solid lesions. Intervention: EUS-FNA; the number of passes was determined by lesion site (6 pancreas/others and 4 lymph nodes). Main Outcome Measurements: Diagnostic yield of malignancy and degree of cellularity, specimen adequacy, contamination, and amount of blood. Results: One hundred patients were prospectively enrolled in this randomized, controlled trial and the sites of EUS-FNA were the pancreas, 58; lymph node, 25; and other, 17. The overall diagnosis was malignancy in 56, benign in 30, suspicious/atypical in 7, and inadequate specimen in 7 lesions. There were 550 passes made (275 with a stylet and 275 without a stylet). Interim analysis demonstrated no difference in the diagnostic yield of malignancy (94 passes with a stylet [34.2%] vs 110 without a stylet [40%], P =.2) and in the proportion of inadequate specimens (57 with a stylet [20.7%] vs 64 without a stylet [23.3%], P =.2). There was no difference with regard to cellularity (P =.83), contamination (P =.31), number of cells (P =.25), and amount of blood (P =.6). Similar results were noted in a subgroup analysis based on lesion site. Applying the rules of futility, the study was terminated. Limitations: Subjectivity in cytopathologists' assessment, endosonographer not blinded. Conclusions: There was no difference in the diagnostic yield of malignancy or proportion of inadequate specimens between passes with and without a stylet. These results suggest that the use of a stylet does not confer any advantage during EUS-FNA. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01316614.)
AB - Background: Use of a stylet during EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) is believed to improve the quality and diagnostic yield of specimens. Objective: To compare samples obtained by EUS-FNA with (S+) and without (S-) a stylet for diagnostic yield of malignancy and cytological characteristics. Design: Randomized, controlled trial. Setting: Tertiary referral center. Patients: Consecutive patients referred for EUS-FNA of solid lesions. Intervention: EUS-FNA; the number of passes was determined by lesion site (6 pancreas/others and 4 lymph nodes). Main Outcome Measurements: Diagnostic yield of malignancy and degree of cellularity, specimen adequacy, contamination, and amount of blood. Results: One hundred patients were prospectively enrolled in this randomized, controlled trial and the sites of EUS-FNA were the pancreas, 58; lymph node, 25; and other, 17. The overall diagnosis was malignancy in 56, benign in 30, suspicious/atypical in 7, and inadequate specimen in 7 lesions. There were 550 passes made (275 with a stylet and 275 without a stylet). Interim analysis demonstrated no difference in the diagnostic yield of malignancy (94 passes with a stylet [34.2%] vs 110 without a stylet [40%], P =.2) and in the proportion of inadequate specimens (57 with a stylet [20.7%] vs 64 without a stylet [23.3%], P =.2). There was no difference with regard to cellularity (P =.83), contamination (P =.31), number of cells (P =.25), and amount of blood (P =.6). Similar results were noted in a subgroup analysis based on lesion site. Applying the rules of futility, the study was terminated. Limitations: Subjectivity in cytopathologists' assessment, endosonographer not blinded. Conclusions: There was no difference in the diagnostic yield of malignancy or proportion of inadequate specimens between passes with and without a stylet. These results suggest that the use of a stylet does not confer any advantage during EUS-FNA. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01316614.)
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84864131204&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.gie.2012.03.1395
DO - 10.1016/j.gie.2012.03.1395
M3 - Article
C2 - 22695205
AN - SCOPUS:84864131204
SN - 0016-5107
VL - 76
SP - 328
EP - 335
JO - Gastrointestinal endoscopy
JF - Gastrointestinal endoscopy
IS - 2
ER -