Copyright
©The Author(s) 2021.
World J Clin Cases. Dec 6, 2021; 9(34): 10507-10517
Published online Dec 6, 2021. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v9.i34.10507
Published online Dec 6, 2021. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v9.i34.10507
Results | Total | FNA | FNB | P value |
Patient characteristics | ||||
No. of patients | 1168 | 468 (40.07) | 700 (59.93) | |
Age (yr) | 65.02 (12.29) | 64.24 (11.59) | 65.54 (12.72) | 0.078 |
Gender | 0.098 | |||
No. of males (%) | 652 (55.82) | 275 (58.76) | 377 (52.86) | |
No. of females (%) | 516 (44.18) | 193 (41.24) | 323 (47.14) | |
Lesion site | ||||
Pancreatic | 574 (49.14) | 194 (41.45) | 380 (54.29) | < 0.001 |
Non-pancreatic | ||||
Lymph node | 209 (17.89) | 108 (23.08) | 101 (14.43) | < 0.001 |
Subepithelial | 229 (19.61) | 115 (24.57) | 114 (16.28) | < 0.001 |
Other solid lesions | 156 (13.36) | 51 (10.90) | 105 (15.00) | < 0.001 |
Hepatic mass | 48 (4.11) | 18 (37.50) | 30 (62.50) | |
Abdominal mass | 29 (2.48) | 8 (27.59) | 21 (72.41) | |
Gastrointestinal wall thickening | 20 (1.71) | 6 (0.30) | 14 (0.70) | |
Mediastinal mass | 14 (0.43) | 4 (28.57) | 10 (71.43) | |
Peri-rectal mass | 11 (0.94) | 3 (27.37) | 8 (72.73) | |
Common bile duct mass | 9 (0.77) | 5 (55.56) | 4 (44.44) | |
Duodenal mass | 6 (0.51) | 1 (16.67) | 5 (83.33) | |
Ampullary mass | 6 (0.51) | 1 (16.67) | 5 (83.33) | |
Retroperitoneal mass | 5 (0.43) | 1 (20.00) | 4 (80.00) | |
Esophageal mass | 3 (0.26) | 0 (0.00) | 3 (100.00) | |
Gallbladder mass | 3 (0.26) | 2 (66.67) | 1 (33.33) | |
Splenic mass | 2 (0.17) | 2 (100.00) | 0 (0.00) | |
Lesion size (mm) | 24.16 (13.63) | 22.10 (13.34) | 25.52 (13.65) | < 0.001 |
Diagnostic sample approach | 0.007 | |||
Transesophageal | 124 (11.02) | 63 (50.81) | 61 (49.19) | |
Transgastric | 589 (52.36) | 235 (39.90) | 354 (60.10) | |
Tranduodenal | 388 (34.49) | 135 (34.79) | 253 (65.21) | |
Transrectal | 21 (1.87) | 11 (52.38) | 10 (47.62) | |
Other | 3 (0.26) | 0 (0.00) | 3 (100.00) | |
Needle size | < 0.001 | |||
19G | 8 (0.69) | 2 (0.43) | 6 (0.86) | |
20G | 7 (0.61) | 0 (0.00) | 7 (1.00) | |
21G | 8 (0.69) | 0 (0.00) | 8 (1.15) | |
22G | 644 (55.61) | 216 (46.55) | 428 (61.49) | |
25G | 491 (42.40) | 246 (53.02) | 245 (35.20) | |
No. of passes | 2.89 (1.51) | 2.91 (1.61) | 2.88 (1.45) | 0.701 |
No. of samples with ROSE | < 0.001 | |||
Yes | 377 (32.28) | 182 (38.89) | 195 (27.86) | |
No | 791 (67.72) | 286 (61.11) | 505 (72.14) | |
Adequate sample for ROSE | 0.474 | |||
Yes | 291 (77.19) | 136 (74.73) | 155 (79.49) | |
No | 86 (22.81) | 46 (25.27) | 40 (20.51) | |
No. of passes for ROSE adequacy | 3.37 (1.73) | 3.32 (1.74) | 3.41 (1.73) | 0.664 |
No. of samples with cell block | < 0.001 | |||
Yes | 1014 (86.82) | 366 (78.21) | 648 (92.57) | |
No | 154 (13.18) | 102 (21.79) | 52 (7.43) | |
No. of passes for cell block diagnosis | 2.97 (1.54) | 3.09 (1.67) | 2.90 (1.46) | 0.067 |
- Citation: Moura DTH, McCarty TR, Jirapinyo P, Ribeiro IB, Farias GFA, Madruga-Neto AC, Ryou M, Thompson CC. Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration vs fine needle biopsy in solid lesions: A multi-center analysis. World J Clin Cases 2021; 9(34): 10507-10517
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v9/i34/10507.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v9.i34.10507