Search

Objective Acquiring adequate tissue for immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis is important in the differential diagnosis of subepithelial tumors (SETs). In this study, we aimed to compare the diagnostic yield based on IHC analysis between endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) after on-site cytological evaluation for cellularity in gastric SETs. Methods In 22 patients with gastric SETs, EUS-guided tissue sampling was performed on the same SET in a randomized sequence, with EUS-FNA followed by EUS-FNB, or vice versa. After on-site cytological evaluation for cellularity, the cytological and histological examinations were performed. Results There was a significant difference in the median number of needle passes to obtain adequate cellularity in the on-site cytological evaluation (2.0 for EUS-FNA vs 1.0 for EUS-FNB, P = 0.008). The proportion of adequate cellularity on the first needle pass was significantly higher in the EUS-FNB than in the EUS-FNA group (68.2% vs 31.8%, P = 0.034). However, diagnosis based on IHC examination was established in 15 (68.2%) and 18 (81.8%) cases by EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB, respectively ( P = 0.488). Conclusions EUS-FNB decreases the number of needle passes to obtain adequate cellularity and yields a higher proportion of adequate cellularity during the first needle pass compared with EUS-FNA in gastric SETs. However, there was no significant difference in diagnostic yield with IHC stain between the two procedures after on-site cytological evaluation for adequate cellularity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Study Aims Endoscopic ultrasound ( EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration ( EUS-FNA) is one of the alternative methods for tissue sampling of liver solid mass. However, the diagnostic efficacy using cytology alone was limited. In this study, we evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided fine needle biopsy ( EUS-FNB) as a percutaneous biopsy rescue for liver solid mass. Patients and Methods The EUS-FNB using core biopsy needle for liver solid mass was performed prospectively for patients who were failure to acquire a tissue or achieve a diagnosis using percutaneous liver biopsy. The primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB for malignancy and specific tumor type. The secondary outcomes were the median numbers of passes required to establish a diagnosis, the proportions of patients in whom immunohistochemical ( IHC) stain was possible and obtained adequate specimen, and safety of EUS-FNB. Results Twenty-one patients (12 women; mean age, 63 years [range, 37-81]) underwent EUS-FNB for solid liver masses. The median number of needle passes was 2.0 (range, 1-5). On-site cytology and cytology with Papanicolaou stain showed malignancy in 16 patients (76.2%) and 17 patients (81.0%), respectively. In histology with HE stain, 19 patients (90.5%) were diagnosed malignancy and optimal to IHC stain. The overall diagnostic accuracy for malignancy and specific tumor type were 90.5% and 85.7%, respectively. No complications were seen. Conclusions EUS-FNB with core biopsy needle for solid liver mass may be helpful in the management of patients who are unable to diagnose using percutaneous liver biopsy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]