| Title |
Diagnostic yield of small histological cores obtained with a new EUS-guided fine needle biopsy system
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-017-5580-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Takuya Ishikawa, Rachid Mohamed, Steven J. Heitman, Christian Turbide, Puja R. Kumar, Hidemi Goto, Yoshiki Hirooka, Paul J. Belletrutti |
| Abstract |
As endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition techniques evolve, there is increasing interest in obtaining optimal histological samples to improve diagnostic accuracy. In this study, we aimed to assess the tissue acquisition success rate and test performance characteristics of a novel endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) system. We performed a retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing EUS-guided tissue sampling of solid lesions using the SharkCore fine needle system in a tertiary referral facility. At least two passes were submitted for histology and diagnostic accuracy was evaluated. Comparison standard was based on final surgical pathology or minimum six-month clinical follow-up. Seventy-nine patients underwent 85 EUS-FNB procedures. Of the 85 histology specimens, 78 (91.7%) were adequate for diagnostic examination (includes six atypical/suspicious for adenocarcinoma). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for diagnosis of malignancy with FNB were 87.1, 100, and 90.6%, respectively. Cytology was simultaneously sent in 43 cases with the same needle in addition to histology. Out of the 14 cases that were atypical/suspicious for adenocarcinoma or non-diagnostic on cytology, 11 cases (78.6%) achieved definite diagnoses on histology. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for diagnosis of malignancy combining histology and cytology were 90.3, 100, and 92.9%, respectively. No complications were reported after the procedures. In this initial experience with a new EUS-guided FNB system, obtaining small cores to submit for histological analysis was safe, technically feasible, and highly accurate. Most of the histological cores obtained via FNB yielded a definite diagnosis including in cases with equivocal cytomorphology. Further study is required to confirm these findings. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 12 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 25% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 25% |
| Other | 2 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 1 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 67% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 8% |
| Decision Sciences | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 1 | 8% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 May 2017.
All research outputs
#17,892,691
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#4,417
of 6,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,209
of 310,780 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#114
of 151 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,091 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,780 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 151 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.