医学
四分位间距
置信区间
活检
优势比
放射科
对比度(视觉)
采样(信号处理)
随机对照试验
核医学
外科
内科学
计算机视觉
计算机科学
滤波器(信号处理)
人工智能
作者
Yu‐Ting Kuo,Yu-Long Chu,Weng-Fai Wong,Ming‐Lun Han,Chieh‐Chang Chen,I‐Shiow Jan,Wern‐Cherng Cheng,Chia‐Tung Shun,Ming‐Chang Tsai,Tsu‐Yao Cheng,Hsiu-Po Wang
标识
DOI:10.1016/j.gie.2022.12.004
摘要
For EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling (EUS-FNB) of solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs), the role of sampling strategy between targeted biopsy sampling and wide sampling has not been reported. This study aimed to investigate the benefits of the 2 sampling techniques on EUS-FNB using rapid on-site evaluation.Patients with SPLs were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo EUS-FNB using either contrast guidance or the fanning technique. The primary outcome was the total number of passes required to establish a diagnosis, and secondary outcomes were overall diagnostic accuracy and adverse event rates.One hundred eighteen patients were enrolled from February 2019 to January 2021, with 59 patients assigned to each group. There was no significant difference in the total number of passes required to establish a diagnosis between the contrast and fanning groups (median, 1 [interquartile range, 1-1] vs 1 [interquartile range, 1-2], respectively; P = .629). The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy in the contrast group was 100%, 66.7%, and 98.3% and in the fanning group 100%, 100%, and 100%, respectively (P = 1). An SPL <4 cm (odds ratio, 2.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-5.81; P = .037) and macroscopic visible core length >1 cm (odds ratio, 2.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-7.84; P = .037) were independently associated with increased cytologic and histologic accuracy.The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB with the fanning technique for SPLs was comparable with the contrast guidance technique. Without additional cost, EUS-FNB with the fanning technique may be preferred for SPLs. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04924725.).
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI