Comparison of cytologic preparation methods in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Kyong Joo Lee, Yong Seok Kang, Meeyon Cho, Jae Woo Kim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background There are few studies about the diagnostic yield of cytologic preparation method of pancreatic samples obtained by Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of ThinPrep ® and smear method in diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Methods A total of 125 EUS-FNA procedures were performed between July 2010 and June 2015. Patients in group I (n = 36; July 2010 to June 2014) had cytology slides prepared by consecutive allocation of samples. Patients in group II (n = 12; July 2014 to June 2015) had cytology slides prepared by alternately allocation of samples. Results There were 24 men and 24 women (median age: 67 years; range 39–84). The median size of lesions was 3.9 cm (range; 1.4–7.2 cm). The locations of the pancreatic cancer were 10 in head (20.8%), 21 in body (43.8%), and 17 in tail (35.4%). The ThinPrep ® method confirmed malignancy in 35 of 48 cases (72.9%). On the other hand, the smear method confirmed malignancy in 44 of 48 cases (91.7%). The diagnostic yield of smear method was statistically higher than liquid method (P = 0.012). Also, smear method is superior to liquid method in both consecutive and alternative allocation method. ThinPrep ® provided a correct diagnosis in one case where the smear method was incorrect. Conclusions Smear method was a superior preparation method to liquid method in diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, even if splitting method was not used and variable allocation method was used.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)824-828
Number of pages5
JournalPancreatology
Volume16
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016 Sep 1

Fingerprint

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration
Adenocarcinoma
Pancreatic Neoplasms
Cell Biology

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism
  • Hepatology
  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

@article{f4b8140580154daab0a25bdaa1796b21,
title = "Comparison of cytologic preparation methods in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma",
abstract = "Background There are few studies about the diagnostic yield of cytologic preparation method of pancreatic samples obtained by Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of ThinPrep {\circledR} and smear method in diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Methods A total of 125 EUS-FNA procedures were performed between July 2010 and June 2015. Patients in group I (n = 36; July 2010 to June 2014) had cytology slides prepared by consecutive allocation of samples. Patients in group II (n = 12; July 2014 to June 2015) had cytology slides prepared by alternately allocation of samples. Results There were 24 men and 24 women (median age: 67 years; range 39–84). The median size of lesions was 3.9 cm (range; 1.4–7.2 cm). The locations of the pancreatic cancer were 10 in head (20.8{\%}), 21 in body (43.8{\%}), and 17 in tail (35.4{\%}). The ThinPrep {\circledR} method confirmed malignancy in 35 of 48 cases (72.9{\%}). On the other hand, the smear method confirmed malignancy in 44 of 48 cases (91.7{\%}). The diagnostic yield of smear method was statistically higher than liquid method (P = 0.012). Also, smear method is superior to liquid method in both consecutive and alternative allocation method. ThinPrep {\circledR} provided a correct diagnosis in one case where the smear method was incorrect. Conclusions Smear method was a superior preparation method to liquid method in diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, even if splitting method was not used and variable allocation method was used.",
author = "Lee, {Kyong Joo} and Kang, {Yong Seok} and Meeyon Cho and Kim, {Jae Woo}",
year = "2016",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.pan.2016.05.006",
language = "English",
volume = "16",
pages = "824--828",
journal = "Pancreatology",
issn = "1424-3903",
publisher = "S. Karger AG",
number = "5",

}

Comparison of cytologic preparation methods in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. / Lee, Kyong Joo; Kang, Yong Seok; Cho, Meeyon; Kim, Jae Woo.

In: Pancreatology, Vol. 16, No. 5, 01.09.2016, p. 824-828.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of cytologic preparation methods in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma

AU - Lee, Kyong Joo

AU - Kang, Yong Seok

AU - Cho, Meeyon

AU - Kim, Jae Woo

PY - 2016/9/1

Y1 - 2016/9/1

N2 - Background There are few studies about the diagnostic yield of cytologic preparation method of pancreatic samples obtained by Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of ThinPrep ® and smear method in diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Methods A total of 125 EUS-FNA procedures were performed between July 2010 and June 2015. Patients in group I (n = 36; July 2010 to June 2014) had cytology slides prepared by consecutive allocation of samples. Patients in group II (n = 12; July 2014 to June 2015) had cytology slides prepared by alternately allocation of samples. Results There were 24 men and 24 women (median age: 67 years; range 39–84). The median size of lesions was 3.9 cm (range; 1.4–7.2 cm). The locations of the pancreatic cancer were 10 in head (20.8%), 21 in body (43.8%), and 17 in tail (35.4%). The ThinPrep ® method confirmed malignancy in 35 of 48 cases (72.9%). On the other hand, the smear method confirmed malignancy in 44 of 48 cases (91.7%). The diagnostic yield of smear method was statistically higher than liquid method (P = 0.012). Also, smear method is superior to liquid method in both consecutive and alternative allocation method. ThinPrep ® provided a correct diagnosis in one case where the smear method was incorrect. Conclusions Smear method was a superior preparation method to liquid method in diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, even if splitting method was not used and variable allocation method was used.

AB - Background There are few studies about the diagnostic yield of cytologic preparation method of pancreatic samples obtained by Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of ThinPrep ® and smear method in diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Methods A total of 125 EUS-FNA procedures were performed between July 2010 and June 2015. Patients in group I (n = 36; July 2010 to June 2014) had cytology slides prepared by consecutive allocation of samples. Patients in group II (n = 12; July 2014 to June 2015) had cytology slides prepared by alternately allocation of samples. Results There were 24 men and 24 women (median age: 67 years; range 39–84). The median size of lesions was 3.9 cm (range; 1.4–7.2 cm). The locations of the pancreatic cancer were 10 in head (20.8%), 21 in body (43.8%), and 17 in tail (35.4%). The ThinPrep ® method confirmed malignancy in 35 of 48 cases (72.9%). On the other hand, the smear method confirmed malignancy in 44 of 48 cases (91.7%). The diagnostic yield of smear method was statistically higher than liquid method (P = 0.012). Also, smear method is superior to liquid method in both consecutive and alternative allocation method. ThinPrep ® provided a correct diagnosis in one case where the smear method was incorrect. Conclusions Smear method was a superior preparation method to liquid method in diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, even if splitting method was not used and variable allocation method was used.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84991712466&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84991712466&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.pan.2016.05.006

DO - 10.1016/j.pan.2016.05.006

M3 - Article

C2 - 27279466

AN - SCOPUS:84991712466

VL - 16

SP - 824

EP - 828

JO - Pancreatology

JF - Pancreatology

SN - 1424-3903

IS - 5

ER -