A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Diagnostic yield of malignancy during EUS-guided FNA of solid lesions with and without a stylet: a prospective, single blind, randomized, controlled trial. | LitMetric

Background: Use of a stylet during EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) is believed to improve the quality and diagnostic yield of specimens.

Objective: To compare samples obtained by EUS-FNA with (S+) and without (S-) a stylet for diagnostic yield of malignancy and cytological characteristics.

Design: Randomized, controlled trial.

Setting: Tertiary referral center.

Patients: Consecutive patients referred for EUS-FNA of solid lesions.

Intervention: EUS-FNA; the number of passes was determined by lesion site (6 pancreas/others and 4 lymph nodes).

Main Outcome Measurements: Diagnostic yield of malignancy and degree of cellularity, specimen adequacy, contamination, and amount of blood.

Results: One hundred patients were prospectively enrolled in this randomized, controlled trial and the sites of EUS-FNA were the pancreas, 58; lymph node, 25; and other, 17. The overall diagnosis was malignancy in 56, benign in 30, suspicious/atypical in 7, and inadequate specimen in 7 lesions. There were 550 passes made (275 with a stylet and 275 without a stylet). Interim analysis demonstrated no difference in the diagnostic yield of malignancy (94 passes with a stylet [34.2%] vs 110 without a stylet [40%], P = .2) and in the proportion of inadequate specimens (57 with a stylet [20.7%] vs 64 without a stylet [23.3%], P = .2). There was no difference with regard to cellularity (P = .83), contamination (P = .31), number of cells (P = .25), and amount of blood (P = .6). Similar results were noted in a subgroup analysis based on lesion site. Applying the rules of futility, the study was terminated.

Limitations: Subjectivity in cytopathologists' assessment, endosonographer not blinded.

Conclusions: There was no difference in the diagnostic yield of malignancy or proportion of inadequate specimens between passes with and without a stylet. These results suggest that the use of a stylet does not confer any advantage during EUS-FNA.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2012.03.1395DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

diagnostic yield
24
yield malignancy
20
randomized controlled
12
stylet
11
eus-guided fna
8
controlled trial
8
lesion site
8
275 stylet
8
difference diagnostic
8
passes stylet
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!