Endoscopic Ultrasonography (EUS) Elastography Guided FNA Did Not Score Over Conventional EUS-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration (FNA) in Diagnosis of Suspected Malignant Solid Pancreatic Neoplasm

Background: Patients with suspected malignant solid pancreatic lesions presenting to our institute from July 2021 to January 2023 were recruited and randomized to conventional and elastography guided EUS FNA using a 22 G EUS FNA needle. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values were calculated.

Methods: Patients with suspected malignant solid pancreatic lesions presenting to our institute from July 2021 to January 2023 were recruited and randomized to conventional and elastography guided EUS FNA using a 22 G EUS FNA needle. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values were calculated.

Results: A total of 48 patients were screened for inclusion in study out of which six were excluded and 42 patients underwent randomization. Finally, 20 patients in each group underwent the assigned intervention and were analyzed further.

The average size of lesion was 35.7 mm. Overall, the diagnosis of adenocarcinoma made in 65% cases. Conventional EUS FNA had a diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values of 90.9, 85.7, 100, 100, and 99.85%, respectively, and elastography-guided EUS FNA had diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values of 100%. No severe adverse events were noted.

Conclusion: There is no significant difference between conventional and elastography-guided EUS FNA in terms of diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values. Both techniques appear to be safe and effective for characterizing solid pancreatic masses and elastography did not score over conventional arm.

Publication History

Article published online:
22 April 2024