Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition with or without macroscopic on-site evaluation: Randomized controlled trial
Background The use of macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) to estimate the adequacy of a specimen for histological diagnosis during endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle tissue acquisition (FNTA) has recently been advocated. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic yield of MOSE compare...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
Georg Thieme Verlag Kg
2020
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://eprints.um.edu.my/36353/ |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Background The use of macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) to estimate the adequacy of a specimen for histological diagnosis during endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle tissue acquisition (FNTA) has recently been advocated. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic yield of MOSE compared with conventional EUS-FNTA without rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE). Methods This was an international, multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled study. After providing informed consent, consecutive adult patients referred for EUS-FNTA for solid lesions larger than 2cm were randomized to a MOSE arm or to a conventional arm without ROSE. A designated cytopathologist from each center performed all cytopathological examinations for that center and was blinded to the randomization results. The primary outcome measure was the diagnostic yield, and the secondary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, diagnostic accuracy, and the rate of procedure-related complications. Results 244 patients (122 conventional, 122 MOSE) were enrolled during the study period. No significant differences between the two arms were found in procedure time or rate of procedure-related adverse events. The diagnostic yield for the MOSE technique (92.6%) was similar to that for the conventional technique (89.3%; P =0.37), with significantly fewer passes made (median: conventional 3, MOSE 2; P <0.001). Conclusions EUS-FNTA with the MOSE technique provided a similar diagnostic yield to conventional EUS-FNTA technique in the absence of ROSE but with fewer passes. This technique can be used when ROSE is not available. |
|---|