细胞块结合免疫组化在内镜超声引导下穿刺诊断胰腺实性占位中的应用价值

目的探讨超声内镜引导下细针穿刺（EUS—FNA）物行不同细胞学检查方法对胰腺占位性病变的诊断价值。方法前瞻性研究广西医科大学第一附属医院2012年3月至2013年6月收治的胰腺实性占位性病变72例,均行超声内镜引导下细针穿刺活检取材,分别行常规涂片、液基涂片及细胞块结合免疫组化检查。结果72例患者中,最终确诊胰腺肿瘤61例,包括胰腺癌55例、胰腺假乳头状瘤2例、胰腺内分泌肿瘤4例;良性病变11例,包括慢性胰腺炎4例、胰腺结核2例、胰腺炎4例、黏液性囊腺瘤1例。常规涂片、液基涂片和细胞块结合免疫组化对胰腺肿瘤的诊断敏感度分别为68．9％（42／61）、75．4％（46／61）和90．2％（55／61）,特异度均为100．0％,准确率分别为73．6％（53／72）、79．2％（57／72）和91．7％（66／72）,细胞块结合免疫组化诊断准确率高于常规涂片细胞学及液基细胞学（P均〈0．05）。术后患者均无出血、感染、急性胰腺炎等并发症。结论EUS—FNA是一种安全有效的诊断胰腺占位病变的方法,具有高敏感度和特异度。EUS—FNA细胞块结合免疫组化有助于胰腺实性占位病变的定性诊断和组织学分型诊断,对治疗方案的选择有较大的临床应用价值。     

超声内镜对常规内镜活检阴性胃壁增厚病变的诊断价值

目的评价超声内镜对常规内镜活检阴性胃壁增厚病变的诊断价值。方法回顾性分析57例常规内镜活检阴性胃壁增厚病变行超声内镜检查患者的诊断结果和随访情况,以手术病理和随访结果为最终诊断,统计内镜超声检查术（EUS）的诊断符合率以及内镜超声引导下细针穿刺抽吸术（EUS—FNA）、内镜超声定位下活检的阳性发现率。结果57例最终诊断为胃癌19例、胃淋巴瘤10例、不典型增生1例、Menetrier’s病1例、炎性改变26例。EUS对胃癌的诊断符合率为53．8％（14／26）,对胃淋巴瘤的诊断符合率为50．0％（10／20）;EUS．FNA阳性发现率为47．4％（9／19）;内镜超声定位下活检阳性发现率为66．7％（20／30）。结论EUS结合EUS—FNA尚不能作为鉴别诊断常规内镜活检阴性胃壁增厚病变病因的金标准,但超声内镜对诊断有一定帮助。     

内镜超声引导下细针穿刺活检对胰腺占位性病变的诊断价值

目的探讨内镜超声引导下细针穿刺活检（EUS—FNA）对胰腺占位性病变的诊断价值。方法从1998年10月至2006年9月，对190例胰腺占位病灶进行了超声内镜引导下穿刺活检，进行细胞学或病理学诊断。结果（1）2006年1月以前未采用床旁染色观察时，EUS—FNA诊断胰腺癌的敏感性为67．6％。2006年1月以后采用病理医师床旁瑞氏-姬姆萨快速染色观察法，EUS—FNA诊断胰腺癌的敏感性提高到93.1％。（2）18例胰腺小占位病灶行EUS—FNA，其诊断准确率是66．7％。（3）胰腺癌患者组中EUS—FAN活检物中的CEA、CA19-9浓度明显高于血清中的浓度。（4）EUS—FNA对假肿瘤性胰腺炎诊断的准确率为76．5％。结论EUS—FNA对胰腺占位性病灶的诊断是安全有效的，具有重要价值。     

内镜超声引导下细针抽吸术联合流式细胞术在深部淋巴瘤诊断中的应用初探

目的探讨内镜超声引导下细针抽吸术（EUS—FNA）联合流式细胞术（FCM）在诊断腹膜后及纵隔等深部位淋巴瘤诊断中的应用价值。方法回顾性分析24例经B超、CT或MRI检查发现腹膜后或纵隔肿大淋巴结疑似淋巴瘤患者的病例资料,总结EUS—FNA联合FCM以及EUS—FNA联合普通细胞学病理学的检测结果,结合最终诊断结果统计上述两种检测方法的诊断性并行对比分析。结果24例中最终8例确诊为淋巴瘤,14例确诊为非淋巴瘤病变,2例无法明确诊断。EUS．FNA联合FCM诊断淋巴瘤的敏感度为87．5％（7／8）,特异度为100。0％（14／14）,阳性预测值为100．0％（7／7）,阴性预测值为93．3％（14／15）,准确率为95．5％（21／22）;EUS—FNA联合普通细胞学及病理学诊断淋巴瘤的敏感度为25．0％（2／8）,特异度为85．7％（12／14）,阳性预测值为50．0％（2／4）,阴性预测值为66．7％（12／18）,准确率为63．6％（14／22）。两种检测方法比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论EUS—FNA联合FCM是一种可靠的诊断非霍奇金淋巴瘤的手段,尤其是对以深部淋巴结肿大为主要表现的疑似淋巴瘤更应优先考虑行EUA—FNA联合FCM检测。     

内镜超声引导下细针穿刺活检对占位性病变的诊断价值

背景：内镜超声引导下细针穿刺活检（EUS—FNA）广泛应用于占位性病变的诊断,但其诊断价值尚未完全明确。目的：评价EUS—FNA对占位性病变的诊断价值。方法：纳入2010年12月～2012年12月于华中科技大学同济医学院附属协和医院就诊的占位性病变患者70例,对占位性病变行EUS—FNA检查,以术后病理诊断作为金标准,评价EUS·FNA的阳性预测值、阴性预测值、敏感性、特异性、准确性以及约登指数。结果：66例患者获得足够细胞或组织学标本,穿刺成功率为94．3％。穿刺成功患者（66例）中,EUS—FNA的阳性预测值、阴性预测值、敏感性、特异性、准确性、约登指数分别为100％、36．4％、88．7％、100％、89．4％和0．887;所有穿刺患者（70例）中,上述数值分别为100％、26．7％、83．3％、100％、84．3％和0．833。所有患者均未发生严重并发症。结论：EUS—FNA对诊断占位性病变安全、有效,具有重要临床价值。     

内镜超声引导下细针穿刺抽吸术对胰腺占位病变诊断价值及其影响因素的研究

目的探讨内镜超声引导下细针穿刺抽吸术（EUS—FNA）对胰腺占位病变的诊断价值及影响其准确率的相关因素。方法回顾性统计101例因胰腺占位病变行EUS—FNA患者的临床资料,纳入患者性别、年龄、病灶部位、大小、性状、穿刺时抽吸负压、穿刺次数、实时细胞学诊断、超声内镜类型、操作医师经验等10个因素进行分析。结果EUS-FNA总体诊断准确率为85．1％,敏感度为81．1％,特异度为96．3％,阳性预测值为98．4％,阴性预测值为65．0％。单因素Logistic回归分析示,EUS-FNA穿刺阳性率的相关影响因素有病灶大小、病灶性状、抽吸负压、操作医师经验（P〈0．05）,EUS-FNA诊断准确率的相关影响因素只有病灶大小（OR=1．984,95％CI：1．141—3．451,P=0．015）,病灶每增大1cm,其穿刺阳性的概率增加1．67倍,其穿刺诊断准确的概率增加1．83倍。多因素Logistic回归分析显示,EUS．FNA穿刺阳性率的独立影响因素有病灶大小（OR=2．012,95％CI：1．394—2．906,P=0．000）和病灶性状（OR=10．218,95％CI：2．432～42．937,P=0．002）,实性病灶穿刺阳性的概率为囊性病灶的10．2倍;EUS—FNA诊断准确率的独立影响因素为病灶大小（OR=1．984,95％CI：1．141—3．451,P=0．015）。结论EUS．FNA是一项安全有效、特异度高的诊断手段,在胰腺占位病灶的病理诊断中具有重要临床价值。EUS-FNA穿刺阳性率及诊断准确率均与胰腺病灶大小呈显著正相关。胰腺实性病灶的穿刺阳性率显著高于囊性病灶。     

内镜超声引导下细针穿刺细胞学及囊液癌胚抗原分析诊断胰腺囊性病变的价值

目的探讨内镜超声引导下细针穿刺（EUS-FNA）细胞学检查、囊液癌胚抗原（cEA）分析对区分胰腺囊性病变良恶性的诊断价值。方法对27例胰腺囊性病变患者行EUS-FNA细胞学检查和囊液CEA分析,绘制囊液CEA受试者工作特征曲线并通过Youden指数确定诊断临界值,以手术病理诊断为金标准,统计分析EUS、EUS-FNA细胞学及囊液CEA分析鉴别诊断胰腺囊性病变良恶性的敏感度、特异度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值和准确率。结果手术病理确诊良性病变14例、潜在恶性／恶性病变13例。EUS鉴别诊断胰腺囊性病变良恶性的准确率、敏感度、特异度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值分别为77．8％（21／27）、69．2％（9／13）、85．7％（12／14）、81．8％（9／11）、75．0％（12／16）;EUS-FNA细胞学上述指标分别为85．2％（23／27）、76．9％（10／13）、92．9％（13／14）、90．9％（10／11）、81．3％（13／16）;以囊液CEA值22．24ng／ml为诊断临界值,上述指标分别为74．1％（20／27）、84．6％（11／13）、64．3％（9／14）、68．8％（11／16）、81．8％（9／11）。结论EUS-FNA细胞学鉴别诊断胰腺囊性病变良恶性具有较高的准确率和特异度,而囊液CEA分析（诊断临界值22．24ng／m1）鉴别诊断胰腺囊性病变良恶性的敏感度较高,选择合适的胰腺囊液CEA分析诊断临界值结合EUS-FNA细胞学检查可以基本满足临床鉴别胰腺囊性病变良恶性的需要。     

多种内镜检查方法联合应用对胆管狭窄性疾病的诊断价值

目的评估多种内镜检查方法联合应用对胆管狭窄性疾病的诊疗价值。方法回顾性分析36例胆管狭窄性疾病患者的诊断情况。36例患者均进行了超声内镜检查术（EUS）、经内镜逆行胰胆管造影术（ERCP）、胆管内超声检查术（IDUS）,胆道靶向刷检行细胞学涂片、液基薄层细胞学检查,并结合临床资料及组织学病理检查,综合诊断。结果最终诊断胆管恶性病变21例,其中胆管细胞癌9例、十二指肠乳头癌4例、胰腺癌侵犯胆总管4例、肝癌侵犯胆总管4例;胆管良性病变15例,其中胆总管结石9例、肝吸虫感染所致胆管狭窄4例、单纯胆管炎性狭窄1例、外部压迫所致胆管狭窄1例。EUS、ERCP、IDUS及ERCP＋IDUS对胆管狭窄性疾病鉴别诊断的准确率分别为77．8％、88．9％、91．7％、94．4％,ERCP、IDUS及ERCP＋IDUS均明显高于EUS（P均〈0．05）;ERCP＋IDUS对胆管狭窄性疾病鉴别诊断的敏感度、特异度、阳性预测值与阴性预测值分别为95．2％、93．3％、95．2％、93．3％,均高于EUS、ERCP及IDUS单独检查。胆道刷检细胞学、液基薄层细胞学或组织病理学检查,19例诊断为恶性狭窄,17例诊断为良性狭窄,对鉴别胆管狭窄性质诊断的敏感度为90．5％、特异度为100．0％、准确率为94．4％。结论对于胆管狭窄性病变,ERCP＋IDUS可使诊断准确率得到明显提高;联合应用ERCP＋IDUS＋病变胆管的靶向刷检等多种内镜检查方法,诊断准确率更高。     

液基细胞学与传统细胞学方法诊断胆总管恶性狭窄的对比研究

目的探讨液基细胞学方法对胆总管恶性狭窄的诊断价值。方法对2008年10月至2009年6月间影像学怀疑为胆总管恶性狭窄的患者进行ERCP胆管细胞刷刷检,分别采用液基细胞学、传统细胞学方法进行细胞学标本制备,比较两种方法诊断的阳性率。结果疑诊胆总管恶性狭窄患者76例,经手术病理、细胞学检测及临床随访最终明确诊断为胆总管恶性狭窄的共65例。32例细胞学检测明确诊断的患者中,传统细胞学方法发现阳性17例（阳性率为26．2％,17／65）、液基细胞学方法发现阳性32例（阳性率为49．2％,32／65）,两者阳性率比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论液基细胞学较传统细胞学方法可提高ERCP胆管细胞刷刷检标本的阳性发现率,具有较高的临床应用价值。     

胆管腔内超声联合胆汁肿瘤标志物对胆管狭窄病因的诊断价值探讨

目的探讨胆管腔内超声（IDUS）联合胆汁肿瘤标志物测定对胆管狭窄良恶性的鉴别诊断价值。方法57例胆管狭窄患者（良性狭窄8例,恶性狭窄49例）行胆管腔内超声检查,同时行血清及胆汁肿瘤标志物[CA19-9、癌胚抗原（CEA）]测定,以手术病理结果为金标准,统计分析腹部超声、CT、磁共振胰胆管成像术（MRCP）、IDUS以及IDUS联合胆汁肿瘤标记物鉴别诊断胆管狭窄良恶性的敏感度、特异度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值及准确度。结果IDUS和IDUS联合胆汁肿瘤标记物（胆管良恶性鉴别诊断的分界值CA19-9值和CEA值分别为107kU／L和66．71斗∥L）鉴别诊断胆管狭窄良恶性的特异度分别为63．6％（7／11）和77．8％（7／9）（P〉0．05）,阳性预测值分别为91．8％（45／49）和95．9％（47／49）（P〉0．05）,准确度分别为91．2％（52／57）和94．7％（54／57）（P〉0．05）,均显著高于腹部超声、CT和MRCP,差异均有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。IDUS联合胆汁CEA（远端胆管狭窄良恶性鉴别诊断的分界值为71μg/L）鉴别诊断远端胆管狭窄良恶性的准确度为97．9％（46／47）,明显高于IDUS的87．2％（41／47）,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论IDUS联合胆汁肿瘤标记物测定对胆管良恶性狭窄性质的鉴别有较高的价值,联合胆汁CEA测定能够在IDUS基础上进一步提高远端胆管恶性狭窄诊断的准确度。     

Diagnostic efficacy of the cell block method in comparison with smear cytology of tissue samples obtained by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration

Background

The diagnostic efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) cytology may vary greatly depending on the treatment of the samples obtained and the level of proficiency of the cytopathologist or cytoscreener.

Methods

We prospectively evaluated the diagnostic efficacy of the cell block (CB) method and that of smear cytology using tissue samples obtained in the same needle pass at EUS-FNA in 33 patients with pancreatic tumors, abdominal tumors or swollen lymph nodes. An average of 3.1 passes were applied during the procedure without affirmation by rapid cytology. About half of the material obtained by each single pass was subjected to smear cytology, while the other half was evaluated by the CB method. Four to 12 glass slides were prepared for both Papanicolaou stain and Giemsa stain. The CB sections were prepared using the sodium alginate method and subjected to HE, PAS-AB and immunohistochemical stains. Two pathologists independently made cytological and histological diagnoses. The final diagnosis was based on integration of cytohistological findings, diagnostic imaging, and clinical course.

Results

The diagnostic accuracy of the CB method and that of smear cytology were 93.9 and 60.6%, respectively (p = 0.003), and their respective sensitivities were 92.0 and 60.0% (p = 0.02). It was easier to make a definite diagnosis of not only malignancies but also benign conditions by the CB method than by the smear method.

Conclusion

The CB method with immunostaining showed a higher diagnostic yield than smear cytology in patients who had undergone EUS-FNA without rapid on-site cytology.     

应用液基细胞技术在肺癌细胞诊断中的意义

目的探讨对支气管镜毛刷标本进行液基薄层细胞学制片技术(LCT)在肺癌细胞诊断中的应用价值。方法收集252例肺癌患者的支气管镜刷检标本,同时进行LCT和直接涂片法检测,比较两种方法的涂片质量及诊断的阳性率。结果 LCT检测的标本切片质量高,LCT诊断肺癌的敏感度为58.33%。直接涂片法诊断肺癌的敏感度为33.19%。LCT的敏感度高于直接涂片法(P0.05)。结论 LCT液基薄层细胞学制片技术在支气管镜刷检细胞学标本制片质量及诊断准确性明显高于传统涂片方法,支气管镜刷检标本的LCT检测可推广应用于临床。     

Histology Combined with Cytology by Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration for the Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Mass and Intra-Abdominal Lymphadenopathy

Background/Aims

Small core biopsy samples can occasionally be obtained with conventional endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). Although most studies have focused on the cytological analysis of specimens, data regarding histological assessment is scarce. The aim of this study was to determine whether core biopsies by conventional EUS-FNA could increase the accuracy of EUS-guided sampling when combined with cytology in the absence of an on-site cytopathologist.

Methods

In the 95 consecutive patients (98 lesions) undergoing EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic masses and intra-abdominal lymphadenopathy, tissue coils from the needle were harvested for histology, and residual tissue was examined by cytology.

Results

Adequate samples were obtained by EUS-FNA cytology, histology, and combined cytology-histology in 91.8%, 65.3%, and 94.8% of patients, respectively. From the pancreas (n=67), adequate samples for histology were obtained by EUS-FNA in 68.7% of cases, compared with 58.0% from non-pancreatic cases (n=31), respectively (p>0.05). The overall sensitivity and accuracy of EUS-FNA was 78.0% and 81.6% for cytology alone, 63.4% and 69.4% for histology alone, and 84.1% and 86.7% for combined cytology-histology, respectively.

Conclusions

Combined cytology and histology analysis for diagnosing pancreatic masses and intra-abdominal lymphadenopathy may increase the diagnostic yield of conventional EUS-FNA without on-site cytology.     

抗酸杆菌液基薄层涂片方法的临床应用研究

目的评价结核分枝杆菌液基薄层涂片法对不同类型标本的染色检查效能。方法对200份住院1周内结核病患者的标本同时进行液基薄层方法与直接涂片法镜检抗酸杆菌,其中包括148份晨痰标本,52份体液标本,比较2种方法的阳性检出率。结果排除16份重复标本,9份未进行分枝杆菌培养的标本,纳入的123份痰标本中,液基薄层法阳性率33.33%,直接涂片法阳性率24.39%,差异有统计学意义(P=0.012);培养阳性病例的痰标本中,液基薄层法阳性率58.82%,直接涂片法阳性率44.12%,差异有统计学意义(P=0.018)。52份体液标本中,液基薄层法阳性率13.46%,直接涂片阳性率1.96%,差异有统计学意义(P=0.041);培养阳性病例的16份体液标本中,液基薄层法阳性比例为7/16,直接涂片法阳性比例为1/16,差异有统计学意义(P=0.040)。结论基于液基薄层方法的抗酸杆菌涂片阳性率高于直接涂片法,对于体液标本阳性率提高显著,有利于临床上快速诊断,但对于痰标本的应用须综合考虑检验时长和检验费用。     

胰腺超声内镜细针穿刺活检物中K—ras基因定量检测对胰腺癌诊断价值的研究

目的比较不同胰腺超声内镜细针穿刺物中K—ras突变定量值,评价其对胰腺癌辅助诊断的价值。方法收集53例胰腺占位病变的超声内镜细针穿刺物,采用肽核酸（PNA）钳制实时定量PER的方法检测K—ras基因野生及突变拷贝数,根据临床综合诊断,与细胞学比较,评价其诊断价值。结果53例患者最后确诊为胰腺癌37例,非恶性胰腺占位16例,胰腺癌组K—ras基因的突变率为83．8％,非恶性胰腺占位组突变率为18．8％,两组之间比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。细胞学和K—ran定量检测诊断的灵敏度分别为59．5％和83．8％,将两者联合后诊断胰腺癌的灵敏度可提高至89．2％。结论胰腺组织超声内镜细针穿刺物中K—ras定量检查对胰腺癌有临床辅助诊断价值。     

Comparative study of diagnostic value of cytologic sampling by endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration and that by endoscopic retrograde pancreatography for the management of pancreatic mass without biliary stricture

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) can now provide a cytopathological diagnosis of underlying pancreatic malignancy with higher success rates than endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP). To determine the significance of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of pancreatic mass without biliary stricture, the value of cytopathological diagnosis obtained by EUS-FNA was retrospectively compared with that by ERP, and the complications associated with these procedures evaluated. METHODS: Eighty-three patients who were suspected to have a pancreatic mass (excluding a cystic mass), without biliary stricture on conventional ultrasound and/or computed tomography were enrolled. The EUS-FNA biopsy was performed in 53 patients and cytology utilizing ERP was performed in 30 patients. RESULTS: The sampling rate of adequate specimen was 100% in both groups. In the EUS-FNA group, the overall results for the available samples were sensitivity 92.9% and accuracy 94.3%. In contrast, in the ERCP group, the overall results were sensitivity 33.3% and accuracy 46.7%. There was a significant difference between the two groups (P < 0.01). With regard to complications, there was a significant difference (P < 0.01) in the frequency of post-procedure pancreatitis between the EUS-FNA group and ERP group (0%, 0/53 vs 33.3%, 10/30, respectively). CONCLUSION: Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration is safer and more accurate for the cytopathological diagnosis of suspected pancreatic masses without a biliary stricture as compared with cytology during ERP. Endoscopic ultrasonography with FNA should be considered a preferred test (prior to attempting endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography) when a cytological diagnosis of a pancreatic mass is required, especially when there is no biliary obstruction, or when emergent decompression of an obstructed biliary tree is not considered clinically necessary due to lack of signs and symptoms of cholangitis.     

Prospective randomized controlled study comparing cell block method and conventional smear method for pancreatic juice cytology

Aim: To elucidate the diagnostic efficacy of the cell block (CB) method by comparing it with that of conventional smear cytology for pancreatic juice obtained by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in a randomized controlled trial fashion. Methods: A total of 170 patients with pancreatic lesions suspicious of being malignant who underwent pancreatic juice collection without giving secretin under ERCP were enrolled in this study. After sampling, the pancreatic juice was randomized to the CB method (n = 85) or to smear cytology (n = 85). CB sections were subjected to hematoxylin‐eosin, periodic acid Schiff–Alcian blue, and immunohistochemical stains. Both Papanicolaou stain and Giemsa stain were used for smear cytology. Results: The final diagnosis was malignancy in 54 patients: pancreatic cancer, 45; intraductal papillary‐mucinous carcinoma, six; and endocrine tumor, three. The number of patients with a cytological borderline malignancy in the CB group (3.5%) was significantly smaller than that in the smear group (27.1%) (P < 0.001). The diagnostic accuracy of the CB method and that of smear cytology were 76.5% (65/85) and 74.1% (63/85), respectively (P = 0.72), and their respective sensitivities were 50% (14/28) and 38.5% (10/26) (P = 0.39). The sensitivity of the CB method (88.9%) was better than that of smear cytology (42.9%) for invasive ductal carcinoma in the pancreas head (P = 0.048). Conclusions: The CB method using immunostaining for pancreatic juice cytology showed a much lower rate of equivocal borderline malignancy and a tendency for a higher diagnostic yield compared with smear cytology. Its diagnostic sensitivity, however, was not satisfactory except for pancreatic‐head cancer.     

乙醇固定法、液基细胞学法与传统细胞学法诊断胆总管恶性狭窄的对比研究

目的探讨乙醇固定法、液基细胞学法对胆总管恶性狭窄的诊断价值以及乙醇固定法从采样到固定的合适间隔时间。方法2008年10月至2013年6月经手术病理或2年临床随访确诊的胆总管恶性狭窄82例，统计其中乙醇固定法（乙醇固定法组，n=30）、液基细胞学法（液基细胞学法组，n=28）、传统细胞学法（传统细胞学法组，n=24）的刷检阳性率并行对比分析，同时比较乙醇固定法组中采样到固定间隔时间2min者（n=17）和5rain者（n=13）的刷检阳性率。结果乙醇固定法组、液基细胞学法组、传统细胞学法组刷检阳性率分别为73．33％（22／30）、75．00％（21／28）、20．83％（5／24）。传统细胞学法组刷检阳性率明显低于乙醇固定法组（∥=21．525，P=0．ooo）和液基细胞学法组（X2=22．208，P=0．000），差异均有统计学意义；乙醇固定法组与液基细胞学法组刷检阳性率相近，差异无统计学意义（X2=0．683，P=0．898）。乙醇固定法组中采样到固定间隔时间2min者刷检阳性率为88．24％（15／17），明显高于5min者的53．85％（7／13），差异有统计学意义（，=4．535，P=0．033）。结论乙醇固定法和液基细胞学法均可明显增加胆总管恶性狭窄的刷检阳性率，具有较好的临床应用价值；而乙醇固定法更加简便、成本低，但使用时应尽量缩短从采样到固定的间隔时间，建议不超过2min。     

Diagnostic ability and factors affecting accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for pancreatic solid lesions: Japanese large single center experience

Background

Several studies have investigated the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for pancreatic lesions, but they have included only limited patient populations. This study aimed to clarify the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA in a large number of pancreatic lesions, and to describe the factors that influence it.

Methods

From March 1997 to May 2010, 944 consecutive patients who had undergone EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid lesions were evaluated retrospectively. Factors affecting EUS-FNA accuracy were then analyzed.

Results

A total of 996 solid pancreatic lesions were sampled by EUS-FNA. The overall sampling adequacy and diagnostic accuracy of these lesions were 99.3 % (989/996) and 91.8 % (918/996), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for differentiating malignant from benign lesions were 91.5 % (793/867) and 97.7 % (126/129), respectively. The diagnostic performance was significantly higher when both cytological and cell-block examinations were carried out than with only cytological examination. In multivariate analysis, final diagnosis, location of lesion, lesion size, availability of on-site cytopathological evaluation, and experience of EUS-FNA procedure were independent factors affecting the accuracy of EUS-FNA. On-site cytopathological evaluation and lesion size were found to be the most weighted factors affecting diagnostic accuracy.

Conclusions

EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid lesions yielded a high accuracy and low complication rate. Both cytological and cell-block preparations and on-site cytopathological evaluation contributed to improve the accuracy. The diagnostic ability of EUS-FNA was less for smaller lesions, and repeated procedures may be needed if malignancy is suspected.