Search

Background and Aim: A recently carried out randomized controlled trial showed the benefit of a novel 20-G fine-needle biopsy (FNB) over a 25-G fine-needle aspiration (FNA) needle. The current study evaluated the reproducibility of these findings among expert academic and non-academic pathologists., Methods: This study was a side-study of the ASPRO (ASpiration versus PROcore) study. Five centers retrieved 74 (59%) consecutive FNB and 51 (41%) FNA samples from the ASPRO study according to randomization; 64 (51%) pancreatic and 61 (49%) lymph node specimens. Samples were re-reviewed by five expert academic and five non-academic pathologists and rated in terms of sample quality and diagnosis. Ratings were compared between needles, expert academic and non-academic pathologists, target lesions, and cytology versus histological specimens., Results: Besides a higher diagnostic accuracy, FNB also provided for a better agreement on diagnosing malignancy (ĸ = 0.59 vs ĸ = 0.76, P < 0.001) and classification according to Bethesda (ĸ = 0.45 vs ĸ = 0.61, P < 0.001). This equally applied for expert academic and non-academic pathologists and for pancreatic and lymph node specimens. Sample quality was also rated higher for FNB, but agreement ranged from poor (ĸ = 0.04) to fair (ĸ = 0.55). Histology provided better agreement than cytology, but only when a core specimen was obtained with FNB (P = 0.004 vs P = 0.432)., Conclusion: This study shows that the 20-G FNB outperforms the 25-G FNA needle in terms of diagnostic agreement, independent of the background and experience of the pathologist. This endorses use of the 20-G FNB needle in both expert and lower volume EUS centers., (© 2019 The Authors. Digestive Endoscopy published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society.)

Background: There is no evidence demonstrating the feasibility of colorectal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) resection with currently available endoscopic instrumentation., Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the responsiveness of surgical endoscopists to simulated transanal NOTES sigmoidectomy training., Design: Participants were trained in simulated NOTES sigmoidectomy by using disposable abdominal trays with tattooed sigmoid cancer in a hybrid simulator., Setting: Endoscopy simulation laboratory in a university hospital., Interventions: NOTES sigmoidectomy included 8 steps performed transanally with 2 colonoscopes, endoscopic scissors, and clip applier: (1) colonoscopic viscerotomy with a balloon; (2) retroperitoneal dissection; (3) left ureter identification, inferior mesenteric vessels division; (4) colonoscopy; (5) splenic flexure mobilization; (6) left side of the colon/rectal mobilization; (7) transanal specimen transection; (8) extracorporeal colorectal anastomosis., Main Outcome Measurements: Responsiveness was defined as a change in performance over time and assessed comparing baseline testing with unmentored final testing. Content-valid measures included the length of the specimen, the distance of the anastomosis from the anal verge, and the proximal and distal resection margins and operating time (minutes)., Results: Four participants performed 21 resections. Tumor distance from the anal verge was 29.2 cm (range 26-2.5 cm). Operating time overall (127.5 vs 74 minutes, P = .068), viscerotomy (17.5 vs 9 minutes, P = .197), colonoscopy (4.5 vs 3.5 minutes, P = .655), flexure mobilization (19.5 vs 10 minutes, P = .144), colon mobilization (20 vs 14.5 minutes, P = .461), specimen extraction (9.5 vs 8.5 minutes, P = .465), and anastomosis (14 vs 11 minutes, P = .715) times improved., Limitations: Ceiling effects because of fixed anatomy., Conclusions: Simulated NOTES sigmoidectomy training affected responsiveness of surgical endoscopists with a 42% reduction in operating time., (Copyright © 2014 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)