• Yuichi Takano, Jun Noda, Masataka Yamawaki, Tetsushi Azami, Takahiro Kobayashi, Fumitaka Niiya, Naotaka Maruoka, Tomoko Norose, Nobuyuki Ohike, Tetsuji Wakabayashi, Kenichi Matsuo, Kuniya Tanaka, and Masatsugu Nagahama.
• Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Showa University Fujigaoka Hospital, Japan.
• Intern. Med. 2021 Jan 1; 60 (11): 1657-1664.

AbstractObjective Both a percutaneous biopsy and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) have been widely performed for liver tumors. However, no studies have compared these two biopsy methods. Method A retrospective study was conducted using medical records for patients who underwent a liver tumor biopsy from 2012 to 2019. The cases were classified into two groups for a comparison: an ultrasound-guided percutaneous biopsy group (percutaneous group) and an EUS-FNA group (EUS group). Results A total of 106 patients (47 in the percutaneous group and 59 in the EUS group) were included. The final diagnosis was malignant in 100 cases and benign in the remaining 6 cases. While the median lesion diameter was 62 mm in the percutaneous group, it was significantly smaller (34 mm) in the EUS group (p <0.01). The EUS group had more left lobe tumors than right lobe tumors. All cases of caudate lobe tumor (four cases) underwent EUS-FNA. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the procedure were 95%, 100%, and 96% in the percutaneous group and 100%, 100%, and 100% in the EUS group, respectively showing no significant difference. Adverse events were reported in 17% of the percutaneous group, which was significantly lower than in the EUS group (2%; p <0.01). Conclusion A percutaneous biopsy and EUS-FNA have equivalent diagnostic qualities for liver tumors, although EUS-FNA tends to be associated with fewer adverse events. A complete understanding of the characteristics of each procedure is essential when choosing the best biopsy method for each particular case.

8 keywords...

hide…