Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Pancreatic Neoplasms: HELP
Articles by M. Bülbül
Based on 1 article published since 2010
(Why 1 article?)
||||

Between 2010 and 2020, M. Bülbül wrote the following article about Pancreatic Neoplasms.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
1 Article Rapid on-site evaluation during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of lymph nodes does not increase diagnostic yield: A randomized, multicenter trial. 2018

Kappelle, W F W / Van Leerdam, M E / Schwartz, M P / Bülbül, M / Buikhuisen, W A / Brink, M A / Sie-Go, D M D S / Pullens, H J M / Nikolakopoulos, S / Van Diest, P J / Leenders, M / Moons, L M G / Bogte, A / Siersema, P D / Vleggaar, F P. ·Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, The Netherlands Cancer institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, The Netherlands. Department of Respiratory Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Department of Thorax Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Department of Biostatistics, Julius Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. ·Am J Gastroenterol · Pubmed #29681624.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: Studies on the impact of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of lymph nodes are retrospective and have shown conflicting results. We aimed to compare the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA of lymph nodes with ROSE (ROSE+) and without ROSE (ROSE-). METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Consecutive patients who were scheduled to undergo EUS-FNA of mediastinal or abdominal lymph nodes were randomized to ROSE+ or ROSE-. In the ROSE+ group, the number of passes was dictated by the on-site cytotechnician. In the ROSE- group, five passes were performed without interference from the cytotechnician. All samples were reviewed by a single-expert cytopathologist, blinded to group allocation. Primary endpoint was diagnostic yield with and without ROSE. RESULTS: After inclusion of 90 patients, interim analysis showed futility of study continuation since diagnostic yield of ROSE+ and ROSE- were comparable. A total of 91 patients were randomized to ROSE+ (N = 45) or ROSE- (N = 46). Diagnostic yield of ROSE+ and ROSE- and diagnostic accuracy were comparable: 93.3% vs. 95.7% (P = 0.68) and 97.6% vs. 93.2% (P = 0.62), respectively. Two major complications (one per group) occurred (p = 0.99). ROSE- patients more often reported self-limiting post-procedural pain (p < 0.001). Median procedure time for ROSE+ (20 min) and ROSE- (23 min) was comparable (P = 0.06). Median time to review slides in the ROSE- group (12:47 min) was longer than with ROSE+ (7:52 min) (P < 0.001). Mean costs of ROSE- and ROSE+ were comparable: €938.29 (±172.70) vs. €945.98 (±223.38) (P = 0.91), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic yield and accuracy of EUS-FNA of mediastinal and abdominal lymph nodes with and without ROSE are comparable. Time needed to review slides was shorter and post-procedural pain was less often reported in the ROSE+ group. Based on the primary outcome, the implementation of ROSE during EUS-FNA of mediastinal and abdominal lymph nodes cannot be advised. (Dutch Trial Register: NTR4876).