Minireviews
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2017.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. Aug 16, 2017; 9(8): 378-388
Published online Aug 16, 2017. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v9.i8.378
Table 1 Data from the main studies of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided liver biopsy
Ref.Study designNeedlePassesSpecimen length (median)Complete portal tracts (median)Histological diagnosis
DeWitt et al[8]Prospective unicentre study n = 21Quick-Core11-49 mm271%
Diehl et al[11]Prospective multicentre study n = 11019G (FNA) Expect11-238 mm1498%
Stavropoulos et al[10]Prospective unicentre study n = 2219G (FNA) Echotip21-336.9 mm991%
Sey et al[9]Prospective unicentre study n = 75Quick-Core11-79 mm273%
ProCore 19G11-320 mm597%
Table 2 Reported diagnostic yields of endoscopic ultrasonography of focal liver lesions
Ref./study designStudy populationPatient number/EUS-FNAEUS diagnostic yieldEUS-FNA diagnostic yield
Awad et al[13] Prospective unicenter studySuspected HCC or metastatic liver carcinoma14/9EUS identified all hepatic lesions (n = 14) previously reported by CT 4 new/additional lesions identified by EUSAll FNA passes yielded adequate specimens (malignant: n = 8; benign: n = 1)
Singh et al[14] Prospective unicenter studyHigh risk for HCC17/16The diagnostic accuracy of US, CT, MRI, and EUS/EUS-FNA were 38%, 69%, 92%, and 94%Cytologic diagnosis of primary liver tumor was established in 8 cases (HCC = 7; cholangiocarcinoma = 1)
DeWitt et al[15] Retrospective unicenter studyStaging EUS examinations for known or suspected malignancy77/77EUS features predictive of malignant hepatic lesions were the presence of regular outer margins and the detection of two or more lesions45 aspirates were diagnostic for malignancy (metastasis: n = 44; HCC = 1)
Table 3 Role of endoscopic ultrasonography in the evaluation of the outcome of endoscopic therapeutics for esophageal varices
Ref.Study designEndoscopic findingsEUS findings
Masalaite et al[35]Prospective The role of EUS in predicting the recurrence/rebleeding of esophageal varices: EBL (n = 40)Recurrence of esophageal varices: 19 (47.5%) within 12 mo of EBLEUS independent prognostic factors for variceal recurrence: Severe esophageal collaterals (OR= 24.39) multiple esophageal collaterals (OR = 24.39)
Lo et al[39]Prospective The role of EUS in predicting the recurrence of esophageal varices: ES (n = 35) vs EBL (n = 44)Recurrence of esophageal varices: 43% ES vs 70% EBLParaesophageal varices: 51% ES vs 86% EBL
de Paulo et al[40]Prospective The role of EUS-guided ES: ES (n = 25) vs EUS-guided ES (n = 25) of esophageal collateral vesselsMean number of sessions until eradication: 4.3 ES group vs 4.1 for the EUS-ES Recurrence of esophageal varices: 16.7% ES vs 8.3% EUS-ESEsophageal collaterals at the end of the sclerotherapy program: 8 patients in ES vs 0 patients in EUS-ES