Related Experiment Video For Pancreatic cancer
Updated: Jun 21, 2026

Laparoscopic Radical Left Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Cancer: Surgical Strategy and Technique Video
Published on: June 6, 2020
Comparative analysis of different biopsy techniques for pancreatic lesions in diagnostic value, safety, and
Wuyongga Bao1, Keyu Zeng1, Jiayan Huang1
1Department of Medical Ultrasound, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Background:
Pancreatic cancer is highly lethal and often diagnosed at an advanced stage, highlighting the need for early and accurate diagnosis. Although imaging plays a crucial role, definitive pathological confirmation requires biopsy. Percutaneous ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy (US-CNB), computed tomography-guided core needle biopsy (CT-CNB), and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) are the three main biopsy techniques, each differing in diagnostic accuracy, safety, and cost-effectiveness. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic value, safety, and cost-effectiveness of these three biopsy techniques for suspiciously malignant pancreatic lesions.
Methods:
We retrospectively evaluated patients with suspicious malignant pancreatic lesions who underwent US-CNB, CT-CNB, or EUS-FNA from January 2018 to January 2023. We compared technical success rates, sample adequacy, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and complication rates of three groups. Additionally, we calculated the cost/effectiveness ratio (C/E) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for each method.
Results:
A total of 399 patients were enrolled (US-CNB, n=86; CT-CNB, n=55; EUS-FNA, n=258), achieving 100% technical success. Sample adequacy satisfaction rates were 97.70% for US-CNB, 90.90% for CT-CNB, and 74.03% for EUS-FNA, with EUS-FNA significantly lower compared to the other two methods (P<0.001). Diagnostic accuracy was significantly higher for US-CNB (97.70%) and CT-CNB (90.90%) compared to EUS-FNA (69.80%) (P<0.001). Complication rates were 15.12% for US-CNB, 16.36% for CT-CNB, and 10.47% for EUS-FNA, with no significant differences (P=0.319). Compared to EUS-FNA, ICER for US-CNB was -14,367.7 yuan and for CT-CNB was -8,279.22 yuan per correct diagnosis, both below the willingness-to-pay threshold.
Conclusions:
US-CNB and CT-CNB demonstrate superior diagnostic accuracy and specimen adequacy compared to EUS-FNA for suspected malignant pancreatic lesions. There are no significant differences in postoperative complication rates among three biopsy methods. In terms of cost-effectiveness, US-CNB and CT-CNB have lower costs and higher effectiveness than EUS-FNA, indicating greater economic efficiency.
Related Concept Videos
Radiological Investigation III: Pulmonary Angiogram and PET Scan
Pulmonary Angiogram
A Pulmonary Angiogram is an invasive procedure involving injecting a contrast medium through a catheter threaded into the pulmonary artery or the right side of the heart to visualize the pulmonary vasculature. Computed Tomography (CT) scans have mainly replaced this...
Serum Laboratory Studies, Stool Test, Breath Test
Ultrasound II: Endoscopic Ultrasound and FibroScan
Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS):
Imaging Studies II: Positron Emission Tomography and Scintigraphy
Fundamental Principles of PET
Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies
Dysrhythmias V: Evaluating Dysrhythmias

