Hepatic applications of endoscopic ultrasound: Current status and future directions

Table 1 Reported diagnostic yields of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration of hepatic solitary lesions

Ref.	Patient number/lesion sampled	Diagnostic yields
Nguyen et al[6]	574/15	CT before EUS depicted liver lesions in 3 of the 14 patients (21%)
Awad et al[14]	14/9	EUS identified additional lesions in 28% of the patients and changed clinical management in 67% of the patients
TenBerge et al[15]	167/167	EUS-FNA diagnosed malignancy in 89% of cases after non diagnostic FNA under trans abdominal US guidance
DeWitt et al[16]	77/77	45 (58%) were diagnostic for malignancy, 25 (33%) were benign and seven (9%) were non diagnostic. EUS detected malignancy in 41% of patients with previously negative exam
HollerBach et al[17]	41/41	With combination of histological and cytological examination sensitivity and specificity for detecting malignancy was 94% and 100%
Prasad et al[13]	222/21	Diagnostic of malignancy in 15 (6.8%) 5 of whom (2.3%) had normal imaging prior
Crowe et al[21]	50/16	Diagnostic of malignancy in 56% of the cases, comparable to CT scan
McGrath et al[105]	98/5	The sensitivity of EUS-FNA for liver lesions was 80%. These lesions were not evident on prior noninvasive imaging
Singh et al[106]	132/26	The diagnostic accuracy of EUS/EUS-FNA and CT scan was 98% and 92% respectively

EUS: Endoscopic ultrasonography; FNA: Fine needle aspiration; CT: Computed tomography.