Role of endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition in diagnosing hepatic focal lesions

Table 1 Cytopathological diagnosis of hepatic focal lesions

Variable	Total, n = 43
	n	%
Cytopathological diagnosis
Benign	8	18.60
Malignant	35	81.40
Inflammatory	8	18.60
Cholangitic abscess	6	13.94
Cirrhotic nodule	2	4.65
Primary	6	13.95
Hepatocellular carcinoma	5	11.63
Neuroendocrine tumor	1	2.32
Secondary	29	67.44

Table 2 Endoscopic ultrasonography finding of patients with hepatic focal lesions

Variable	Total, n = 43
No. of passes	1.49 (0.51)
Shortest diameter size in mm	19 ± 12.8/(3-67)
Longest diameter size in mm	26 ± 19.1/(4-109)
Diagnosis
Benign	5 (11.63)
Malignant	38 (88.37)

Data are presented as n (%) or mean ± SD/(range).

Table 3 Comparison between endoscopic ultrasonography diagnosis and histopathology results

Variable	EUS, n = 43		Histopathology, n = 43
	n	%	n	%
Benign	5	11.63	8	18.60
Malignant	38	88.37	35	81.40

EUS: Endoscopic ultrasonography.

Table 4 Diagnostic utility of elastography in predicting benign and malignant hepatic focal lesions

Elastography, n = 43	n (%)
Benign
Grade 1	0
Grade 2	5 (11.6)
Malignant	38 (88.4)
Grade 3	10 (23.3)
Grade 4	28 (65.1)

Table 5 Comparison between different endoscopic ultrasonography tools regarding their utility in diagnosis of hepatic focal lesions

Tool	Sensitivity	Specificity	PPV	NPV	Overall accuracy
Elastography	97	67	94	80	92
EUS	100	57	94	100	94
FNA/FNB	100	100	100	100	100

EUS: Endoscopic ultrasonography; FNA/FNB: Fine needle aspiration/biopsy.