You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Emerging role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy
  1. John David Chetwood1,
  2. Sanjivan Mudaliar1,2,
  3. Dominic Staudenmann1,
  4. Joo-Shik Shin2,3,
  5. Ken Liu1,2,
  6. Avik Majumdar1,2,
  7. Arthur Kaffes1,2,
  8. Simone Strasser1,2,
  9. Geoffrey W McCaughan1,2,
  10. Payal Saxena1,2
  1. 1 AW Morrow Gastroenterology and Liver Centre, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
  2. 2 Faculty of Medicine, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  3. 3 Department of Tissue Pathology, NSW Health Pathology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Associate Professor Payal Saxena, AW Morrow Gastroenterology and Liver Centre, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, NSW 2050, Australia; psaxena1{at}jhmi.edu

https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2020-322704

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    We read with interest the recent guidelines by Neuberger et al 1 and would like to congratulate the authors on a comprehensive review of the use of liver biopsy in clinical practice. However, we were disappointed that the emerging role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) was understated in the recommendations.

    EUS-LB has been shown to give histological diagnosis rates of 93.9% with an adverse event rate of 2.3%,2–5 with less patient discomfort when compared with percutaneous liver biopsy (PC-LB).5 We feel the guidelines should also include other potential benefits of EUS-LB over PC-LB that were not mentioned.

    The key role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is already well established in assessment of the pancreas and pancreatic lesions.6 Furthermore, EUS is superior to CT for sampling ascites, due to …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors JDC, SM and DS: drafting and revision of article. AK, AM, J-SS, KL and SS: critical revision of article. GWM: concept, critical revision of article. PS: concept, design, critical revision of article.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.