A prospective, comparative trial to optimize sampling techniques in EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition: Techniques and Challenges

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS FNA) has made pathological diagnosis of pancreatic neoplasms, diseases involving lymph nodes at various mediastinal and abdominal sites, gastrointestinal submucosal lesions, perirectal lesions, adrenal lesions, and mediastinal masses easy. EUS-guided FNA is a multistep procedure that involves assessment of proper clinical indication, correct selection of FNA needles, and adoption of evidence-based techniques for tissue sampling. EUS FNA is done by needles that are available in different sizes, mainly 25, 22, and 19-gauge needle. The need of onsite cytopathologist, dependence on histology/core biopsy occasionally to get a diagnosis, and inability to reliably assess for molecular markers are important limitations of EUS FNA. EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (FNB) that samples the core of tissue is an exciting new development in the field of diagnostic EUS. FNB needles are expensive than FNA needles, and although the initial results are encouraging, more studies with robust evidence proving their superiority beyond any doubt are needed before they can be widely used.

Early pancreatic cancer - The role of endoscopic ultrasound with or without tissue acquisition in diagnosis and staging

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is one of the deadliest cancers with a 5-year overall survival of less than 6%. Due to its insidious clinical course and unspecific symptoms, the diagnosis is usually late, with only 15-20% patients presenting with potentially curable disease. It is, therefore, extremely important to identify patients with PC at early stages of the disease when tumors may be amenable to surgical resection. For unresectable and borderline resectable PC it is consensual to perform a biopsy to have a cyto/histological confirmation of malignancy before treatment. However, for patients presenting with promptly resectable disease, the role of biopsy is more debatable. There are, in the literature, arguments both for and against the usefulness of a preoperative biopsy. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is an important technique assisting in the diagnosis and staging of PC. EUS-guided tissue acquisition is a well-established tool to demonstrate the malignant nature of a pancreatic lesion. This review focuses on the role of EUS in the diagnosis and staging of PC, and highlights the controversy related to the role of EUS-guided tissue acquisition in the preoperative assessment of patients presenting with promptly resectable tumors (early PC).

Recent advancement in EUS-guided fine needle sampling

EUS-guided tissue acquisition technique plays an essential role for evaluation of gastrointestinal tumors. Several components affect the yield of EUS-guided tissue acquisition outcomes such as sampling techniques, use of ROSE (rapid onsite evaluation), training and experience, and needle designs. In this review we discuss advancement in EUS-guided fine needle sampling.

Prospective, multicenter, observational study of tissue acquisition through EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy using a 25G Franseen needle

Background:

Recently, EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) using a Franseen needle was developed for histological tissue acquisition. However, the yield of a 25G Franseen needle when acquiring histological core tissue has been unclear.

Patients and Methods:

We performed a prospective, multicenter, and observational cohort study that included 100 solid lesions scheduled for EUS-FNB using a 25G Franseen needle at eight centers in Hokkaido, Japan. Only EUS-FNB specimens acquired at the first pass were evaluated without a rapid on-site evaluation. The tissue acquisition rate, acquisition rate of an adequate specimen for histological assessment, the quality of tissue sample, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), diagnostic accuracy, and adverse events were evaluated.

Results:

We analyzed a total of 100 solid lesions in 100 patients. The patients were 57 males and 43 females with a median age of 70 years. The technical success rate was 100%. The tissue acquisition rate was 95.0%. The acquisition rate of an adequate specimen for histological assessment was 82.0%. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and diagnostic accuracy were 87.0%, 100%, 100%, 40.0%, and 88.0%, respectively. The adverse event rate was 1.0%, and it was reported in only one patient who had a moderate pancreatic fistula.

Conclusions:

EUS-FNB using the 25G Franseen needle was feasible, and adequate histological core tissue samples were acquired with this method.

The Use of a Stylet in Endoscopic Ultrasound With Fine-Needle Aspiration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the most efficacious way to collect specimens from a solid lesion adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract and is performed with an internal stylet during puncture. However, its reinsertion into the needle is time-consuming. Controversy surrounds whether quality of cytology specimen improves with stylet use. We performed a meta-analysis comparing the use of stylet versus no stylet with EUS-FNA of gastrointestinal-related masses.

METHODS

Multiple databases were searched from inception until April 28, 2016. Discordant findings from independent extractions were reviewed by at least 2 investigators. Methods were executed as per the standards of the Cochrane Collaboration. Primary outcomes assessed were diagnostic adequacy of individual specimen samples, accuracy, and yield. Secondary outcomes included overall diagnostic accuracy of per-malignant lesion, cellularity, contamination, and bloodiness of the sample, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Five randomized control trials were identified comparing stylet versus no stylet use, which enrolled 504 patients, evaluated 537 lesions, and 1914 distinct specimens. There was no difference in diagnostic adequacy [risk ratio (RR)=1.00; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.95-1.07], accuracy (RR=0.98; 95% CI, 0.90-1.06), or yield (RR=0.96; 95% CI, 0.89-1.03). No stylet use was favored in per-lesion malignant diagnosis (RR=0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.96). There was no difference in representative cellularity, contamination, or bloodiness of specimens obtained with or without stylet use.

CONCLUSIONS

Stylet use confers no significant advantage in diagnostic adequacy, accuracy, yield, contamination, bloodiness, or cellularity over no stylet. We reinforce that no stylet use may be used preferentially in EUS-FNA as a more convenient technique and is favored with a higher per-lesion malignant diagnosis.

Benefit of high negative pressure during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with standard 22-gauge needles for pancreatic lesions: a retrospective comparative study

OBJECTIVES

Few studies are available on high negative pressure (HNP) during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). This study compared the diagnostic yield between HNP and normal negative pressure (NNP) during EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic masses.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with pancreatic masses who underwent EUS-FNA using a 22-G needle with either HNP or NNP for both the first and second passes were retrospectively examined for diagnostic yield. Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) was unavailable at our center. The main outcome measures were the number of passes, diagnostic accuracy and quantity of histological samples.

RESULTS

Two hundred patients underwent EUS-FNA (n = 97, HNP; n = 103, NNP) over a 22-month period. A significantly lower median number of passes was required for HNP than for NNP (2 vs. 3; p < .001). There was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between the two groups. The rate of obtaining a histological sample larger than a 10× power field in length was significantly higher for HNP than for NNP (76.4% vs. 59.6%; p = .0019). In the multivariate analysis, a large tumor size (>20 mm) and HNP were identified as factors influencing the acquisition of a larger histological sample.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between HNP and NNP. HNP required fewer passes without ROSE and was related to the acquisition of a larger histological sample. HNP may be useful when few samples are available for EUS-FNA with NNP or a larger histological sample is needed.

22-Gauge biopsy needles have a better histological diagnostic yield in the discrimination of specific pancreatic solid neoplasms

BACKGROUND

To overcome the limitations of using cytological specimen alone for the diagnosis of challenging pancreatic lesions, biopsy needles have been developed to procure histological specimens during EUS, especially for the discrimination of several specific pancreatic tumors requiring adequate histological samples. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided 22-gauge (G) fine needle aspiration (FNA) needles and 22G fine needle biopsy (FNB) needles for sampling pancreatic masses.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of all EUS-guided sampling performed between November 2012 and April 2016. 422 cases sampled with a 22G FNA needle (N = 254) or a 22G FNB needle (N = 168) were recruited for this study. The specimen quality analyses, technical characteristics, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPVs), and negative predictive values (NPVs) for the pancreatic masses were reviewed and compared.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the procurement of adequate histological specimens (75.0% vs. 79.5%; p = .277) or the presence of diagnostic histological specimens (71.3% vs. 77.4%; p = .155) between FNA and FNB groups, respectively. There were also no significant differences in the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPVs, or NPVs of the cytological, histological, and overall analyses for FNA and FNB groups in the diagnosis of pancreatic malignancy. However, 22G biopsy needles demonstrated a better histological diagnostic yield in the discrimination of pancreatic adenocarcinoma and non-adenocarcinoma pancreatic neoplasms than 22G FNA needles (69.8% vs. 57.9%, p = .033).

CONCLUSIONS

22G FNB needle demonstrated a better histological diagnostic yield in the differentiation between pancreatic adenocarcinoma and non-adenocarcinoma pancreatic neoplasms.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Specimen Collection and Evaluation Techniques Affect Diagnostic Accuracy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) evaluation vary with technique, needles, and methods of specimen evaluation. We performed a direct comparison of diagnostic yields of EUS-FNA samples collected using different gauge needles (22- vs 25-gauge), with or without suction.

METHODS

We performed a randomized controlled study of 352 patients with suspected pancreatic masses, referred for EUS-FNA at a tertiary referral center. Patients were randomly assigned to 22-gauge needles with or without suction or 25-gauge needles with or without suction. Specimens were evaluated offsite by cell block and rapid onsite cytologic evaluation (ROSE). Final diagnoses were made based on histologic analyses or 12-month follow-up evaluations. The primary outcome was diagnostic adequacy of cell blocks. Secondary outcomes were operating characteristics of ROSE and EUS-FNA, number of passes required for accurate onsite diagnosis, and amount of blood in specimens.

RESULTS

The final diagnoses were malignancy (81.5% of patients) and benign disease (17.0% of patients); 1.4% of patients were lost during follow up. Cell block, ROSE, and EUS-FNA led to diagnostic accuracies of 71.9%, 95.5%, and 96.6%, respectively. A 22-gauge needle with suction was associated with more passes for adequate onsite diagnosis (P = .003) and specimens contained more blood (P = .01). Diagnostic accuracy of specimens collected by transduodenal EUS-FNA was lower with 22-gauge needles with suction compared to other techniques (P = .004).

CONCLUSION

In a randomized trial of patients undergoing EUS-FNA for pancreatic masses, samples collected with 22-gauge vs 25-gauge needles performed equally well for offsite specimen evaluation. Use of suction appears to increase number of passes needed and specimen bloodiness. Specimen collection techniques should be individualized based on method of evaluation. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02424838.

Endoscopic Ultrasound Imaging for Differential Diagnosis of Pancreatic Neoplasms: A 7-Year Study in a Chinese Population

Background

Currently, non-invasive methods for screening pancreatic cancer are lacking. There is little information regarding whether endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) imaging has a discriminatory ability for detecting benign and malignant pancreatic neoplasms. In this study, we retrospectively analyzed the demographic, clinicopathologic, and EUS features and follow-up information.

Material/Methods

A total of 58 patients with pancreatic neoplasms who underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) over a 7-year period (2009–2016) at our Department of Digestive Diseases were enrolled in our study.

Results

Of the 58 patients, 38 (65.5%) were diagnosed with malignant pancreatic neoplasms and 20 (34.5%) were benign ones. Of all the EUS findings, size of neoplasm (P=0.037) and regularity of margin (P=0.011) were significantly different between malignant and benign pancreatic neoplasms. However, age, sex, location, echo pattern, and dilation of main pancreatic duct did not show any significant difference (P>0.05). Size combined with regularity to detect malignant pancreatic neoplasms showed the following diagnostic values: sensitivity, 73.68%; specificity, 90%; positive predictive value, 76.60%; negative predictive value 81.82%; and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.887 (95% CI: 0.777–0.955, P<0.0001).

Conclusions

Our results showed the high value of EUS for differentiating malignant pancreatic neoplasms from benign ones. Due to this and its non-invasive nature, EUS should be the first-line method for detection of neoplastic pancreatic lesions.

Rapid on-site evaluation during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of lymph nodes does not increase diagnostic yield: A randomized, multicenter trial

OBJECTIVES

Studies on the impact of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of lymph nodes are retrospective and have shown conflicting results. We aimed to compare the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA of lymph nodes with ROSE (ROSE+) and without ROSE (ROSE-).

METHODS

This was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Consecutive patients who were scheduled to undergo EUS-FNA of mediastinal or abdominal lymph nodes were randomized to ROSE+ or ROSE-. In the ROSE+ group, the number of passes was dictated by the on-site cytotechnician. In the ROSE- group, five passes were performed without interference from the cytotechnician. All samples were reviewed by a single-expert cytopathologist, blinded to group allocation. Primary endpoint was diagnostic yield with and without ROSE.

RESULTS

After inclusion of 90 patients, interim analysis showed futility of study continuation since diagnostic yield of ROSE+ and ROSE- were comparable. A total of 91 patients were randomized to ROSE+ (N = 45) or ROSE- (N = 46). Diagnostic yield of ROSE+ and ROSE- and diagnostic accuracy were comparable: 93.3% vs. 95.7% (P = 0.68) and 97.6% vs. 93.2% (P = 0.62), respectively. Two major complications (one per group) occurred (p = 0.99). ROSE- patients more often reported self-limiting post-procedural pain (p < 0.001). Median procedure time for ROSE+ (20 min) and ROSE- (23 min) was comparable (P = 0.06). Median time to review slides in the ROSE- group (12:47 min) was longer than with ROSE+ (7:52 min) (P < 0.001). Mean costs of ROSE- and ROSE+ were comparable: €938.29 (±172.70) vs. €945.98 (±223.38) (P = 0.91), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic yield and accuracy of EUS-FNA of mediastinal and abdominal lymph nodes with and without ROSE are comparable. Time needed to review slides was shorter and post-procedural pain was less often reported in the ROSE+ group. Based on the primary outcome, the implementation of ROSE during EUS-FNA of mediastinal and abdominal lymph nodes cannot be advised. (Dutch Trial Register: NTR4876).

Per-Pass Performance Characteristics of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration of Malignant Solid Pancreatic Masses in a Large Multicenter Cohort

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is widely performed for the evaluation of pancreatic masses. We evaluated the performance characteristics of EUS-FNA in obtaining a diagnosis of pancreatic malignancy.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter study of patients who underwent EUS-FNA for a solid pancreatic mass. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNA was standardized using a 25-gauge needle, slow-pull stylet technique for specimen acquisition, and on-site cytopathology. For the primary analysis, only malignant cytology was regarded as positive. A secondary analysis was performed in which malignant and/or suspicious cytology was regarded as positive.

RESULTS

A total of 138 patients underwent EUS-FNA. In the primary analysis, the sensitivity of EUS-FNA for malignancy was 56.7% on first pass, 73.3% on second pass, 83.3% on third pass, 89.2% on fourth pass, and 90.8% on fifth pass, with no increase beyond the fifth pass. In the secondary analysis, the sensitivity was 75.0% on first pass, 89.2% on second pass, 93.3% on third pass, and 95.8% on fourth pass, with no increase beyond the fourth pass. No significant relationship was seen between lesion size and diagnostic yield.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a 25-gauge needle, the maximal diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA for a solid pancreatic mass is reached after 4 needle passes.

Advanced EUS Guided Tissue Acquisition Methods for Pancreatic Cancer

Pancreas cancer is a lethal cancer as the majority patients are diagnosed at an advanced incurable stage. Despite improvements in diagnostic modalities and management strategies, including surgery and chemotherapies, the outcome of pancreas cancer remains poor. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is an important imaging tool for pancreas cancer. For decades, resected pancreas cancer and other cancer specimens have been used to identify tissue biomarkers or genomics for precision therapy; however, only 20% of patients undergo surgery, and thus, this framework is not useful for unresectable pancreas cancer. With advancements in needle technologies, tumor specimens can be obtained at the time of tissue diagnosis. Tumor tissue can be used for development of personalized cancer treatment, such as performing whole exome sequencing and global genomic profiling of pancreas cancer, development of tissue biomarkers, and targeted mutational assays for precise chemotherapy treatment. In this review, we discuss the recent advances in tissue acquisition of pancreas cancer.

Comparison of modified wet suction technique and dry suction technique in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for solid lesions: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Several suction techniques have been developed recently to enhance tissue acquisition when sampling solid lesions using endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). The aim of this study is to determine whether a new modified wet suction technique (MWST) compared with the conventional dry suction technique (DRST) shall present better outcomes with respect to diagnostic yield and specimen quality of solid lesions in the intra-abdomen and mediastinum.

Methods/design

This is a single-blind, randomized, controlled, superiority trial conducted at four large tertiary care centers in China. Two hundred and ninety-six patients with solid lesions referred for EUS-FNA will be randomly assigned to group A, using DRST for the first pass, or group B, using MWST for the first pass in a ratio of 1:1. Following a 2 × 2 cross-over design, the pass sequence for group A is DRST, MWST, DRST, MWST. For group B, the pass sequence is MWST, DRST, MWST, DRST. All procedures will be performed by experienced echoendoscopists, and the patients and assessors (cytologists and pathologists) will be blinded during the entire study. The primary outcome measure is the diagnosis yield. Secondary outcome measures are specimen quality, including assessment of quantity of cell, tissue integrity, and blood contamination.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first large-scale randomized controlled trial to compare MWST with DRST when sampling solid lesions in the intra-abdomen and mediastinum. The results may contribute to future multicenter clinical trials in standardizing suction techniques during EUS-FNA.

Trial registration

Clinical Trials.gov, NCT02789371. Retrospectively registered on 6 June 2016.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2380-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Comparison of 22-gauge standard fine needle versus core biopsy needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of suspected pancreatic cancer: a randomized crossover trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is effective for tissue diagnosis of pancreatic mass. To improve diagnostic yield and drawbacks, 22-gauge (G) core biopsy (FNB) needle has been developed. This study aims to compare 22G FNA and FNB needles for EUS-guided sampling of suspected pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

This is a randomized controlled crossover trial. A total of 60 patients with suspected unresectable pancreatic cancer referred for EUS-guided sampling were randomly assigned to two groups. Both groups had 22G FNA and FNB needles performed in a randomized order. The primary endpoint was the cytological, histological and overall diagnostic accuracy of pancreatic cancer.

RESULTS

FNA and FNB needles reported similar level of diagnostic accuracy (FNA needle 95% vs. FNB needle 93.3%; p = .564), and it was not statistically different. However, cytological cellularity was significantly higher in the FNB needles compared to FNA needles (odds ratio 2.75, 95% confidence interval (CI)). There were no procedure-related complications in both needles.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided sampling for pancreatic cancer using 22G FNA is comparable to FNB needles. The cytological quality of specimen is better in the FNB needle.

Risk factors associated with adverse events during endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling

Background and aim

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is commonly used to obtain tissue external to the gastrointestinal tract. EUS-FNA is relatively safe, but occasionally adverse events have been reported. There is scarcity of data on risk factors of adverse events. The aim of this study is to identify risk factors associated with EUS-FNA.

Methods

In this multicenter case-control study, we retrospectively reviewed 4,097 cases between 2009 and 2012 at 15 hospitals in Korea. Among the patients there were 104 cases (2.5%) who had adverse events of which 12 (0.29%) were severe. We matched 520 controls (1:5 ratios) stratified by hospital to analyze the potential risk factors.

Results

The most common adverse events were pancreatitis (45/104, 43.3%) and infection (46/104, 44.2%). Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) on the same day was a risk factor of all adverse events [OR = 2.41, 95% CI (1.41, 4.12)], pancreatitis [OR = 2.31, 95% CI (1.02, 5.25)], and infection [OR = 2.75, 95% CI (1.31, 5.78)]. More than 15 to-and-fro movements during puncture increased the risk of pancreatitis [OR = 2.30, 95% CI (1.11, 4.77)] and infection [OR = 3.65, 95% CI (1.55, 8.59)]. A higher number of punctures was positively correlated with pancreatitis [OR = 1.34, 95% CI (1.08, 1.67)] but negatively correlated with infection [OR = 0.66, 95% CI (0.48, 0.89)].

Conclusions

EUS-FNA is a safe procedure in which serious adverse events are rare. We define some risk factors of adverse events during EUS-FNA, including ERCP on the same day, a higher number of punctures, and more than 15 to-and-fro movements.

22G versus 25G biopsy needles for EUS-guided tissue sampling of solid pancreatic masses: a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

No comparative study of 22-gauge biopsy needles (PC22) and 25-gauge biopsy needles (PC25) has been conducted. We prospectively compared the diagnostic accuracy of PC22 and PC25 in patients with pancreatic and peripancreatic solid masses.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized noninferiority clinical study from January 2013 to May 2014 at Samsung Medical Center. A cytological and histological specimen of each pass was analyzed separately by an experienced pathologist. The primary outcome was to assess the diagnostic accuracy using the PC22 or PC25. Secondary outcomes included the optimal number of passes for adequate diagnosis, core specimen yield, sample adequacy, and complication rates.

RESULTS

Diagnostic accuracy of combining cytology with histology in three cumulative passes was 97.1% (100/103) for the PC22 and 91.3% (94/103) for the PC25 group. Thus, noninferiority of PC25 to PC22 was not shown with a 10% noninferiority margin (difference, -5.8%; 95% CI, -12.1 to -0.5%). In a pairwise comparison with each needle type, two passes was non-inferior to three passes in the PC22 (96.1% vs. 97.1%; difference, -0.97%; 95% CI -6.63 to 4.69%) but noninferiority of two passes to three passes was not shown in the PC25 group (87.4% vs. 91.3%; difference, -3.88%; 95% CI, -13.5 to 5.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Non-inferiority of PC25 to PC22 diagnostic accuracy was not observed for solid pancreatic or peripancreatic masses without on-site cytology. PC22 may be a more ideal device because only two PC22 needle passes was sufficient to establish an adequate diagnosis, whereas PC25 required three or more needle passes.

Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration by capillary action, suction, and no suction methods: a randomized blinded study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM

Different types of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) techniques are used in clinical practice; the best method in terms of outcome has not been determined. The aim of the study was to compare the diagnostic adequacy of aspirated material, and the cytopathological and EUS morphological features between capillary action, suction, and no-suction FNA methods.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 This was a prospective, single-blinded, randomized study conducted at a tertiary care hospital. Patients were randomized to the three groups: capillary action, suction, and no suction. A total of 300 patients were included, with 100 patients in each arm.

RESULTS

 A total of 300 patients (195 males) underwent EUS-FNA of 235 lymph nodes and 65 pancreatic masses (distribution not statistically different between the groups). The mean age was 52 ± 14 years. A 22 gauge needle was used in the majority (93 %) of procedures. There was no statistical difference between the three groups regarding lymph node size at the largest axis and ratio, type of needle, echo features, echogenicity, calcification, necrosis, shape, borders (lymph nodes), number of passes, and cellularity. Diagnostic adequacy of the specimen was 91 %, 91 %, and 94 % in the capillary, suction, and no suction groups, respectively ( P  = 0.67). Significantly more slides and blood clots were generated by the suction method compared with the other methods.

CONCLUSION

 The capillary action, suction, and no suction methods of EUS-FNA are similar in terms of diagnostic adequacy of the specimen. The suction method has the disadvantages of causing more bleeding and generating more slides.

Prospective randomized comparison of a 22G core needle using standard versus capillary suction for EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 The optimal technique for sampling pancreatic lesions with a 22 G Procore needle (pc) is unknown. The aims of this study were to evaluate the 22 Gpc using standard suction technique (SST) and capillary suction technique (CST) and compare diagnostic adequacy of 22 Gpc with the standard 25 G needle.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 Sixty consecutive patients referred for EUS-FNA of a solid pancreatic mass were prospectively evaluated. All patients underwent 2 passes with a standard 25 G needle for cytologic analysis. The first group of 30 patients underwent a single pass with the 22 Gpc needle using SST for cytology and histology. The second group underwent a single pass with the 22 Gpc needle using CST. The sequence of passes was randomized. The diagnostic adequacy of each pass was graded by 2 cytopathologists blinded to technique and needle type for comparison.

RESULTS

 For a cytologic diagnosis with 22 Gpc, an adequate sample was obtained in 82.8 % SST vs. 80.0 % CST ( P  = 0.79). For a histologic diagnosis with 22 Gpc, an adequate sample was obtained in 70.4 % SST vs. 69.0 % CST ( P  = 0.91). A single pass with 22 Gpc provided comparable results to a single pass with the 25 G needle for a cytologic diagnosis; both were superior to a single 22 Gpc pass for a histologic diagnosis. Two passes with the 25 G needle provided a diagnostic specimen in 95.0 % vs 81.4 % with one pass using 22 Gpc ( P  = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

 No significant difference in diagnostic adequacy was observed between techniques for the 22 Gpc. Two passes with a 25 G needle performed better than 1 pass with 22 Gpc. (NCT01598194).

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided tissue acquisition: How to achieve excellence

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition is a basic forte of an endosonographer. The multiple skills required to accomplish successful results include not only the puncture itself, but also proper lesion identification, correct puncture sequence, collaboration with the pathologist onsite or remotely, proper handling of the specimens, choosing one or more of cytology, cell-block, and/or tissue core preparation and, last, deciding the immunohistochemistry (IHC) panels and ancillary tests which may be needed for the current case. Error in any of these decisions may lead to incomplete or inconclusive information from the procedure, even if the aspirate is 'adequate.' In the present review, we will describe the technical aspects of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, current needles available and how to choose between them, and how to appropriately handle the specimen. We will also discuss the optimal approach to common targets including lymph nodes, pancreatic masses, pancreatic cysts, and subepithelial lesions.

Imaging modalities for characterising focal pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND

Increasing numbers of incidental pancreatic lesions are being detected each year. Accurate characterisation of pancreatic lesions into benign, precancerous, and cancer masses is crucial in deciding whether to use treatment or surveillance. Distinguishing benign lesions from precancerous and cancerous lesions can prevent patients from undergoing unnecessary major surgery. Despite the importance of accurately classifying pancreatic lesions, there is no clear algorithm for management of focal pancreatic lesions.

OBJECTIVES

To determine and compare the diagnostic accuracy of various imaging modalities in detecting cancerous and precancerous lesions in people with focal pancreatic lesions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index until 19 July 2016. We searched the references of included studies to identify further studies. We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include studies reporting cross-sectional information on the index test (CT (computed tomography), MRI (magnetic resonance imaging), PET (positron emission tomography), EUS (endoscopic ultrasound), EUS elastography, and EUS-guided biopsy or FNA (fine-needle aspiration)) and reference standard (confirmation of the nature of the lesion was obtained by histopathological examination of the entire lesion by surgical excision, or histopathological examination for confirmation of precancer or cancer by biopsy and clinical follow-up of at least six months in people with negative index tests) in people with pancreatic lesions irrespective of language or publication status or whether the data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched the references to identify relevant studies and extracted the data. We planned to use the bivariate analysis to calculate the summary sensitivity and specificity with their 95% confidence intervals and the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) to compare the tests and assess heterogeneity, but used simpler models (such as univariate random-effects model and univariate fixed-effect model) for combining studies when appropriate because of the sparse data. We were unable to compare the diagnostic performance of the tests using formal statistical methods because of sparse data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 54 studies involving a total of 3,196 participants evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of various index tests. In these 54 studies, eight different target conditions were identified with different final diagnoses constituting benign, precancerous, and cancerous lesions. None of the studies was of high methodological quality. None of the comparisons in which single studies were included was of sufficiently high methodological quality to warrant highlighting of the results. For differentiation of cancerous lesions from benign or precancerous lesions, we identified only one study per index test. The second analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous versus benign lesions, provided three tests in which meta-analysis could be performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing cancer were: EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.79 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 1.00), specificity 1.00 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.00); EUS: sensitivity 0.95 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.99), specificity 0.53 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.74); PET: sensitivity 0.92 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.97), specificity 0.65 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.84). The third analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous lesions from benign lesions, only provided one test (EUS-FNA) in which meta-analysis was performed. EUS-FNA had moderate sensitivity for diagnosing precancerous or cancerous lesions (sensitivity 0.73 (95% CI 0.01 to 1.00) and high specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.15 to 1.00), the extremely wide confidence intervals reflecting the heterogeneity between the studies). The fourth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (dysplasia) provided three tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing invasive carcinoma were: CT: sensitivity 0.72 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.87), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.97); EUS: sensitivity 0.78 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.94), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.98); EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.66 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.99), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.98). The fifth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) versus precancerous (low- or intermediate-grade dysplasia) provided six tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing cancer (high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) were: CT: sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.00 to 1.00), specificity 0.96 (95% CI 0.00 to 1.00); EUS: sensitivity 0.86 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.92), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.96); EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.47 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.70), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.00); EUS-FNA carcinoembryonic antigen 200 ng/mL: sensitivity 0.58 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.83), specificity 0.51 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.81); MRI: sensitivity 0.69 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.86), specificity 0.93 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.00); PET: sensitivity 0.90 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.96), specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.99). The sixth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) provided no tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The seventh analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous (intermediate- or high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) provided two tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing cancer were: CT: sensitivity 0.83 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.92), specificity 0.83 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.93) and MRI: sensitivity 0.80 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.92), specificity 0.81 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.95), respectively. The eighth analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous (intermediate- or high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) or benign lesions provided no test in which meta-analysis was performed.There were no major alterations in the subgroup analysis of cystic pancreatic focal lesions (42 studies; 2086 participants). None of the included studies evaluated EUS elastography or sequential testing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We were unable to arrive at any firm conclusions because of the differences in the way that study authors classified focal pancreatic lesions into cancerous, precancerous, and benign lesions; the inclusion of few studies with wide confidence intervals for each comparison; poor methodological quality in the studies; and heterogeneity in the estimates within comparisons.

Diagnostic accuracies of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with distinct negative pressure suction techniques in solid lesions: A retrospective study

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is highly accurate in obtaining specific diagnoses for various diseases. The present study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic yields, accuracies and sampling adequacies, of slow-pull, 5 ml suction and 10 ml suction techniques in EUS-FNA of solid lesions. The present study was a retrospective comparative study, which was performed in tertiary academic centers, recognized for their expertise in EUS and EUS-guided FNA. The present study involved 149 patients who underwent EUS-FNA of solid masses. A total of 34 (22.8%), 37 (24.8%) and 78 (52.4%) patients underwent EUS-FNA with slow-pull, 5 ml suction and 10 ml suction techniques, respectively. The EUS-FNA cytology and histology results were compared with those from the gold standard of surgical histopathology [hematoxylin-eosin staining; immunohistochemical test of cluster of differentiation (CD) 79a, CD20 and flow cytometry test] or long-term clinical follow-up. The present retrospective comparative study demonstrated that the diagnostic yields and accuracies of EUS-FNA with slow-pull (86.1%) were significantly superior to those achieved with 5 ml suction (83.3%) or 10 ml suction (69.9%; P<0.0001; χ2 test). Consistently, 86.5% (32/37) of the samples obtained from the 5 ml suction group were adequate for histological diagnosis. By contrast, 70.6 (24/34) and 85.9% (67/78) of samples from the slow-pull and 10 ml suction groups were adequate for histological diagnosis, respectively. The samples obtained using 10 ml suction contained more blood compared with those obtained via slow-pull and 5 ml suction (P=0.0056; χ2 test). No complications were noted in any of the three groups. The samples that were obtained for histopathological diagnosis using 5 ml suction were superior to those obtained using slow-pull or 10 ml suction. Additional multi-central prospective studies in which EUS-FNA is performed with variable negative pressures are required to improve the defining of the diagnostic roles of those techniques.

"Clinical" cytology for endoscopists: A practical guide

Clinical cytology was originally used by clinicians to provide rapid diagnosis. However, with advancing medical subspecialization, few clinicians interpret cytology themselves these days, for example, gynecologists, hematologists, urologists, and occasional gastroenterologist (mainly in Asian countries). Cytological assessment enjoyed a renaissance with the development of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA). Subsequently, pathologists, most of them more experienced in histology, had to take over. Recently, it has been shown that in-room cytology can be easily performed by the endoscopist themselves for initial evaluation of the quality of the EUS-FNA specimen and an initial diagnosis distinguishing benign or malignant cells. Bringing cytology back to the clinician has some advantages but does not substitute the professional cytopathologist. This report has written to lower the threshold for the clinician to find his way back to the microscope, which may improve both their diagnostic yield and assessment of EUS-FNA sample quality.

High-resolution endoscopic ultrasound imaging and the number of needle passages are significant factors predicting high yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for pancreatic solid masses without an on-site cytopathologist

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the accurate diagnostic method for pancreatic masses and its accuracy is affected by various FNA methods and EUS equipment. Therefore, we aimed to elucidate the instrumental and methodologic factors for determining the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid masses without an on-site cytopathology evaluation.We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 260 patients (265 pancreatic solid masses) who underwent EUS-FNA. We compared historical conventional EUS groups with high-resolution imaging devices and finally analyzed various factors affecting EUS-FNA accuracy.In total, 265 pancreatic solid masses of 260 patients were included in this study. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid masses without on-site cytopathology evaluation were 83.4%, 81.8%, 100.0%, 100.0%, and 34.3%, respectively. In comparison with conventional image group, high-resolution image group showed the increased accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of EUS-FNA (71.3% vs 92.7%, 68.9% vs 91.9%, and 100% vs 100%, respectively). On the multivariate analysis with various instrumental and methodologic factors, high-resolution imaging (P = 0.040, odds ratio = 3.28) and 3 or more needle passes (P = 0.039, odds ratio = 2.41) were important factors affecting diagnostic yield of pancreatic solid masses.High-resolution imaging and 3 or more passes were the most significant factors influencing diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA in patients with pancreatic solid masses without an on-site cytopathologist.

Slow-pull and different conventional suction techniques in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic solid lesions using 22-gauge needles

AIM

To evaluate the cytological diagnostic capacity and sample quality of the slow-pull technique and compare them with different suction techniques.

METHODS

From July 2010 to December 2015, 102 patients with pancreatic solid lesions who underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) with 22-gauge needles were retrospectively evaluated. EUS-FNA diagnosis was based on a cytological examination, and final diagnosis was based on a comprehensive standard of cytological diagnosis, surgical pathology and clinical or imaging follow-up. Cytological specimens were characterized for cellularity and blood contamination. The cytological diagnostic capacity and sample quality of the slow-pull technique and suction techniques with 5-mL/10-mL/20-mL syringes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of all of the EUS-FNA procedures, the slow-pull technique and suction techniques with 5-mL/10-mL/20-mL syringes were used in 31, 19, 34 and 18 procedures, respectively. There were significant differences between these four suction techniques in terms of cytological diagnostic accuracy (90.3% vs 63.2% vs 58.8% vs 55.6%, P = 0.019), sensitivity (88.2% vs 41.7% vs 40.0% vs 36.4%, P = 0.009) and blood contamination (score ≥ 2 for 29.0% vs 52.6% vs 70.6% vs 72.2%, P = 0.003). The accuracy and sensitivity of the slow-pull technique were significantly higher than those of the suction techniques using 5-mL (P = 0.03, P = 0.014), 10-mL (P = 0.005; P = 0.006) and 20-mL syringes (P = 0.01, P = 0.01). Blood contamination was significantly lower in the slow-pull technique than in the suction techniques with 10-mL (P = 0.001) and 20-mL syringes (P = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

The slow-pull technique may increase the cytological diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity with slight blood contamination during EUS-FNA when using 22-gauge needles for solid pancreatic masses.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided techniques for diagnosing pancreatic mass lesions: Can we do better?

The diagnostic approach to a possible pancreatic mass lesion relies first upon various non-invasive imaging modalities, including computed tomography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging techniques. Once a suspect lesion has been identified, tissue acquisition for characterization of the lesion is often paramount in developing an individualized therapeutic approach. Given the high prevalence and mortality associated with pancreatic cancer, an ideal approach to diagnosing pancreatic mass lesions would be safe, highly sensitive, and reproducible across various practice settings. Tools, in addition to radiologic imaging, currently employed in the initial evaluation of a patient with a pancreatic mass lesion include serum tumor markers, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). EUS-FNA has grown to become the gold standard in tissue diagnosis of pancreatic lesions.

Randomized trial comparing a side-port needle and standard needle for EUS-guided histology of pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

A side-port needle has been developed to improve diagnostic accuracy by obtaining more cellular material during EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA). We compared the accuracy rate of histology and the quality of histologic specimens from 22-gauge (G) side-port and standard needles for EUS-FNA of a solid pancreatic mass in a multicenter, prospective, randomized control trial.

METHODS

Between January 2013 and September 2013, 160 consecutive patients with a suspected solid pancreatic mass at 5 tertiary referral centers were enrolled. Patients were randomized to the 22G side-port needle or 22G standard needle group. The primary endpoint was the diagnostic accuracy of histology. Secondary endpoints were the quality of the histologic specimen (quantity of tissue, degree of GI contamination, and amount of blood).

RESULTS

An analysis of 154 patients (side-port, 76, vs standard, 78) was performed. Six patients were excluded because of no pancreatic mass on EUS. There was no significant difference in the rate of diagnostic accuracy of histology (side-port, 87% [66/76], vs standard, 82% [64/78]; P = .51). Samples that enabled histologic interpretation were obtained in 64% (47/73) and 43% (33/77) of patients from the side-port and standard groups, respectively (P = .009). No significant difference was seen in the degree of GI contamination and amount of blood between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in the accuracy rate of histology between needle types. The side-port needle was superior to the standard needle in terms of obtaining samples that enabled histologic interpretation.

Role of the preoperative usefulness of the pathological diagnosis of pancreatic diseases

Pancreatic cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer death and has the lowest survival rate of any solid cancer. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNA) is currently capable of providing a cytopathological diagnosis of pancreatic malignancies with a higher diagnostic power, with a sensitivity and specificity of 85%-89% and 98%-99%, compared to pancreatic juice cytology (PJC), whose sensitivity and specificity are only 33.3%-93% and 83.3%-100%. However, EUS-FNA is not effective in the cases of carcinoma in situ and minimally invasive carcinoma because both are undetectable by endoscopic ultrasonography, although PJC is able to detect them. As for the frequency of complications such as post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis, EUS-FNA is safer than PJC. To diagnose pancreatic cancer appropriately, it is necessary for us to master both procedures so that we can select the best methods of sampling tissues while considering the patient’s safety and condition.

The slow-pull capillary technique increases the quality of endoscopic ultrasound fine needle biopsy samples in solid pancreatic lesions

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling is used routinely for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses. We aimed to compare the standard suction technique with the recently described 'slow-pull' technique.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with a solid pancreatic mass of more than 2 cm undergoing endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy with the same endoscopist using a 22 G core biopsy needle were included in the study. Patients had a first suction pass, followed by either another suction pass or a slow-pull pass. The rate of samples contributive to the diagnosis, cellularity, presence of tissue microfragments, and blood contamination were assessed and compared between each pass and each technique.

RESULTS

A total of 98 patients with a lesion diameter of 33.1±10 mm were analyzed. Lesions were adenocarcinomas in 83%, neuroendocrine tumors in 6%, and benign lesions in 11% of the cases. The rate of contributive samples of the first suction pass, the slow-pull pass, and the second suction pass were 96.9, 97.9, and 90.2%, respectively (P=NS). The slow-pull capillary technique, compared with the suction technique, provided samples with better cellularity, higher proportion of representative and tumor cells, and more tissue microfragments (P=0.002, 0.0004, 0.006, and 0.005, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy sampling of solid pancreatic lesions using the slow-pull technique yielded overall outcomes similar to the standard suction technique in terms of diagnostic performance. However, the slow-pull capillary technique improved the histological quality of the samples, mainly through a higher proportion of tissue microfragments and tumor cells.

Efforts to improve the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic tumors

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is widely used to obtain a definitive diagnosis of pancreatic tumors. Good results have been reported for its diagnostic accuracy, with high sensitivity and specificity of around 90%; however, technological developments and adaptations to improve it still further are currently underway. The endosonographic technique can be improved when several tips and tricks useful to overcome challenges of EUS-FNA are known. This review provides various techniques and equipment for improvement in the diagnostic accuracy in EUS-FNA.

A randomized controlled cross-over trial and cost analysis comparing endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration and fine needle biopsy

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Techniques to optimize endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) in a variety of lesion types have not yet been established. The primary aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic yield (DY) of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) to endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for pancreatic and non-pancreatic masses.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients referred for EUS-TA underwent randomization to EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB at four tertiary-care medical centers. A maximum of three passes were allowed for the initial method of EUS-TA and patients were crossed over to the other arm based on on-site specimen adequacy.

RESULTS

A total of 140 patients were enrolled. The overall DY was significantly higher with specimens obtained by EUS-FNB compared to EUS-FNA (90.0 % vs. 67.1 %, P = 0.002). While there was no difference in the DY between the two groups for pancreatic masses (FNB: 91.7 % vs. FNA: 78.4 %, P = 0.19), the DY of EUS-FNB was higher than the EUS-FNA for non-pancreatic lesions (88.2 % vs. 54.5 %, P = 0.006). Specimen adequacy was higher for EUS-FNB compared to EUS-FNA for all lesions (P = 0.006). There was a significant rescue effect of crossover from failed FNA to FNB in 27 out of 28 cases (96.5 %, P = 0.0003). Decision analysis showed that the strategy of EUS-FNB was cost saving compared to EUS-FNA over a wide range of cost and outcome probabilities.

CONCLUSIONS

RESULTS of this RCT and decision analysis demonstrate superior DY and specimen adequacy for solid mass lesions sampled by EUS-FNB.

Comparing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) versus fine needle biopsy (FNB) in the diagnosis of solid lesions: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Linear endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) allows the visualization, identification, and characterization of the extent of lesions of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and adjacent structures. EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) facilitates a more accurate diagnosis of mediastinal, intra-abdominal, and pancreatic lesions through the collection of the cytological material under direct visualization. Recent reports suggest that histological samples can be obtained by EUS-FNA with a reverse, bevel-tipped needle (the ProCore needle) to collect the core samples (fine needle biopsy, FNB), thereby adding a new dimension to the diagnostic usefulness of this technique. Certain neoplasms, such as lymphoma and stromal tumors, can be assessed by EUS-FNB to confirm the diagnosis. Here, we aimed to carry out a prospective, multicenter, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial to compare EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA.

Methods/design

A total of 408 patients will be enrolled from five endoscopic centers. Patients will be divided into two groups: (1) group A, which is the EUS regular needle group (EUS-FNA) and (2) group B, which is the EUS ProCore needle group (EUS-FNB). Patients in group A will be examined with a 22G EchoTip Ultra needle, and patients in group B, with a 22G EchoTip ProCore needle. For all included patients, four EUS-guided passes will be made in each lesion. In the first and second pass, a slow-pull suction method of the stylet will be done. The third and fourth pass will use manual suction of 5 cc. The primary objective is to compare the diagnostic yield of malignancy by EUS-FNA versus EUS-FNB.

Discussion

The trial will compare samples obtained by EUS-FNA versus EUS-FNB for the diagnostic yield of solid lesions. The efficacy of these two sampling methods will be assessed on various lesions, which may provide insights into developing practice guidelines for their future indications.

Trial registration

Clinical Trials.gov, NCT02327065.

"Wet suction technique (WEST)": a novel way to enhance the quality of EUS-FNA aspirate. Results of a prospective, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial using a 22-gauge needle for EUS-FNA of solid lesions

BACKGROUND

Contemporary EUS-guided FNA techniques involve the use of a needle, with an air column within the lumen, with or without suction. We describe a novel technique with an aim to improve the quality of the aspirate.

OBJECTIVE

To compare a novel "wet suction" technique (WEST) with the conventional FNA technique (CFNAT) of EUS-guided FNA using a 22-gauge FNA needle.

DESIGN

Prospective, single-blind, and randomized trial.

SETTING

Two large tertiary-care hospitals.

PATIENTS

All consecutive adult patients presenting for EUS with possible FNA of solid lesions were offered the chance to participate in the study.

METHODS

All lesions were sampled with the same needle by using alternating techniques. Patients were randomized to the WEST versus the CFNAT for the first pass. If the first pass was made with the WEST, the second pass was made with the CFNAT, and subsequent passes were made in an alternating manner by using the same sequence. All FNAs were performed using 22-gauge needles.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Specimen adequacy, cellularity, and blood contamination of EUS-guided FNA aspirates graded on a predefined scale.

RESULTS

The WEST yielded significantly higher cellularity in a cell block compared with the CFNAT, with a mean cellularity score of 1.82±0.76 versus 1.45±0.768 (P<.0003). The WEST cell block resulted in a significantly better specimen adequacy of 85.5% versus 75.2% (P<.035). There was no difference in the amount of blood contamination between the 2 techniques.

LIMITATIONS

Lack of cross check and grading by a second cytopathologist.

CONCLUSION

The novel WEST resulted in significantly better cellularity and specimen adequacy in cell blocks of EUS-guided FNA aspirate of solid lesions than the CFNAT.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration of Pancreatic Lesions: A Systematic Review of Technical and Procedural Variables

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition has emerged over the last decade as an invaluable diagnostic tool in approaching the different pancreatic lesions. Given the safety and minimal invasiveness of this approach combined with the high diagnostic yield, it became the standard of care when dealing with different pancreatic pathologies. However, some variables regarding this procedure remain not fully understood. These can influence the diagnostic yield of the procedure and include the presence of the on-site cytopathologist, the type and size of the needle used as well as obtaining aspiration versus core biopsy, the number of passes and the sampling technique, and the role of suction and stylet use among others. We performed a comprehensive literature search using PubMed, Google Scholar, and Embase for studies that assessed these variables. Eligible studies were analyzed using several parameters such as technique and procedure, with the aim of reviewing results from an evidence-based standpoint.

Eliminating the Residual Negative Pressure in the Endoscopic Ultrasound Aspirating Needle Enhances Cytology Yield of Pancreas Masses

BACKGROUND

Prior to withdrawing the EUS-FNA needle from the lesion, the stopcock of the suction syringe is closed to reduce contamination. Residual negative pressure (RNP) may persist in the needle despite closing the stopcock.

AIMS

To determine whether neutralizing RNP before withdrawing the needle will improve the cytology yield.

METHODS

Bench-top testing was done to confirm the presence of RNP followed by a prospective, randomized, cross-over study on patients with pancreas mass. Ten milliliters of suction was applied to the FNA needle. Before withdrawing the needle from the lesion, the stopcock was closed. Based on randomization, the first pass was done with the stopcock either attached to the needle (S+) or disconnected (S-) to allow air to enter and neutralize RNP and accordingly the second pass was crossed over to S+ or S-. On-site cytopathologist was blinded to S+/S-.

RESULTS

Bench tests confirmed the presence of RNP which was successfully neutralized by disconnecting the syringe (S-) from the needle. Sixty patients were enrolled, 120 samples analyzed. S+ samples showed significantly greater GI tract contamination compared to S- samples (16.7 vs. 6.7%, p = 0.03). Of the 53 patients confirmed to have pancreas adenocarcinoma, FNA using S- approach was positive in 49 (93%) compared to 40 using the S+ approach (76%, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite closing the stopcock of the suction syringe, RNP is present in the FNA needle. Neutralizing RNP prior to withdrawing the needle from the target lesion significantly decreased GI tract contamination of the sample thereby improving the FNA cytology yield.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01995474.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration: The wet suction technique

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has become a fundamental tool in obtaining cytopathological diagnosis of pancreatic tumors. When sampling solid lesions of the pancreas, the endosonographer can use two suction techniques to enhance tissue acquisition; the dry and the wet suction techniques. The standard dry suction technique relies on applying negative pressure suction on the proximal end of the needle after the stylet is removed with a pre-vacuum syringe. The wet suction technique relies on pre-flushing the needle with saline to replace the column of air with fluid followed by aspiration the proximal end by using a prefilled syringe with saline. A new modified wet suction technique (hybrid suction technique) relies on preloading the needle with saline, but having continuous negative pressure with a pre-vacuum syringe to avoid manual intermittent suction. Tissue acquisition can be enhanced by applying fluid dynamic principles to the current aspiration techniques, such as the column of water used in the needle of the wet technique. In this review, we will focus on EUS-FNA using the wet suction technique for sampling of pancreatic solid lesions.

Endoscopic ultrasonography guided-fine needle aspiration for the diagnosis of solid pancreaticobiliary lesions: Clinical aspects to improve the diagnosis

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has been applied to pancreaticobiliary lesions since the 1990s and is in widespread use throughout the world today. We used this method to confirm the pathological evidence of the pancreaticobiliary lesions and to perform suitable therapies. Complications of EUS-FNA are quite rare, but some of them are severe. Operators should master conventional EUS observation and experience a minimum of 20-30 cases of supervised EUS-FNA on non-pancreatic and pancreatic lesions before attempting solo EUS-FNA. Studies conducted on pancreaticobiliary EUS-FNA have focused on selection of suitable instruments (e.g., needle selection) and sampling techniques (e.g., fanning method, suction level, with or without a stylet, optimum number of passes). Today, the diagnostic ability of EUS-FNA is still improving; the detection of pancreatic cancer (PC) currently has a sensitivity of 90%-95% and specificity of 95%-100%. In addition to PC, a variety of rare pancreatic tumors can be discriminated by conducting immunohistochemistry on the FNA materials. A flexible, large caliber needle has been used to obtain a large piece of tissue, which can provide sufficient histological information to be helpful in classifying benign pancreatic lesions. EUS-FNA can supply high diagnostic yields even for biliary lesions or peri-pancreaticobiliary lymph nodes. This review focuses on the clinical aspects of EUS-FNA in the pancreaticobiliary field, with the aim of providing information that can enable more accurate and efficient diagnosis.

Endoscopic Ultrasound in the Diagnosis and Staging of Pancreatic Cancer

Pancreatic cancer is one of the digestive cancers with the poorest prognosis, so an early and correct diagnosis is of utmost importance. With the development of new therapeutic options an accurate staging is essential. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has a major role in all stages of the management of these patients. EUS has a high accuracy in the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma and the possibility to perform fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (FNA/FNB) increases the diagnostic yield of EUS. There is still no consensus on the several technical aspects of FNA, namely on the rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), the diameter and type of needle, the number of passes and the use of stylet and suction. Contrast-enhanced EUS (CE-EUS) and EUS elastography (EUS-E) have been used in recent years as an adjunct to EUS-FNA. Given the higher sensitivity of these techniques a negative cytology by EUS-FNA should not exclude malignancy when CE-EUS and/or EUS-E are suggestive of pancreatic neoplasia. EUS remains one of the main methods in the staging of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, namely to further evaluate patients with non-metastatic disease that appears resectable on initial imaging. EUS is crucial for an accurate preoperative evaluation of pancreatic cancer which is essential to choose the correct management strategy. The possibility to obtain samples from suspicious lesions or lymph nodes, by means of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration as well as the use of contrast-enhanced and elastography, makes EUS an ideal modality for the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer.

Diagnostic ability of EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid lesions with conventional 22-gauge needle using the slow pull technique: a prospective study

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) using the slow pull technique (SP-FNA) has recently attracted attention as an effective tissue acquisition technique. However, efficacy of SP-FNA with a 22-gauge conventional needle remains unclear. The aim of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic ability of SP-FNA with a 22-gauge needle.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients with a pancreatic solid lesion were prospectively enrolled in this study. SP-FNA was performed at two needle passes with a 22-gauge needle. One dedicated pathologist evaluated the obtained samples in terms of quantity (Grade 0: scant; Grade 1: inadequate; Grade 2: adequate), quality (Grade 0: poor; Grade 1: moderate; Grade 2: good), and blood contamination (Grade 0: significant; Grade 1: moderate; Grade 2: low), and provided a pathological diagnosis. Additional EUS-FNA was performed by applying suction (SA-FNA). The evaluation points were as follows: diagnostic accuracy of SP-FNA compared with that of SA-FNA, and the quantity, quality, and blood contamination level of SP-FNA-obtained samples.

RESULTS

We enrolled 40 cases. The diagnostic accuracy of SP-FNA was 90% (36/40). There was no significant difference in the accuracy between SP-FNA and SA-FNA (90% vs. 90%, p = 1.000). The samples obtained using SP-FNA were assessed as Grade 2 for quantity in 29 cases (73%), quality in 31 (78%), and blood contamination in 25 (63%).

CONCLUSIONS

Adequate, high-quality, and unsubstantially blood-contaminated samples could be obtained using SP-FNA. The diagnostic ability of SP-FNA was 90%, which appeared to be similar to that of SA-FNA.

Prospective evaluation of new 22 gauge endoscopic ultrasound core needle using capillary sampling with stylet slow-pull technique for intra-abdominal solid masses

GOALS

The aim of this study was to evaluate the adequacy and diagnostic yield of the histologic core obtained with a 22 G endoscopic ultrasound histology needle using capillary sampling with stylet slow-pull technique without on-site cytopathologist.

BACKGROUND

No standard technique for new EUS histology needle has been established.

STUDY

A total of 125 consecutive patients with intra-abdominal solid masses were enrolled prospectively between October 2011 and March 2013. EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) with a 22 G histology needle using capillary sampling with stylet slow-pull technique was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 133 EUS-FNB procedures targeting the pancreas, lymph node, retroperitoneal mass, ampulla of Vater, gallbladder, common bile duct, duodenum, and liver were performed in 125 patients. EUS-FNB was technically feasible in all cases, and a visible core was obtained in 128 cases (96%). Histologic core specimens suitable for pathologic assessment were reported in 111 cases (83%). There were no procedure-related adverse events. According to the determinants of malignancy with EUS-FNB, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy were 85%, 98%, 99%, 77%, and 89%, respectively. In addition, histologic architecture with or without immunohistochemical staining of the core biopsy specimens was useful for pathologic confirmation in 101 cases (76%).

CONCLUSIONS

A 22 G EUS-FNB using capillary sampling with stylet slow-pull technique showed a high diagnostic yield and histologic core acquisition for the histologic diagnosis of various intra-abdominal masses without an on-site cytopathologist. Furthermore, a histologic core with or without immunohistochemical staining was helpful for clinical decision making in 76% of the intra-abdominal solid masses.

25-gauge histology needle versus 22-gauge cytology needle in endoscopic ultrasonography-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions and lymphadenopathy

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

A new 25-gauge (G) endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) device (EchoTip ProCore; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana, USA) has been developed, which features a hollowed-out reverse bevel to trap core samples. However, data on the differences between the diagnostic yield of the 25G EchoTip ProCore and that of a 22G standard needle are limited.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This pilot study included 27 patients referred during an 11-month period for EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses and enlarged lymph nodes adjacent to the upper gastrointestinal tract. Each lesion was punctured once by both a 25G EchoTip ProCore needle and a 22G standard needle (EchoTip; Cook Medical) with capillary sampling. Blinded histocytologic analyses were conducted. The final diagnosis was based on FNA findings of malignant cells, pathologic analysis of the surgical specimen, and/or radiologic and clinical follow-up of at least 7 months.

RESULTS

A total of 28 EUS-FNA procedures targeting masses of the pancreas (n = 19) and lymph nodes (n = 9) were performed. No complications were encountered. Single-pass sensitivity rates for pancreatic and lymph node malignancy were equal for the needle types: 89.5 % (95 %CI 66.82 - 98.39) and 66 % (95 %CI 24.1 - 94), respectively. There were no significant differences between the needles in terms of EUS visualization (P = 0.125), amount of blood contamination (P = 0.705), macroscopic quantity of the material (P = 0.858), quality of the cytology (P = 0.438), and adequacy and accuracy of the cell block material (P = 0.220).

CONCLUSIONS

Both needles were safe and successful in terms of a high diagnostic yield, with similar histocytologic results. The results of this study were presented at Digestive Disease Week (DDW) 2014, Chicago, Illinois. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (B027201316271).