Impact of rapid on-site evaluation on the adequacy of endoscopic-ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition with or without macroscopic on-site evaluation: randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The use of macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) to estimate the adequacy of a specimen for histological diagnosis during endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle tissue acquisition (FNTA) has recently been advocated. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic yield of MOSE compared with conventional EUS-FNTA without rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE).

METHODS

This was an international, multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled study. After providing informed consent, consecutive adult patients referred for EUS-FNTA for solid lesions larger than 2 cm were randomized to a MOSE arm or to a conventional arm without ROSE. A designated cytopathologist from each center performed all cytopathological examinations for that center and was blinded to the randomization results. The primary outcome measure was the diagnostic yield, and the secondary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, diagnostic accuracy, and the rate of procedure-related complications.

RESULTS

244 patients (122 conventional, 122 MOSE) were enrolled during the study period. No significant differences between the two arms were found in procedure time or rate of procedure-related adverse events. The diagnostic yield for the MOSE technique (92.6 %) was similar to that for the conventional technique (89.3 %; P  = 0.37), with significantly fewer passes made (median: conventional 3, MOSE 2; P  < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNTA with the MOSE technique provided a similar diagnostic yield to conventional EUS-FNTA technique in the absence of ROSE but with fewer passes. This technique can be used when ROSE is not available.

Comparison of full-field optical coherence tomography imaging for pancreatic tissue sample obtained by EUS-fine-needle biopsy and conventional histological examination: A study protocol for a prospective trial

For a definitive diagnosis of fine-needle aspiration (FNA)/biopsy, one of the reliable techniques to determine the adequacy and accuracy rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) of cytological samples is preferable. Because of the lack of trained pathologists, alternatives have to be explored. This study is primarily conducted to determine the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of full-field optical coherence tomography (FF-OCT) and secondarily to evaluate the possibility of FF-OCT differentiating different types of pancreatic diseases. The diagnostic coherence of FF-OCT by a trained assistant (endoscopist) and trained pathologist is also compared. This is a single-center, prospective, observation trial. Eighty patients would be enrolled in the study. The tissue samples acquired by endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) would be imaged by the FF-OCT system, interpreted by a trained endoscopist and a pathologist. The results of the image interpretation would be verified with histological findings. This study determines the diagnostic capability of FF-OCT as a ROSE technique while performing EUS-FNB, and whether endoscopists can implement the assessment.

Improved diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle biopsy with histology specimen processing

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) has emerged as a safe, efficacious alternative to fine needle aspiration (FNA) for tissue acquisition. EUS-FNB is reported to have higher diagnostic yield while preserving specimen tissue architecture. However, data on the optimal method of EUS-FNB specimen processing is limited.

AIM

To evaluate EUS-FNB with specimen processing as histology vs EUS-FNA cytology with regards to diagnostic yield and specimen adequacy.

METHODS

All EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB performed at our institution from July 1, 2016, to January 31, 2018, were retrospectively analyzed. We collected data on demographics, EUS findings, pathology, clinical outcomes, and procedural complications in two periods, July 2016 through March 2017, and April 2017 through January 2018, with predominant use of FNB in the second data collection time period. FNA specimens were processed as cytology with cell block technique and reviewed by a cytopathologist; FNB specimens were fixed in formalin, processed for histopathologic analysis and immunohistochemical staining, and reviewed by an anatomic pathologist. Final diagnosis was based on surgical pathology when available, repeat biopsy or imaging, and length of clinical follow up.

RESULTS

One hundred six EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB procedures were performed. FNA alone was performed in 17 patients; in 56 patients, FNB alone was done; and in 33 patients, both FNA and FNB were performed. For all indications, diagnostic yield was 47.1% (8/17) in FNA alone cases, 85.7% (48/56) in FNB alone cases, and 84.8% (28/33) in cases where both FNA and FNB were performed (P = 0.0039). Specimens were adequate for pathologic evaluation in 52.9% (9/17) of FNA alone cases, in 89.3% (50/56) of FNB alone cases, and 84.8% (28/33) in cases where FNA with FNB were performed (P = 0.0049). Tissue could not be aspirated for cytology in 10.0% (5/50) of cases where FNA was done, while in 3.4% (3/89) of FNB cases, tissue could not be obtained for histology. In patients who underwent FNA with FNB, there was a statistically significant difference in both specimen adequacy (P = 0.0455) and diagnostic yield (P = 0.0455) between the FNA and FNB specimens (processed correspondingly as cytology or histology).

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNB has a higher diagnostic yield and specimen adequacy than EUS-FNA. In our experience, specimen processing as histology may have contributed to the overall increased diagnostic yield of EUS-FNB.

EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling versus FNA in the diagnosis of subepithelial lesions: a large multicenter study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although conventional EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) has previously been considered first-line for sampling subepithelial lesions (SELs), variable accuracy has resulted in increased use of fine-needle biopsy (FNB) sampling to improve diagnostic yield. The primary aim of this study was to compare FNA versus FNB sampling for the diagnosis of SELs.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, retrospective study to evaluate the outcomes of EUS-FNA and EUS-guided FNB sampling (EUS-FNB) of SELs over a 3-year period. Demographics, lesion characteristics, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, number of needle passes, diagnostic adequacy of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), cell block accuracy, and adverse events were analyzed. Subgroup analyses were performed comparing FNA versus FNB sampling by location and diagnostic yield with or without ROSE. Multivariable logistic regression was also performed.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-nine patients with SELs (115 FNA and 114 FNB sampling) underwent EUS-guided sampling. Mean patient age was 60.86 ± 12.84 years. Most lesions were gastric in location (75.55%) and from the fourth layer (71.18%). Cell block for FNB sampling required fewer passes to achieve conclusive diagnosis (2.94 ± 1.09 vs 3.55 ± 1.55; P = .003). The number of passes was not different for ROSE adequacy (P = .167). Immunohistochemistry was more able to be successfully performed in more FNB sampling samples (69.30% vs 40.00%; P < .001). Overall, sensitivity and accuracy were superior for FNB sampling versus FNA (79.41% vs 51.92% [P = .001] and 88.03% vs 77.19% [P = .030], respectively). On subgroup analysis, sensitivity and accuracy of FNB sampling alone was superior to FNA + ROSE (79.03% vs 46.67% [P = .001] and 87.25% vs 68.00% [P = .024], respectively). There was no significant difference in diagnostic yield of FNB sampling alone versus FNB sampling + ROSE (P > .05). Multivariate analysis showed no predictors associated with accuracy. One minor adverse event was reported in the FNA group.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNB was superior to EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of SELs. EUS-FNB was also superior to EUS-FNA alone and EUS-FNA + ROSE. These results suggest EUS-FNB should be considered a first-line modality and may suggest a reduced role for ROSE in the diagnosis of SELs. However, a large randomized controlled trial is required to confirm our findings.

EUS tissue acquisition: From A to B

EUS-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) has made rapid development since its introduction in the early 1990s. The technique is widely accepted and invaluable for staging and diagnosis of a variety of upper gastrointestinal and mediastinal lesions. Fine-needle aspiration (FNA) has long been the gold standard, but due to its limitations such as the inability to retain stroma and associated cellular architecture, novel biopsy needles (FNB) were designed. Overall, FNA and FNB needles perform seemingly equally in terms of diagnostic accuracy, however, the second-generation FNB needles require less passes. The third-generation FNB needles (crown-cut needle types) seem to be preferable to FNA needles as well as to the second-generation FNB needles, when larger histological specimens and preserved tissue architecture are required. EUS-TA is constantly under development, and new applications of this technique include tumor risk stratification according to its genetic profile as well as minimally invasive creation of patient-derived organoids, hallmarks of personized medicine. It remains yet to be shown, whether these applications will lead to a decisive shift from aspiration to biopsy, i.e., from A to B.

Endoscopic Ultrasound Fine-Needle Aspiration versus Fine-Needle Biopsy for Lymph Node Diagnosis: A Large Multicenter Comparative Analysis

Background/Aims

Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is preferred for sampling of lymph nodes (LNs) adjacent to the gastrointestinal wall; however, fine-needle biopsy (FNB) may provide improved diagnostic outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of FNA versus FNB for LN sampling.

Methods

This was a multicenter retrospective study of prospectively collected data to evaluate outcomes of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for LN sampling. Characteristics analyzed included sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, the number of needle passes, diagnostic adequacy of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), cell-block analysis, and adverse events.

Results

A total of 209 patients underwent EUS-guided LN sampling. The mean lesion size was 16.22±8.03 mm, with similar sensitivity and accuracy between FNA and FNB ([67.21% vs. 75.00%, respectively, p=0.216] and [78.80% vs. 83.17%, respectively, p=0.423]). The specificity of FNB was better than that of FNA (100.00% vs. 93.62%, p=0.01). The number of passes required for diagnosis was not different. Abdominal and peri-hepatic LN location demonstrated FNB to have a higher sensitivity (81.08% vs. 64.71%, p=0.031 and 80.95% vs. 58.33%, p=0.023) and accuracy (88.14% vs. 75.29%, p=0.053 and 88.89% vs. 70.49%, p=0.038), respectively. ROSE was a significant predictor for accuracy (odds ratio, 5.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.15–23.08; p=0.032). No adverse events were reported in either cohort.

Conclusions

Both EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB are safe for the diagnosis of LNs. EUS-FNB is preferred for abdominal LN sampling. EUS-FNA+ ROSE was similar to EUS-FNB alone, showing better diagnosis for EUS-FNB than traditional FNA. While ROSE remained a significant predictor for accuracy, due to its poor availability in most centers, its use may be limited to cases with previous inconclusive diagnoses.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration and Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography-Based Tissue Sampling in Suspected Malignant Biliary Strictures: A Meta-Analysis of Same-Session Procedures

Background/Aims:

The diagnosis of biliary strictures can be challenging. There are no systematic reviews studying same-session endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-based tissue sampling and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for the diagnosis of biliary strictures.

Methods:

A systematic review was conducted on studies analyzing same-session EUS and ERCP for tissue diagnosis of suspected malignant biliary strictures. The primary outcome was the accuracy of each method individually compared to the two methods combined. The secondary outcome was the accuracy of each method in pancreatic and biliary etiologies. In the meta-analysis, we used Forest plots, summary receiver operating characteristic curves, and estimates of the area under the curve for intention-to-treat analysis.

Results:

Of the 12,132 articles identified, six were included, resulting in a total of 497 patients analyzed. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and accuracy of the association between the two methods were: 86%, 98%, 12.50, 0.17, and 96.5%, respectively. For the individual analysis, the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of EUS-FNA were 76%, 100%, and 94.5%, respectively; for ERCP-based tissue sampling, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 58%, 98%, and 78.1%, respectively. For pancreatic lesions, EUS-FNA was superior to ERCP-based tissue sampling. However, for biliary lesions, both methods had similar sensitivities.

Conclusions:

Same-session EUS-FNA and ERCP-based tissue sampling is superior to either method alone in the diagnosis of suspected malignant biliary strictures. Considering these results, combination sampling should be performed when possible.

Endoscopic ultrasonography and small-bowel endoscopy: Present and future

Over the last decade, impressive technological advances have occurred in ultrasonography and small-bowel endoscopy. Nowadays, endoscopic ultrasonography is an essential diagnostic tool and a therapeutic weapon for pancreatobiliary disorders. Capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy have quickly become the reference standard for the diagnosis of small-bowel luminal diseases, thereby leading to radical changes in diagnostic and therapeutic pathways. We herein provide an up-to-date overview of the latest advances in endoscopic ultrasonography and small-bowel endoscopy, focusing on the emerging paradigms and technological innovations that might improve clinical practice in the near future.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses: the fine needle aspiration or fine needle biopsy dilemma. Is the best needle yet to come?

Fine needle aspiration (FNA) is currently the standard of care for sampling pancreatic solid masses by using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). The accuracy of the technique is reported to be high, especially if coupled with the rapid on site evaluation (ROSE), and it has a high safety profile. However, FNA presents some limitations, such as the small amount of tissue that can be collected and the inability of obtaining a core tissue with intact histological architecture, which is relevant to perform immunohistochemical analysis, molecular profiling and, therefore, targeted therapies. Moreover, the presence of the ROSE by an expert cytopathologist is very important to maximize the diagnostic yield of FNA technique; however, it is not widely available, especially in small centers. Hence, the introduction of EUS fine needle biopsy (FNB) with a new generation of needles, which show a high safety profile too and a satisfying diagnostic accuracy even in the absence of ROSE, could be the key to overcome the limitations of FNA. However, FNB has not yet shown diagnostic superiority over FNA. Considering all the technical aspects of FNA and FNB, the different types of needle currently available, comparisons in term of diagnostic yield, and the different techniques of sampling, a tailored approach should be used in order to determine the needle that is most appropriate for the different specific scenarios.

Endoscopic ultrasonography in pancreatic diseases: advances in tissue acquisition

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) improved the diagnostic performance and upgraded the role of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) into an interventional modality, able to guide patient management and treatment.This review aimed to highlight the advances, emerging practices, procedural techniques and technological innovations in EUS tissue acquisition in pancreatic diseases. Methods  A thorough review of the literature was performed using PubMed to identify articles that describe techniques, advances, and practices in EUS tissue acquisition in gastrointestinal diseases. Conclusion  Since the first EUS-FNA procedure, EUS guided-tissue acquisition has been evolving continuously. Development of needles with innovative tip design enabled procurement of larger samples with preserved histological architecture. Moreover, sampling techniques and complementary methods, such as contrast harmonic imaging and EUS-elastography, have been introduced in an effort to improve diagnostic performance and sample adequacy.

Effect of Pancreatic Mass Size on Clinical Outcomes of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has high diagnostic accuracy for pancreatic diseases. However, the effect of mass size on diagnostic accuracy has yet to be determined, especially for small pancreatic lesions. We aimed to determine the effect of pancreatic mass size on the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA.

METHODS

We searched the database in Hokkaido University Hospital between May 2008 and December 2016 and identified solid pancreatic lesions examined by EUS-FNA. All lesions were stratified into five groups based on mass sizes: groups A (< 10 mm), B (10-20 mm), C (20-30 mm), D (30-40 mm) and E (≥ 40 mm). The sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy and adverse event rate were retrospectively evaluated.

RESULTS

We analyzed a total of 788 solid pancreatic lesions in 761 patients. The patients included 440 males (57.8%) with a mean age of 65.7 years. The sensitivities in groups A (n = 36), B (n = 223), C (n = 304), D (n = 147) and E (n = 78) were 89.3%, 95.0%, 97.4%, 98.5% and 98.7%, respectively, and they significantly increased as the mass size increased (P < 0.01, chi-squared test for trend). The diagnostic accuracies were 91.7%, 96.4%, 97.7%, 98.6% and 98.7%, respectively, and they also significantly increased as the mass size increased (P = 0.03). Multivariate analysis showed that pancreatic mass size was associated with diagnostic accuracy. The adverse event rates were not significantly different among the five groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The sensitivities and diagnostic accuracies of EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic lesions are higher for lesions ≥ 10 mm in size, and they are strongly correlated with mass size.

A "Back Light System" for Identification of Sites for Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration in Solid Pancreatic Masses: A Prospective, Randomized Study with a Crossover Design

Background/Aims

We applied a back light system (BLS) with a magnifying glass to improve the ability to assess the adequacy of specimen sampling using endosonography. We conducted this study to evaluate the efficacy of the BLS in sampling of specimens by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of solid pancreatic masses.

Methods

This was a prospective, randomized, crossover, single-center clinical trial. An endosonographer evaluated adequacy on gross visual inspection and identified whitish specimen sampling sites with and without the BLS according to a randomization sequence in the first and second passes with a 25-G needle. On cytological evaluation, the presence of well-defined pancreatic ductal epithelium was evaluated by a cytopathologist who was blinded to any clinical information.

Results

A total of 80 consecutive patients were eligible during the study period. Adequacy was observed for 52 specimens (65%) with the BLS and 54 (68%) without the BLS (p=0.88). In assessment of specimen adequacy on gross examination, only fair agreement was observed both with and without BLS (kappa score 0.40 and 0.29, respectively).

Conclusions

The BLS did not influence the ability to identify specimen sampling sites or reliable assessment of specimen site adequacy using gross visual inspection.

Prospective comparison of slow-pull and standard suction techniques of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic cancer

Background

The usage of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic cancer is increasing, however mainly retrospective studies are available about the detailed methods of sampling.

Methods

To compare prospectively the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA samples obtained with slow-pull (SP) and with standard suction technique (SS).

Results

EUS-FNA sampling was diagnostic in 72 of 92 cases (78.3%). Diagnostic yield was 67.4% in the SS and 65.2% in the SP group. The number of smear pairs (1.84 vs. 3.56; p < 0.001) and blood contamination (1.50 vs. 2.19; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the SS group, which resulted in lower rate of diagnostic samples (41.8% vs. 30.0%; p = 0.003). There was no difference in the cellularity (1.58 vs. 1.37; p = 0.2554), or in the sensitivity and specificity in the identification of malignancy between SP and SS subgroups (69.9, 100% vs. 73.5, 100%). Histological samples were obtained in 60 cases (with SP: 49 cases; with SS: 46 cases). There was no difference in the diagnostic yield of histological samples between the groups (63 and 58.7%).

Conclusion

The diagnostic yield, the cellularity of smears and the rate of acquiring sufficient histological material are similar in the SP and SS group, but due to lower bloodiness and decreased number of slides, the pathological diagnosis is faster and more cost-effective.

Predictive Factors for Inaccurate Diagnosis of Swollen Lymph Nodes in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration

Background/Aims

This study aimed to identify the predictive factors for inaccurate endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) diagnosis of swollen lymph nodes without rapid on-site cytopathological evaluation.

Methods

Eighty-three consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNA for abdominal or mediastinal lymph nodes from January 2008 to June 2017 were included from a prospectively maintained EUS-FNA database and retrospectively reviewed. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of EUS-FNA for the detection of neoplastic diseases were calculated. Candidate factors for inaccurate diagnosis (lymph node size and location, needle type, puncture route, number of passes, and causative disease) were evaluated by comparison between accurately diagnosed cases and others.

Results

The final diagnosis of the punctured lymph node was classified as neoplastic (65 cases: a metastatic lymph node, malignant lymphoma, or Crow-Fukase syndrome) or non-neoplastic (18 cases: a reactive node or amyloidosis). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 83%, 94%, and 86%, respectively. On multivariate analyses, small size of the lymph node was the sole predictive factor for inaccurate EUS-FNA diagnosis with a significant difference (odds ratios, 19.8; 95% confidence intervals, 3.15–124; p=0.0015).

Conclusions

The lymph node size of <16 mm was the only independent factor associated with inaccurate EUS-FNA diagnosis of swollen lymph nodes.

Prospective comparison study of franseen needle and standard needle use for pancreatic lesions under EUS guidance

Background and Objectives

A needle with Franseen geometry for fine needle aspiration is now available. However, no reports have described prospective evaluations of the Franseen needle or comparisons with the standard needle. The aim of this comparative prospective study was to evaluate the histological diagnostic yield of the Franseen needle and the standard needle using tissue obtained by a single pass of each for the same lesion.

Patients and Methods

In this study, only tissue obtained by the first pass using the Franseen needle was used. As a comparison group, only tissue obtained from the same lesion by a second pass using the standard needle was used. Evaluation of the histological diagnostic yield of the needles was based on tissue obtained by each single pass with no additional passes.

Results

A total of 56 patients were prospectively enrolled. The rate of adequate tissue obtained was significantly higher for the Franseen needle than for the standard needle (89.4% vs. 62.5%, respectively; P < 0.05). The sensitivity and accuracy of the Franseen needle were 80.7%, and 84.6%, respectively, while those for the standard needle were 59.6% and 63.5%, respectively.

Conclusions

The Franseen needle offers a better rate of obtaining adequate tissue and higher diagnostic accuracy than the standard needle.

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).

Cost-effectiveness of rapid on-site evaluation of the adequacy of FNA cytology samples performed by nonpathologists

BACKGROUND

Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) can increase adequacy and reduce needle passes in fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) procedures. However, ROSE increases the cost of FNAC. Costs may be reduced if ROSE is performed by an alternate evaluator (AE), such as a cytotechnologist (CT), endoscopist, or pulmonologist, rather than a cytopathologist (CP). Studies have shown that AEs can perform ROSE with high accuracy but are generally not as accurate as CPs. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of AEs on the cost-effectiveness of ROSE.

METHODS

A cost model, based on a mathematical sampling model, was developed. The cost model was used to compare the impact of the evaluator type on overall costs.

RESULTS

CTs were likely to be cost-effective for simple procedures and were unlikely to be cost-effective for only the most complex procedures. The model demonstrated the tradeoff in cost savings from using AEs and the potential costs associated with repeated procedures due to the lower accuracy of AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effectiveness of AEs is context-dependent. AEs can be cost-effective even if they are less accurate than CPs. AEs are likely to be cost-effective in most contexts.

Performance of a new needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy in patients with pancreatic solid lesions: A retrospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Procurement of tissue core biopsy samples may overcome some of the limitations of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration. We aimed at assessing the safety, histological sample procurement yield, and diagnostic accuracy of a newly available histology needle.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from consecutive patients with pancreatic solid lesions who underwent EUS-fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) using the 22-gauge Acquire™ needle were retrospectively retrieved from four tertiary care centers database.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine patients (mean age 68 ± 12 years; male/female 29/30) with pancreatic solid lesions underwent EUS-FNB using the 22-gauge Acquire™ needle. The biopsy was done transgastrically in 22 (37.3%) patients and transduodenally in 37 (62.7%) cases. A mean of 2.8 ± 0.45 needle passes per lesion site were performed, without any major complication. A tissue core biopsy sample for histological evaluation was obtained in 55 (93.2%) cases. In the additional four cases, the specimen obtained resulted adequate for cytological evaluation. Considering malignant versus nonmalignant disease, sensitivity, specificity, negative likelihood ratio, positive likelihood ratio, and diagnostic accuracy were 98.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90.6-99.7), 100% (95% CI, 43.6-100), 0.018 (95% CI, 0.003-0.125), 295.6 (95% CI, 0-9.3 × 1010), and 98.3% (95% CI, 94.9-100), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNB using the 22-gauge Acquire™ needle is able to reach a very high procurement yield and diagnostic accuracy. Large prospective studies are warranted to further evaluate the utility of this newly developed needle.

Performance of a new histology needle for EUS-guided fine needle biopsy: A retrospective multicenter study

OBJECTIVE

Procurement of tissue core biopsy may overcome some of the limitations of EUS-FNA. We aimed at assessing the safety, core procurement yield and diagnostic accuracy of two novel available histology needles.

METHODS

Data from consecutive patients with solid lesions who underwent EUS-FNB using the 25G-22G SharkCore™ needles were retrieved from 4 tertiary-care centers database.

RESULTS

146 patients (mean age 64 ± 12 years; M/F, 76/68) with 156 lesions (114 pancreatic) were identified. In 83 cases the 22G needle was used. 3.6 ± 1.2 passes per lesion were performed, without any major complications. A core biopsy was procured in 89.1% of cases. Considering malignant vs. non-malignant disease, the sensitivity, specificity, negative likelihood ratio, positive likelihood ratio, and diagnostic accuracy were 90.2% (95% CI, 83.7-94.3), 100% (95% CI, 87.2-100), 0.099 (95% CI, 0.058-0.170), 60.4 (95% CI, 3.86-947.4), and 92.3% (95% CI, 88.1-96.5). Procurement yield was significantly higher for the 22G (95.2% vs. 82.2%, p = 0.011), despite the fact that more needle passes were performed with the 25G needle (3.8 ± 1.3 vs. 3.4 ± 1.0, p = 0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNB using the 25G-22G SharkCore™ needles is able to reach a very good procurement yield and diagnostic accuracy. The 22G-size needle showed superior core procurement and diagnostic capabilities. Large prospective studies are warranted to further evaluate the use of these types of needles.

Prospective histological evaluation of a 20G core trap with a forward-cutting bevel needle for EUS-FNA of pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has been established as a method to obtain tissues of various organs. To obtain sufficient tissue has clinical impact to facilitate the diagnosis by clinical pathologists, the assessment and subtyping of various neoplasms, and for further immunohistochemical investigations of tumor type. Recently, a novel 20G core trap with a forward-cutting beveled FNA needle (ProC-F) has become available. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the feasibility and diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA for pancreatic lesions using this needle.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

In this study, the first puncture was performed using the ProC-F. Only tissue obtained with the first puncture using the ProC-F was used to evaluate diagnostic yield of ProC-F. The second puncture was performed using a 22G standard FNA needle using the same technique as for the first puncture. Second puncture was performed if the endosonographer did not feel that sufficient tissue had not been obtained by first puncture.

RESULTS

Fifty-three consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNA for pancreatic lesions were prospectively enrolled. The technical success rate of EUS-FNA using the ProC-F was 98.1% (52/53). The rate of adequate tissue obtained by ProC-F was 96.2% (50/52). On the other hand, the rate of adequate tissue obtained by the standard needle was 71.1%. The sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), and accuracy of the ProC-F and the standard needle were 92.5, 100, 100, 76.9, and 94.0%, and 85.2, 100, 100, 55.6, and 87.5%, respectively. Diagnostic yield of ProC-F about sensitivity (P = 0.027), NPV (P = 0.035), and accuracy (P = 0.004) was significantly higher than of standard needle. Adverse events were not seen in any patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Although only tissue obtained by the first puncture was evaluated, the rate of adequate tissue and the histologic diagnostic yield for pancreatic lesions were extremely high using the ProC-F.

Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology new guidelines have a greater ability of risk stratification for pancreatic endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration specimens

The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology has recently proposed a standardized terminology and nomenclature guidelines for pancreatic cytology. However the risk of malignancy associated with the new guidelines has been scarcely studied. In this study, a series of pancreatic cytology cases obtained by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration from 294 Chinese patients were retrospectively re-categorized into six categories according the new guidelines. The risks of malignancy were 18.1% for “negative,” 20.0% for “neoplastic,” 57.1% for “nondiagnostic,” 69.2% for “atypical,” 87.5% for “suspicious,” and 100.0% for “positive” respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.93 (95% Confidence Interval, 0.90-0.96), which was significantly higher than that associated with old classification system (0.82; 95% Confidence Interval, 0.77-0.87) conventionally used in China. Our investigation demonstrated that the new guidelines have a greater ability of risk stratification than the old classification system conventionally used in China. This may be helpful in giving better predictions of malignancy, thus leading to more personalized treatment strategies.

A Multicenter comparative trial of a novel EUS-guided core biopsy needle (SharkCore™) with the 22-gauge needle in patients with solid pancreatic mass lesions

Background and Objectives:

The ability to obtain adequate tissue of solid pancreatic lesions by EUS-guided remains a challenge. The aim of this study was to compare the performance characteristics and safety of EUS-FNA for evaluating solid pancreatic lesions using the standard 22-gauge needle versus a novel EUS biopsy needle.

Methods:

This was a multicenter retrospective study of EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions between 2009 and 2015. Patients underwent EUS-guided sampling with a 22-gauge SharkCore (SC) needle or a standard 22-gauge FNA needle. Technical success, performance characteristics of EUS-FNA, the number of needle passes required to obtain a diagnosis, diagnostic accuracy, and complications were compared.

Results:

A total of 1088 patients (mean age = 66 years; 49% female) with pancreatic masses underwent EUS-guided sampling with a 22-gauge SC needle (n = 115) or a standard 22-gauge FNA needle (n = 973). Technical success was 100%. The frequency of obtaining an adequate cytology by EUS-FNA was similar when using the SC and the standard needle (94.1% vs. 92.7%, respectively). The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA for tissue diagnosis were not significantly different between two needles. Adequate sample collection leading to a definite diagnosis was achieved by the 1^st, 2^nd, and 3^rd pass in 73%, 92%, and 98% of procedures using the SC needle and 20%, 37%, and 94% procedures using the standard needle (P < 0.001), respectively. The median number of passes to obtain a tissue diagnosis using the SC needle was significantly less as compared to the standard needle (1 and 3, respectively; P < 0.001).

Conclusions:

The EUS SC biopsy needle is safe and technically feasible for EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic mass lesions. Preliminary results suggest that the SC needle has a diagnostic yield similar to the standard EUS needle and significantly reduces the number of needle passes required to obtain a tissue diagnosis.

Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound for differential diagnosis of pancreatic cancer: an updated meta-analysis

Aim

We aim to assess the diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound (CE-EUS) for pancreatic cancer and inflammatory lesions by pooling current evidence.

Materials and Methods

A systematical search of PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library was performed from inception to January 2016. Two authors independently screened and extracted detailed data from included studies. A random effect model was adopted to estimate the pooled sensitivity, specificity in order to determine the diagnostic ablitity of CE-EUS. Furthermore, we conducted the meta-regression and subgroup analyses to explore possible heterogeneity.

Results

Eighteen eligible studies enrolling 1668 patients were finally included in the study. The pooled sensitivity of CE-EUS for distinguishing pancreatic cancers from solid inflammatory masses was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.91–0.94), and the specificity was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.84–0.90). The area under summary receiver operating characteristic curve yielded 0.97. No publication bias was observed by Deeks’ funnel plot in current meta-analysis.

Conclusions

We provided evidence that CE-EUS is a promising modality for differential diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinomas. Further multicenter prospective studies should be carried out to certify its utility.

Low diagnostic yield of transduodenal endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy using the 19-gauge Flex needle: A large multicenter prospective study

Background and Objectives:

Previous limited experiences have reported the 19-gauge flexible needle to be highly effective in performing endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for transduodenal lesions. We designed a large multicenter prospective study with the aim at evaluating the performance of this newly developed needle.

Patients and Methods:

Consecutive patients with solid lesions who needed to undergo EUS sampling from the duodenum were enrolled in 6 tertiary care referral centers. Puncture of the lesion was performed with the 19-gauge flexible needle (Expect™ and Slimline Expect™ 19 Flex). The feasibility, procurement yield, and diagnostic accuracy were evaluated.

Results:

Totally, 246 patients (144 males, mean age 65.1 ± 12.7 years) with solid lesions (203 cases) or enlarged lymph nodes (43 cases) were enrolled, with a mean size of 32.6 ± 12.2 mm. The procedure was technically feasible in 228 patients, with an overall procurement yield of 76.8%. Two centers had suboptimal procurement yields (66.7% and 64.2%). Major complications occurred in six cases: two of bleeding, two of mild acute pancreatitis, one perforation requiring surgery, and one duodenal hematoma. Considering malignant versus nonmalignant disease, the sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic accuracy were 70.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 64.3–76.6), 100% (95% CI: 79.6–100), 35.3 (95% CI: 2.3–549.8)/0.3 (95% CI: 0.2–0.4), and 73.6% (95% CI: 67.6–79). On multivariate analysis, the only determinant of successful EUS-FNB was the center in which the procedure was performed.

Conclusions:

Our results suggest that the use of the 19-gauge flexible needle cannot be widely advocated and its implementation should receive local validation after careful evaluation of both the technical success rates and diagnostic yield.

Rapid On-Site Evaluation Does Not Improve Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Adequacy in Pancreatic Masses: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Background and Objectives

Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) during endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS–FNA) of pancreatic masses has been reported to be associated with improved adequacy and diagnostic yield. However, recent observational data on the impact of ROSE have reported conflicting results. A meta-analysis and systematic review was therefore conducted to evaluate the contribution of ROSE during EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses.

Method

A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE/Pubmed and EMBASE databases for studies comparing the efficacy of ROSE between patients in two cohorts. Outcomes considered included diagnostic adequate rate, diagnostic yield, number of needle passes, pooled sensitivity and specificity. Findings from a random-effects model were expressed as pooled risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

A total of 7 studies (1299 patients) was finally included and further analyzed in the current meta-analysis. EUS-FNA with ROSE could not improve diagnostic adequacy (RD = 0.05, 95% CI: -0.01–0.11) and diagnostic yield (RD = 0.04 95%CI: -0.05, 0.13). The number of needle passes showed no statistically significant difference with and without ROSE (RD = -0.68 95%CI: -2.35, 0.98). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of ROSE group were 0.91 (95%CI: 0.87, 0.94) and 1 (95%CI: 0.94, 1.00). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of non-ROSE group were 0.85 (95%CI: 0.80, 0.89) and 1 (95%CI: 0.95, 1.00). ROSE group and non-ROSE group showed comparable sensitivity and specificity.

Conclusion

Compared to historical reports of its clinical efficacy in patients with pancreatic lesions, ROSE may be not associated with an improvement of diagnostic yield, adequate rate, pooled sensitivity and specificity.

Randomized Noninferiority Trial Comparing Diagnostic Yield of Cytopathologist-guided versus 7 passes for EUS-FNA of Pancreatic Masses

BACKGROUND AND AIM

To improve diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in solid pancreatic lesions, on-site cytology review has been recommended. Because this is not widely available throughout the world, the aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA performed with rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) versus 7 FNA passes without ROSE in pancreatic masses.

METHODS

In this multicenter randomized noninferiority trial, patients were randomized to ROSE versus 7 passes into a solid pancreatic mass. On the basis of the absolute difference in diagnostic yield with 7 passes versus cytopathologist-guidance, the noninferiority margin for the difference in diagnostic yield was defined as -15%. Definite diagnosis was defined to include positive for malignancy, neoplastic cells present, and negative for malignancy.

RESULTS

A total of 142 patients were randomized with 73 in the cytopathologist arm and 69 in the 7 passes arm. Diagnostic yield for definite diagnosis was 78.3% with 7 passes and 78.1% with cytopathology guidance. With an absolute difference 0.2%, 95% CI -14.4 to 14.6, performing 7 passes was noninferior to cytopathologist-guided EUS-FNA. There was no significant difference in complications or time to perform FNA. A median of 5 passes were performed with ROSE. The median charge with onsite cytopathology was significantly greater than performing 7 passes [$1058 (958, 1445) versus $375 (275, 460), p<0.001].

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnostic yield for performing 7 passes during EUS-FNA into solid pancreatic masses is noninferior with lower charge compared to cytopathologist-guidance. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

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.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for the diagnosis of pancreatic cysts by combined cytopathology and cystic content analysis

Recent advances in imaging technology have resulted in an increase in incidental discoveries of pancreatic cystic lesions. Pancreatic cysts comprise a wide variety of lesions and include non-neoplastic cysts and neoplastic cysts. Because some pancreatic cysts have more of a malignant potential than others, it is absolutely essential that an accurate diagnosis is rendered so that effective care can be given to each patient. In many centers, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) has emerged as the modality of choice that enables one to distinguish between mucinous and non-mucinous lesion, diagnose malignancy and collect cyst fluid for further diagnostic studies, such as pancreatic enzyme levels, molecular analysis and other tumor biomarkers. The current review will focus on EUS-guided FNA and the cytological diagnosis for pancreatic cysts.

When Is Rapid On-Site Evaluation Cost-Effective for Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsy?

Background

Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) can improve adequacy rates of fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) but increases operational costs. The performance of ROSE relative to fixed sampling depends on many factors. It is not clear when ROSE is less costly than sampling with a fixed number of needle passes. The objective of this study was to determine the conditions under which ROSE is less costly than fixed sampling.

Methods

Cost comparison of sampling with and without ROSE using mathematical modeling. Models were based on a societal perspective and used a mechanistic, micro-costing approach. Sampling policies (ROSE, fixed) were compared using the difference in total expected costs per case. Scenarios were based on procedure complexity (palpation-guided or image-guided), adequacy rates (low, high) and sampling protocols (stopping criteria for ROSE and fixed sampling). One-way, probabilistic, and scenario-based sensitivity analysis was performed to determine which variables had the greatest influence on the cost difference.

Results

ROSE is favored relative to fixed sampling under the following conditions: (1) the cytologist is accurate, (2) the total variable cost ($/hr) is low, (3) fixed costs ($/procedure) are high, (4) the setup time is long, (5) the time between needle passes for ROSE is low, (6) when the per-pass adequacy rate is low, and (7) ROSE stops after observing one adequate sample. The model is most sensitive to variation in the fixed cost, the per-pass adequacy rate, and the time per needle pass with ROSE.

Conclusions

Mathematical modeling can be used to predict the difference in cost between sampling with and without ROSE.

Contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The negative predictive value of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions remains low, and the biopsy specimens are sometimes inadequate for appropriate pathological diagnosis.

AIMS

To evaluate the usefulness of a novel method of contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration for the differential diagnosis and adequate sampling of solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

Patients with a diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions who underwent fine-needle aspiration guided by contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography or by endoscopic ultrasonography from October 2010 to July 2013 were retrospectively identified and classified into the CH-EUS or EUS group, respectively. Surgical pathology and/or follow-up results were defined as the final diagnosis. Operating characteristics and adequacy of biopsy specimens by fine-needle aspiration were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Operating characteristics for contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration in solid pancreatic lesions were as follows: area under the curve = 0.908, sensitivity = 81.6%, specificity = 100%, positive predictive value = 100%, negative predictive value = 74.1%, and accuracy = 87.9%. The percentage of adequate biopsy specimens in the CH-EUS group (96.6%) was greater than that in the EUS group (86.7%).

CONCLUSION

Simultaneous contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography during fine-needle aspiration is useful for improving the diagnostic yield and adequate sampling of solid pancreatic lesions.

Fine-needle biopsy: should this be the first choice in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition?

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition is an indispensable technique for the diagnosis of many diseases of the gastrointestinal tract and adjacent structures. EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is known for its high accuracy and low complication rate. However, the outcome of EUS-FNA highly depends on several factors such as the location and characteristics of the lesion, endosonographer's experience, technique of sampling and sample preparation, type and size of the needle used, and presence of a cytopathologist for rapid on-site examination. EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy is useful to obtain core tissue samples with relatively fewer passes. Aspiration of core tissue with preserved architecture is beneficial for the diagnosis of certain diseases and the performance of ancillary testing such as tumor molecular profiling. Issues related to needle size, type, and their acquired samples for cytologic and histologic evaluation are discussed here.