EUS-guided fine needle aspiration of the liver: indications, yield, and safety based on an international survey of 167 cases

Acute pancreatitis after EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: a pooled analysis from EUS centers in the United States

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine the frequency and the severity of pancreatitis after EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses. A survey of centers that offer training in EUS in the United States was conducted.

METHODS

A list of centers in which training in EUS is offered was obtained from the Web site of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Designated program directors were contacted via e-mail. The information requested included the number of EUS-guided FNA procedures performed for solid pancreatic masses, the number of cases of post-procedure pancreatitis, and the method for tracking complications. For each episode of pancreatitis, technical details were obtained about the procedure, including the location of the mass, the type of fine needle used, the number of needle passes, and the nature of the lesion.

RESULTS

Nineteen of the 27 programs contacted returned the questionnaire (70%). In total, 4909 EUS-guided FNAs of solid pancreatic masses were performed in these 19 centers over a mean of 4 years (range 11 months to 9 years). Pancreatitis occurred after 14 (0.29%): 95% CI[0.16, 0.48] procedures. At two centers in which data on complications were prospectively collected, the frequency of acute pancreatitis was 0.64%, suggesting that the frequency of pancreatitis in the retrospective cohort (0.26%) was under-reported (p=0.22). The odds that cases of pancreatitis would be reported were 2.45 greater for the prospective compared with the retrospective cohort (95% CI[0.55, 10.98]). The median duration of hospitalization for treatment of pancreatitis was 3 days (range 1-21 days). The pancreatitis was classified as mild in 10 cases, moderate in 3, and severe in one; one death (proximate cause, pulmonary embolism) occurred after the development of pancreatitis in a patient with multiple comorbid conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses is infrequently associated with acute pancreatitis. The procedure appears to be safe when performed by experienced endosonographers. The frequency of post EUS-guided FNA pancreatitis may be underestimated by retrospective analysis.

Metastatic renal cell carcinoma: CT-guided immunotherapy as a technically feasible and safe approach to delivery of gene therapy for treatment

PURPOSE

To assess the technical feasibility and safety of weekly outpatient percutaneous computed tomographic (CT)-guided intratumoral injections of interleukin-2 (IL-2) plasmid DNA in a wide variety of superficial and deep tumor sites.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-nine patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and a total of 30 lesions measuring 1.0 cm(2) or greater in accessible thoracic (n = 15) or abdominal (n = 15) locations underwent up to three cycles of six weekly intratumoral IL-2 plasmid DNA injections. CT was used to guide needle placement and injection. After injection cycle 1, patients whose tumors demonstrated stable (< or =25% increase and < or =50% decrease in product of lesion diameters) or decreased size (>50% decrease in product of lesion diameters) advanced to injection cycle 2. Patients whose lesions decreased in size by more than 50% over the course of injection cycle 2 were eligible to begin injection cycle 3. An acceptable safety and technical feasibility profile for this technique was deemed to be (a) a safety and feasibility profile similar to that of single-needle biopsy and (b) an absence of serious adverse events (as defined in Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations) and/or unacceptable toxicities (as graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria).

RESULTS

A total of 284 intratumoral injections were performed, with a mean of 9.8 injections (range, 6-18 injections) received by each patient. Technical success (needle placement and injection of gene therapy agent) was achieved in all cases. Complications were experienced after 42 (14.8%) of the 284 injections. The most common complication was pneumothorax (at 32 [28.6%] of 112 intrathoracic injections), for which only one patient required catheter drainage. Complications occurred randomly throughout injection cycles and did not appear to increase as patients received more injections (P =.532). No patient experienced serious adverse events or unacceptable toxicities.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous CT-guided intratumoral immunotherapy injections are technically feasible and can be safely performed.

Detection of occult liver metastases during EUS for staging of malignancies

BACKGROUND

EUS is commonly used in the staging of GI, thoracic, and other malignancies. Studies suggest EUS can detect occult liver metastases, but the frequency with which this occurs is unknown.

METHODS

Records were reviewed for all patients seen during a 3-year period who underwent EUS of the upper-GI tract for staging of known or suspected malignancy. Patients were included if there was histopathologic evidence of malignancy, they had undergone noninvasive liver imaging within 6 weeks of EUS, and liver surveillance was specifically mentioned in the report of the EUS procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 222 patients were included. Liver lesions were seen in 27 patients, 17 of whom had an abnormal noninvasive liver imaging test. EUS-guided FNA of the liver was performed in 21 patients and was diagnostic of malignancy in 15 (6.8%), 5 of whom (2.3%) had normal noninvasive imaging. In 6 patients, the EUS-guided FNA result was benign. EUS missed liver lesions in 4 patients known to have abnormalities by other imaging modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS can detect occult liver metastases in patients in whom noninvasive hepatic imaging studies are normal, although the frequency at which such lesions are detected is low. Liver surveillance during EUS is worthwhile for patients in whom there is another indication for the procedure; but, at present, EUS should not replace traditional imaging modalities.

The role of endoscopy in the evaluation and treatment of patients with pancreaticobiliary malignancy

This is one of a series of statements discussing the utilization of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a MEDLINE literature search was performed, and additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When little or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate utilization of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus. Further controlled clinical studies are needed to clarify aspects of this statement, and revision may be necessary as new data appear. Clinical consideration may justify a course of action at variance to these recommendations.

EUS-FNA of recurrent postoperative extraluminal and metastatic malignancy

BACKGROUND

EUS-guided FNA is safe and accurate for the diagnosis of benign or malignant neoplasia and lymphadenopathy; however, its role in the diagnosis of recurrent malignancy is not well described.

METHODS

A prospectively updated EUS-guided FNA cytology database was used to identify patients in whom a diagnosis of postoperative, recurrent, extraluminal, or metastatic malignancy was made over a 5-year period. Only patients with a positive EUS-guided FNA were included in the analysis. All had undergone surgery for the primary malignancy and were in clinical and/or radiographic remission before the initial suspicion of tumor recurrence.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients underwent EUS-guided FNA of 21 lesions (19 masses, 2 lymph nodes) because of a suspicion of recurrent malignancy based on CT (n = 17) or EUS (n = 4) findings. Median time from the initial diagnosis to recurrence was 26 months (range 5-276 months). Lesions were located in the pancreas (9 patients), mediastinum (7), liver (3), perigastric region (1), and liver hilum (1). EUS-guided FNA (mean number of needle passes, 4.5; range 2-8) obtained diagnostic material for recurrent malignancy in all patients as follows: esophageal (6 patients), renal cell (6), pancreatic (2), breast (2), colon (2), bile duct (1), Ewing's sarcoma (1), and lung (1) cancer. No complication was encountered. Transgastric EUS-guided FNA (4 patients), distal, or transesophageal EUS-FNA (2) proximal to a surgical anastomosis was required to confirm recurrence in all 6 patients with esophageal cancer. The initial cytologic diagnosis of recurrent malignancy was made by EUS in 20 of 21 (95%) patients. One patient with recurrent breast cancer had CT-guided FNA of a right lung mass preceding EUS-guided FNA of an AP window lymph node.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-guided FNA can detect and safely diagnose recurrent malignancy in the mediastinum, retroperitoneum, and liver. When possible, correlation between EUS-guided FNA cytology and original tumor histopathology/cytology, or the use of immunostaining to confirm the diagnosis, is recommended.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration cytology of solid liver lesions: a large single-center experience

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to report the sensitivity, cytological diagnoses, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) features, complications, clinical impact, and long term follow-up of a large single-center experience with endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of benign and malignant solid liver lesions.

METHODS

A database of cytologic specimens from EUS-FNA was reviewed to identify all hepatic lesions aspirated between January, 1997, and July, 2002. Procedural indications, prior radiographic data, patient demographics, EUS examination results, complications, and follow-up data were obtained and recorded.

RESULTS

EUS-FNA of 77 liver lesions in 77 patients was performed without complications. Of these 77 lesions, 45 (58%) were diagnostic for malignancy, 25 (33%) were benign, and seven (9%) were nondiagnostic. A total of 22 lesions were confirmed as negative for malignancy by follow-up (mean 762 days, range 512-1556 days) or intraoperative examination; however, seven lesions could not be classified as benign or malignant. Depending on the status of the seven unclassified lesions, sensitivity of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of malignancy ranged from 82 to 94%. When compared with benign lesions, EUS features predictive of malignant hepatic masses were the presence of regular outer margins (60% vs 27%; p = 0.02) and the detection of two or more lesions (38% vs 9%; p = 0.03). Of the 42 patients with malignancy identified by EUS-FNA and other available imaging records, EUS detected the malignancy in 41% of patients with previously negative examinations. For the 45 subjects with cytology positive for malignancy, EUS-FNA changed management in 86% of subjects.

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNA of the liver is a safe and sensitive procedure that can have a significant impact on patient management. Prospective studies comparing the accuracy and complication rate of EUS-FNA and percutaneous fine needle aspiration (P-FNA) for the diagnosis of liver tumors are needed.

Interventional endoscopic ultrasound

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has been used in clinical practice for the past two decades, mainly for staging upper gastrointestinal tract tumours. More recently the technique has been used to guide interventional procedures, particularly EUS-guided biopsy. In this review we describe the equipment and technique required for interventional EUS. We also discuss with illustrations the current clinical applications, potential complications and developments for the future.