Assessment of morbidity and mortality associated with EUS-guided FNA: a systematic review

Severe acute pancreatitis after EUS-FNA of a pancreatic cyst: a rare, but serious complication

As a consequence of improved quality of abdominal imaging techniques in the last decades, discovery of pancreatic cystic lesions has become more common. The clinical significance of these lesions is often unclear and poses a diagnostic dilemma. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a subject of debate regarding its role in the diagnostic evaluation of pancreatic masses and cysts. Although risks associated with the procedure are low, consequences can be serious and even life-threatening. We report a case of a previously healthy 59-year-old woman who suffered severe acute pancreatitis after EUS-FNA of a pancreatic cyst, requiring admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). Development of infected pancreatic necrosis and, successively, bowel ischaemia, led to multiple organ failure. Despite maximal antibiotic and surgical treatment the patient succumbed to refractory septic shock. The fatal outcome of this case illustrates the importance of balanced decision-making in the diagnostic approach of pancreatic cystic lesions.

EUS-derived criteria for distinguishing benign from malignant metastatic solid hepatic masses

BACKGROUND

Detection of hepatic metastases during EUS is an important component of tumor staging.

OBJECTIVE

To describe our experience with EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) of solid hepatic masses and derive and validate criteria to help distinguish between benign and malignant hepatic masses.

DESIGN

Retrospective study, survey.

SETTING

Single, tertiary-care referral center.

PATIENTS

Medical records were reviewed for all patients undergoing EUS-FNA of solid hepatic masses over a 12-year period.

INTERVENTIONS

EUS-FNA of solid hepatic masses.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Masses were deemed benign or malignant according to predetermined criteria. EUS images from 200 patients were used to create derivation and validation cohorts of 100 cases each, matched by cytopathologic diagnosis. Ten expert endosonographers blindly rated 15 initial endosonographic features of each of the 100 images in the derivation cohort. These data were used to derive an EUS scoring system that was then validated by using the validation cohort by the expert endosonographer with the highest diagnostic accuracy.

RESULTS

A total of 332 patients underwent EUS-FNA of a hepatic mass. Interobserver agreement regarding the initial endosonographic features among the expert endosonographers was fair to moderate, with a mean diagnostic accuracy of 73% (standard deviation 5.6). A scoring system incorporating 7 EUS features was developed to distinguish benign from malignant hepatic masses by using the derivation cohort with an area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) of 0.92; when applied to the validation cohort, performance was similar (AUC 0.86). The combined positive predictive value of both cohorts was 88%.

LIMITATIONS

Single center, retrospective, only one expert endosonographer deriving and validating the EUS criteria.

CONCLUSION

An EUS scoring system was developed that helps distinguish benign from malignant hepatic masses. Further study is required to determine the impact of these EUS criteria among endosonographers of all experience.

Novel imaging strategies for upper gastrointestinal tract cancers

Accurate pretherapeutic imaging is the cornerstone of all cancer treatment. Unfortunately, modern imaging modalities have several unsolved problems and limitations. The differentiation between inflammation and cancer infiltration, false positive and false negative findings as well as lack of confirming biopsies in suspected metastases may have serious negative consequences in cancer patients. This review describes some of these problems and challenges the use of conventional imaging by suggesting new combined strategies that include selective use of confirming biopsies and complementary methods to detect microscopic cancer dissemination.

High and low negative pressure suction techniques in EUS-guided fine-needle tissue acquisition by using 25-gauge needles: a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) has a high diagnostic accuracy for pancreatic diseases. However, although most reports have typically focused on cytology, histological tissue quality has rarely been investigated. The effectiveness of EUS-FNA combined with high negative pressure (HNP) suction was recently indicated for tissue acquisition, but has not thus far been tested in a prospective, randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the adequacy of EUS-FNA with HNP for the histological diagnosis of pancreatic lesions by using 25-gauge needles.

DESIGN

Prospective, single-blind, randomized, controlled crossover trial.

SETTING

Seven tertiary referral centers.

PATIENTS

Patients referred for EUS-FNA of pancreatic solid lesions. From July 2011 to April 2012, 90 patients underwent EUS-FNA of pancreatic solid masses by using normal negative pressure (NNP) and HNP with 2 respective passes. The order of the passes was randomized, and the sample adequacy, quality, and histology were evaluated by a single expert pathologist.

INTERVENTION

EUS-FNA by using NNP and HNP.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The adequacy of tissue acquisition and the accuracy of histological diagnoses made by using the EUS-FNA technique with HNP.

RESULTS

We found that 72.2% (65/90) and 90% (81/90) of the specimens obtained using NNP and HNP, respectively, were adequate for histological diagnosis (P = .0003, McNemar test). For 73.3% (66/90) and 82.2% (74/90) of the specimens obtained by using NNP and HNP, respectively, an accurate diagnosis was achieved (P = .06, McNemar test). Pancreatitis developed in 1 patient after this procedure, which subsided with conservative therapy.

LIMITATIONS

This was a single-blinded, crossover study.

CONCLUSION

Biopsy procedures that combine the EUS-FNA with HNP techniques are superior to EUS-FNA with NNP procedures for tissue acquisition. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000005939.).

Acute ectopic pancreatitis occurring after endoscopic biopsy in a gastric ectopic pancreas

Ectopic pancreas is a congenital anomaly and the most common type of ectopic tissue in the gastrointestinal tract. Most patients with an ectopic pancreas are asymptomatic and rarely have complications. Ectopic pancreatitis after an endoscopic biopsy has not been reported. We report a patient who developed acute ectopic pancreatitis in the stomach after an endoscopic biopsy. A 71-year-old male patient presented with a subepithelial tumor (SET) in the stomach and had no symptoms. Endoscopic ultrasonography demonstrated a 30-mm hypoechoic mural mass, lobulated margins, and anechoic duct-like lesions. To obtain proper tissue specimen, endoscopic biopsy was performed through the opening on the surface of the mass. The pathologic results confirmed an ectopic pancreas. One day after the endoscopic biopsy, he developed persistent epigastric pain. His serum amylase and lipase elevated. Computed tomography of the abdomen showed swelling of the SET and diffuse edema of the gastric wall. His condition was diagnosed as acute ectopic pancreatitis occurring after endoscopic biopsy.

Endoscopic techniques for diagnosis and therapy of pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm

Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the pancreas is a cystic neoplasm with potential malignancy. In the past, screening of IPMN depended on traditional imaging examinations, such as transabdominal ultrasonography and computed tomography (CT). With the development of endoscopic techniques, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and other endoscopic techniques are becoming significant diagnostic methods for IPMN. Meanwhile, endoscopic interventional therapy with the advantage of minimal invasiveness has been used to treat some patients who cannot tolerate or refuse surgery. This paper elucidates the advances in diagnosis and therapy of pancreatic IPMNs using endoscopic techniques.

Endoscopic ultrasound and pancreatic applications: what the radiologist needs to know

As the technology has improved, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has taken on an important role in the diagnosis of a number of different neoplastic and non-neoplastic pancreatic diseases. EUS can provide high-resolution images with subtle anatomic detail, and has also taken on an important role in the targeted biopsy of the pancreas and adjacent structures. This review seeks to familiarize radiologists with the role of EUS in the diagnosis of chronic and autoimmune pancreatitis, solid pancreatic masses, and cystic pancreatic neoplasms.

High-quality endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration tissue acquisition

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration is a multistep procedure that involves proper clinical indication, correct selection of needles, adapting evidence-based techniques such as the fanning maneuver and not routinely using suction or the stylet for tissue sampling, and establishing reliable cytopathology support. Integrating cytopathology in the training curriculum and developing a more flexible platform of needles and echoendoscopes are likely to further advance the field of endosonography. This review aims to summarize the technical issues that are key to performing high-quality endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration.

Endoscopic ultrasound in gastroenterology: From diagnosis to therapeutic implications

Since its advent in 1980, the scope of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has grown to include a wide range of indications, and it is now being incorporated as an integral part of everyday practice in the field of gastroenterology. Its use is extending from an adjuvant imaging aid to utilization as a therapeutic tool for various gastrointestinal disorders. EUS was first used to visualize remote organs, such as the pancreas and abdominal lymph nodes. When fine needle aspiration was introduced, the indications for EUS expanded to include tissue sampling for diagnostic purposes. At the same time, the needle can be used to convey a potential therapy to the internal organs, allowing access to remote sites. In this review, we aim to highlight the expanding spectrum of EUS indications and uses in the field of gastroenterology.

Applications of endoscopic ultrasound in pancreatic cancer

Since the introduction of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), EUS has assumed a growing role in the diagnosis and management of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The objective of this review is to discuss the various applications of EUS and EUS-FNA in PDAC. Initially, its use for detection, diagnosis and staging will be described. EUS and EUS-FNA are highly accurate modalities for detection and diagnosis of PDAC, this high accuracy, however, is decreased in specific situations particularly in the presence of chronic pancreatitis. Novel techniques such as contrast-enhanced EUS, elastography and analysis of DNA markers such as k-ras mutation analysis in FNA samples are in progress and might improve the accuracy of EUS in the detection of PDAC in this setting and will be addressed. EUS and EUS-FNA have recently evolved from a diagnostic to a therapeutic technique in the management of PDAC. Significant developments in therapeutic EUS have occurred including advances in celiac plexus interventions with direct injection of ganglia and improved pain control, EUS-guided fiducial and brachytherapy seed placement, fine-needle injection of intra-tumoral agents and advances in EUS-guided biliary drainage. The future role of EUS and EUS in management of PDAC is still emerging.

Basic techniques in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for solid lesions: Adverse events and avoiding them

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is often the preferred technique for tissue acquisition in the diagnosis of suspected intrathoracic and intraabdominal pathology. Although EUS FNA is a safe and accurate procedure, it has been associated with a low risk of adverse events. The unique properties of the echoendoscope and its ability to acquire tissue outside of the gastrointestinal lumen impart risks that are not associated with routine endoscopic procedures. In this review, we discuss the risk of perforation related to the echoendoscope itself and adverse events related to FNA of solid masses including infections, bleeding, pancreatitis and pancreatic duct leak, bile duct leak and tumor seeding. We also provide tips on how to avoid the most common adverse events related to EUS-FNA.

When to puncture, when not to puncture: Pancreatic masses

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has evolved to become a crucial tool for the evaluation of pancreatic diseases, among them solid pancreatic lesions. However, its ability to determine whether a lesion is malignant or not is difficult to establish based only in the endosonographic image. EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) allows obtaining a cytological and/or histological sample from pancreatic lesions, with a high overall accuracy and low complication rates. Although the clinical usefulness of EUS-FNA for pancreatic diseases is widely accepted, the indications for tissue diagnosis of pancreatic lesions suspected to be malignant is still controversial. This review highlights the diagnostic accuracy and complications of EUS-FNA, focusing on its current indications.

To fine needle aspiration or not? An endosonographer's approach to pancreatic cystic lesions

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) is an established diagnostic tool in the management of pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs). Due to the proximity to the target lesion, the fine diagnostic needle travels through only minimal normal tissues. The risks of bleeding, pancreatitis and infection are small. Valuable diagnostic morphological information can be obtained by EUS before the use of FNA. The additional cytopathologic and cyst fluid analysis for the conventional markers such as amylase, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and CA19.9 improves the diagnostic capability. Pancreatic cyst fluid CEA concentration of 192 ng/mL is generally the most agreed cutoff to differentiate mucinous from non-mucinous lesion. A fluid amylase level of <250 IU/L excludes the diagnosis of pseudocyst. Technical tips of EUS-FNA and the limitations of the procedure are discussed. Promising technique and FNA needle modifications have been described to improve the diagnostic yield at the cytopathologic analysis. The use of novel cyst fluid proteomics and deoxyribonucleic acid-based biomarkers of the PCLs are reviewed. Although it is considered a safe procedure, EUS-FNA is not a routine in every patient. Recommendations of the role of EUS-FNA at various common clinical scenarios are discussed.

Influence of the safety and diagnostic accuracy of preoperative endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for resectable pancreatic cancer on clinical performance

AIM

To evaluate the safety and diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in a cohort of pancreatic cancer patients.

METHODS

Of 213 patients with pancreatic cancer evaluated between April 2007 and August 2011, 82 were thought to have resectable pancreatic cancer on the basis of cross-sectional imaging findings. Of these, 54 underwent EUS-FNA before surgery (FNA+ group) and 28 underwent surgery without preoperative EUS-FNA (FNA- group).

RESULTS

All 54 lesions were visible on EUS, and all 54 attempts at FNA were technically successful. The diagnostic accuracy according to cytology and histology findings was 98.1% (53/54) and 77.8% (42/54), respectively, and the total accuracy was 98.1% (53/54). One patient developed mild pancreatitis after EUS-FNA but was successfully treated by conservative therapy. No severe complications occurred after EUS-FNA. In the FNA+ and FNA- groups, the median relapse-free survival (RFS) was 742 and 265 d, respectively (P = 0.0099), and the median overall survival (OS) was 1042 and 557 d, respectively (P = 0.0071). RFS and OS were therefore not inferior in the FNA+ group. These data indicate that the use of EUS-FNA did not influence RFS or OS, nor did it increase the risk of peritoneal recurrence.

CONCLUSION

In patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, preoperative EUS-FNA is a safe and accurate diagnostic method.

Role of endoscopic ultrasonography in pancreatic cystic neoplasms: where do we stand and where will we go?

We increasingly encounter pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCN) in clinical practice and the differential diagnoses vary widely from benign to malignant. There is no 'one and only' diagnostic procedure for PCN. Multiple modalities including computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) are widely used, but EUS has the advantage of anatomical proximity to the pancreas and upper gastrointestinal tract. In addition, EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) provides both cytological evaluation and cyst fluid analysis. Although the role of EUS-FNA for PCN is established, the sensitivity of cytology is low and cyst fluid analysis is only useful for differentiation between mucinous and non-mucinous cysts. Recently, novel through-the-needle imaging under EUS-FNA, such as confocal laserendomicroscopy, is expected to attribute to a better diagnostic yield. Moreover, feasibility of cyst ablation has been reported and the role of EUS has expanded from diagnosis to treatment. However, clinical impact of cyst ablation in terms of safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness should be validated further. In summary, EUS and EUS-guided intervention does and will play a central role in the management of PCN from surveillance to treatment, but many clinical questions remain unanswered, which warrants well-designed prospective clinical trials.

Complications of endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration on pancreatic cystic lesions: final results from a large prospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic cystic lesions has been reported to have a higher complication rate than that of solid lesions, but the real complication rate is unknown. Aim of the study was to identify the complication rate of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration and related risk factors.

METHODS

Prospective multicenter study at four referral centres. Data were collected from January 2010 to July 2012, searching for all adverse events related to guided fine needle aspiration. All complications occurring up to day 90 were recorded.

RESULTS

298 patients (43.9% male, mean age 63.2 ± 15.4 years) underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided needle aspiration of pancreatic cystic lesions. Mean size was 34.1 ± 9 mm. Adverse events occurred in 18 patients (6%): mild complications in 12/18 (66.6%), and moderate complications in 6/18 (33.3%). Seven were immediate, 6 early, and 5 late. All resolved with medical therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic cystic lesions has been found to be associated with a higher complication rate than for solid lesions; however, the risk rate is acceptable considering the complication grade and the important diagnostic role of the technique in the management of pancreatic cystic lesions.

Severe bleeding and perforation are rare complications of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for pancreatic masses: an analysis of 3,090 patients from 212 hospitals

Background/Aims

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is useful for the pathological diagnosis of pancreatic masses, but patients are susceptible to severe bleeding and perforation. Because the incidence and severity of these complications have not been fully evaluated.

Methods

We aimed to evaluate severe bleeding and perforation after EUS-FNA for pancreatic masses using large-scale data derived from a Japanese nationwide administrative database.

Results

In total, 3,090 consecutive patients from 212 low- to high-volume hospitals were analyzed. Severe bleeding requiring transfusion or endoscopic treatment occurred in seven patients (0.23%), and no perforation was observed. No patient mortality was recorded within 30 days of EUS-FNA. The rate of severe bleeding in low-volume hospitals was significantly higher than that in medium- and high-volume hospitals (0.48% vs 0.10%, p=0.045).

Conclusions

Severe bleeding and perforation following EUS-FNA for pancreatic masses are rare, and the procedure is safe.

A review of pancreatic cyst fluid analysis in the differential diagnosis of pancreatic cyst lesions

Diagnosis and management of pancreatic cyst lesions is challenging as there is currently no investigation that offers both high diagnostic sensitivity and high specificity for the identification of potentially malignant lesions. Accurate classification of these lesions is vital in order to avoid unnecessary treatment of benign lesions and missed opportunities for early treatment of lesions that are malignant/pre-malignant. Pancreatic cyst fluid analysis has an important role in diagnosis, although all currently available investigations based on fluid analysis have significant limitations. Cytological analysis can reveal features that are specific for a certain class of cyst, but offers limited sensitivity in detecting malignant/pre-malignant cysts. Measurement of tumour markers, particularly carcinoembryonic antigen can also be informative. Concentrations of cyst fluid carcinoembryonic antigen tend to be higher in malignant/pre-malignant cysts, although there is a wide overlap between the various classes of cyst. A number of studies have suggested that diagnostic carcinoembryonic antigen cut-offs can be chosen that provide a high degree of specificity but limited sensitivity. Studies of the analytical validity of tumour marker assays in pancreatic cyst fluid analysis have highlighted discrepancies in some fluid specimens, which require further investigation. DNA analysis also has a role. In particular, K-Ras-2 mutational analysis appears to provide high specificity for detection of malignant/pre-malignant lesions. A number of diagnostic algorithms have been published, integrating use of available investigations in order to achieve the optimum discrimination of benign and potentially malignant cysts. Research into new biochemical markers and optimal use of available pancreatic cyst fluid analyses is ongoing.

Rarity of severe bleeding and perforation in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for submucosal tumors

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is an established procedure for the pathological diagnosis of gastrointestinal submucosal tumors (SMTs). Although bleeding and perforation are potentially severe complications of EUS-FNA, the incidences and severities of these complications have not yet been fully evaluated because of their relative rarity.

AIM

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidences and mortality of severe bleeding and perforation in patients who underwent EUS-FNA for SMTs.

METHODS

The records of 1,135 consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNA for SMTs at 219 hospitals, with low- to high-volume, were reviewed using a Japanese nationwide administrative database.

RESULTS

Of the targeted lesions 73.5% were located in the stomach, 13.4% in the esophagus, 8.2% in the duodenum, and 4.9% at other sites. Five patients (0.44%) experienced severe bleeding requiring red blood cell transfusion or endoscopic treatment, with none experiencing perforation. Only one patient (0.09%) died in-hospital within 30 days of EUS-FNA (0.09%), with death not associated with bleeding or perforation.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNA is safe in evaluating SMTs, with low risks of bleeding and perforation.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European society of gastrointestinal endoscopy technical guidelines

At present, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines on endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling are almost complete and express state of the art developments. However, future developments are anticipated. This editorial focuses on a few recently published papers with some additional information and on two important additional techniques, elastography and contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), which are mentioned, but not explained in detail in the current ESGE guidelines. Elastography and CEUS might be of importance in the near future to improve the biopsy techniques.

A prospective, randomized trial comparing 25-gauge and 22-gauge needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic masses

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is widely performed for pancreatic masses. The 25-gauge needle (25G) might be easier to be manipulated and expected to be associated with fewer complications since it is thinner and more flexible than the 22-gauge needle (22G) although obtaining adequate specimens is questioned. In this randomized trial, the authors tried to compare prospectively 25G and 22G in diagnostic accuracy, manipulability from the operator's viewpoint and procedure-related complications.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 188 consecutive patients undergoing EUS-FNA for solid or cystic pancreatic masses were consecutively enrolled and 94 patients were randomized to either 25G or 22G group, respectively.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar except that more masses of 25G group were located in the head or uncinate process of pancreas than those from 22G group. Although there was no difference in diagnostic accuracy (89.4% vs. 88.3% with p = 0.82), 25G was easier to be manipulated (p = 0.004) and related with fewer procedure-related complications (10.6% vs. 3.2% with p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

25G can be chosen in preference to 22G when performing pancreatic EUS-FNA because 25G was significantly superior to 22G in terms of manipulability and complications although both were effective for accurate diagnosis.

Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

EUS-FNA of pancreatic lesion has been put into clinical use widely in many centers. The present meta-analysis was conducted to study the diagnostic role of EUS-FNA in pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

A comprehensive review of study on the precision of EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. A random effects model was used to pool the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). A summary receiver-operating characteristic (SROC) was constructed to summarize the overall test performance.

RESULTS

Thirty-one articles were eligible for the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR and DOR of EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer were 0.89 (95% CI: 0.88-0.90), 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95-0.97), 16.88 (95% CI: 10.63-26.79), 0.13 (95%CI: 0.10-0.16) and 150.80 (95%CI: 95.94-237.03) respectively. In subgroup meta-analysis of the prospective studies, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR and DOR were 0.91 (95% CI: 0.90-0.93), 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91-0.96), 11.19 (95% CI: 6.36-19.69), 0.10 (95% CI: 0.07-0.15) and 125.22 (62.37-251.41). The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.97, indicating a good performance of overall accuracy.

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNA has the high sensitivity and specificity in differentiating pancreatic cancer. Moreover, it is also a safe diagnostic modality with little complications.

Pancreatic pseudocyst after endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic mass

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is well known as a safe diagnostic procedure. We report the first case of pancreatic pseudocyst after EUS-FNA of the pancreatic body mass. A 60-year-old male underwent EUS-FNA for incidentally detected pancreatic solid mass which was suspected as neuroendocrine tumor. Two weeks later, the patient visited emergency room with acute abdominal pain and right upper quadrant tenderness; leukocytosis and elevated C-reactive protein, amylase, and lipase levels were noted. Computed tomography discovered newly developed 11.5×9.5 cm sized cystic mass communicating with the main pancreatic duct. Cyst fluid analysis revealed amylase level of 3,423 U/L and fluid culture isolated Streptococcus parasanguinis. The cystic mass corresponds with pancreatic pseudocyst. FNA induced main pancreatic duct injury and fluid leakage may cause it. Endoscopists who perform EUS-FNA must remember that pancreatic main duct injury can occur as one of severe complications and that it could be treated successfully with endoscopic internal drainage.

Diagnostic accuracy of quantitative EUS elastography for discriminating malignant from benign solid pancreatic masses: a prospective, single-center study

BACKGROUND

Recent data suggest that quantitative EUS elastography, a novel technique that allows real-time quantification of tissue stiffness, can accurately differentiate malignant from benign solid pancreatic masses.

OBJECTIVE

To externally validate the diagnostic utility of this technique in an independent cohort.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Prospective, single-center study. PATIENTS, INTERVENTIONS, AND METHODS: A total of 104 patients with evidence of a solid pancreatic mass on cross-sectional imaging and/or endosonography underwent 111 quantitative EUS elastography procedures. Multiple elastographic measurements of the mass lesion and soft-tissue reference areas were undertaken, and the corresponding strain ratios (SRs) were calculated. The final diagnosis was based on pancreatic cytology or histology.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and overall accuracy of quantitative EUS elastography for discriminating malignant from benign pancreatic masses.

RESULTS

The final diagnoses were primary pancreatic carcinoma (71.2%), neuroendocrine tumor (10.6%), metastatic cancer (1.9%), and pancreatitis (16.3%). Malignant masses had a higher SR (P = .01) and lower mass elasticity (P = .003) than inflammatory ones. The areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curve for the detection of pancreatic malignancy of both SR and mass elasticity (0.69 and 0.72, respectively) were less favorable than reported recently. At the cut points providing the highest accuracy in this cohort (4.65 for SR and 0.27% for mass elasticity), quantitative EUS elastography had a sensitivity of 100.0% and 95.7%, specificity of 16.7% and 22.2%, positive predictive value of 86.1% and 86.4%, negative predictive value of 100.0% and 50.0%, and overall accuracy of 86.5% and 83.8%, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

Relatively small number of patients with benign disease.

CONCLUSION

In the largest single-center study to date, the diagnostic utility of quantitative EUS elastography for discriminating pancreatic masses was modest, suggesting that it may only supplement rather than supplant the role of pancreatic tissue sampling in the future.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of the celiac ganglion: A diagnostic pitfall

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is now widely used as a primary tool in the evaluation of lymphadenopathy in both the mediastinum and abdomen. A sympathetic ganglion may be mistaken for an enlarged lymph node on endoscopic ultrasound and are rarely sampled as such. A 51-year-old female presented with a history of weight loss, vomiting for several months, and right upper quadrant discomfort. Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans showed a dilated common bile duct (CBD) with a possible periampullary mass, paraaortic, and pericelial lymph nodes suspicious for metastatic disease. Endosonography revealed a 17 mm oval hypoechoic structure with distinct margins in the para-aortic, celiac axis region suggestive of an enlarged lymph node. An EUS-FNA was done. Cytology revealed ganglion cells with large oval epithelial-like cells with round nuclei and prominent nucleoli consistent with a benign sympathetic ganglion. It is crucial for the cytopathologist to be aware of the fact that the endoscopist might have sampled a celiac ganglion instead of a celiac lymph node and be able to distinguish the cytological features of a benign sympathetic ganglion from a malignant process.

Accuracy and Quality Assessment of EUS-FNA: A Single-Center Large Cohort of Biopsies

Introduction. Thorough quality control (QC) study with systemic monitoring and evaluation is crucial to optimizing the effectiveness of EUS-FNA. Methods. Retrospective analysis was composed of investigating consecutive patient files that underwent EUS-FNA. QC specifically focused on diagnostic accuracy, impacts on preexisting diagnoses, and case management. Results. 268 patient files were evaluated. EUS-FNA cytology helped establish accurate diagnoses in 92.54% (248/268) of patients. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy were 83%, 100%, 100%, 91.6%, and 94%, respectively. The most common biopsy site was the pancreas (68%). The most accurate location for EUS-FNA was the esophagus, 13/13 (100%), followed by the pancreas (89.6%). EUS-FNA was least informative for abdominal lymph nodes (70.5%). After FNA and followup, eight false negatives for tumors were found (3%), while 7.5% of samples still lacked a definitive diagnosis. Discussion. QC suggests that the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA might be improved further by (1) taking more FNA passes from suspected lesions, (2) optimizing needle selection (3) having an experienced echo-endoscopist available during the learning curve, and (4) having a cytologist present during the procedure. QC also identified remediable reporting errors. In conclusion, QC study is valuable in identifying weaknesses and thereby augmenting the effectiveness of EUS-FNA.

Diagnostic endoscopic ultrasonography: Assessment of safety and prevention of complications

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has gained wide acceptance as an important, minimally invasive diagnostic tool in gastroenterology, pulmonology, visceral surgery and oncology. This review focuses on data regarding risks and complications of non-interventional diagnostic EUS and EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). Measures to improve the safety of EUS und EUS-FNB will be discussed. Due to the specific mechanical properties of echoendoscopes in EUS, there is a low but noteworthy risk of perforation. To minimize this risk, endoscopists should be familiar with the specific features of their equipment and their patients’ specific anatomical situations (e.g., tumor stenosis, diverticula). Most diagnostic EUS complications occur during EUS-FNB. Pain, acute pancreatitis, infection and bleeding are the primary adverse effects, occurring in 1% to 2% of patients. Only a few cases of needle tract seeding and peritoneal dissemination have been reported. The mortality associated with EUS and EUS-FNB is 0.02%. The risks associated with EUS-FNB are affected by endoscopist experience and target lesion. EUS-FNB of cystic lesions is associated with an increased risk of infection and hemorrhage. Peri-interventional antibiotics are recommended to prevent cyst infection. Adequate education and training, as well consideration of contraindications, are essential to minimize the risks of EUS and EUS-FNB. Restricting EUS-FNB only to patients in whom the cytopathological results may be expected to change the course of management is the best way of reducing the number of complications.

Introduction; value of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration

Introduction of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) to medical practice has brought a huge change in diagnostic algorithm of many gastrointestinal diseases. Addition of EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) upgraded diagnostic power of EUS. In this focused review series, value of EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of various diseases and tips for getting the best results with EUS-FNA are described by four invited authors including myself. First, Dr. Jeong Seop Moon discussed about EUS-FNA in submucosal lesion. He also touched on basic techniques and needles of EUS-FNA in his article. Next, I focused on additional value of EUS-FNA in the staging of hollow viscus cancer to optimize the treatment strategy. World's well-known endosonographer, Dr. Robert H. Hawes kindly presented his profound thoughts on EUS-FNA in pancreatic cystic lesions. Dr. Jayapal Ramesh and Dr. Shyam Varadarajulu shared their valuable tips for getting the best results when using EUS-FNA. Nobody doubts now EUS-FNA is an indispensable procedure in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Therefore, this focused review series will provide the readers with the concentrated knowledge of "What should we know about EUS-FNA."

Pancreatic cystic lesions: How endoscopic ultrasound morphology and endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration help unlock the diagnostic puzzle

Cystic lesions of the pancreas are being diagnosed with increasing frequency, covering a vast spectrum from benign to malignant and invasive lesions. Numerous investigations can be done to discriminate between benign and non-evolutive lesions from those that require surgery. At the moment, there is no single test that will allow a correct diagnosis in all cases. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) morphology, cyst fluid analysis and cytohistology with EUS-guided fine needle aspiration can aid in this difficult diagnosis.

A multidisciplinary survey on controversies in the use of EUS-guided FNA: assessing perspectives of surgeons, oncologists and gastroenterologists

BACKGROUND

EUS-guided FNA can help diagnose and differentiate between various pancreatic and other lesions.The aim of this study was to compare approaches among involved/relevant physicians to the controversies surrounding the use of FNA in EUS.

METHODS

A five-case survey was developed, piloted, and validated. It was collected from a total of 101 physicians, who were all either gastroenterologists (GIs), surgeons or oncologists. The survey compared the management strategies chosen by members of these relevant disciplines regarding EUS-guided FNA.

RESULTS

For CT operable T2NOM0 pancreatic tumors the research demonstrated variance as to whether to undertake EUS-guided FNA, at p < 0.05. For inoperable pancreatic tumors 66.7% of oncologists, 62.2% of surgeons and 79.1% of GIs opted for FNA (p < 0.05). For cystic pancreatic lesions, oncologists were more likely to send patients to surgery without FNA. For stable simple pancreatic cysts (23 mm), most physicians (66.67%) did not recommend FNA. For a submucosal gastric 19 mm lesion, 63.2% of surgeons recommended FNA, vs. 90.0% of oncologists (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Controversies as to ideal application of EUS-FNA persist. Optimal guidelines should reflect the needs and concerns of the multidisciplinary team who treat patients who need EUS-FNA. Multi-specialty meetings assembled to manage patients with these disorders may be enlightening and may help develop consensus.