Does on-site adequacy evaluation reduce the nondiagnostic rate in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic lesions?

Advances in diagnostic liquid-based cytology

Liquid-based cytology (LBC) has changed the landscape of gynaecological cytology. A growing demand exists for LBC in diagnostic cytology, particularly for ancillary testing, such as immunocytochemistry and molecular testing. Ancillary testing solely based on conventional preparation (CP) methods remains challenging. Recently, the increased demand for specialist testing and minimally invasive techniques, such as endoscopic ultrasonography fine-needle aspiration, to obtain cellular samples has led to an increasing demand for ancillary testing on cytology LBC supernatant, slides and cell block (CB). This facilitates the diagnosis and prognosis in cytology samples enabling personalized treatment. An understanding of the history and future prospects of LBC is crucial for its application in routine diagnostics by cytopathologists and cytotechnologists. In this review, we initiated an internet search using the keyword 'liquid-based cytology', and we conducted a literature review to discuss the usefulness of combined diagnosis of LBC and CP, immunocytochemistry and molecular testing and assessed the quality of nucleic acids in diagnostic LBC. High-quality and cell-rich diagnostic LBC surpassed the CP method alone in terms of reliability and versatility of ancillary testing in cytological diagnosis. Conclusively, diagnostic LBC lends itself to various new technologies and is expected to continue evolving with innovations in the future.

Tissue processing of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration specimens from solid pancreatic lesions

Now that tissue cores can be obtained using fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles, the ways tissues are handled for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) are changing. Direct smear, touch smear of core tissues, and centrifugation have been used for cytological examinations, and liquid-based cytology (LBC), which allows immunostaining and genetic tests that use residual samples, is emerging as an alternative. We emphasize that liquid cytology (Cytospin™ cytology and LBC) is still important, because it enables the diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) when cancerous cells are scarce in specimens. Cell blocks are being replaced by core tissues obtained via FNB needles. Recent reports indicate that rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) is not necessary when FNB needles are used, and macroscopic on-site evaluation is used to evaluate specimen adequacy. Macroscopic findings of specimens are helpful in the diagnostic workup and for clarifying specimen-handling methods. In addition to the red strings and white cores observed in PDAC, mixed red and white strings, gray tissues, and gelatinous tissues are observed. Gray (necrotic) tissues and gelatinous (mucus) tissues are more suitable than histology for cell block or cytological processing. Tumor cells in neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are numerous in red strings but cannot be observed macroscopically. ROSE might thus be necessary for lesions that may be NETs. Core tissues can be used for genetic tests, such as those used for KRAS mutations and comprehensive genomic profiling. Cytological materials, including slides and LBC specimens, can also be genetic test materials.

KRAS Mutation Testing on Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration Samples Improves the Diagnostic Accuracy of Pancreatic Cancer

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) cytology was one of the investigations for pancreatic masses. While the specificity approached 100%, its sensitivity remained low because of high rate of indeterminate and false-negative results. Meanwhile, KRAS gene was frequently mutated in up to 90% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and its precursor lesions. This study aimed to determine whether KRAS mutation analysis could improve the diagnostic sensitivity in EUS-FNA samples for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

The EUS-FNA samples from patients with a pancreatic mass obtained between January 2016 and December 2017 were reviewed retrospectively. The cytology results were classified as malignant, suspicious for malignancy, atypical, negative for malignancy, and nondiagnostic. KRAS mutation testing was performed using polymerase chain reaction followed by Sanger sequencing.

RESULTS

A total of 126 EUS-FNA specimens were reviewed. The overall sensitivity and specificity by cytology alone were 29% and 100%, respectively. When KRAS mutation testing was performed in cases with indeterminate and negative cytology, the sensitivity increased to 74.2%, and the specificity remained at 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

KRAS mutation analysis, especially when performed in cytologically indeterminate cases, improves the diagnostic accuracy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. This may reduce the need to repeat invasive EUS-FNA for diagnosis.

Impact of rapid on-site evaluation on diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions: experience from a single center

BACKGROUND

The use of ROSE in EUS-FNA pancreatic lesions is still controversial in many centers. In this study, we aimed to demonstrate the contribution of ROSE to the diagnostic accuracy, as well as its assistance to the pathologist/cytopathologist.

METHODS

162 EUS-FNA biopsies were included in the study. EUS-FNA cytology results were reported according to the six-tiered system of Papanicolaou Cytopathology Society and compared to their final diagnosis with histopathology and/or clinical follow-ups regarding malignancy. The diagnostic yield, the difference in diagnostic accuracy, and the contribution of ROSE to providing the pathologist with adequate tissue uptake (number of slides and cell blocks) for further examination were compared in the ROSE and non-ROSE patient groups.

RESULTS

In the non-ROSE group, the diagnostic accuracy according to the final diagnoses was 96% and the sensitivity was 94.44%, specificity 100%, PPV 100%, NPV 87.50%; while diagnostic accuracy was 97.09%, sensitivity 97.47%, specificity 95.83%, PPV 98.77%, NPV 92% in patients with ROSE. There was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between those with and without ROSE (p: 0.078). In diagnostic cases, the number of passes, slides and cell blocks were significantly higher in patients with ROSE than those without ROSE (p: 0.003, p: 0.007, p: 0.012, respectively). ROSE was independently associated with diagnostic yield when evaluated by number of passes, slides, cell blocks in regression analysis (p: 0.001, OR: 5.07, confidence interval: 1.89-13.5).

CONCLUSION

ROSE may increase the acquisition of sufficient tissue, but it does not have an advantage in diagnostic accuracy. ROSE may raise the number of slides, which may assist the pathologist for the diagnosis. If the lesion is solid and/or contains a solid component, diagnostic yield is higher in patients where ROSE is available. Therefore, ROSE still maintains its applicability in terms of increasing the diagnostic efficiency and making the final diagnosis.

The diagnostic performance of combined conventional cytology with smears and cell block preparation obtained from endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for intra-abdominal mass lesions

BACKGROUND/AIM

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the primary method for tissue acquisition of intra-abdominal masses. However, the main limitation of cytology alone is the lack of tissue architecture and inadequate samples. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of combined conventional cytology and cell block preparation obtained from EUS-FNA of intra-abdominal masses without Rapid On-site Evaluation (ROSE).

METHODS

Cytologic smears and cell block slides of 166 patients undergoing EUS-FNA during 2010-2015 were reviewed by an experienced cytopathologist blinded to clinical data.

RESULTS

125 patients had neoplastic lesions. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma was the most common etiology (35.5%), followed by lymph node metastasis (27.7%). The mean mass size was 2.5±1.3 cm. The mean number of passes was 1.9±1.28. Tissue adequacy for conventional cytology and cell block preparation was 78.9% and 78.1%, respectively. Factors associated with tissue adequacy were assessed. For cytology, lesions of > 2.1 cm, masses in the pancreatic body or tail, malignancy, and pancreatic cancer were positively associated with adequate cellularity. For cell block preparation, lesions of > 3 cm and malignancy were associated with increased tissue adequacy. The conventional cytology alone had a sensitivity of 68.5%, a specificity of 95.7%, and an area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) of 0.821. The cell block preparation alone had a sensitivity of 65.4%, a specificity of 96%, and an AUROC of 0.807. The combined conventional cytology and cell block preparation performed significantly better than either method alone (p<0.05), as demonstrated by an increased AUROC of 0.853. Furthermore, cell block detected malignancy in 9.3% of cases where the cytologic smears failed to identify malignant cells.

CONCLUSIONS

The combined conventional cytology and cell block preparation increased the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA compared to either method alone. This approach should be implemented in routine practice, especially where ROSE is unavailable.

[Clinical and Technical Guideline for Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Tissue Acquisition of Pancreatic Solid Tumor: Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy]

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence- based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.

Clinical and Technical Guideline for Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-Guided Tissue Acquisition of Pancreatic Solid Tumor: Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE)

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a task force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice. (Gut Liver 2021;15:-374)

Clinical and Technical Guideline for Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-Guided Tissue Acquisition of Pancreatic Solid Tumor: Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE)

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in 8 categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.

Optimizing cytological specimens of EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions: A pilot study to the effect of a smear preparation training for endoscopy personnel on sample quality and accuracy

BACKGROUND

In the absence of rapid on-side pathological evaluation, endoscopy staff generally "smears" endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) specimens on a glass slide. As this technique is vulnerable to preparation artifacts, we assessed if its quality could be improved through a smear-preparation-training for endoscopy staff.

METHODS

In this prospective pilot study, 10 endosonographers and 12 endoscopy nurses from seven regional EUS-centers in the Netherlands were invited to participate in a EUS-FNA smear-preparation-training. Subsequently, post training slides derived from solid pancreatic lesions were compared to pre-training "control" slides. Primary outcome was to assess if the training positively affects smear quality and, consequently, diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions.

RESULTS

Participants collected and prepared 71 cases, mostly pancreatic head lesions (48%). Sixty-eight controls were selected from the pretraining period. The presence of artifacts was comparable for smears performed before and after training (76% vs 82%, P = .36). Likewise, smear cellularity (≥50% target cells) before and after training did not differ (44% (30/68) vs 49% (35/71), P = .48). Similar, no difference in diagnostic accuracy for malignancy was detected (P = .10).

CONCLUSION

In this pilot EUS-FNA smear-preparation-training for endoscopy personnel, smear quality and diagnostic accuracy were not improved after the training. Based on these results, we plan to further study other training programs and possibilities.

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.

Diagnostic yield and agreement on fine-needle specimens from solid pancreatic lesions : comparing the smear technique to liquid-based cytology

Background and study aims  The traditional "smear technique" for processing and assessing endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is sensitive to artifacts. Processing and evaluation of specimens collected in a liquid medium, liquid-based cytology (LBC) may be a solution. We compared the diagnostic value of EUS-FNA smears to LBC in pancreatic solid lesions in the absence of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE). Patients and methods  Consecutive patients who required EUS-FNA of a solid pancreatic lesion were included in seven hospitals in the Netherlands and followed for at least 12 months. Specimens from the first pass were split into two smears and a vial for LBC (using ThinPrep and/or Cell block). Smear and LBC were compared in terms of diagnostic accuracy for malignancy, sample quality, and diagnostic agreement between three cytopathologists. Results  Diagnostic accuracy for malignancy was higher for LBC (82 % (58/71)) than for smear (66 % (47/71), P  = 0.04), but did not differ when smears were compared to ThinPrep (71 % (30/42), P  = 0.56) or Cell block (62 % (39/63), P  = 0.61) individually. Artifacts were less often present in ThinPrep (57 % (24/42), P  = 0.02) or Cell block samples (40 % (25/63), P  < 0.001) than smears (76 % (54/71)). Agreement on malignancy was equally good for smears and LBC (ĸ = 0.71 versus ĸ = 0.70, P  = 0.98), but lower for ThinPrep (ĸ = 0.26, P  = 0.01) than smears. Conclusion  After a single pass, LBC provides higher diagnostic accuracy than the conventional smear technique for EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions in the absence of ROSE. Therefore, LBC, may be an alternative to the conventional smear technique, especially in centers lacking ROSE.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration and Biopsy in Gastrointestinal Subepithelial Tumors

The incidence of asymptomatic and incidentally found upper gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors (SETs) is increasing with the implementation of national cancer screening and the development of high-resolution endoscopy in Korea. However, endoscopy alone cannot be used to determine whether SETs are benign or malignant. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is used to further characterize these lesions through the examination of their layered structure, internal echogenicity, size, and relationship to the extramural structure. These provide additional information on whether the lesion is benign or malignant. Nevertheless, the sensitivity and specificity of EUS alone in predicting malignancy is unsatisfactory. Recent guidelines have recommended deciding the timing of EUS-fine needle aspiration and biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) for SETs based on tumor size, malignant features on endoscopy, and high-risk features on EUS. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA/B is reportedly influenced by factors including needle size, number of needle passes, use of suction, use of a stylet in the needle assembly, fanning technique, availability of an on-site cytopathologist, and experience of the endosonographer. Therefore, according to the characteristics of the SETs, various subsequent methods and techniques should be appropriately employed to improve the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA/B.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Pathological and Molecular Aspects to Improve Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration From Solid Pancreatic Lesions

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has been applied to pancreatic lesions since the 1990s, and its use is now widespread. Improvements in endoscopic devices and sampling techniques have resulted in excellent diagnostic ability for solid pancreatic lesions. However, clinical improvements alone are not responsible for it; pathological aspects have also played important roles. Rapid on-site evaluation minimizes endoscopic procedures, although its value at improving the diagnostic ratio is still debated. Diagnostic efficacy differs by sample preparations (direct smear, cytospin, liquid-based cytology, cell block, and biopsy) and by staining methods (Papanicoloau, Diff-Quik, hematoxylin-eosin, and Giemsa). Several immunocytochemistry protocols aid in diagnosing epithelial components with cytological atypia and in differentiating various tumor types. One cytopathology diagnostic system is telecytology, which uses transmitted digital images and enables real-time diagnosis of EUS-FNA samples by expert cytologists at remote locations. However, EUS-FNA samples are useful for more than just diagnoses, as molecular analysis of these samples allows the identification of prognostic markers, such as genetic alterations in K-ras and EGFR. Expression of drug-metabolizing enzymes, human equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1, correlates with the response to gemcitabine-based chemotherapy. These pathology efforts have enhanced the diagnostic efficacy of EUS-FNA, thereby leading to better outcomes for patients with pancreatic diseases.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration: What variables influence diagnostic yield?

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) plays an important role in the diagnosis of various lesions. We sought to determine factors that influence the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA, specifically, the presence of a cytopathologist, FNA site, and the endoscopist's skill.

METHODS

The data on cytopathologist's availability, duration of procedure, number of passes made, and diagnostic material for cell block (CB) preparation was collected over an 18 months period.

RESULTS

230 specimens (218 patients) were obtained from pancreas (114), lymph node (64), submucosal lesions of the gastrointestinal tract (27), liver (8), and miscellaneous (17) sites. The results were classified as informative (77.8%) and non-informative (NI) (22.2%). The NI rate was significantly high, when a cytopathologist was absent (P = .0008). As the likelihood of cytopathologist's presence increased from 35.8% to 82.9%, the CB quality increased (P < .0001). In the absence of a cytopathologist, the likelihood of NI result increased more than 2-fold (P = .03) and of an inadequate CB increased 3-fold (P < .0001). The more experienced endoscopist "C" (compared to the less experienced "A + B") was less likely to get inadequate material (40.5% vs. 66.3%) (P = .0001).

CONCLUSION

The diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA is significantly related to the presence of an on-site cytopathologist and endoscopist's skill in procuring diagnostic material.

KRAS mutation testing on all non-malignant diagnosis of pancreatic endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsies improves diagnostic accuracy

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the procedure of choice for the cytologic diagnosis of pancreatic masses. The specificity of EUS-FNA approaches 100%, but the sensitivity is still low, and the high rate of indeterminate (atypical and suspicious) and false-negative results needs improvement. KRAS gene is frequently mutated in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) (up to 90%), and mutation analysis of KRAS has been proposed as diagnostic biomarker of PDAC. In most laboratories, KRAS mutation testing is performed by Sanger sequencing or real time-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR), but these methods may give false-negative results in routine samples, mainly due to low cellularity. In order to increase the sensitivity of EUS-FNA, we propose a sequential approach for detecting KRAS mutations using mutant enriched-PCR (ME-PCR, sensitivity up to 0.1%) in cytologically indeterminate and negative samples tested wild-type by RT-qPCR. EUS-FNA specimens from 107 patients with pancreatic masses (51 males, 56 females, mean age 67 years) were cytologically examined. According to the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology guidelines, 50 cases (47%) were classified malignant, 15 (14%) suspicious, 13 (12%) atypical and 10 (9%) negative for malignancy; 18 cases (17%) were non-diagnostic. The overall specificity and sensitivity of cytological examination were 100% and 61%, respectively, when only negative and positive cases were considered; when atypical and suspicious were added to positive cases, the sensitivity increased to 95.1% and the specificity decreased to 85.7%. In all the cases, DNA was extracted from the cell-block and KRAS mutations were investigated by RT-qPCR, followed by ME-PCR in non-amplifiable and negative cases. The overall sensitivity and specificity of KRAS mutation testing alone were 79.3% and 100%; when KRAS mutation testing was performed in indeterminate and negative cytology, the sensitivity increased to 90% with specificity to 100%. Our data indicate that conventional cytology from EUS-FNA samples is highly specific for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Indeterminate and negative cases need to be screened for KRAS mutations; this two-step approach may greatly improve the diagnostic accuracy of this method.

Imaging modalities for characterising focal pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Percutaneous CT-guided needle biopsies of musculoskeletal tumors: a 5-year analysis of non-diagnostic biopsies

OBJECTIVE

To study non-diagnostic CT-guided musculoskeletal biopsies and take steps to minimize them. Specifically we asked: (1) What malignant diagnoses have a higher non-diagnostic rate? (2) What factors of a non-diagnostic biopsy may warrant more aggressive pursuit? (3) Do intra-procedural frozen pathology (FP) or point-of-care (POC) cytology reduce the non-diagnostic biopsy rate?

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was IRB-approved and HIPAA-compliant. We retrospectively reviewed 963 consecutive CT-guided musculoskeletal biopsies. We categorized pathology results as malignant, benign, or non-diagnostic and recorded use of FP or POC cytology. Initial biopsy indication, final diagnosis, method of obtaining the final diagnosis of non-diagnostic biopsies, age of the patient, and years of biopsy attending experience were recorded. Groups were compared using Pearson's χ(2) test or Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

In all, 140 of 963 (15%) biopsies were non-diagnostic. Lymphoma resulted in more non-diagnostic biopsies (P < 0.0001). While 67% of non-diagnostic biopsies yielded benign diagnoses, 33% yielded malignant diagnoses. Patients whose percutaneous biopsy was indicated due to the clinical context without malignancy history almost always generated benign results (96%). Whereas 56% of biopsies whose indication was an imaging finding of a treatable lesion were malignant, 20% of biopsies whose indication was a history of malignancy were malignant. There was no statistically significant difference in the nondiagnostic biopsy rates of pediatric versus adult patients (P = 0.8) and of biopsy attendings with fewer versus more years of experience (P = 0.5). The non-diagnostic rates of biopsies with FP (8%), POC cytology (25%), or neither (24%) were significantly different (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Lymphoma is the malignant diagnosis most likely to result in a non-diagnostic biopsy. If the clinical and radiologic suspicion for malignancy is high, repeat biopsy is warranted. If the clinical context suggests a benign lesion, a non-diagnostic biopsy may be considered reassuring. Frozen pathology may decrease the non-diagnostic biopsy rate.

The clinical impact of immediate on-site cytopathology evaluation during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic masses: a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Observational data on the impact of on-site cytopathology evaluation (OCE) during endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of pancreatic masses have reported conflicting results. We aimed to compare the diagnostic yield of malignancy and proportion of inadequate specimens between patients undergoing EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses with and without OCE.

METHODS

In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, consecutive patients with solid pancreatic mass underwent randomization for EUS-FNA with or without OCE. The number of FNA passes in the OCE+ arm was dictated by the on-site cytopathologist, whereas seven passes were performed in OCE- arm. EUS-FNA protocol was standardized, and slides were reviewed by cytopathologists using standardized criteria for cytologic characteristics and diagnosis.

RESULTS

A total of 241 patients (121 OCE+, 120 OCE-) were included. There was no difference between the two groups in diagnostic yield of malignancy (OCE+ 75.2% vs. OCE- 71.6%, P=0.45) and proportion of inadequate specimens (9.8 vs. 13.3%, P=0.31). Procedures in OCE+ group required fewer EUS-FNA passes (median, OCE+ 4 vs. OCE- 7, P<0.0001). There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to overall procedure time, adverse events, number of repeat procedures, costs (based on baseline cost-minimization analysis), and accuracy (using predefined criteria for final diagnosis of malignancy). There was no difference between the two groups with respect to cytologic characteristics of cellularity, bloodiness, number of cells/slide, and contamination.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this study demonstrated no significant difference in the diagnostic yield of malignancy, proportion of inadequate specimens, and accuracy in patients with pancreatic mass undergoing EUS-FNA with or without OCE.

Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsy Specimens: Adequate Diagnostic Yield and Accuracy Can Be Achieved without On-Site Evaluation

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNA) is the preferred method for biopsying the gastrointestinal tract, and rapid on-site cytological evaluation is considered standard practice. Our institution does not perform on-site evaluation; this study analyzes our overall diagnostic yield, accuracy, and incidence of nondiagnostic cases to determine the validity of this strategy.

DESIGN

Data encompassing clinical information, procedural records, and cytological assessment were analyzed for gastrointestinal EUS-FNA procedures (n = 85) performed at Vancouver General Hospital from January 2012 to January 2013. We compared our results with those of studies that had on-site evaluation and studies that did not have on-site evaluation.

RESULTS

Eighty-five biopsies were performed in 78 patients, from sites that included the pancreas, the stomach, the duodenum, lymph nodes, and retroperitoneal masses. Malignancies were diagnosed in 45 (53%) biopsies, while 24 (29%) encompassed benign entities. Suspicious and atypical results were recorded in 8 (9%) and 6 (7%) cases, respectively. Only 2 (2%) cases received a cytological diagnosis of 'nondiagnostic'. Our overall accuracy was 72%, our diagnostic yield was 98%, and our nondiagnostic rate was 2%. Our results did not significantly differ from those of studies that did have on-site evaluation.

CONCLUSION

Our study highlights that adequate diagnostic accuracy can be achieved without on-site evaluation.

Rapid on-site evaluation for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy of the pancreas decreases the incidence of repeat biopsy procedures

BACKGROUND

Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) biopsy of the pancreas provides immediate feedback regarding cellular adequacy to aid in obtaining a definitive diagnosis and has the potential to avoid repeat procedures. The objective of the current study was to measure the impact of ROSE service on the incidence of repeat EUS FNA biopsy procedures.

METHODS

Over a consecutive 3-year period, the pathology database at Washington University Medical Center was searched for patients with both an initial and subsequent EUS FNA biopsy demonstrating a solid lesion of the pancreas. These were divided temporally between the time before and after the introduction of ROSE service. Reports were reviewed and results were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 379 patients underwent ROSE service and 377 patients did not. The percentage of repeat non-ROSE EUS FNA cases was 5.8% and the percentage of repeat ROSE EUS FNA cases was 2.9%. The use of the ROSE service was found to decrease the number of repeat procedures by approximately 50% (P = .024). For those patients who underwent a repeat EUS-FNA procedure, the ROSE service provided a higher rate of definitive diagnosis among patients undergoing repeat procedures (67%) versus the non-ROSE cohort (27%).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of ROSE for EUS-FNA biopsy of the pancreas was found to result in fewer patients undergoing repeat procedures. Patients who required a repeat procedure with the use of ROSE had a higher percentage of definitive diagnostic categorization on the repeat biopsy. Initial use of ROSE for EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions was found to decrease the number of patients who required a repeat procedure.

Rapid on-site evaluation of EUS-FNA by cytopathologist: an experience of a tertiary hospital

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided-fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the preferred modality nowadays for the cytological diagnosis of various mediastinal and gastrointestinal lesions. Onsite cytopathology interpretation is not available in most centers. The objective of this study is to assess whether rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) by cytopathologist of the tissue samples improves the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA. This study is a retrospective review of all 646 patients undergoing EUS-FNA between January 2009 and October 2012 in our hospital. Patients in group I had cytology slides prepared by an endoscopy nurse. Patients in group II had cytology slides prepared, stained and assessed for adequacy of tissue sampling by a cytopathologist onsite. The adequacy of the samples and the final cytopathological diagnosis (definitely positive, definitely negative, inconclusive, or inadequate) was compared between the two groups. A total of 425 EUS-FNA procedures were performed in 375 patients in group I and 271 EUS-FNA procedures in 271 patients in group II. The mean of needle passes in group I was 3.12 passes per patient and 3.24 passes in group II. The difference in the number of needle passes was not statistically significant (P = 0.30). The final diagnosis was definite in 64.8% in group I compared with 97.7 % in group II (P = 0.001). The percentage of inconclusive and inadequate diagnoses was 5.6% and 29.3%, respectively in group I and 0% and 2.3% in group II (P = 0.001). In conclusion, ROSE by cytopathologist and interpretation significantly improves the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA.

Rapid on-site evaluation increases endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration adequacy for pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND

Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) has the potential to improve adequacy rates and affect other outcomes; however, there have been few comparative studies to assess the impact of ROSE in the setting of ultrasound-guided endoscopic fine-needle aspiration cytology for pancreatic lesions.

AIMS

To determine whether ROSE improves adequacy rates of endoscopic fine-needle aspiration cytology for pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting a head-to-head comparison of adequacy or diagnostic accuracy (with ROSE vs. without ROSE) at a single site.

RESULTS

ROSE was associated with a statistically significant (p < 0.001) improvement in the adequacy rate (average 10 %, 95 % CI: 5-24 %). The impact of ROSE depends on the per-pass adequacy rate without ROSE. ROSE had no impact on diagnostic yield (p < 0.76).

CONCLUSIONS

ROSE is associated with an improvement in adequacy rates when implemented at sites where the per-case adequacy rate without ROSE is low (<90 %). It is unclear whether the type of assessor (pathologist vs. non-pathologist) has a significant impact on the success rate of ROSE. ROSE has no impact on diagnostic yield. Studies should employ head-to-head comparisons of cohorts with and without ROSE at a single location.