Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional preparations in pancreatic fine-needle aspiration biopsy

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.

Factors affecting the diagnostic value of liquid-based cytology by EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of pancreatic cystic neoplasms

Background and Objectives

This study retrospectively evaluated the value of liquid-based cytology (LBC) alone for diagnosing pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCNs) in a large sample and initially estimated factors that might affect LBC diagnostic ability.

Methods

From April 2015 to October 2022, we prospectively enrolled 331 patients with suspected PCNs in our prospective database. Among them, 112 patients chosen to receive surgical resection were included. Only 96 patients who underwent EUS-guided cystic fluid LBC were finally studied. The diagnostic values of LBC for differentiating benign and malignant PCNs and subtypes of PCNs were evaluated.

Results

There were 71 female and 25 male patients with a mean age of 47.6 ± 14.4 years. The median cyst size was 43.4 mm. The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of LBC for the differentiation of benign and malignant PCNs were 96.9%, 57.1%, 100%, 100%, and 96.7%, respectively. The overall diagnostic accuracy of LBC for specific cyst types was 33.3% (32/96). Cysts located in the pancreatic body/tail or with irregular shapes were more likely to obtain a definite LBC diagnosis. At the same time, age, sex, tumor size, cystic fluid viscosity, operation time, needle type, and presence of septation were not significantly different.

Conclusion

Liquid-based cytology alone is useful for differentiating benign PCNs from malignant PCNs and can successfully characterize the PCN subtypes in one-third of patients. Pancreatic cystic neoplasms located in the body/tail or exhibiting irregular shapes are more likely to obtain a definite LBC diagnosis.

Evaluation of a Novel Fixative Solution for Liquid-Based Cytology in Diagnostic Cytopathology

Since its introduction in the early 2000s, liquid-based cytology (LBC) has been increasingly used for gynecologic and non-gynecologic cytology, and its multiple advantages have been widely recognized. The aim of this study was to investigate the use of a new fixative and pre-analytical method for morphological diagnosis in cytological samples. In particular, we evaluated the effect of a novel preservative solution on the preparation of diagnostic slides by comparing it with the standard reference used globally in cytology laboratories. This study included both gynecological (n = 139) and non-gynecological (n = 183) samples. Several morphologic variables were then identified and evaluated. Using this approach, we were then able to demonstrate the suitability of the new system, with improved safety, to be integrated within current pathology clinical practice. Overall, using a safer preservative solution, the study shows no statistical difference (and then non-inferiority) in the new fixation protocol compared with the standard reference used in routine practice in terms of diagnostic adequacy, evaluated both in clinically relevant gyn and non-gyn datasets.

A prospective randomized noninferiority trial comparing conventional smears and SurePathTM liquid-based cytology in endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of esophageal, gastric, and duodenal lesions

BACKGROUND

Several liquid-based cytology (LBC) methods are currently used, but the diagnostic accuracy of each method is not well known. We aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of SurePathTM LBC and conventional smear (CS) cytology in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) samples of esophageal, gastric, and duodenal lesions.

METHODS

As a prospective randomized noninferiority study, patients who needed EUS-FNA due to subepithelial mass in the upper gastrointestinal tract were randomly assigned 1:1 to the LBC and CS groups. Cytologic preparation was carried out using a crossover design where 1 method was used for the first needle-pass sample and another method was used for the second needle-pass sample. The primary outcome was to compare the diagnostic performance between LBC and CS using the final diagnosis as the gold standard.

RESULTS

A total of 87 patients were randomized and 60 patients were analyzed. There were no differences between LBC and CS in diagnostic accuracy (91.7% vs 86.7%, P = .380), sensitivity (97.7% vs 90.7%, P = .169), specificity (76.5% vs 76.5%, P > .99), negative predictive value (92.9% vs 76.5%, P = .225), or positive predictive value (91.3% vs 90.7%, P = .921). The background of LBC was less bloody than that of CSs (5.0% vs 53.3%, P < .001) and the sample preparation time of LBC was shorter than that of CSs (29 ± 7 seconds vs 90 ± 17 seconds, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

In the EUS-FNA of a subepithelial mass in the upper gastrointestinal tract, the diagnostic performance of LBC was not inferior to that of CS. The field of view was better in LBC, because the background was less bloody and necrotic. As LBC is more convenient to perform and takes shorter time, it is expected that it can replace the CS method for EUS-FNA samples.

The usefulness of liquid-based cytology for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic masses

Liquid-based cytology (LBC) is used primarily for cervical cytology, although it is also used for analyzing liquid samples such as urine and ascites specimens, as well as fine needle aspiration material, such as those obtained from breast and thyroid. The usefulness of the LBC method for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) of solid pancreatic masses was recently reported. The LBC method can produce multiple pathological slides and can be applied to immunocytochemistry and genetic analyses. In this article, we review the usefulness of LBC for EUS-TA of solid pancreatic masses.

Comparison of smear cytology with liquid-based cytology in pancreatic lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a safe and accurate technique to confirm the diagnosis of pancreatic cancers. Recently, numerous studies comparing the diagnostic efficacy of smear cytology (SC) and liquid-based cytology (LBC) for pancreatic lesions yielded mixed results.

AIM

To compare and identify the better cytology method for EUS-FNA in pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane was undertaken through July 18, 2020. The primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity). Secondary outcomes included sample adequacy and post procedure complications. In addition, factors affecting diagnostic efficacy were discussed.

RESULTS

Data on a total of 1121 comparisons from 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. Pooled rates of sensitivity for SC and LBC were 78% (67%-87%) vs 75% (67%-81%), respectively. In any case, both SC and LBC exhibited a high specificity close to 100%. Inadequate samples more often appeared in LBC compared with SC. However, the LBC samples exhibited a better visual field than SC. Very few post procedure complications were observed.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggested that for EUS-FNA in pancreatic lesions (particularly solid lesions), SC with Rapid On-Site Evaluation represents a superior diagnostic technique. If Rapid On-Site Evaluation is unavailable, LBC may replace smears. The diagnostic accuracy of LBC depends on different LBC techniques.

Comparison of EUS-guided conventional smear and liquid-based cytology in pancreatic lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has limitations of inadequate sampling and false-negative results for malignancy. It has been performed using conventional smear (CS) cytology with rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) with reasonable diagnostic accuracy. An alternative to ROSE is liquid-based cytology (LBC). Commonly used LBC techniques include precipitation-based (SurePath™) and filtration-based (ThinPrep ^® , CellPrep ^® ). Data regarding the diagnostic efficacy of LBC compared with CS are limited. Methods  Multiple databases were searched through March 2020 to identify studies reporting diagnostic yield of EUS-guided CS and LBC in pancreatic lesions. Pooled diagnostic odds and rates of performance for the cytologic diagnoses of benign, suspicious, and malignant lesions were calculated. Diagnostic efficacy was evaluated by pooled rates of accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). Results  Nine studies with a total of 1308 patients were included in our final analysis. Pooled diagnostic odds of CS cytology were 1.69 (CI 1.02-2.79) and 0.39 (CI 0.19-0.8) for malignant lesions when compared to filtration-based and precipitation-based LBC techniques, respectively. For CS, precipitation-based and filtration-based LBC, pooled diagnostic accuracy was 79.7 %, 85.2 %, 77.3 %, sensitivity was 79.2 %, 83.6 %, 68.3 %, and specificity was 99.4 %, 99.5 %, 99.5 %, respectively. Conclusions  The precipitation-based LBC technique (SurePath™) had superior diagnostic odds for malignant pancreatic lesions compared with CS cytology in the absence of ROSE. It showed superior accuracy and sensitivity, but comparable specificity and PPV. Diagnostic odds of CS cytology in the absence of ROSE were superior to the filtration-based LBC technique (ThinPrep ^® , Cellprep ^® ) for diagnosing malignant pancreatic lesions.

Nondiagnostic fine-needle aspirates of the pancreas: A root cause analysis

BACKGROUND

Fine-needle aspiration (FNA) of the pancreas is considered the primary and least invasive diagnostic method in the evaluation of pancreatic lesions. A nondiagnostic sample may trigger repeat FNA or a more invasive diagnostic procedure. The goal of this study was to identify the root causes of nondiagnostic samples.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of FNAs of the pancreas categorized as nondiagnostic at our institution between 2008 and 2019. Medical records and slides were reviewed to identify the features described by imaging, rapid on-site evaluation, fluid chemistry, final cytology diagnosis, and final histology. A root cause analysis was performed using the Ishikawa (or fishbone) diagram and the 5 Whys method.

RESULTS

A total of 30 cases were identified: 11 adenocarcinomas, 6 cases of pancreatitis, 4 intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms, 3 serous cystadenomas, 3 neuroendocrine tumors, 1 mucinous cystic neoplasm, 1 retention cyst, and 1 case of Brunner gland hyperplasia. The root causes identified were: man in 8 cases, machine in 1 case, method in 17 cases, and material in 18 cases. In many cases, more than 1 root cause contributed to the problem.

CONCLUSION

Material related errors contributed to the majority of nondiagnostic results and were primarily related to fibrotic cancers, chronic pancreatitis, absence of diagnostic criteria of cystic lesions, and technically challenging cases. Only 1 major interpretation error was identified. Sampling and interpretive errors contributed equally to man-related causes. For mucinous cysts, neoplastic mucin was difficult to identify in liquid-based preparations. Pathologists tended to issue a nondiagnostic categorization when epithelial cells are lacking and particularly when the nature and radiological impression of the cyst was not communicated.

Comparison between Conventional Smear and Liquid-Based Preparation in Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology of Pancreatic Lesions

The present study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy between conventional smear (CS) and liquid-based preparation (LBP) in endoscopic ultrasonography-fine needle aspiration cytology (EUS-FNAC) of pancreatic lesions. Using 31 eligible studies, the diagnostic accuracy of cytologic examination in CS and LBP was evaluated through a conventional meta-analysis and diagnostic test accuracy review. Overall concordance rates were 82.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 79.8–85.5%) and 94.0% (95% CI, 84.4–97.8%) in CS and LBP, respectively. CS with rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) showed a higher concordance rate than CS without ROSE. In CS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 89.8% (95% CI, 85.2–93.1%) and 95.0% (95% CI, 90.0–97.6%), respectively. The diagnostic odds ratio (OR) and area under curve (AUC) of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve were 90.32 (95% CI, 43.85–147.11) and 0.945, respectively. In LBP, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 80.9% (95% CI, 69.7–88.7%) and 99.9% (95% CI, 1.5–100.0%), respectively. The diagnostic OR and AUC of the SROC curve were 57.21 (95% CI, 23.61–138.64) and 0.939, respectively. Higher concordance rates were found in CS with ROSE and LBP in EUS-FNAC of pancreatic lesions. Regardless of the cytologic preparation method, EUS-FNAC is a useful and accurate diagnostic tool for pancreatic lesions.

Comparison of smear cytology and liquid-based cytology in EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic lesions: experience from a large tertiary center

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Studies comparing the diagnostic efficacy of liquid-based cytology (LBC) and smear cytology (SC) of pancreatic tissue sampling obtained via EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) are still insufficient, mainly because results were controversial. We compared the diagnostic efficiency of LBC and SC of EUS-FNA of pancreatic lesions in one of the largest tertiary hospitals in China.

METHODS

A retrospective database search (January 2015 to January 2019) was performed for patients who underwent EUS-FNA with both LBC and SC. Demographic, cytologic, and endosonographic data were collected from 819 patients; 514 cases met the inclusion criteria. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were compared. Rapid on-site evaluation was not available in all cases.

RESULTS

Three hundred eighty-five cases (74.90%) had confirmed malignancy, and 40 cases (7.78%) confirmed benign neoplasm. Adequate tissue sampling rates showed no significant difference between the 2 groups. The sensitivity, accuracy, and negative predictive value (NPV) of LBC were higher than those of SC with statistical significance (71.4% vs 55.1%, 76.1% vs 61.6%, and 40.6% vs 27.7%, respectively). The sensitivity, accuracy, and NPV of combined SC and LBC were higher than those of LBC alone with statistical significance (83.9% vs 71.4%, 86.5% vs 76.1%, and 56.8% vs 40.6%, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed that pancreatic neck/body/tail lesions (P = .003), solid lesions (P < .001), 22-gauge needle size (P < .001), and number of needle passage >3 (P = .041) were associated with higher diagnostic sensitivity in all participants using LBC, whereas number of needle passage >3 (P = .017) was associated with higher diagnostic sensitivity using SC.

CONCLUSIONS

LBC was more accurate and sensitive than SC in EUS-FNA of pancreatic lesions with higher NPV when rapid on-site evaluation is unavailable. Pancreatic neck/body/tail lesions, solid lesions, 22-gauge needle, and more than 3 passes were associated with higher sensitivity when using LBC. Performing more than 3 passes is associated with higher sensitivity when using SC.

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.

SurePath® LBC improves the diagnostic accuracy of intrahepatic and hilar cholangiocarcinoma

INTRODUCTION

The current study aimed to compare cytology using SurePath^® (SP)-LBC and biliary tissue histology (BTH) for the diagnosis of biliary disease.

METHODS

Between January 2014 and December 2016, 57 patients underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for the diagnosis of biliary disease. Biliary cytological samples were processed using SP-LBC and subsequently BTH was performed. A final diagnosis was confirmed by surgery (23 malignant cases) and clinical follow-up (34 benign and malignant cases): 18 extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; 17 intrahepatic/hilar cholangiocarcinoma (intra/H-CC); eight other malignant disease; and 14 benign biliary disease. The diagnoses made using SP-LBC and BTH were classified into four categories: (1) benign; (2) indeterminate; (3) suspicious for malignancy/malignant; and (4) inadequate. In addition, diagnostic accuracy was compared between SP-LBC and BTH.

RESULTS

Although 23% (13/57) of BTH samples were classified as inadequate, all SP-LBC cases were classified as adequate. Among 43 malignant cases, 11 normal, four indeterminate and 28 suspicious for malignancy/malignant were found using SP-LBC (26%, 9% and 65%, respectively), in contrast to 10 inadequate, nine normal, 10 indeterminate and 14 suspicious for malignancy/malignant observed using BTH (23%, 21%, 23%, and 33%, respectively). The identification of malignant cells was strikingly different between SP-LBC and BTH. Furthermore, limited to intra/H-CC, accuracy was significantly higher using SP-LBC than using BTH (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

SP-LBC of the biliary tract is a useful and reliable method for diagnosing biliary malignant disease and has an advantage over BTH for detecting malignant cells and accurately diagnosing intra/H-CC.

Present status and perspectives of endosonography 2017 in gastroenterology

Endoscopic ultrasound has become an essential tool in modern gastroenterology and abdominal surgery. Compared with all other endoscopic methods, it has the most potential for innovation and its future looks bright. Thus, we compiled this summary of established and novel applications of endoscopic ultrasound methods to inform the reader about what is already possible and where future developments will lead in improving patient care further. This review is structured in four parts. The first section reports on developments in diagnostic endoscopic ultrasound, the second looks at semi-invasive endoscopic ultrasound, and the third discusses advances in therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound. An overview on the future prospects of endoscopic ultrasound methods concludes this article.

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided tissue acquisition: How to achieve excellence

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

A diagnostic head and neck fine needle aspiration service can be provided using liquid-based cytology only

OBJECTIVE

Liquid-based cytology (LBC) has been used for non-gynaecological specimens since its introduction into routine use in cervical cytology in the mid-1990s. There are still relatively few large studies comparing performance in reporting the head and neck fine-needle aspirations (H&N FNA) processed by LBC only to conventional direct smears (CDS).

METHODS

This study compared 686 H&N FNAs processed by LBC only with 3719 CDS. All were taken under ultrasound (US) guidance by a small cohort of three consultant radiologists and reported by the author.

RESULTS

The (smaller) LBC sample was statistically representative of the larger CDS population at an alpha level of 0.05. There was no difference between CDS and LBC at a 95% confidence interval (CI) when comparing specificity and sensitivity (specificity: 94.8-96.5% versus 90.2-95.4%; sensitivity: 91.4-94.1% versus 86.8-93.4%). The inadequate rate between the two techniques was similar, 0.5-1.0% for CDS versus 0.7-2.5% for LBC. The significance difference was in the suspicious rate which was greater at 2.8-5.8% for LBC versus 1.7-2.6% for CDS. Consequently, there was a slight but non-significant difference between the two populations with respect to the overall accuracy: 93.5-95.1% for CDS versus 89.4-93.7% for LBC.

CONCLUSIONS

While there are morphological differences between LBC and CDS in H&N FNAs, once a degree of familiarity is achieved, the two techniques have equivalent sensitivity, specificity and inadequate rates.

Comparison of cytologic preparation methods in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

There are few studies about the diagnostic yield of cytologic preparation method of pancreatic samples obtained by Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of ThinPrep(®) and smear method in diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

A total of 125 EUS-FNA procedures were performed between July 2010 and June 2015. Patients in group I (n = 36; July 2010 to June 2014) had cytology slides prepared by consecutive allocation of samples. Patients in group II (n = 12; July 2014 to June 2015) had cytology slides prepared by alternately allocation of samples.

RESULTS

There were 24 men and 24 women (median age: 67 years; range 39-84). The median size of lesions was 3.9 cm (range; 1.4-7.2 cm). The locations of the pancreatic cancer were 10 in head (20.8%), 21 in body (43.8%), and 17 in tail (35.4%). The ThinPrep(®) method confirmed malignancy in 35 of 48 cases (72.9%). On the other hand, the smear method confirmed malignancy in 44 of 48 cases (91.7%). The diagnostic yield of smear method was statistically higher than liquid method (P = 0.012). Also, smear method is superior to liquid method in both consecutive and alternative allocation method. ThinPrep(®) provided a correct diagnosis in one case where the smear method was incorrect.

CONCLUSIONS

Smear method was a superior preparation method to liquid method in diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, even if splitting method was not used and variable allocation method was used.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) has the potential to improve adequacy rates for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of solid pancreatic lesions, but its impact is context-dependent. No studies exist that summarize the relationship between ROSE, number of needle passes, and resulting adequacy rates.

AIMS

To analyze data from previous studies to establish if ROSE is associated with improved adequacy rates; to evaluate the relationship between ROSE, number of needle passes, and the resulting adequacy rates of EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting the adequacy rates for EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions.

RESULTS

The search produced 3822 original studies, of which 70 studies met our inclusion criteria. The overall average adequacy rate was 96.2% (95% confidence interval: 95.5, 96.9). ROSE was associated with a statistically significant improvement of up to 3.5% in adequacy rates. There was heterogeneity in adequacy rates across all subgroups. No association between the assessor type and adequacy rates was found. Studies with ROSE have high per-case adequacy and a relatively high number of needle passes in contrast to non-ROSE studies. ROSE is an effect modifier of the relationship between number of needle passes and adequacy.

CONCLUSIONS

ROSE is associated with up to 3.5% improvement in adequacy rates for EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions. ROSE assessor type has no impact on adequacy rates. ROSE is an effect modifier on the relationship between needle passes and per-case adequacy for EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions.

EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreas tumors

Although endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is considered superior to MRI and CT in detecting pancreatic masses, it is the ability to target and place a needle into suspicious lesions that has made EUS indispensible in the evaluation of patients with solid pancreatic tumors. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided-fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is an accurate and safe technique to confirm the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. EUS-FNA is now the principal technique applied to obtain the diagnosis of malignancy. We have designed this article to address a number of the key technical aspects of EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic masses.

Performance Characteristics of Mucinous (Colloid) Carcinoma of the Breast in Fine-Needle Aspirates: Observations From the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Nongynecologic Cytopathology

Context.—Mucinous breast carcinoma has characteristic cytologic features, but few studies exist that analyze the reproducibility of this diagnosis.

Objective.—To analyze participants' diagnosis of mucinous carcinoma in breast fine-needle aspiration (FNA) slides distributed in an educational interlaboratory peer comparison program.

Design.—Participant responses for FNA slides with a reference diagnosis of mucinous carcinoma, distributed between 2001–2008 in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Nongynecologic Cytopathology, were evaluated for concordance with the general category and reference diagnosis of mucinous carcinoma.

Results.—Of 8061 responses, 6353 (78.8%) were categorized as malignant; 775 (9.6%) as suspicious; and 933 (11.6%) as negative. The most frequent incorrect responses for the benign category included fibroadenoma (51.7%), nonspecified benign lesion (12%), fibrocystic changes (7.8%), and fat necrosis/granulomatosis/foreign body reaction (6.9%). Conventional Papanicolaou-stained preparations were reviewed for 58.7% (4732) of responses; of these, 39.4% (3177) were from modified Giemsa–stained smears and 1.9% (152) from ThinPrep slides. Papanicolaou-stained conventional smears had the lowest concordance (86.5%) when compared to modified Giemsa–stained smears (91.2%) and ThinPrep challenges (92.1%) (P &lt; .001). Participants specifically diagnosed mucinous carcinoma 37.3% of the time, and modified Giemsa–stained challenges performed best (43.1%, P &lt; .001). There was no significant difference between cytotechnologists' and pathologists' responses (87.9% versus 88.2%; P  =  .69).

Conclusions.—Mucinous carcinoma in FNA was not accurately identified in a glass slide interlaboratory comparison program. We observed better performance with modified Giemsa–stained and ThinPrep slides than with Papanicolaou-stained preparations. The most common response for the benign category of mucinous carcinoma was fibroadenoma. Increased awareness of the cytologic features of mucinous carcinoma may improve accuracy in breast FNA.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with liquid-based cytologic preparation in the diagnosis of primary pancreatic lymphoma

OBJECTIVES

The diagnosis subtyping of lymphoma on specimens collected by endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) can be extremely difficult. When a cytopathologist is available for the on-site evaluation, the diagnosis may be achieved by applying flow cytometric techniques. We describe our experience with immunocytochemistry (ICC) and molecular biology studies applied on EUS-FNA specimens processed with a liquid-based cytologic (LBC) preparation for the diagnosis of primary pancreatic lymphoma (PPL).

METHODS

Three patients with a pancreatic mass underwent EUS-FNA. The collected specimens were processed with the ThinPrep method for the cytologic diagnosis and eventual additional investigations.

RESULTS

A morphologic picture consistent with PPL was found on the LBC specimens of the 3 patients. Subsequent ICC and molecular biology studies for immunoglobulin heavy chain gene rearrangement established the diagnosis of pancreatic large B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2 patients and a non-Hodgkin lymphoma with plasmoblastic/immunoblastic differentiation in the remaining one.

CONCLUSIONS

An LBC preparation can be used to diagnose and subtype PPL by applying ICC and molecular biology techniques to specimens collected with EUS-FNA. This method can be an additional processing method for EUS-FNA specimens in centers where on-site cytopathologist expertise is not available.

Preoperative tissue diagnosis for tumours of the pancreas

BACKGROUND

Preoperative biopsy of pancreatic lesions suspected of malignancy is controversial.

METHODS

A systematic Medline literature search was carried out. Diagnostic studies reporting quantitative preoperative pancreatic biopsy data were evaluated.

RESULTS

The analysis included 53 studies, mostly of a retrospective nature. Despite acceptable rates for sensitivity and specificity, the negative predictive value of percutaneous and endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biopsies was 60-70 per cent. Biopsy results were considered to be essential for directing non-surgical therapy in advanced disease. However, they were of limited value in planning the treatment of resectable solid or cystic tumours, or focal lesions in the setting of chronic pancreatitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Biopsy of suspected pancreatic malignancies with systemic spread or local irresectability is indicated for planning palliative or neoadjuvant therapy. Preoperative biopsy of potentially resectable pancreatic tumours is not generally advisable, as malignancy cannot be ruled out with adequate reliability.

ThinPrep are superior to conventional smears in the cytological diagnosis of subfertile men by testicular fine-needle aspiration

The aim of this study was the comparison of liquid-based cytology (ThinPrep, TS) to conventional smears (CS) in the investigation of subfertile men with testicular fine-needle aspiration (FNA). Between January and December 2004, testicular FNA biopsies were performed in 30 subfertile men. Both TS and CS were diagnosed according to Meng classification. Features specifically recorded in each smear included sample adequacy, tissue cells preservation, contamination with red blood cells, quality of smear background, ease of cell recognition, and the cytological diagnosis. There was agreement in the cytological diagnosis between TS and CS (P = 0.88) and sample adequacy (P = 0.73). TS was superior to CS regarding cell preservation, presence of red blood cells or tissue artifacts, quality of the smear background, and cell recognition (P < 0.0001). In testicular FNA cytology, TS appear to be superior to CS in respect to cell preservation, absence of red blood cells, background quality, and cell recognition. These advantages, however, are not translated in improved cytological diagnosis.

Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional smears in salivary gland fine-needle aspiration biopsies

BACKGROUND

ThinPrep (TP) cytology for evaluation of nongynecological specimens is being increasingly used. There are few studies comparing TP with conventional smears (CS) in salivary gland (SG) fine-needle aspiration biopsies (FNAB). This study compares diagnostic accuracy and morphology of TP and CS in SG FNABs.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively reviewed 98 satisfactory SG FNABs with both TP and CS. All cases had surgical resection. CS and TP slides were assessed for multiple morphological parameters, as well as the ability to make the diagnosis. Chi-square analysis was performed to compare CS and TP.

RESULTS

An accurate diagnosis was rendered more commonly with CS compared with TP (57% versus 42%; P = .032), whereas the unsatisfactory rate was greater with TP compared with CS (19% versus 9%; P = .041). The error (4%) and indeterminate (35%) rates for TP were similar to CS. The diagnostic yield was greater for cellular cases, which were more frequent with CS compared with TP, than for cases of low cellularity; the diagnostic yield of cellular TP cases and cellular CS cases was similar. Artifacts (crush, air drying, obscuring blood) were more frequent (12%, 13%, and 27% versus 2%, 0%, and 1%; P <or= .006) in CS compared with TP. Although fragmentation was greater and nuclear detail was better in TP (P <or= .03), cell size was larger in CS (P = .002). A specific diagnosis of pleomorphic adenoma (PA) was more frequently rendered with CS compared with TP (83% versus 63%; P = .045). PA stroma was more abundant, and an epithelial-stromal interface (ESI) was more frequent in CS compared with TP (ESI, 76% versus 38%; P <or= .001).

CONCLUSIONS

There are morphological differences between TP and CS in SG FNABs, especially with respect to stromal appearance. Although CS appears to be preferable to TP in the diagnosis of PA overall, CS and TP have equivalent diagnostic yield in highly cellular cases. Complementary use of both TP and CS preparations to achieve optimal diagnostic yield is recommended, given the artifacts of some CS and the not infrequent unsatisfactory nature of 1 preparation alone.

Non-gynecologic cytology on liquid-based preparations: A morphologic review of facts and artifacts

Liquid-based preparations (LBP) are increasingly being used both for gynecologic (gyn) and non-gynecologic (non-gyn) cytology including fine needle aspirations (FNA). The two FDA-approved LBP currently in use include ThinPrep (TP), (Cytyc Corp, Marlborough, MA) and SurePath (SP), (TriPath Imaging Inc., Burlington, NC). TP was approved for cervico-vaginal (Pap test) cytology in 1996 and SP in 1999 and both have since also been used for non-gyn cytology. In the LBP, instead of being smeared, cells are rinsed into a liquid preservative collection medium and processed on automated devices. Even after a decade of use, the morphological interpretation of LBP remains a diagnostic challenge because of somewhat altered morphology and artifacts or facts resulting from the fixation and processing techniques. These changes include cleaner background with altered or reduced background and extracellular elements; architectural changes such as smaller cell clusters and sheets, breakage of papillae; altered cell distribution with more dyscohesion and changes in cellular morphology with enhanced nuclear features, smaller cell size and slightly more three-dimensional (3-D) clusters. Herein, we review the published literature on morphological aspects of LBP for non-gyn cytology.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy: equipment and technique

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNA) is currently performed on a routine basis at many endoscopic centers and it is evident that this procedure has a major impact on the therapeutic management of patients by obtaining a definite tissue diagnosis from lesions outlined by endosonography. The reported yield of EUS-FNA is about 90-95%, with an overall sensitivity and specificity of 90% and 100%, respectively. Moreover, even minute lesions down to a size of 5 mm may be imaged and consequently biopsied. This Review describes the technique of EUS-FNA in detail, based on a literature review and the authors' extensive experience with this method. The endoscopes and needle systems available on the market are presented in detail. The biopsy procedure is carefully explained, as well as the preparation of the cytology smears. Finally, the limitations and complications of the procedure are reviewed in brief, stressing the low rate of complications (below 1-2%), most of them being minor and self-limiting. Currently endosonography has strengthened its position as a diagnostic and staging method, especially after establishing the method of FNA biopsy. Thus, EUS-FNA is very useful to establish an initial tissue diagnosis of malignancy, but also to accurately stage the patients preoperatively, influencing the decision-making process and reducing the morbidity and mortality that accompanies inappropriate surgical interventions in patients with advanced cancer.

Review of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology

This review, based on the Hennepin County Medical Center experience and review of the literature, vastly covers the up-to-date role of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) in evaluating tumorous lesions of the gastrointestinal tract and adjacent organs. Emphasis is given to the tumoral and nodal staging of esophageal, pulmonary, and pancreatic cancer. This review also discusses technical, pathological, and gastroenterologic aspects and the role of the pathologist and endosonographer in the evaluation of these lesions, as well as the corresponding FNA cytology and differential diagnosis.

Determination of qualitative telomerase activity as an adjunct to the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma by EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration

BACKGROUND

Telomerase activity is up-regulated in pancreatic cancer. Hence, measurement of telomerase activity in pancreatic needle-biopsy specimens could assist in establishing a positive diagnosis in specimens that are inadequate for cytology.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the sensitivity and specificity of telomerase activity for neoplasia in a series of EUS-guided fine-needle aspirate (EUS-FNA) biopsies of pancreatic mass lesions.

DESIGN

Prospective, consecutive, non-randomized cohort.

SETTING

Academic hospital, tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

Seventy-one patients with a pancreatic mass diagnosed by cross-sectional imaging.

INTERVENTIONS

EUS-FNA of 52 solid and 18 cystic pancreatic lesions.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

(1) Cytologic diagnosis; (2) tissue telomerase activity by semi-quantitative polymerase chain reaction; (3) patient demographics; (4) clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Cytology results were positive for adenocarcinoma in 40 patients with a solid pancreatic mass; of these, telomerase activity was detected in 31. There were no telomerase false-positive results. Telomerase results were positive in 6 of the 7 patients (86%) who had negative cytology results and who eventually were found to have biopsy-proven adenocarcinoma. The sensitivity and specificity of telomerase activity for detecting pancreatic adenocarcinoma in solid masses was 79% (95% CI, 64%-89%) and 100% (95% CI, 55%-100%).

LIMITATIONS

Extremely high sensitivity and specificity of EUS-FNA cytology in solid lesions minimized the incremental benefit of telomerase.

CONCLUSIONS

Telomerase activity can be measured readily in specimens obtained at EUS-FNA and accurately predicts malignancy. Used in combination with cytology, telomerase increased the sensitivity from 85% to 98% while maintaining the specificity at 100%. Lesions with negative cytology result and positive telomerase activity should be evaluated aggressively to exclude malignancy.

Comparison of ThinPrep and cytospin preparations in the evaluation of exfoliative cytology specimens

BACKGROUND

There exists limited literature comparing ThinPrep (TP) with conventional cytospins (CS) in nongynecologic specimens.

METHODS

The differences between TP and CS were evaluated for a variety of parameters including cellularity, cytologic morphology, specimen preparation, screening time, laboratory cost effectiveness, cytologist preference, and impact on final diagnosis. Eighty-eight cases including 38 urine, 13 respiratory, and 37 body fluids were prepared simultaneously.

RESULTS

TP and CS demonstrated similar cellular yield in the majority of cases. Cytologists preferred TP in 63 (71.6%) and CS in 6 (6.8%) cases; whereas they indicated no preference in 19 (21.6%) cases. Of 14 abnormal cytologies, a more definitive diagnosis of malignancy was rendered by TP in 6 (42.9%) and by CS in 2 (14.3%) cases. TP demonstrated better nuclear chromatin morphology and more uniform distribution of cells. CS showed larger-sized clusters with better preservation of their architecture compared with smaller-sized clusters and significant shrinkage of cell size in TP.

CONCLUSIONS

TP was preferred over CS in the majority of cases by both cytotechnologists and pathologists. Cellularity, screening time, and specimen preparation were comparable, although the latter was easier to standardize in TP. In abnormal cases, TP was found to be 3 times more helpful than CS in rendering a definitive diagnosis of malignancy. TP, however, was associated with certain artifacts that cytologists must become familiar with when examining such preparations. Although TP was superior to CS in most cases, the application of both methods may be helpful in selected cases in which the TP diagnosis is not conclusive. Finally, TP was found to be more cost effective than CS.

Cytologic diagnosis of pancreatic endocrine tumors by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration: A review

Precise localization and diagnosis of pancreatic endocrine tumors (PETs) is important, because pancreatic PETs have different clinical and biological behavior and treatment modalities than do exocrine pancreatic tumors. In contrast to the much more common exocrine adenocarcinomas, cytologic studies of PET are relatively rare and many cytopathologists lack experience with the cytomorphologic features of these tumors.During the last 10 yr, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) has matured into an accurate, highly sensitive, and cost-effective modality for the preoperative localization of pancreatic PETs. This has resulted in an increased number of PETs first sampled as cytology specimens. This manuscript focuses on the cytomorphologic features most suggestive of pancreatic PETs, differential diagnosis, and diagnostic pitfalls of PETs. The technical development of EUS-guided FNA and the ancillary studies for pancreatic PETs are also reviewed. The data summarized in this review indicate that EUS-FNA is a valuable method in the recognition of pancreatic PETs and in most cases cytopathologists could reach a correct diagnosis of these tumors, including their hormone producing capability on aspirated cytologic material.

Pitfalls in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and how to avoid them

Although a broad range of pancreatic, gastrointestinal, thoracic, and abdominal pathology may be sampled by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA), certain difficulties tend to recur because of the frequency of certain sample types and because of the nature of their individual cytomorphologic profiles. With this in mind, we review certain pitfalls that may befall cytopathologists with EUS-guided FNA. We discuss the diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and of other pancreatic epithelioid tumors including pancreatic endocrine neoplasms, solid pseudopapillary tumors, and acinar cell carcinomas. We also discuss the diagnosis of pancreatic cystic neoplasia including intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms and mucinous cystic neoplasms and the diagnosis of gastrointestinal mesenchymal neoplasia with particular attention to gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Finally, we discuss the interpretation of lymph node aspirates.