Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsies of pancreatic masses: comparison between fine needle aspirations and needle core biopsies

The value of concurrent endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine needle aspirates and needle core biopsies in the diagnosis of pancreatic neoplasms

Background

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine needle aspiration (FNA) is highly sensitive and specific in the detection and diagnosis of pancreatic neoplasms. EUS‐guided needle core biopsy has been used alone or as an adjunct to maximize diagnostic yield. This study compared the use of FNA versus needle core biopsy in the diagnosis of pancreatic neoplasms.

Methods

From January 1, 2018 through December 21, 2020, the Cytopathology Laboratory processed 374 FNAs from solid pancreatic masses of which 332 (89%) had concurrent pancreatic biopsies and form the basis of this study.

Results

Of the 332 FNAs, 173 (52%) were positive/suspicious for pancreatic adenocarcinoma, 33 (10%) were positive for a neoplasm, 20 (6%) were atypical 19 (6%) were negative and 87 (26%) were non‐diagnostic. Biopsies were concordant in 248 (75%) cases and discordant in 84 (25%) cases. Of the 84 discordant cases, 29 (35%) had neoplastic cells on FNA of which 14 were atypical, 11 were negative and 4 were nondiagnostic on core biopsy. Of the 18 (21%) FNAs with atypical cells, 8 showed adenocarcinoma on core biopsy. Thirty‐seven nondiagnostic FNAs showed adenocarcinoma on 25 (70%) core biopsies. If nondiagnostic FNAs were included, FNA sensitivity was 89% and specificity; 100%, and both were 100%, if the nondiagnostic cases were excluded. The needle core biopsy sensitivity was 91% and specificity; 100%.

Conclusion

Both FNAs and core biopsies show high sensitivity and specificity in the detection of pancreatic neoplasms. However, combining the techniques enhances cellular yields and provides material for ancillary tests.

Recent advancement in EUS-guided fine needle sampling

EUS-guided tissue acquisition technique plays an essential role for evaluation of gastrointestinal tumors. Several components affect the yield of EUS-guided tissue acquisition outcomes such as sampling techniques, use of ROSE (rapid onsite evaluation), training and experience, and needle designs. In this review we discuss advancement in EUS-guided fine needle sampling.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition Using Fork-Tip Needle Improves Histological Yield, Reduces Needle Passes, Without On-Site Cytopathological Evaluation

Background and Aim: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle biopsy (FNB) and fine needle aspiration (FNA) are established methods in tissue acquisition. A new fork-tip FNB needle has been used to obtain core tissue samples. We compared the performance of the FNB using fork-tip needles with that of the FNA using conventional needles in patients who had solid neoplastic lesions within and around the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract.

Methods: In this retrospective single-center study, patients who underwent EUS examinations for solid neoplastic lesions between October 2013 and February 2017 were included. The procedures were performed in the absence of an on-site cytologist. The main objectives were to compare the diagnostic yield and average number of passes of FNB using fork-tip needles versus those of FNA using conventional needles.

Results: EUS/FNA and EUS/FNB were performed on 181 solid neoplastic lesions primarily in the pancreas and GI tract walls. There was no significant difference in patient's age, gender, tumor location, or tumor size. The mean number of needle passes was significantly lower in the fork-tip needle group than in the conventional needle group (3.8 vs. 5.9; p < 0.0001). There was a trend toward higher sensitivity (89.9% vs. 81%) using the fork-tip needles than when using the conventional needles (p = 0.119). No significant difference in rates of adverse events between two groups was found.

Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that, compared with FNA using conventional needles, FNB using fork-tip needles required significantly fewer needle passes while achieving a relatively higher diagnostic yield due to its superior capacity in tissue acquisition from solid neoplastic lesions in and around GI tract walls without on-site cytological assessment.

Citología por punción-aspiración con aguja fina guiada por ultrasonido endoscópico en el diagnóstico de adenocarcinoma ductal de páncreas

El cáncer de páncreas es la cuarta causa de muerte por cáncer en los Estados Unidos; en el mundo se asocia con 227.000 muertes anuales, aproximadamente. Es producto de múltiples factores, siendo el tabaquismo el principal factor de riesgo.La punción-aspiración con aguja fina guiada por ultrasonido endoscópico es una técnica muy eficaz en el diagnóstico de lesiones neoplásicas del páncreas. El diagnóstico citológico mediante esta técnica debe hacerse según los lineamientos para el sistema pancreático-biliar de la Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology. Dichos lineamientos incluyen las indicaciones, las técnicas, la terminología y la nomenclatura, así como los estudios auxiliares, el manejo posterior al procedimiento y los criterios citológicos para el diagnóstico.La especificidad de una interpretación positiva o maligna para la punción-aspiración pancreática con aguja fina, es de 90 a 95 % en la mayoría de los estudios.

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.

Novel fork-tip needles versus standard needles for EUS-guided tissue acquisition from solid masses of the upper GI tract: a matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

There are very few available data on the novel SharkCore™ needles for EUS-FNB.

AIM

Comparison of the performance of the SharkCore™ needles with the standard EUS-FNA needles for the diagnosis of solid upper GI masses.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Single-center, retrospective cohort study in an academic tertiary referral hospital. Patients were matched 1:1 for the site of the lesion and the presence or absence of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE).

RESULTS

A total of 102 patients were included. There was no statistically significant difference in the mean number of passes (3.3 ± 1.3 versus 3.4 ± 1.5; p = .89). Similar results were observed at the subgroup with ROSE (4.3 ± 1.3 versus 3.7 ± 1.5; p = .26). More histological specimens were obtained with the SharkCore™ needles compared to standard needles (59 versus 5%; p < .001). Diagnostic test characteristics were not significantly different (sensitivity: 91.5 versus 85.7; specificity: 100 versus 100%; accuracy: 92.2 versus 85.4% for SharkCore™ versus standard needles, p > .05 in all cases). At multivariable analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in the mean number of passes in all patients (p = .23) and in the ROSE subgroup (p = .66). However, the SharkCore™ needle obtained significantly more histological material than the standard needle (odds ratio 66; 95% confidence interval: 11.8, 375.8, p < .001). There was no significant difference in complication rates (p = .5).

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective study, single-center.

CONCLUSION

The SharkCore needles were similar to standard FNA needles in terms of the number of passes to reach diagnosis, but obtained significantly more histological specimen.

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.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle core biopsy for the diagnosis of pancreatic malignant lesions: a systematic review and Meta-Analysis

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle core biopsy (EUS-FNB) has been used as an effective method of diagnosing pancreatic malignant lesions. It has the advantage of providing well preserved tissue for histologic grading and subsequent molecular biological analysis. In order to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB for pancreatic malignant lesions, studies assessing EUS-FNB to diagnose solid pancreatic masses were selected via Medline. Sixteen articles published between 2005 and 2015, covering 828 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The summary estimates for EUS-FNB differentiating malignant from benign solid pancreatic masses were: sensitivity 0.84 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82–0.87); specificity 0.98 (95% CI, 0.93–1.00); positive likelihood ratio 8.0 (95% CI 4.5–14.4); negative likelihood ratio 0.17 (95% CI 0.10–0.26); and DOR 64 (95% CI 30.4–134.8). The area under the sROC curve was 0.96. Subgroup analysis did not identify other factors that could substantially affect the diagnostic accuracy, such as the study design, location of study, number of centers, location of lesion, whether or not a cytopathologist was present, and so on. EUS-FNB is a reliable diagnostic tool for solid pancreatic masses and should be especially considered for pathology where histologic morphology is preferred for diagnosis.

Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound guided 22-gauge core needle with standard 25-gauge fine-needle aspiration for diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions

Background and Objectives:

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the standard modality for diagnosing pancreatic masses. We compared the diagnostic yield of a new EUS-guided 22-gauge core needle biopsy to a standard 25-gauge FNA in sampling the same pancreatic lesions during the same EUS.

Patients and Methods:

The main outcomes of the study were the sample adequacy of each method to provide a final pathological diagnosis, and the concordance in diagnosis between core and FNA specimens. The secondary outcomes were the sensitivity and specificity of the findings for each needle and the incremental yield of using both needles compared with using each needle alone.

Results:

A total of 56 patients with 61 solid pancreatic lesions were evaluated. The mean number of passes with FNA was 3.5 (ranges 1-8) and with core biopsy needle was 1.7 (ranges 1-5). The proportions of adequate samples were 50/61 (81.9%) for FNA and 45/61 (73.8%) for core biopsy (P = 0.37). The diagnostic yield was 46/61 (75.4%), 42/61 (68.9%) and 47/61 (77.1%) for FNA, core, and both, respectively. There was a substantial agreement of 87.5% (κ = 0.77; P < 0.001) in the findings of core and FNA specimens. The sensitivity for the diagnosis of malignancy for FNA and core biopsy were 68.1% and 59.6%, respectively (P = no significant [NS]). The specificity was 100% for both methods. The incremental increase in sensitivity and specificity by combining both methods are 1.5% and 0%, respectively.

Conclusion:

There are NS differences in the diagnostic yield between EUS-guided 22-gauge core biopsy and standard 25-gauge FNA for diagnosing pancreatic lesions, but core biopsy required fewer numbers of passes. There was NS incremental diagnostic yield when using both needles during the same procedure.

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.

Clinical approach to the patient with a solid pancreatic mass

Diagnosis and clinical work-up of a solid pancreatic mass is a challenging problem. Patients' history, laboratory parameters, computed tomography magnetic resonance imaging, and endosonography are the cornerstones in diagnosis. Biopsy is indicated in selected patients. The main goal of surgical indication is to select patients with suspected malignancy who are resectable, but avoid unnecessary resections. About 5 % of patients resected due to suspicion of malignancy finally present with a benign histology. Autoimmune pancreatitis is the most frequent cause of such unnecessary resections.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is an indispensable tool for tissue acquisition in patients with gastrointestinal tumors. While fine-needle aspiration (FNA) has been routinely carried out for establishing tissue diagnosis, the emerging concept of tailoring chemotherapeutic agents based on molecular markers has increased the demand for core tissue procurement by means of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). In addition, FNB may offset the limitations of FNA wherein the diagnostic sensitivity is incumbent on the availability of an onsite cytopathologist. Given the increasing number of procedures being done, developing a unit-specific algorithmic approach for needle selection is important to improve the procedural efficiency and utilization of resources. Finally, the best outcomes can be attained only by practicing evidence-based techniques, procuring adequate quantity of sample for ancillary studies and processing the specimens appropriately.

Randomized trial comparing the 22-gauge aspiration and 22-gauge biopsy needles for EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic mass lesions

BACKGROUND

To overcome limitations of cytology, biopsy needles have been developed to procure histologic samples during EUS.

OBJECTIVE

To compare 22-gauge (G) FNA and 22G biopsy needles (FNB) for EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses.

DESIGN

Randomized trial.

SETTING

Tertiary-care medical center.

PATIENTS

This study involved 56 patients with solid pancreatic masses.

INTERVENTION

Sampling of pancreatic masses by using 22G FNA or 22G FNB devices.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Compare the median number of passes required to establish the diagnosis, diagnostic sufficiency, technical performance, complication rates, procurement of the histologic core, and quality of the histologic specimen.

RESULTS

A total of 28 patients were randomized to the FNA group and 28 to the FNB group. There was no significant difference in median number of passes required to establish the diagnosis (1 [interquartile range 1-2.5] vs 1 [interquartile range 1-1]; P = .21), rates of diagnostic sufficiency (100% vs 89.3%; P = .24), technical failure (0 vs 3.6%; P = 1.0), or complications (3.6% for both) between FNA and FNB needles, respectively. Patients in whom diagnosis was established in passes 1, 2, and 3 were 64.3% versus 67.9%, 10.7% versus 17.9%, and 25% versus 3.6%, respectively, for FNA and FNB cohorts. There was no significant difference in procurement of the histologic core (100% vs 83.3%; P = .26) or the presence of diagnostic histologic specimens (66.7% vs 80%; P = .66) between FNA and FNB cohorts, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

Only pancreatic masses were evaluated.

CONCLUSION

Diagnostic sufficiency, technical performance, and safety profiles of FNA and FNB needles are comparable. There was no significant difference in yield or quality of the histologic core between the 2 needle types.

CT-guided biopsy of lesions of the lung, liver, pancreas or of enlarged lymph nodes: value of additional fine needle aspiration (FNA) to core needle biopsy (CNB) in an offsite pathologist setting

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To assess the value of additional fine needle aspiration (FNA) to core needle biopsy (CNB) in computed tomography-guided biopsy of lesions of the lung, liver, pancreas, or of enlarged lymph nodes in an offsite cytopathologist setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB); informed consent (IC) was waived. Data of 377 patients who underwent computed tomography-guided FNA and CNB of lesions of the lung, liver, pancreas, or enlarged lymph nodes were enrolled. An onsite cytopathologist was not available. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for FNA, CNB, and combined FNA/CNB. For the purpose of our study, positive diagnoses from CNB specimens or subsequent biopsy or surgical resection specimens or clinical follow-up data were considered as the standard of reference.

RESULTS

CNB yielded a significantly higher sensitivity than FNA in all sites, except the pancreas, where the difference did not reach statistical significance. Additional FNA to CNB did not significantly increase the sensitivity. Specificity did not significantly differ between FNA, CNB, and combined FNA/CNB in all sites. Malignancies of 1.7% were detected only with FNA, without evidence of malignancy in CNB; for the remaining malignancies, CNB was positive or indeterminate.

CONCLUSION

Additional FNA to CNB without an onsite cytopathologist does not yield higher sensitivity or specificity compared to CNB alone.

The prospective randomized, controlled trial of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration using 22G and 19G aspiration needles for solid pancreatic or peripancreatic masses

OBJECTIVES

A large-caliber needle such as a 19-gauge needle may help overcome the limitations of a 22-gauge needle by acquiring a larger amount of tissue sample. However, there has been no well-designed comparative study for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) with a 19-gauge aspiration needle. We conducted this study to compare the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA using a 19-gauge aspiration needle with that using a 22-gauge aspiration needle in patients with solid pancreatic/peripancreatic mass.

METHODS

From March 2007 to April 2008, a total of 117 patients (60 in a 19-gauge needle group and 57 in a 22-gauge needle group) with solid pancreatic/peripancreatic mass were included. EUS-FNA was performed using the standard technique without an on-site cytopathologist. A single, blinded cytopathologist retrospectively evaluated each set of slides.

RESULTS

The diagnostic accuracy by intention-to-treat analysis was not significantly different (19G: 86.7% vs. 22G: 78.9%, P=0.268). However, the diagnostic accuracy by per-protocol analysis, excluding technical failures, was significantly higher in the 19-gauge needle group (94.5% vs. 78.9%, P=0.015). In the treatment-received group that included crossover cases, although the diagnostic accuracy in all cases was not significantly different (86.1% vs. 76.9%, P=0.164), that of body/tail lesion (95.0% vs. 76.7%, P=0.031) and technically successful cases (93.9% vs. 78.1%, P=0.006) were significantly higher in the 19-gauge needle group. On sample quality analysis, the amount of cellular material obtained was significantly higher in the 19-gauge needle group (P=0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNA with a 19-gauge aspiration needle may be a valuable method for the diagnosis of pancreatic/peripancreatic masses when an on-site cytopathologist is not available.

Advances in the early diagnosis and therapy of pancreatic cancer

The prevalence of pancreatic cancer has increased dramatically over the past decades. As pancreatic cancer is difficult to detect at an early stage, its prognosis is very poor. Inherited genetic factors and environmental factors are known to be the major causes of pancreatic cancer. Pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN) lesions have been established as the pre-neoplastic changes during pancreatic carcinogenesis. Detection of tumor markers and imaging examinations (computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, endoscopic ultrasonography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography) are effective means for diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. The combination of surgical resection and adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy shows promise in prolonging the survival time of patient with pancreatic cancer.

Comparison of EUS-guided FNA and Trucut biopsy for diagnosing and staging abdominal and mediastinal neoplasms

The objective of this study was to evaluate endoscopic ultrasound Trucut biopsy (TCB) specimens and compare these findings to fine needle aspiration (FNA) specimens for the diagnosis of neoplasia. FNA and TCB specimens were reviewed in blinded fashion by a cytopathologist from patients (N = 93) who had EUS-guided FNA and TCB specimens collected between July 2000 and January 2005. Specimens were categorized as nondiagnostic, negative, suspicious for stromal neoplasm, suspicious for malignancy, positive for stromal neoplasm, or positive for malignancy. Standard final diagnosis based on clinical and/or pathologic follow-up was available for 86 of 93 patients. The final diagnoses comprised malignancy (n = 55), stromal neoplasm (n = 19), and benign findings (n = 12). The combination of FNA and TCB results combined were significantly (P < 0.001) more sensitive that FNA alone for the detection of both malignancy (78% vs. 55%) and stromal neoplasia (79% vs. 19%) without a significant change in overall specificity (92% vs. 100%, P = 1.00). A positive FNA specimen with a negative/nondiagnostic TCB result was established in seven patients with malignancy. A positive TCB diagnosis with a negative/nondiagnostic FNA result was noted in five patients with malignancy. A suspicious FNA result was upgraded to positive in conjunction with TCB specimen evaluation in eight patients with malignancy. The results of this study suggest that TCB is a useful adjunctive technique when used in tandem with FNA for malignancy and stromal neoplasia detection. Additional data are needed to firmly establish practice guidelines for the use of EUS-guided TCB specimens in clinical practice.

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.

The value of touch imprint cytology in EUS-guided Trucut biopsy

BACKGROUND

EUS-guided Trucut biopsy (TCB) enables the acquisition of tissue cores for histologic assessment. Touch imprint cytology (TIC) can be performed at the time of a biopsy to assess the adequacy of the sample; however, limited information is available on the diagnostic value of TIC of these specimens.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the diagnostic accuracy of TIC compared with a TCB.

PATIENTS AND DESIGN

Consecutive EUS-guided TCB and TIC (n = 109) were retrospectively and independently reviewed by a surgical pathologist (for the TCB) and a cytopathologist (for TIC) blinded to the final diagnoses.

SETTING

University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Diagnostic accuracy of a TCB, TIC, and combined TCB + TIC.

RESULTS

The diagnostic accuracy of a TCB was 92.7% (95% CI, 83.1%-97.3%), TIC was 82.6% (95% CI, 74.3%-88.6%), and TCB + TIC was 95.4% (95% CI, of 89.4%-98.3%). The diagnostic accuracy of a TCB alone was superior to TIC alone (P = .038); a TCB was diagnostic in 14 cases that were nondiagnostic by TIC. The addition of TIC allowed for the identification of 3 malignancies (2.8%) that were not identified on TCB alone. In 22 cases, TIC was considered diagnostic, but a TCB provided additional specific diagnostic information.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective study and relatively low numbers.

CONCLUSIONS

TIC is a valuable tool for use in a EUS-guided TCB; TIC is independently diagnostically accurate, which allows for confidence in a rapid preliminary diagnosis, and it provides additional diagnostic value when combined with TCB.