Increase of core biopsies in visceral organs-experience at one institution

Accuracy and clinical outcomes of pancreatic EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy in a consecutive series of 852 specimens

Background and Objectives:

Pancreatic EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is increasingly used. Accuracy of EUS-FNB, particularly for benign diseases, utility of additional EUS-FNB if malignancy is suspected but initial diagnosis is inconclusive, and complication rate are not fully elucidated. We evaluated operating characteristics of EUS-FNB overall and for different diagnostic categories, value of additional EUS-FNB if malignancy is suspected but initial diagnosis is inconclusive, and frequency and type of complications.

Methods:

A retrospective tertiary single-center study including 852 consecutive pancreatic SharkCore EUS-FNBs from 723 patients between 2015 and 2020. EUS-FNB diagnoses were applied according to Papanicolaou Society's system and each category was further subcategorized.

Results:

Sufficient tissue cylinders for a histologic diagnosis were obtained in 93.4% (796/852). Accuracy was overall, for malignant, and benign entities 85.6% (confidence interval [CI]: 83.2%–87.9%), 88.3% (CI: 85.9%–90.4%), and 94% (CI: 92.2%–95.5%). Sensitivity and accuracy of EUS-FNB for autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) (n = 15) was 83.3% (CI: 58.6%–96.4%) and 99.2% (CI: 98.3%–99.7%). Of patients in whom malignancy was suspected but initial EUS-FNB diagnosis was inconclusive, 7.3% (53/723) underwent one or two additional EUS-FNBs, and in 54.7% (29/53) of these, a malignant diagnosis was established. The frequency of hospitalization following EUS-FNB was 4.7%, with 0.2% (n = 2) incidents needing active intervention.

Conclusions:

We found a high accuracy of pancreatic EUS-FNB across all diagnostic categories including rare entities, such as AIP. In patients with a clinical suspicion of malignancy, additional EUS-FNB resulted in a conclusive diagnosis in more than half of cases. Complications necessitate hospitalization in almost 5%, but the majority are self-limiting.

To whom the specimen goes: a look at how touch preparations and core needle biopsies are handled in different practices and the effect on fellowship education

INTRODUCTION

Core needle biopsies (CNBs) have proven to be an excellent source of tissue for diagnosis and ancillary testing in the era of personalized medicine, commonly yielding sufficient material for testing via a relatively minimally invasive technique. Thus, there has been an increase in touch preparations (TPs) evaluated with rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE) of these small biopsies either in isolation or with concurrent fine needle aspiration (FNA). This in turn has forced cytopathology practices to make decisions with regard to processing and workflow of CNBs, which affects cytopathology fellowship education substantially.

STUDY DESIGN

The present review is based on a review of recent literature and an evaluation of the authors' personal experiences.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Deciding whether CNBs with associated TPs should be assigned to the cytology service, the subspecialty or general surgical pathology service, or a split between cytopathology and surgical pathology, is complicated. The workflow is variable at different institutions depending on multiple factors. Each of these routes has benefits and disadvantages that can affect patient care and laboratory workflow, in addition to having downstream effects on the quality and type of education our pathology trainees receive. Herein, the advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches for CNB triage are discussed, with an emphasis on the impact upon cytopathology fellowship education.

Evaluating triage protocols for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsies of the pancreas

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatic endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) acquires both direct smear and small core biopsy specimens. The triage protocols for pancreatic FNBs to cytopathology (CP) or gastrointestinal surgical pathology (GIP) are controversial and vary by institution.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Pancreatic EUS-FNBs obtained with the SharkCore FNB were reviewed from January 2014 to June 2019. The specimen characteristics and pathology data, including tissue triage, were obtained from the electronic medical records. We assessed the diagnostic yield, defined as malignant, specific neoplastic, or benign, and the operating characteristics at the time of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) and final diagnosis.

RESULTS

We reviewed 324 pancreatic FNBs from 313 patients. Of the 324 FNBs, 260 (80%) obtained concurrent direct smear and core biopsy specimens, 30 (12%) of which were divided between CP and GIP. Of the 51 core-only specimens, 47 (92%) were reviewed by CP and 4 (8%) by GIP. ROSE improved the overall diagnostic yield by 10% and accuracy by 9%. When core specimens were reviewed independently, the diagnostic accuracy was 93% for CP (n = 248) and 100% for GIP (n = 33). All false-negative results of the CP-reviewed cores were due to sampling error. Concurrent smear review improved EUS-FNB performance, increasing the negative predictive value by 10% and accuracy by 3% compared with core review alone.

CONCLUSIONS

CP and GIP can accurately interpret pancreatic EUS-FNB specimens. However, triage of concurrent EUS-FNB-acquired smear and core specimens to CP may be most efficient as CPs are trained to assess adequacy at the time of ROSE, as well as interpret all parts of the biopsy, minimizing the risk of discordant pathology reports.

Role of cytotechnologists in rapid onsite adequacy assessment of cytology materials for diagnostic workup and specimen allocation for ancillary testing using a standardized protocol

INTRODUCTION

Data on the performance of cytotechnologists in assessing specimen adequacy of needle core biopsies (NCB) is scant and their role in specimen triaging for ancillary studies have not been well established.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE) performed exclusively by cytotechnologists on 248 NCB and fine-needle aspiration (FNA) specimens. Overall adequacy and accuracy rates were determined by comparing to final diagnosis. We also reviewed the process of specimen allocation for ancillary testing to determine whether specimens were appropriately triaged at the time of ROSE.

RESULTS

Of the 248 cases, 222 (89.5%) were touch imprint and 26 (10.5%) were FNA smears. The overall adequacy rate was 73.4% (182 of 248). Concordance for "adequate" interpretation by ROSE with unequivocal malignant or benign diagnoses on final interpretation was 95.6%. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of ROSE for a final "positive for malignancy" were 89.2% (95% CI 83.04% to 93.69%), 43.24% (95% CI 31.77% to 55.28%), and 73.87% (95% CI 67.57% to 55.28%), respectively. Cases with "positive for malignancy" on final diagnosis were "adequate" by ROSE in 89.1% (132 of 148) and "inadequate" in 10.8% (16 of 148), P < 0.0001. Ancillary tests were performed in 168 of 248 (67.7%); the majority were immunohistochemical stains for determining tumor subtype. Predictive biomarkers were performed successfully in 100% of metastatic breast cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

Cytotechnologists performed at a high level of competency in providing ROSE and allocating specimens for ancillary testing, which were performed successfully in the majority of cases. Implementation of a standardized protocol for tissue management/prioritization is of paramount importance to maximize tissue preservation and minimize wastage.

Impact of touch imprint cytology on imaging-guided core needle biopsies: An experience from a large academic medical center laboratory

BACKGROUND

Imaging-guided core needle biopsy is a minimally invasive and effective tissue sampling method. Touch imprint cytology (TIC) can provide immediate on-site preliminary interpretation and adequacy of core needle biopsy. We investigated on-site TICs' impact on minimizing the number of core needle biopsy passes required for diagnosis.

METHODS

Five hundred and sixty imaging-guided CNBs with TICs including 393 malignant lesions, 136 benign lesions, 29 nondiagnostic specimens, and 2 atypical lesions were reviewed for adequacy, preliminary interpretation, final histological diagnosis, and the number of core needle biopsy passes.

RESULTS

The adequacy rate determined by on-site TICs was 76%, with 50% for benign lesions, and 88% for malignant lesions. The correlation rate between TICs' preliminary interpretation and histological diagnosis was 91%, with 100% for benign lesions and 89% for malignant lesions. In malignant lesions, the adequacy rate was lowest in cases with sarcomas (58%), followed by hepatocellular carcinoma and renal cell carcinoma. When all cases are stratified by locations, the adequacy rate determined by on-site TICs was lowest in lesions from soft tissue (45%), followed by pelvic mass or kidney. The average number of cores was 4.1 per case in adequate specimens, significantly lower than that in specimens without TICs. In contrast, the average number of cores was 7.1 per case in inadequate specimens, significantly greater than that in specimens without TICs.

CONCLUSIONS

On-site TICs showed its usefulness in reducing the number of cores required for adequate diagnostic materials. In the meantime, TICs accurately provided preliminary interpretations, especially in adequate malignant carcinoma cases.

Impact of immediate evaluation of touch imprint cytology from computed tomography guided core needle biopsies of mass lesions: Single institution experience

BACKGROUND

Computed tomography (CT) guided core needle biopsy (CT-guided CNB) is a minimally invasive, safe and effective manner of tissue sampling in many organs. The aim of our study is to determine the impact of on-site evaluation of touch imprint cytology (TIC) to minimize the number of passes required to obtain adequate tissue for diagnosis.

DESIGN

A retrospective review of all CT-guided CNBs performed during 4 year period, where pathologists were present for on-site TIC evaluation. Each case was evaluated for the number of passes required before TIC was interpreted as adequate for diagnosis.

RESULTS

A total of 140 CT-guided CNBs were included in the study (liver, lung, kidney, sacral, paraspinal, omental, splenic and adrenal masses). Of the 140 cases, 109 were diagnosed as malignant, 28 as benign and three insufficient. In 106 cases (75.7%), the biopsies were determined adequate by TIC on the first pass, 19 cases (13%) on the second pass and 7 cases (5%) on the third pass. Only in 5 cases (3.6%), more than three passes were required before diagnostic material was obtained. Three cases (2.14%) were interpreted as inadequate both on TIC and on the final diagnosis. Of the biopsies deemed adequate on the first pass, 71% resulted in either termination of the procedure, or only one additional pass was obtained. In five cases, based on the TIC evaluation, a portion of the sample was sent for either flow cytometric analysis or cytogenetic studies.

CONCLUSIONS

In the majority of cases, adequate material was obtained in the first pass of CT-guided CNB and once this was obtained, either no additional passes, or one additional pass was performed. This study demonstrates the utility of on-site evaluation in minimizing the number of passes required for obtaining adequate diagnostic material and for proper specimen triage for ancillary studies, which in turn decreases the risk to the patient and costs. However, tumor exhaustion in the tissue as a result of TIC is an important pitfall of the procedure, which occurred in 9 (8.2%) of our malignant cases.