Evaluation of 22G fine-needle aspiration (FNA) versus fine-needle biopsy (FNB) for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: a prospective comparison study

EUS FNAC without rapid on-site evaluation is comparable to EUS FNB with macroscopic on-site evaluation in evaluation of intra-abdominal masses

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS TA) has become the mainstay for tissue diagnosis of abdominal mass lesions. Two widely used and accepted methods for obtaining diagnostic material, namely fine needle aspiration cytology (EUS FNAC) and needle core biopsy (EUS FNB), have distinct advantages and disadvantages. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of EUS FNAC without on-site pathology and EUS FNB taken within the same endoscopic session in evaluation of intra-abdominal masses.

METHODS

In this prospective observational study, we included patients undergoing EUS FNAC and EUS FNB for the diagnosis of solid intra-abdominal masses. Sample size was calculated based on the available literature. Location, origin, dimensions of the intra-abdominal masses and number of passes taken were recorded. EUS-guided FNAC followed by EUS-guided FNB was done back-to-back during the same endoscopic session. FNAC smears were prepared and air dried and alcohol-fixed slides were prepared. Adequacy of the FNB specimen was judged visually. The diagnostic accuracy of FNA and FNB specimens was then calculated based on the final diagnosis and compared.

RESULTS

Of the 58 patients included, 50% of patients were females with a mean age of 53.91 ± 17.16 years. Nineteen pancreatic masses (32.7%), three gastric mass lesions (5.1%), one adrenal mass (1.7%), one liver mass (1.7%), three gallbladder masses (5.1%) and 31 lymph nodal masses (53.4%) were sampled. With EUS FNB, malignancy was diagnosed in 38/58 (65.5%), benign diseases in 19/58 (32.7%) and 1/58 (1.7%) was inconclusive. Number of passes was more in the EUS FNAC group compared to EUS FNB, but not statistically significant. Sensitivity and specificity of EUS FNAC without rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) were found to be 92.4% and 100%, respectively. Diagnostic accuracy of EUS FNAC was 93.1% and when compared with EUS FNB with macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE), no statistically significant difference was noted.

CONCLUSION

EUS FNAC and EUS FNB are comparable for the diagnosis of intra-abdominal masses in terms of diagnostic accuracy, sample adequacy, number of passes and safety. In resource-constraint settings, either EUS FNAC or EUS FNB alone may be sufficient for diagnosis with EUS FNB being preferred in select cases where maintained tissue architecture is needed.

Traction-assisted endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy using the clip-with-thread method for small gastric subepithelial lesions: Randomized controlled trial (with video)

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) is the gold standard for diagnosing gastric subepithelial lesions (SELs), but diagnosing lesions smaller than 20 mm remains challenging. We developed traction-assisted EUS-FNB (TA-EUS-FNB) using the clip-with-thread method to enhance diagnostic accuracy by stabilizing the lesion and providing counter-traction for easier needle access. This study evaluates the effectiveness of TA-EUS-FNB in diagnosing small gastric SELs.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, controlled cross-over trial (August 2019-November 2022), 30 patients with gastric SELs <20 mm were randomized to undergo TA-EUS-FNB or conventional EUS-FNB. Each patient underwent four punctures, two per method. The primary end-point was the adequate tissue sampling rate for both techniques. Secondary end-points included diagnostic yield and performance (sensitivity and specificity) in distinguishing gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) from non-GISTs.

RESULTS

The mean tumor size was 15.0 mm, with diagnoses comprising GISTs (n = 15, 50%), leiomyomas (n = 8, 26.7%), schwannomas (n = 2, 6.7%), aberrant pancreas (n = 3, 10%), and inflammation (n = 2, 6.7%). TA-EUS-FNB demonstrated a significantly higher adequate-tissue sampling rate (90% vs. 66.7%, P = 0.035) and diagnostic yield (86.7% vs. 63.3%, P = 0.037) than conventional EUS-FNB. Sensitivity (86.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 62.1-96.3% vs. 66.7%, 95% CI 41.7-84.8%; P = 0.20) and specificity (100%, 95% CI 79.6-100% vs. 100%, 95% CI 79.6-100%) were comparable between the methods. No adverse events were observed in the study.

CONCLUSION

TA-EUS-FNB demonstrated superior tissue sampling rates and diagnostic yield for SELs <20 mm compared to conventional EUS-FNB, making it a viable option. Controlling lesion mobility is essential for successful EUS-FNB in small SELs.

Comparation of 5 ml and 10 ml Negative Pressures with Wet-suction Techniques for EUS-FNA of Solid Lesions: A Single-center Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The negative pressure selectable for the wet-suction technique remains uncertain. The aim was to investigate the quality of sampling and diagnostic accuracy with solid lesions by 5 mL and 10 mL negative pressure with wet-suction techniques.

METHODS

This is a single-center, crossover, randomized controlled trial conducted with a random sampling technique. In all, 160 patients consecutively undergoing EUS-FNA for solid lesions were randomized in a ratio of 1:1 into 2 groups, the 5 mL and 10 mL negative pressure wet-suction group. The main outcome was to compare the sample quality between the 2 groups. The secondary outcome was to compare the histologic and cytologic diagnostic accuracy of solid lesions.

RESULTS

Pancreatic (n=129) and nonpancreatic (n=27) lesions from 156 lesions were examined. The sample quality concluding cellularity, adequacy, integrity, and blood contamination were comparable between the 2 groups. However, in subgroup analysis, we found 19G FNA provided more integrity of specimen in 5 mL than in 10 mL group (100% vs. 82.9%, P =0.025). In contrast, this benefit was not noteworthy in the 22G FNA subgroup. And there was no statistically significant in histologic (87.82% vs. 87.18%, P =1.000) and cytologic (78.85% vs. 80.77%, P =0.778) accuracy between 5 mL and 10 mL groups.

CONCLUSION

When using the wet-suction technique, 5 mL and 10 mL negative pressure offer equivalent sample quality and diagnostic accuracy. However, the 19G FNA can obtain better sample quality with 5 mL negative pressure than 10 mL negative pressure.

III BRAZILIAN CONSENSUS STATEMENT ON ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND

BACKGROUND

•Since its inception in the 1980s, endoscopic ultrasound has increased relevance and usefulness in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND

•Endoscopic ultrasound has evolved from solely diagnostic imaging to a valuable method for tissue sampling and therapeutic procedures, such as drainage of pancreatic fluid collections and creating gastrointestinal anastomoses under EUS guidance.

BACKGROUND

•Given the rapid advancements in EUS and new devices, an update to the last Consensus must include recent developments.

BACKGROUND

•Experts evaluated and discussed the best evidence on EUS-guided procedures and devices for tissue sampling, pancreatic and liver disease management, and biliary drainage.

BACKGROUND

In the past decades, endoscopic ultrasound has developed from a diagnostic tool to a platform for many therapeutic interventions. Various technological advancements have emerged since the last Brazilian Consensus, demanding a review and update of the recommendations based on the best scientific evidence.

METHODS

A group of 32 renowned echoendoscopists selected eight relevant topics to be discussed to generate clinical questions. After that, a literature review was conducted to answer these questions based on the most updated evidence.

RESULTS

Thirty-three statements were formulated and voted on by the experts to reach a consensus. The Oxford System was used to grade the level of evidence.

CONCLUSION

There is mo-derate evidence to support that the needle shape, gauge, or aspiration technique does not influence the yield of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue sampling of pancreatic solid lesions. There is moderate evidence to support using EUS-TTNB of the cyst wall to differentiate between mucinous and non-mucinous cystic neoplasms. There is little evidence to support the EUS-guided treatment of gastric varices. There is a high level of evidence to support that EUS-guided biliary drainage and ERCP present similar outcomes in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction. There is a high level of evidence for using EUS to diagnose neoplastic pancreatic cysts and detect necrosis before indicating drainage. There is moderate evidence to support EUS-GE over duodenal stent for malignant gastric outlet obstruction in patients with a life expectancy higher than 2 months. There is a high level of evidence to support the use of RFA in treating both functioning and non-functioning types of NET.

Effect of the number of passes on diagnostic performance of EUS fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic masses: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The optimal number of passes to maximize the diagnostic ability of EUS fine-needle biopsy (FNB) of solid pancreatic masses (SPMs) is not well known. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the impact of the incremental number of passes on diagnostic accuracy, tissue adequacy, and diagnostic yield for EUS-FNB of SPMs.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Central for randomized controlled trials comparing per-pass diagnostic outcomes of FNB needles in patients with SPMs. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models. A separate analysis was performed on studies that used contemporary Franseen and fork-tip needles.

RESULTS

Overall, 19 randomized controlled trials (N = 3552) were identified. For EUS-FNB of SPMs, 3 passes with any FNB needle outperformed 2 passes for accuracy (odds ratio [OR], 1.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20-2.09; I2 = 0%), adequacy (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.30-2.83; I2 = 61%), and yield (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.37-3.27; I2 = 14%). Adding a fourth or fifth pass resulted in no significant improvement in diagnostic parameters. When using contemporary FNB needles, adding a second to a single pass significantly improved accuracy (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.23-2.63; I2 = 0%), adequacy (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.65-2.90; I2 = 0%), and yield (OR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.50-4.95; I2 = 0%). Adding a third pass to a second pass with contemporary needles improved adequacy (OR, 2.96; 95% CI, 1.97-4.46; I2 = 0%) but did not provide better diagnostic accuracy or yield.

CONCLUSIONS

Two passes with Franseen or fork-tip needles and 3 passes with any FNB needle suffice to provide optimal diagnostic performance for EUS-FNB of SPMs, without additional diagnostic benefits with more passes. Our results can inform future guidelines and quality benchmarks.

Comparison of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for diagnosis of solid pancreatic mass lesions: a meta-analysis of prospective studies

Objective: To quantitatively compare the diagnostic value of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) in solid pancreatic mass lesions using a systematic evaluation method.Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted on public databases to include studies comparing the diagnostic value of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB in solid pancreatic mass lesions. The combined effect size was estimated using mean difference (MD) and risk difference (RD) respectively, and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated.Results: The 12 articles (7 RCTs and 5 cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria of this study. The meta-analysis showed that compared with EUS-FNB, EUS-FNA had lower diagnostic accuracy (RD: -0.08, 95% CI: -0.15, -0.01) and specimen adequacy (RD: -0.08, 95% CI: -0.15, -0.02), while higher required number of needle passes (MD: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.12, 0.73). However, EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA presented similar overall complications (RD: 0.00, 95% CI: -0.01, 0.02) and technical failures (RD: -0.01, 95% CI: -0.02, 0.00), without statistically significant differences.Conclusions: Compared with EUS-FNA, EUS-FNB seems to be a better choice for diagnosing suspected pancreatic lesions.

Molecular Characterization and Xenotransplantation of Pancreatic Cancer Using Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration (EUS-FNA)

Pancreatic cancer has one of the worst prognoses among all malignancies and few available treatment options. Patient-derived xenografts can be used to develop personalized therapy for pancreatic cancer. Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) may provide a powerful alternative to surgery for obtaining sufficient tissue for the establishment of patient-derived xenografts. In this study, EUS-FNA samples were obtained for 30 patients referred to the Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. These samples were used for xenotransplantation in NOD-SCID mice and for genetic analyses. The gene expression of pancreatic-cancer-relevant genes in xenograft tumors was examined by immunohistochemistry. Targeted sequencing of both the patient-derived tumors and xenograft tumors was performed. The xenografts' susceptibility to oncolytic virus infection was studied by infecting xenograft-derived cells with VSV∆51-GFP. The xenograft take rate was found to be 75.9% for passage 1 and 100% for passage 2. Eighty percent of patient tumor samples were successfully sequenced to a high depth for 42 cancer genes. Xenograft histological characteristics and marker expression were maintained between passages. All tested xenograft samples were susceptible to oncoviral infection. We found that EUS-FNA is an accessible, minimally invasive technique that can be used to acquire adequate pancreatic cancer tissue for the generation of patient-derived xenografts and for genetic sequencing.

Impact of biliary stents in the performance of the EUS-guided tissue acquisition: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION AND AIM

Pancreatobiliary tumours are challenging to diagnose exclusively by imaging methods. Although the optimum moment for carrying out the EUS is not well defined, it has been suggested that the presence of biliary stents may interfere with the proper staging of tumours and the acquisition of samples. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of biliary stents on EUS-guided tissue acquisition yield.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review in different databases, such as PubMed, Cochrane, Medline, and OVID Database. A search was made of all studies published up to February 2022.

RESULTS

Eight studies were analyzed. A total of 3185 patients were included. The mean age was 66.9±2.7 years; 55.4% were male gender. Overall, 1761 patients (55.3%) underwent EUS guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) with stents in situ, whereas 1424 patients (44.7%) underwent EUS-TA without stents. The technical success was similar in both groups (EUS-TA with stents: 88% vs EUS-TA without stents: 88%, OR=0.92 [95% CI 0.55-1.56]). The type of stent, the needle size and the number of the passes were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-TA has similar diagnostic performance and technical success in patients with or without stents. The type of stent (SEMS or plastic) does not seem to influence the diagnostic performance of EUS-TA. Future prospectives and RCT studies are needed to strengthen these conclusions.

Outcomes of Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine Needle Biopsy Using a Novel Hydrostatic Stylet Tissue Acquisition Technique

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is frequently used to obtain core samples of solid lesions. Here, we describe and evaluate a novel hydrostatic stylet (HS) technique designed to optimize core sample acquisition, reporting diagnostic yield, efficacy, and safety relative to the conventional stylet slow-pull (SP) technique.

METHODS

A novel HS technique was developed and validated retrospectively. Consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNB with core biopsy of solid lesions through either the HS or SP technique between January 2020 and April 2022 were included. Exclusion criteria included cystic lesions, nonlesional liver biopsies, and specimens sent for cytologic analysis only. Patient and lesion characteristics, number of passes, sample adequacy, and adverse events were compared between the two techniques.

RESULTS

A total of 272 patients were included with 138 in the HS group and 134 in the SP group. Lesion size and anatomic distribution were similar in both groups. Compared with the SP approach, the HS technique demonstrated significantly higher sample adequacy (97.8% vs 83.6%, P < 0.001), higher sensitivity (97.1% vs 89.7%, P = 0.03), and lower mean number of passes (1.2 vs 3.3, P < 0.001). Rates and severity of adverse events in the HS group were comparable to the SP group and existing literature. Similar associations were observed in pancreatic and nonpancreatic lesion subanalyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel HS technique demonstrated excellent biopsy sample adequacy and diagnostic yield while requiring fewer passes to obtain diagnostic specimens compared with a conventional EUS-FNB approach. Further prospective evaluation is needed to confirm these pilot findings and optimize EUS-FNB acquisition techniques.

Performance and safety of diagnostic EUS FNA/FNB and therapeutic ERCP in patients with borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer - results from a population-based, prospective cohort study

Objective: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS FNA/FNB) and potential endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for biliary decompression are indicated in patients with pancreatic cancer before initation of primary chemotherapy. This study aims to investigate the performance and safety of these two procedures in patients with borderline resectable (BRPC) or locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). Methods: Endoscopy and pathology reports, and hospital records of consecutive patients with a radiological diagnosis of BRPC/LAPC included in a population based, protocol-driven study (NORPACT-2) were reviewed. Results: Of 251 patients, 223 (88.9%) underwent EUS-FNA/FNB, and 133 (53%) underwent ERCP. Repeated EUS attempts were performed in 33 (14.8%), eight (3.6%), and four (1.8%) patients. FNA was performed in 155 procedures, FNB in 30, and combined EUS-FNA/FNB in 83. Diagnostic accuracy was 86.1% for first EUS-FNA/FNB. The cumulative diagnostic accuracy for all attempts was 96%. False positive rate for malignancy was 0.9%. Of a total of 149 ERCP procedures, 122 (81.9%) were successful, and 27 (18.1%) were unsuccessful. Success rate of first ERCP attempt was 80.5% (107/133). Sixteen patients (12%) underwent a second attempt with a success rate of 93.8% (15 of 16). Combined EUS and ERCP was performed in 41 patients. Complications occurred in eight procedures (3%) after EUS-FNA/FNB, 23 procedures (15.3%) after ERCP, and four (9.8%) patients after combined EUS-FNA/FNB and ERCP. Conclusion: EUS-FNA/FNB and ERCP with biliary stenting in patients with BRPC/LAPC demonstrated acceptable performance and safety. Repeat procedures were performed with high success rates. Same session EUS-FNA/FNB and ERCP for biliary decompression is safe.

Acute Pancreatitis Revealing a Diagnosis of Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma

Acute pancreatitis is a common gastroenterological condition that can occur due to several causes. While not required for diagnosis, imaging is often performed and may reveal unexpected findings such as pancreatic masses. Malignancies such as lymphoma are uncommon causes of acute pancreatitis, especially as the initial presentation of malignancy. We present a case of a young patient with acute pancreatitis caused by diffuse large B-cell lymphoma with extranodal disease secondarily involving the pancreas. Our case highlights the importance of keeping a broad differential for acute pancreatitis and considering rare etiologies such as pancreatic lymphoma in patients without another obvious culprit.

Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and fine-needle biopsy to generate pancreatic cancer organoids: Randomized trial

Background and study aims The prognosis for pancreatic cancer remains poor. Molecular diagnostics and customized therapies are becoming increasingly important in clinical routine. Patient-derived, predictive model systems such as organoids have the potential to substantially increase the depth of information from biopsy material by functional and molecular characterization. We compared the extent to which the use of fine-needle aspiration needles (FNA, 22G) or fine-needle biopsy needles (FNB, 22G) influences the generation of pancreatic cancer patient-derived organoids (PDOs) to establish endoscopic standards of organoid technology. Patients and methods Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided punctures by EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB of pancreatic masses highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma (detected by computed tomography and/or magnetic resonance imaging) were prospectively evaluated. Consecutive patients received EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB in a randomized order without the need to exchange the needle shaft (only the inner needle type (FNA/-B) was exchanged) between the passes. With each needle type, the specimens for histological analysis and for PDOs were obtained separately. Results Fifty patients were enrolled in the study. Histology revealed malignancy in 42 of 50 cases (84%). In total PDOs were generated from 17 patients (34%). Of these, nine were established by FNB only, two by FNA only, and six by both FNA and FNB. Histology revealed malignancy in 13 of 17 PDO cases (76%). In two histologically false-negative cases, PDOs could be established. Conclusions EUS-FNB was superior to EUS-FNA in terms of successful generation of PDOs, although it failed to show statistical significance.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy Versus Aspiration for Tissue Sampling Adequacy for Molecular Testing in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is limited literature on sample adequacy for molecular testing in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma obtained via endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle aspiration (FNA) versus EUS fine-needle biopsy (FNB). We aimed to compare these two modalities regarding sample adequacy for molecular and genomic sequencing.

METHODS

We reviewed all patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who underwent EUS at Saint Luke's Hospital from 2018 to 2021. The patients were categorized based on the method of EUS tissue acquisition, specifically FNA or FNB. A comprehensive evaluation was conducted for all cases by cytotechnologists.

RESULTS

Out of 132 patients who underwent EUS-guided biopsies, 76 opted for FNA, 48 opted for FNB, and 8 opted for a combination of both. The average number of passes required for FNB and FNA was 2.58 ± 1.06 and 2.49 ± 1.07, respectively (p = 0.704), indicating no significant difference. Interestingly, 71.4% (35) of FNB-obtained samples were deemed adequate for molecular testing, surpassing the 32.1% (26) adequacy observed with FNA (p < 0.001). Additionally, 46.4% (26) of FNB-obtained samples were considered adequate for genomic testing, a notable improvement over the 23.8% (20) adequacy observed with FNA (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Although the number of passes required for cytologic diagnosis did not differ significantly between EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA, the former demonstrated superiority in obtaining samples adequate for molecular testing. Tumor surface area and cellularity were crucial parameters in determining sample adequacy for molecular testing, irrespective of the chosen tissue acquisition modality.

Chinese expert consensus on multidisciplinary diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic neuroendocrine liver metastases

Many management strategies are available for pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms with liver metastases. However, a lack of biological, molecular, and genomic information and an absence of data from rigorous trials limit the validity of these strategies. This review presents the viewpoints from an international conference consisting of several expert working groups. The working groups reviewed a series of questions of particular interest to clinicians taking care of patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms with liver metastases by reviewing the existing management strategies and literature, evaluating the evidence on which management decisions were based, developing internationally acceptable recommendations for clinical practice, and making recommendations for clinical and research endeavors. The review for each question will be followed by recommendations from the panel.

Current status and issues in genomic analysis using EUS-FNA/FNB specimens in hepatobiliary-pancreatic cancers

Comprehensive genomic profiling based on next-generation sequencing has recently been used to provide precision medicine for various advanced cancers. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) play essential roles in the diagnosis of abdominal masses, mainly pancreatic cancers. In recent years, CGP analysis using EUS-FNA/FNB specimens for hepatobiliary-pancreatic cancers has increased; however, the success rate of CGP analysis is not clinically satisfactory, and many issues need to be resolved to improve the success rate of CGP analysis. In this article, we review the transition from EUS-FNA to FNB, compare each test, and discuss the current status and issues in genomic analysis of hepatobiliary-pancreatic cancers using EUS-FNA/FNB specimens.

Twenty versus 40 back-and-forth needle movements for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic masses: a prospective, crossover, randomized study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-fine-needle biopsy (FNB) of solid pancreatic mass lesions, the number of times the needle moves back and forth within the lesion might affect the collection of the sample and the subsequent diagnostic accuracy. Thus, this study was designed to compare the diagnostic adequacy between different numbers of back-and-forth movements in EUS-FNB.

METHODS

Fifty-five patients with solid pancreatic masses underwent EUS-FNB sampling with the needle (22-gauge) moved 20 times (MTT) and 40 times (MFT) randomly and sequentially for a total of four alternating passes. We compared the acquisition rate of appropriate and adequate specimens for histologic assessment and diagnostic accuracy.

RESULTS

Finally, 55 patients (35 men and 20 women) were included in the study. We found that 56.4% (31/55) and 60% (33/55) of the specimens obtained using MTT and MFT, respectively, could be adequately diagnosed histologically (P = 0.815, McNemar test). The diagnostic accuracy of MTT and MFT was 72.7% (40/55) and 80% (44/55), respectively (P = 0.289, McNemar test). The overall diagnostic accuracy was 89.1%.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant statistical difference between the histopathological diagnostic samples obtained in MTT and those obtained in MFT. Therefore, a large number of back-and-forth movements of the needle should be avoided during EUS-FNB, which can help reduce the operation time and may reduce the risk of intraoperative and postoperative complications (Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR2000031106).

The role of rectal endoscopic ultrasonography plus fine needle aspirartion and fine needle biopsy in pelvic masses

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The diagnostic role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) of pelvic masses has not been well established. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of EUS plus FNA/FNB in suspected local recurrence of pelvic masses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All consecutive patients with a history of lower gastrointestinal and pelvic mass undergone EUS-FNA/FNB were included in the study.

RESULTS

In total 34 patients who underwent EUS-guided FNA or FNB of a perirectal mass were enrolled. The sampled lesion was a mass in 22 patients (64.7%) and a lymph node in 10 patients (29.4%). The univariate logistic regression analysis for diagnostic accuracy showed lesion size as a significant predictor of diagnostic accuracy [odds ratio (OR), 1.61; 1.08-2.27; P  = 0.02]. Diagnostic sensitivity was 100% (71.5-100%) with EUS-FNB and 75% (34.9-96.8%) with EUS-FNA ( P  = 0.12); specificity was 100% in both groups ( P  = 1.0). Sample adequacy was 94.1% in the whole cohort, with 20/20 adequacy rate (100%) in the EUS-FNB group and 12/14 (85.7%) in the EUS-FNA group ( P  = 0.28).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study demonstrating the diagnostic yield of EUS plus FNA/FNB in patients with pelvic masses comparing the two needles. Our results highlight the relevance of this technique, especially in undefined masses during oncological follow-up.

The role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy in the diagnosis of mediastinal lesions

Objective

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNA/FNB) is an accurate technique for sampling the pancreas and mediastinum. The aim of this study was to determine the value of EUS-FNA/FNB in the diagnosis of mediastinal lesions.

Methods

Data from 107 patients who underwent EUS-FNA/FNB for mediastinal lesions were evaluated.

Results

The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of EUS-FNA/FNB for mediastinal lesions were 92.00%, 100%, 100%, and 85%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of EUS-FNA for malignant mediastinal lesions were 92.00%, 100%, 100%, and 86.00%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of EUS-FNB for malignant mediastinal lesions were 92.00%, 100%, 100%, and 82.00%, respectively. Except for the discomfort caused by conventional gastroscopy, none of the patients had any complications, such as damage to surrounding large blood vessels or nerves.

Conclusion

EUS-FNA/FNB is an effective tool for diagnosing unknown mediastinal lesions, without any obvious complications.

Contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasound (CH-EUS) MASTER: A novel deep learning-based system in pancreatic mass diagnosis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Distinguishing pancreatic cancer from nonneoplastic masses is critical and remains a clinical challenge. The study aims to construct a deep learning-based artificial intelligence system to facilitate pancreatic mass diagnosis, and to guide EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in real time.

METHODS

This is a prospective study. The CH-EUS MASTER system is composed of Model 1 (real-time capture and segmentation) and Model 2 (benign and malignant identification). It was developed using deep convolutional neural networks and Random Forest algorithm. Patients with pancreatic masses undergoing CH-EUS examinations followed by EUS-FNA were recruited. All patients underwent CH-EUS and were diagnosed both by endoscopists and CH-EUS MASTER. After diagnosis, they were randomly assigned to undergo EUS-FNA with or without CH-EUS MASTER guidance.

RESULTS

Compared with manual labeling by experts, the average overlap rate of Model 1 was 0.708. In the independent CH-EUS video testing set, Model 2 generated an accuracy of 88.9% in identifying malignant tumors. In clinical trial, the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for diagnosing pancreatic masses by CH-EUS MASTER were significantly better than that of endoscopists. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were respectively 93.8%, 90.9%, 100%, 100%, and 83.3% by CH-EUS MASTER guided EUS-FNA, and were not significantly different compared to the control group. CH-EUS MASTER-guided EUS-FNA significantly improved the first-pass diagnostic yield.

CONCLUSION

CH-EUS MASTER is a promising artificial intelligence system diagnosing malignant and benign pancreatic masses and may guide FNA in real time.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04607720.

Actual pressure generated by various suction technique and suctioning liquid weight through endoscopic ultrasound-guided aspiration needles

OBJECTIVES

Suction pressure is one of the most important factors influencing the amount of tissue obtained during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNA/FNB). In this study we aimed to elucidate actual suction pressure generated by various suction methods and the weight of suctioning liquid.

METHODS

Different types of fine needles and suction techniques were used, including the slow pull technique (SPT), dry suction technique (DST), wet suction technique (WST), neutralizing negative pressure technique (NNPT), and residual negative pressure technique (RNPT). Actual suction pressure was measured and the amount of suctioning liquid was weighed.

RESULTS

Actual suction pressure and weight of the suctioning liquid were lower using SPT than using DST, while they were higher when using WST compared with those using DST. In general, the actual suction pressure increased and the weight of suctioning liquid decreased as the diameter of the FNA needles decreased. While weight of the suctioning liquid using FNB needles was significantly larger than that using FNA needles. In general, the actual suction pressure generated using RNPT was larger than that using NNPT.

CONCLUSIONS

WST is superior to SPT and DST in terms of actual suction pressure and weight of suctioning liquid. Diameter of the FNA needle was an important factor that may affect the actual suction pressure and weight of suctioning liquid. FNB needles are superior to FNA needles when it comes to the weight of suctioning liquid. Actual suction pressure obtained by novel suction methods (NNPT and RNPT) may provide a basis for future research.

Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Fine Needle Aspiration versus Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Fine Needle Biopsy for Pancreatic Cancer Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

One of the most effective diagnostic tools for pancreatic cancer is endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) or biopsy (EUS-FNB). Several randomized clinical trials have compared different EUS tissue sampling needles for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided FNA as EUS-FNB needles for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer using a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHOD

A literature review with a meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA guide. The databases of PubMed, Cochrane and Google Scholar were used, including studies published between 2011-2021 comparing the diagnostic yield (diagnostic accuracy or probability of positivity, sensitivity, specificity, predictive value) of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Random effect models allowed estimation of the pooled odds ratio with a confidence interval (CI) of 95%.

RESULTS

Nine randomized control trials were selected out of 5802 articles identified. Among these, five studies found no statistically significant difference between the EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB, whereas the other four did. The meta-analysis found EUS-FNB accuracy superior to EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer with a pooled odds ratio of 1.87 (IC 95%: 1.33-2.63).

CONCLUSION

As compared to EUS-FNA, EUS-FNB seems to improve diagnostic accuracy when applied to suspicious pancreatic lesions.

Early detection of pancreatic tumors by advanced EUS imaging

The early detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) dramatically improves outcome. All available state-of-the-art imaging methods allow early detection with EUS being the best technique for exclusion of PDAC and detection of very early PDAC. Etiological differentiation of small SPL is important to guide individually tailored patients' management including radical surgery in resectable PDAC, medical (neoadjuvant or palliative intended) treatment in patients with non-resectable malignancy, pancreatic parenchyma saving strategies in some non-PDAC, and follow-up in particular in low-grade PanNEN or other small benign lesions. Multimodality EUS imaging including B-Mode assessment, elastography, contrast-enhancement and EUS-guided sampling is the most appropriate technique for diagnosis and risk assessment of small SPL. We present a review discussing modern (endoscopic) ultrasound imaging techniques including contrast enhanced ultrasound and elastography for the early detection and characterization of solid pancreatic lesions.

Endoscopic ultrasound with combined fine needle aspiration plus biopsy improves diagnostic yield in solid pancreatic masses

GOALS

Our aim was to compare the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) versus combined fine needle aspiration and fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNA + FNB) in the evaluation of solid pancreatic masses (SPMs).

BACKGROUND

EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB are established methods to diagnose SPMs. No studies have evaluated the efficacy of combination of both (EUS-FNA + FNB). Our senior author (MRS) hypothesized that combining the two techniques by using a single FNB needle improves diagnostic yield and started combination technique in October 2016.

STUDY

Patients who underwent EUS for SPMs by MRS during January 2014-September 2019 were included. They were divided into the EUS-FNA group and EUS-FNA + FNB group. EUS-FNA was performed using a 22 or 25 gauge Expect Slimline needle (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA) and EUS-FNA + FNB was performed using a single 22 or 25 gauge Shark-core needle (Medtronics, Minneapolis, MN, USA). Our primary outcome was to compare the diagnostic yield in the two groups.

RESULTS

Among 105 patients included, 58 were in the EUS-FNA group and 47 were in the EUS-FNA + FNB group. EUS-FNA + FNB group had significantly higher diagnostic yield and required fewer needle passes compared to EUS-FNA group, 95.7% vs. 77.6%, p = .01: and 4 vs. 5, p = .002; respectively. Procedural duration was similar in both groups but the combined technique required less number of needles per procedure. There was no difference in adverse events in the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that combined EUS-FNA + FNB had higher diagnostic yield compared to EUS-FNA in SPMs along with less number of needle passes and needles required. Further prospective studies are needed to validate these findings and cost-effectiveness of this strategy.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy Using 22G Franseen Needles without Rapid On-Site Evaluation for Diagnosis of Intraabdominal Masses

Background: The impact of rapid on-site cytologic evaluation (ROSE) on endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is widely debated. This study aims to assess the diagnostic performance of EUS-FNB in the absence of ROSE in abdominal masses. Methods: Patients with abdominal masses undergoing EUS-FNB using 22-gauge Franseen needles and the slow-pull technique were prospectively enrolled in this study. Macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) was performed without ROSE. Results: 100 patients were recruited between 2018 and 2020. Seventy-eight patients had neoplasms, and twenty-two patients had benign diseases. Common diagnoses included pancreatic cancer (n = 27), mesenchymal tumors (n = 17), and metastatic tumors (n = 14). The mean mass size was 3.9 ± 2.6 cm. The median pass number was three. Eighty-nine percent had adequate specimens for histologic evaluation. Malignancy increased the odds of obtaining adequate tissue (OR 5.53, 95% CI, 1.36–22.5). For pancreatic cancer, FNB had a sensitivity of 92.3%, a specificity of 100%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 100%, a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97%, and an AUROC of 0.96. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and AUROC for mesenchymal cell tumors were 100%, 95.9%, 84.2%, 100%, and 0.98, respectively. For metastatic tumors, FNB was 100% sensitive and specific, with an AUROC of 1.00. There were no procedure-related complications. Conclusions: 22-gauge Franseen needles with the slow-pull technique and MOSE without ROSE provide excellent diagnostic performances for malignant lesions. Thus, MOSE should be implemented in real-world practice, and ROSE can be obviated when EUS-FNB is employed.

Adequacy evaluation and use of pancreatic adenocarcinoma specimens for next-generation sequencing acquired by endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNA and FNB

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA), especially endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), is the mainstay of tissue acquisition for the diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) using flexible biopsy needles has been used for patients with PDAC in an effort to increase diagnostic yields and biomarker testing. However, the role of EUS-TA in biomarker testing for personalized therapy or precise chemotherapy for PDAC is not well established.

METHODS

PDAC cases with specimens acquired through concurrent EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB were identified retrospectively. Smears were prepared from EUS-FNA sampling, and cell blocks (CBs) were prepared from EUS-FNB sampling. Rapid onsite evaluation was conducted for all cases for diagnostic adequacy. The adequacy for biomarker testing, including next-generation sequencing (NGS) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) assays, was evaluated, and cases with smears and CBs adequate for NGS were processed for targeted NGS.

RESULTS

There were 26 PDAC cases concurrently sampled by EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB. EUS-FNA smears for all 26 cases and EUS-FNB CBs for 20 cases (77%) were diagnostic for PDAC. Twenty-one smears (81%) and 11 CBs (42%) were adequate for NGS. Nine cases with both smears and CBs adequate for NGS underwent NGS, which identified clinically significant gene mutation variants, including KRAS, TP53, and SMAD4 mutations.

CONCLUSIONS

Both EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB can provide optimal material for targeted NGS for PDACs. In PDAC cases subjected to concurrent EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB, EUS-FNA specimens had greater diagnostic yields and more adequate material for NGS than EUS-FNB specimens, whereas EUS-FNB was more suitable for IHC-based biomarker testing.

Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration vs fine needle biopsy in solid lesions: A multi-center analysis

BACKGROUND

While endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) is considered a preferred technique for tissue sampling for solid lesions, fine needle biopsy (FNB) has recently been developed.

AIM

To compare the accuracy of FNB vs FNA in determining the diagnosis of solid lesions.

METHODS

A retrospective, multi-center study of EUS-guided tissue sampling using FNA vs FNB needles. Measured outcomes included diagnostic test characteristics (i.e., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy), use of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), and adverse events. Subgroup analyses were performed by type of lesion and diagnostic yield with or without ROSE. A multivariable logistic regression was also performed.

RESULTS

A total of 1168 patients with solid lesions (n = 468 FNA; n = 700 FNB) underwent EUS-guided sampling. Mean age was 65.02 ± 12.13 years. Overall, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were superior for FNB vs FNA (84.70% vs 74.53%; 99.29% vs 96.62%; and 87.62% vs 81.55%, respectively; P < 0.001). On subgroup analyses, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of FNB alone were similar to FNA + ROSE [(81.66% vs 86.45%; P = 0.142), (100% vs 100%; P = 1.00) and (88.40% vs 85.43%; P = 0.320]. There were no difference in diagnostic yield of FNB alone vs FNB + ROSE (P > 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed no significant predictor for better accuracy. On subgroup analyses, FNB was superior to FNA for non-pancreatic lesions; however, there was no difference between the techniques among pancreatic lesions. One adverse event was reported in each group.

CONCLUSION

FNB is superior to FNA with equivalent diagnostic test characteristics compared to FNA + ROSE in the diagnosis of non-pancreatic solid lesions. Our results suggest that EUS-FNB may eliminate the need of ROSE and should be employed as a first-line method in the diagnosis of solid lesions.

Endoscopic tissue sampling - Part 1: Upper gastrointestinal and hepatopancreatobiliary tracts. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

1: ESGE recommends that, where there is a suspicion of eosinophilic esophagitis, at least six biopsies should be taken, two to four biopsies from the distal esophagus and two to four biopsies from the proximal esophagus, targeting areas with endoscopic mucosal abnormalities. Distal and proximal biopsies should be placed in separate containers.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 2: ESGE recommends obtaining six biopsies, including from the base and edge of the esophageal ulcers, for histologic analysis in patients with suspected viral esophagitis.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 3: ESGE recommends at least six biopsies are taken in cases of suspected advanced esophageal cancer and suspected advanced gastric cancer.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 4: ESGE recommends taking only one to two targeted biopsies for lesions in the esophagus or stomach that are potentially amenable to endoscopic resection (Paris classification 0-I, 0-II) in order to confirm the diagnosis and not compromise subsequent endoscopic resection.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 5: ESGE recommends obtaining two biopsies from the antrum and two from the corpus in patients with suspected Helicobacter pylori infection and for gastritis staging.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 6: ESGE recommends biopsies from or, if endoscopically resectable, resection of gastric adenomas.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 7: ESGE recommends fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles equally for sampling of solid pancreatic masses.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 8: ESGE suggests performing peroral cholangioscopy (POC) and/or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition in indeterminate biliary strictures. For proximal and intrinsic strictures, POC is preferred. For distal and extrinsic strictures, EUS-guided sampling is preferred, with POC where this is not diagnostic.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 9: ESGE suggests obtaining possible non-neoplastic biopsies before sampling suspected malignant lesions to prevent intraluminal spread of malignant disease.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. 10: ESGE suggests dividing EUS-FNA material into smears (two per pass) and liquid-based cytology (LBC), or the whole of the EUS-FNA material can be processed as LBC, depending on local experience.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

Usefulness of a Fork-Tip Needle in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy for Gastric Subepithelial Lesions

The sample adequacy and diagnostic accuracy of an endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for gastric subepithelial lesions (SELs) have been reported to be imperfect. To resolve these issues, a fork-tip needle as an EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needle has been developed. This study was conducted to evaluate the usefulness of a fork-tip needle in an EUS-FNB for gastric SELs. Seventy-nine patients who received an EUS-FNA or FNB using a fork-tip needle for gastric SELs were included in the study. The sample adequacy and diagnostic accuracy were compared between the EUS-FNB with the fork-tip needle group (fork-tip group, n = 13) and the EUS-FNA with FNA needle group (FNA group, n = 66). In addition, a multivariate analysis of the factors influencing diagnostic accuracy was conducted. Regarding sample adequacy, there was no significant difference between the groups (100% vs. 90.9%, respectively; p = 0.582). The diagnostic accuracy of the fork-tip group was numerically higher than that of the FNA group (92.3% vs. 81.8%, respectively; p = 0.682). In a multivariate analysis, the diagnostic accuracy was related to the tumor size and location of the SEL but not to the needle type. In conclusion, this study does not show statistical superiority, but suggests the useful potential of a fork-tip needle.

Metastatic primary pulmonary leiomyosarcoma to the pancreas diagnosed by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration

A 77-year-old female patient consulted our hospital for an abnormal shadow observed on chest X-ray. Computed tomography revealed the shadow of a mass in the right lower lung lobe and two shadows of masses in the pancreatic head and body. ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography showed an intense uptake only in the fields corresponding to these three masses. Each mass was diagnosed as leiomyosarcoma by transcutaneous needle biopsy of the pulmonary mass and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of the pancreatic masses. The primary site was the lung because the pulmonary lesion was solitary, and no tumor was found in other organs. In English language literature, a case of primary pulmonary leiomyosarcoma with metastasis solely to the pancreas has not yet been reported to the best of our knowledge.

Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration vs fine needle biopsy for pancreatic masses, subepithelial lesions, and lymph nodes

Endoscopic ultrasound tissue acquisition, in the form of both fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB), is utilized for pancreatic mass lesions, subepithelial lesions, and lymph node biopsy. Both procedures are safe and yield high diagnostic value. Despite its high diagnostic yield, EUS-FNA has potential limitations associated with cytological aspirations, including inability to determine histologic architecture, and a small quantitative sample for further immunohistochemical staining. EUS-FNB, with its larger core biopsy needle, was designed to overcome these potential limitations. However, it remains unclear which technique should be used and for which lesions. Comparative trials are plagued by heterogeneity at every stage of comparison; including variable needles used, and different definitions of endpoints, which therefore limit generalizability. Thus, we present a review of prospective trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses on studies examining EUS-FNA vs EUS-FNB. Prospective comparative trials of EUS-FNA vs EUS-FNB primarily focus on pancreatic mass lesions, and yield conflicting results in terms of demonstrating the superiority of one method. However, consistent among trials is the potential for diagnosis with fewer passes, and a larger quantity of sample achieved for next generation sequencing. With regard to subepithelial lesions and lymph node biopsy, fewer prospective trials exist, and larger prospective studies are necessary. Based on the available literature, we would recommend EUS-FNB for peri-hepatic lymph nodes.

Application Value of Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Cytological Examination and Ultrasound Evaluation

In this paper, chronic inflammatory cell infiltration was seen during this period. The reason for the false-positive result may be the atypical proliferation of cells caused by chronic inflammatory stimulation with malignant cytology. 12 cases of false negative results, including 2 cases of type I nodules, 10 cases of type III nodules, postoperative histology and pathology were papillary carcinoma, there are many reasons for false negative results, including the size of the nodules, the puncture operator, the technical level, internal tissue composition and properties of the nodules all affect the accuracy of puncture and cytopathology results. The satisfaction of puncture specimens of each group was calculated and compared. For thyroid nodules with the maximum diameter ≤5 mm, the satisfaction rate of puncture specimens was 87.2%, and the diagnostic sensitivity and accuracy of ultras guided fine needle aspiration biopsy were relatively low. Cytological results were in poor agreement with postoperative histological and pathological results, so it was recommended to take active follow-up for thyroid nodules with the maximum diameter ≤5 mm to reduce unnecessary puncture. The overall puncture success rate is relatively high, ≤10 mm low-echo nodules or even ≤5 mm nodules can be cytological puncture, especially the kind of close to the capsule, trachea and recurrent laryngeal nerve nodules, for the largest diameter of >5 mm, the satisfaction rate of puncture specimens is relatively high is 93.2%. Moreover, the sensitivity and accuracy of ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration biopsy were relatively high, and the cytological results were in good agreement with the postoperative histological and pathological results. Therefore, it was feasible to confirm the diagnosis of suspected malignant nodules by ultrasound. The diagnostic in each group and the consistency between cytological diagnosis and histological diagnosis were analyzed by comparing the histological and pathological results after surgery. Ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy can be used more effectively in clinical practice.

Impact of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition on Decision-Making in Precision Medicine for Pancreatic Cancer: Beyond Diagnosis

Precision medicine in cancer treatment refers to targeted therapy based on the evaluation of biomarkers. Although precision medicine for pancreatic cancer (PC) remains challenging, novel biomarker-based therapies, such as pembrolizumab, olaparib, and entrectinib, have been emerging. Most commonly, endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) had been used for the diagnosis of PC until now. However, advances in EUS-TA devices and biomarker testing, especially next-generation sequencing, have opened up the possibility of sequencing of various genes even in limited amounts of tissue samples obtained by EUS-TA, and identifying potential genetic alterations as therapeutic targets. Precision medicine benefits only a small population of patients with PC, but biomarker-based therapy has shown promising results in patients who once had no treatment options. Now, the role of EUS-TA has extended beyond diagnosis into decision-making regarding the treatment of PC. In this review, we mainly discuss tissue sampling by EUS-TA for biomarker testing and the current status of precision medicine for PC.

Comparative diagnostic accuracy of EUS needles in solid pancreatic masses: a network meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue sampling is the standard of care for diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions. While many two-way comparisons between needle types have been made in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it is unclear which size and type of needle offers the best probability of diagnosis. We therefore performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare different sized and shaped needles to rank the diagnostic performance of each needle. Methods  We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases through August, 2020 for RCTs that compared the diagnostic accuracy of EUS fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and biopsy (FNB) needles in solid pancreatic masses. Using a random-effects NMA under the frequentist framework, RCTs were analyzed to identify the best needle type and sampling technique. Performance scores (P-scores) were used to rank the different needles based on pooled diagnostic accuracy. The NMA model was used to calculate pairwise relative risk (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals. Results  Review of 2577 studies yielded 29 RCTs for quantitative synthesis, comparing 13 different needle types. All 22G FNB needles had an RR > 1 compared to the reference 22G FNA (Cook) needle. The highest P-scores were seen with the 22G Medtronic FNB needle (0.9279), followed by the 22G Olympus FNB needle (0.8962) and the 22G Boston Scientific FNB needle (0.8739). Diagnostic accuracy was not significantly different between needles with or without suction. Conclusions  In comparison to FNA needles, FNB needles offer the highest diagnostic performance in sampling pancreatic masses, particularly with 22G FNB needles.

Effectiveness of EUS-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy versus EUS-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration: A Retrospective Analysis

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for pancreatic tumors and subepithelial lesions (SEL) of the gastrointestinal tract are effective for histological diagnosis. There are also reports that tissue sampling is possible with a smaller number of punctures by EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). In this study, we retrospectively compared the diagnostic abilities of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB. We examined 130 patients who underwent EUS-FNA/EUS-FNB for pancreatic tumors and SEL from July 2018 to January 2021. None of the cases underwent rapid on-site evaluation. There were 94 and 36 cases in the EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB groups, respectively. The median tumor size in the EUS-FNB group was 30 mm, which was significantly larger than the EUS-FNA group (p = 0.02). In addition, transgastric puncture was significantly more common in the EUS-FNB group (p = 0.01). The EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB groups had a sensitivity of 82.9% and 91.7% and an accuracy rate of 85.1% and 91.7%, respectively. However, both procedures had a comparable diagnostic ability.

Histopathological comparison of aspiration and biopsy needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition in patients with subepithelial lesions

BACKGROUND

Information on whether a fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needle can improve histopathological specimen quality or the amount of core tissue collected in the diagnosis of subepithelial lesions (SELs) remains insufficient. In this study, we aimed to compare the procedure outcomes and adequacy of histopathological specimens of fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and FNB needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) using sample isolation processing by stereomicroscopy (SIPS) in patients with SELs.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective comparison of SEL cases registered in two previously conducted prospective studies. Of 61 cases, we identified 56 cases of SELs that involved the muscularis propria layer. Of these, 27 patients who underwent EUS-TA using a 22-gauge FNA needle between July 2016 and December 2017, and 29 patients who underwent the procedure using a 22-gauge FNB needle between March 2018 and January 2019 were included in the FNA and FNB group, respectively.

RESULTS

Patient background characteristics did not differ between the groups. The technical success rate was 100% in both groups. The median adequacy score was significantly higher in the FNB group than in the FNA group (P < .01). The histological diagnosis showed no significant difference in the accuracy rate between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In EUS-TA using the SIPS procedure to target SELs derived from the muscularis propria layer, FNB needles collect more core tissues and significantly improve histopathological specimen quality compared with FNA needles. When combined with SIPS, a high tissue diagnosis rate may be obtained regardless of the type of puncture needle used.

A Pilot Randomized Crossover Trial of Wet Suction and Conventional Techniques of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration for Upper Gastrointestinal Subepithelial Lesions

Methods

Twenty-six patients with UGI-SELs indicated for EUS-FNA were randomly assigned to the dry-first arm using the dry technique for the first two passes or the wet-first arm using the wet technique for the first two passes using a cross-over design with a ratio of 1 : 1. The primary endpoint was the cellularity score of the EUS-FNA specimens rated on a 4-point scale (0-3). The secondary endpoints were the factors influencing cellularity in each suction technique.

Results

The mean cellularity score was 1.65 ± 1.20 for the wet technique and 2.00 ± 0.98 for the dry technique (p = 0.068). Logistic regression analysis showed that higher cellularity may be related to the final diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors in the dry technique and the SEL location in the upper stomach in the wet technique.

Conclusion

The wet EUS-FNA technique failed to show a potential for improved cellularity of specimens compared to the dry technique for UGI-SELs.

Optimal number of needle passes during EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions with 22G ProCore needles and different suction techniques: A randomized controlled trial

Background and Objectives:

The sensitivity of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) varies considerably. The optimal number of passes through a solid pancreatic lesion with a 22G FNB needle during EUS-FNB is controversial. This prospective randomized controlled study aimed to determine the optimal number of needle passes during EUS-FNB of solid pancreatic lesions, with 22G FNB needles and different sampling techniques.

Methods:

Pancreatic masses were sampled using 22G FNB needles with either the stylet slow-pull (SP) technique or the standard-suction (SS) technique. We determined the number of needle passes required to obtain a diagnostic accuracy of >90%. Differences between the two techniques in terms of technical success rate, cytological acquisition, core tissue acquisition, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and complications were analyzed.

Results:

A total of 120 patients were randomly assigned to either SP or SS group. Three patients who were lost to follow-up and one who did not complete 5 passes due to bent needle head were excluded from the study. Fifty-six cases in the SP group and 60 cases in the SS group were included in the analysis. For SP technique, the cumulative accuracy of passes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 was 44.83%, 76.79%, 87.50%, 92.86%, and 94.64%, respectively. For SS technique, the cumulative accuracy of passes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 was 71.67%, 85.0%, 90.0%, 93.33%, and 95.0%, respectively. For each group, there was no statistically significant difference in accuracy after 3 and 4 passes. After 4 passes, the pooled sensitivity (92.59% vs. 93.10%), accuracy (92.86% vs. 93.10%), and specificity (100% vs. 100%) were similar (P > 0.05) in the SP and SS groups, respectively. In addition, positive cytological diagnoses (83.9% vs. 85.0%) and positive histological diagnoses (71.4% vs. 78.3%) were comparable (P > 0.05) in the SP and SS groups, respectively. No statistically significant factor was found associated with diagnostic sensitivity for each group.

Conclusion:

When on-site cytological evaluation is unavailable, we recommend that at least 3 passes with 22G ProCore needles be performed during EUS-FNB using the SS technique, at least 4 passes when using SP technique. The SS technique showed potential advantages over SP technique in tissue acquisition and diagnostic capabilities.

Endoscopic ultrasonography-fine needle aspiration of solid pancreatic masses: Do we need the fourth pass? A prospective study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is important for the differential diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions. Sample adequacy is related to the number of needle passes, and European guidelines recommend three to four needle passes with a standard EUS-FNA needle. We aimed to evaluate the optimal number of passes with standard EUS-FNA needles in solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

Patients with solid pancreatic masses without cystic component >20% on computed tomography scan, and without biliary metallic stents, or coagulation problems were included prospectively. Standard 22G needles were used (maximum four passes); each sample was paraffin-embedded and analyzed separately. Final diagnosis was established by EUS-FNA, repeat EUS-FNA, surgery, or follow-up.

RESULTS

Sixty-one of 65 patients were included. The final diagnoses were adenocarcinoma (n = 44, 72%), neuroendocrine tumor (NET) (n = 10, 16%), metastasis (n = 1, 4%) and nonmalignant lesion (n = 6, 10%). Immunohistochemical staining was possible in 17 cases. The diagnosis was established by the first pass in 62% of cases (n = 38), by the second in 15% (n = 9), by the third in 15% (n = 9), and by the fourth in 3% (n = 2). The diagnostic accuracy for all four passes compared to the first three passes was 95% vs 92% (P = .5). The contribution of the fourth pass was not different between adenocarcinoma and NET (2% vs 10%, respectively; P = .667).

CONCLUSION

Three passes with standard EUS-FNA was optimal for a specific diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses, regardless of the histological type of the lesion.

Fine Needle Aspiration versus Fine Needle Biopsy of Biliopancreatic Lesions: Are They Really Opposing Techniques or Can They Be Complementary? Our Experience in a Large Cohort of Cases from a Single Institution

INTRODUCTION

Nowadays, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA), and fine needle biopsy (FNB) are considered the best procedures for the diagnosis of biliopancreatic lesions. These methods represent a milestone since they proved to be both safe for the patient and useful to achieve diagnostic material useful to plan the best treatment strategy.

OBJECTIVE

Since in the literature, a debate between cytology and histology supporters is still ongoing and the trend is changing in favor of FNB, we would like to present our experience about the diagnostic yield of FNA and FNB. The aim of our study is to highlight FNA versus FNB diagnostic role of biliopancreatic lesions, highlight advantages, and drawbacks of these procedures, and our view on these 2 procedures and whether they should still be considered complementary or opposing techniques.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed our hospital series of 469 EUS diagnostics procedures of biliopancreatic lesions performed in 419 patients, between 2015 and 2019.

RESULTS

The overall adequacy rates of FNA and FNB were, respectively, 98.9 and 100%. Stratifying cases according to anatomic location of the mass (pancreas vs. biliary system), we detected 168 malignancies out of 349 pancreatic lesions (168/349; 48.1%), while biliary system cases positive for malignancy represented 33.8% (23/68 cases) (p value = 0.045, χ2 test). As for concomitant FNB, our series displayed a high rate of diagnostic concordance (88.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite numerous data published, it is still unclear which is the most feasible method to use; therefore, we compared FNA, FNB, or their combination to understand the best applicable technique. Our experience confirmed that FNA is extremely efficient in the diagnosis of biliopancreatic lesions, especially in the hands of expert endoscopists and pathologists. Considering anatomic location, EUS-FNA is more accurate for mass-forming neoplasms in the pancreatic parenchyma rather than for lesions of the biliary system. Moreover, concomitant FNB usually confirmed the cytological diagnosis, allowing a deeper immunohistochemical characterization of the neoplasia. This proves that a "pure" cytology and "pure" histology approach should be looked differently since these are complementary techniques especially if we can obtain a cellblock from FNA.

Tissue acquisition and pancreatic masses: Which needle and which acquisition technique should be used?

Background and study aims  Pancreatic cancer represents the fourth most common cause of cancer-related deaths in Western countries and the need of a low-risk investigation to obtain an accurate histopathological diagnosis has become increasingly pressing. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) with fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is the standard method for obtaining samples from pancreatic masses. In recent years, there has been an increasing need to obtain histological specimens during EUS procedures, rather than cytological ones, to guide oncological treatment options, leading to the so-call "FNB concept." Different needles have been developed for fine-needle biopsy (FNB) in recent years, enabling acquisition of larger specimens on which to perform histological and molecular analyses. The aim of this narrative review was to assess the role of EUS-guided FNA and FNB in patients with pancreatic masses, and to identify which needle and which acquisition technique should be used to improve tissue acquisition.

Comparison of the reverse bevel versus Franseen type endoscopic ultrasound needle

BACKGROUND

Reverse bevel (RB) needle is widely used for endoscopic ultrasound fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). A 3-plane symmetrical needle with Franseen geometry (FG) has recently become available.

AIM

To compare the clinical efficacy of FG to that of RB needle.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of all adult patients who underwent EUS-FNB for solid and mixed lesions either with 22G RB needle or 22G FG needle between January 2016 and February 2019 was undertaken. All cytology slides were reviewed by an independent gastrointestinal cytopathologist blinded to the needle used and the initial cytology report. The primary and secondary outcomes were to assess the sample adequacy using Euro-cytology criteria and the number of cell clusters, respectively.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twenty six procedures were included in the study. RB needle was used in 128 procedures and FG needle in 98 procedures. The baseline characteristics of both groups were comparable. On multivariable analysis, FG needle (P = 0.02) and location of the lesion (P < 0.01) were independently associated with adequate tissue. Further, the use of FG needle (P = 0.04) and the size of the lesion (P = 0.02) were independently associated with acquisition of increased number of cell clusters.

CONCLUSION

FG needle is superior to RB needle in acquiring adequate tissue and attaining higher number of cell clusters for solid and mixed lesions.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy Needles Provide Higher Diagnostic Yield Compared to Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Needles When Sampling Solid Pancreatic Lesions: A Meta-Analysis

Background/Aims

Studies comparing the utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for solid pancreatic lesions have been inconclusive with no clear superiority. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the diagnostic accuracy and safety between the two sampling techniques.

Methods

We performed a systematic search of randomized controlled trials published between 2012 and 2019. The primary outcome was overall diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes included adverse event rates, cytopathologic and histopathologic accuracy, and the mean number of passes required to obtain adequate tissue between FNA and FNB needles. Fixed and random effect models with pooled estimates of target outcomes were developed.

Results

Eleven studies involving 1,365 participants were included for analysis. When compared to FNB, FNA had a significant reduction in diagnostic accuracy (81% and 87%, p=0.005). In addition, FNA provided reduced cytopathologic accuracy (82% and 89%, p=0.04) and an increased number of mean passes required compared to FNB (2.3 and 1.6, respectively, p<0.0001). There was no difference in adverse event rate between FNA and FNB needles (1.8% and 2.3% respectively, p=0.64).

Conclusions

FNB provides superior diagnostic accuracy without compromising safety when compared to FNA. FNB should be readily considered by endosonographers when evaluating solid pancreatic masses.

Factors associated with diagnostic accuracy, technical success and adverse events of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is used to diagnose lesions within or adjacent to the digestive tract. However, there is no report on the overall diagnostic accuracy, technical success, and adverse events of FNB. The aims of this study were to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to comprehensively assess the diagnostic accuracy, technical success, and adverse events of FNB.

METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant articles published in English from January 1998 to May 2019 (No. CRD42019141647). Primary outcomes were EUS-FNB related diagnostic accuracy rate, technical success rate, and adverse event rate.

RESULTS

A total of 51 articles including 5330 patients met our criteria. The overall EUS-FNB related diagnostic accuracy rate, technical success rate, and adverse event rate was 90.82% [95% confidence interval (CI) 88.69-92.76%], 99.71% [95% CI 99.35-99.93%], and 0.59% [95% CI 0.29-1.0%], respectively. Biopsy with 22G needle could increase the diagnostic accuracy rate and technical success rate to 92.17% [95% CI 89.32-94.61%] and 99.88% [95% CI 99.64-99.99%], respectively, and decrease the adverse event to 0.37% [95% CI 0.08-0.87%]. Moreover, it showed that 22G needle was an independent factor associated with a higher diagnostic accuracy rate and technical success rate and a lower adverse event rate (P = 0.04, P < 0.001, and P = 0.04, respectively) by univariate and multivariate meta-regression analyses.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy is a feasible and safe procedure for lesions within or adjacent to the digestive tract. Biopsy using 22G needle could increase the diagnostic accuracy rate and technical success rate and decrease adverse event rate during the FNB procedure.

Diagnostic efficacy of three suction techniques for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions: protocol for a multicenter randomized cross-over clinical trial

BACKGROUND

How suction technique affects endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) remains unclear. A standardized protocol is currently lacking, with most previous studies being restricted to EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). The research related to EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is sparse.

AIMS

The aim of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy, cellularity, tissue acquisition, blood contamination and adverse event rate of three common suction techniques (standard suction, slow-pull, and wet suction) used for EUS-FNB of solid pancreatic masses.

METHODS

This is a multicenter single-blind randomized cross-over superiority trial. A total of 300 patients with suspected pancreatic malignancy will be enrolled from digestive endoscopic centers at five large tertiary hospitals in China. All three suction techniques will be performed on each patient using a 25G ProCore needle, with the sequence of suction techniques determined by randomization. Cytological and histological specimens obtained with each of the three techniques will be assessed independently. Outcomes among the three suction techniques will be compared.

DISCUSSION

To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest multicenter randomized cross-over trial designed to determine the optimal suction technique for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses. This study may contribute to standardizing the suction technique for EUS-FNB.

Evaluation of Pancreatic Lesions With Endoscopic Ultrasound and Fine Needle Aspiration

Background. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and fine-needle aspiration (FNA) are commonly used for assessing pancreatic lesions. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic yield and accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in a single tertiary institution. Methods. Consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNA of the pancreas at Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong, from January 2015 to March 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Endoscopic findings and FNA results were analysed. For patients who subsequently underwent surgical resection of pancreatic lesion, EUS-FNA diagnoses were compared to histopathological findings of surgical specimens to determine its diagnostic accuracy. Results. One hundred twelve EUS-FNA were performed in 99 patients within the study time period and were included for analysis. Sixty-six (66.7%) pancreatic lesions were solid in nature and 33 (33.3%) were cystic. The overall diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA was 70.5% (n = 79). On multivariate analysis, more passes of needle were associated with a higher diagnostic yield (odds ratio = 2.000, P = .049). 57.1% (n = 64) of EUS-FNA results had an impact on management. Sixteen patients with diagnostic EUS-FNA subsequently underwent surgery for resection of the pancreatic lesion. Upon correlation to the histopathological findings of surgical specimens, there were 12 true-positive, 2 true-negative, 0 false-positive, and 2 false-negative cases. Sensitivity was 85.7%, specificity was 100%, positive predictive value was 100%, and negative predictive value was 50%. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA was 87.5%. Conclusion. EUS-FNA is accurate and reliable for diagnosing pancreatic lesions.

Evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration versus fine-needle biopsy and impact of rapid on-site evaluation for pancreatic masses

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) is traditionally considered a first-line strategy for diagnosing pancreatic lesions; however, given less than ideal accuracy rates, fine-needle biopsy (FNB) has been recently developed to yield histological tissue. The aim of this study was to compare diagnostic yield and safety between EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB in sampling of pancreatic masses. Patients and methods  This was a multicenter retrospective study to evaluate efficacy and safety of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for pancreatic lesions. Baseline characteristics including sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy, were evaluated. Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) diagnostic adequacy, cell-block accuracy, and adverse events were analyzed. Subgroup analyses comparing FNA versus FNB route of tissue acquisition and comparison between methods with or without ROSE were performed. Multivariable logistic regression was also performed. Results  A total of 574 patients (n = 194 FNA, n = 380 FNB) were included. Overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of FNB versus FNA were similar [(89.09 % versus 85.62 %; P  = 0.229), (98.04 % versus 96.88 %; P  = 0.387), and 90.29 % versus 87.50 %; P  = 0.307)]. Number of passes for ROSE adequacy and cell-block accuracy were comparable for FNA versus FNB [(3.06 ± 1.62 versus 3.04 ± 1.88; P  = 0.11) and (3.08 ± 1.63 versus 3.35 ± 2.02; P  = 0.137)]. FNA + ROSE was superior to FNA alone regarding sensitivity and accuracy [91.96 % versus 70.83 %; P  < 0.001) and (91.80 % versus 80.28 %; P  = 0.020)]. Sensitivity of FNB + ROSE and FNB alone were superior to FNA alone [(92.17 % versus 70.83 %; P  < 0.001) and (87.44 % versus 70.83 %; P  < 0.001)]. There was no difference in sensitivity though improved accuracy between FNA + ROSE versus FNB alone [(91.96 % versus 87.44 %; P  = 0.193) and (91.80 % versus 80.72 %; P  = 0.006)]. FNB + ROSE was more accurate than FNA + ROSE (93.13 % versus 91.80 % ; P  = 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed ROSE was a significant predictor of accuracy [OR 2.60 (95 % CI, 1.41-4.79)]. One adverse event occurred after FNB resulting in patient death. Conclusion  EUS-FNB allowed for more consistent cell-block evaluation as compared to EUS-FNA. EUS-FNA + ROSE was found to have a similar sensitivity to EUS-FNB alone suggesting a reduced need for ROSE as part of the standard algorithm of pancreatic sampling. While FNB alone produced similar diagnostic findings to EUS-FNA + ROSE, FNB + ROSE still was noted to increase diagnostic yield. This finding may favor a unique role for FNB + ROSE, suggesting it may be useful in cases when previous EUS-guided sampling may have been indeterminate.

Role of endoscopic ultrasound in the screening and follow-up of high-risk individuals for familial pancreatic cancer

Managing familial pancreatic cancer (FPC) is challenging for gastroenterologists, surgeons and oncologists. High-risk individuals (HRI) for pancreatic cancer (PC) (FPC or with germline mutations) are a heterogeneous group of subjects with a theoretical lifetime cumulative risk of PC over 5%. Screening is mainly based on annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). The goal of screening is to identify early-stage operable cancers or high-risk precancerous lesions (pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia or intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms with high-grade dysplasia). In the literature, target lesions are identified in 2%-5% of HRI who undergo screening. EUS appears to provide better identification of small solid lesions (0%-46% of HRI) and chronic-pancreatitis-like parenchymal changes (14%-77% of HRI), while MRI is probably the best modality to identify small cystic lesions (13%-49% of HRI). There are no specific studies in HRI on the use of contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS. EUS can also be used to obtain tissue samples. Nevertheless, there is still limited evidence on the accuracy of imaging procedures used for screening or agreement on which patients to treat. The cost-effectiveness of screening is also unclear. Certain new EUS-related techniques, such as searching for DNA abnormalities or protein markers in pancreatic fluid, appear to be promising.