Factors predictive of adverse events associated with endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic solid lesions

Preliminary study on the ability of the machine learning models based on 18F-FDG PET/CT to differentiate between mass-forming pancreatic lymphoma and pancreatic carcinoma

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to preliminarily assess the ability of metabolic parameters and radiomics derived from 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) to distinguish mass-forming pancreatic lymphoma from pancreatic carcinoma using machine learning.

METHODS

A total of 88 lesions from 86 patients diagnosed as mass-forming pancreatic lymphoma or pancreatic carcinoma were included and randomly divided into a training set and a validation set at a 4-to-1 ratio. The segmentation of regions of interest was performed using ITK-SNAP software, PET metabolic parameters and radiomics features were extracted using 3Dslicer and PYTHON. Following the selection of optimal metabolic parameters and radiomics features, Logistic regression (LR), support vector machine (SVM), and random forest (RF) models were constructed for PET metabolic parameters, CT radiomics, PET radiomics, and PET/CT radiomics. Model performance was assessed in terms of area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity in both the training and validation sets.

RESULTS

Strong discriminative ability observed in all models, with AUC values ranging from 0.727 to 0.978. The highest performance exhibited by the combined PET and CT radiomics features. AUC values for PET/CT radiomics models in the training set were LR 0.994, SVM 0.994, RF 0.989. In the validation set, AUC values were LR 0.909, SVM 0.883, RF 0.844.

CONCLUSION

Machine learning models utilizing the metabolic parameters and radiomics of 18F-FDG PET/CT show promise in distinguishing between pancreatic carcinoma and mass-forming pancreatic lymphoma. Further validation on a larger cohort is necessary before practical implementation in clinical settings.

National practice patterns in the use of endoscopic ultrasound biopsy for resectable Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: Insights into the role of DOTATATE PET/CT in diagnosis

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) are typically diagnosed using endoscopic ultrasound-guided (EUS) biopsy, which can be associated with complications. Since 2016, DOTATATE PET/CT has emerged as an effective tool to localize and stage PNETs.

METHODS

Patients with PNETs who underwent R0 resections were identified from the 2004-2019 National Cancer Database PUF. Joinpoint regression and multivariable logistic regression were used to analyze trends in the use of biopsy.

RESULTS

Of 16,746 R0 resected PNET patients, 44 ​% underwent diagnostic biopsy. Joinpoint regression showed a significant increase in the use of biopsy from 2004 to 2019 (APC 1.80, p ​< ​0.001). A higher percentage of patients diagnosed after DOTATATE approval underwent biopsy compared to those diagnosed before (48 ​% vs. 42 ​%, p ​< ​0.001). Adjusted analysis showed diagnosis after 2016 was associated with increased odds of biopsy (OR ​= ​1.67, p ​< ​0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite technologic advancement with DOTATATE PET/CT, there has been a significant increase in the proportion of resectable PNETs undergoing preoperative biopsy.

EUS-FNA versus EUS-FNB in Pancreatic Solid Lesions ≤ 15 mm

A small tumor size may impact the diagnostic performance of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) for diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs). We aimed to compare the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and biopsy (FNB) in SPLs with a diameter ≤ 15 mm. Consecutive patients who underwent EUS-TA for SPLs ≤ 15 mm between January 2015 and December 2022 in a tertiary referral center were retrospectively evaluated. The primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy. The final diagnosis was based on surgical pathology or disease evolution after a minimum follow-up of 6 months. Inadequate samples were all considered false negatives for the study. Secondary outcomes included sample adequacy, factors impacting accuracy, and safety. We included 368 patients (52.4% male; mean age: 60.2 years) who underwent FNA in 72 cases and FNB in 296. The mean size of SPLs was 11.9 ± 2.6 mm. More than three passes were performed in 5.7% and 61.5% of patients in the FNB and FNA groups, respectively (p < 0.0001). FNB outperformed FNA in terms of diagnostic accuracy (89.8% vs. 79.1%, p = 0.013) and sample adequacy (95.9% vs. 86.1%, p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, using FNA (OR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.07-4.48) and a final diagnosis (OR: 3.56, 95% CI: 1.82-6.94) of benign conditions negatively impacted accuracy. Overall, the adverse event rate was 0.8%, including one pancreatitis in the FNA group and one pancreatitis and one bleeding in the FNB group, all mild and conservatively managed. EUS-TA for SPLs ≤ 15 mm has a high diagnostic yield and safety. This study suggests the superiority of FNB over FNA, with better performance even with fewer passes performed.

Endoscopic Diagnosis of Extra-Luminal Cancers

The last 2 decades have seen an emergence of endoscopic technologies and techniques allowing for minimally invasive modalities for assessing and sampling lesions outside of the gastrointestinal lumen, including the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. Incorporating these new endoscopic approaches has revolutionized the diagnosis and staging of extra-luminal malignancies and has enabled more accessible and safer tissue acquisition.

Safety and Diagnostic Yield of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy for Hypervascular Pancreatic Lesions

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is a common technique for diagnosing pancreatic lesions with high accuracy and a low incidence of procedural adverse events. However, occasional adverse events, particularly bleeding, may occur. Procedures for hypervascular lesions are considered important, but their risks are unknown. We aimed to evaluate the safety and diagnostic yield of EUS-FNB for hypervascular pancreatic solid lesions. This study included 301 patients with 308 solid pancreatic lesions who underwent EUS-FNB between May 2011 and December 2018. We performed propensity-score matching to balance clinical differences between hypervascular and hypovascular lesions and analyzed 52 lesions. We compared the safety and diagnostic performance of propensity score-matched cohorts. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy rates of EUS-FNB for hypervascular lesions were 94.7%, 100%, and 96.2%, and those for hypovascular lesions were 80.0%, 100%, and 84.6%, respectively. There was no difference in diagnostic performance between hypervascular and hypovascular lesions. Furthermore, adverse events occurred in only one patient (pancreatitis) in the hypovascular group. There were no significant differences in the occurrence of adverse events between hypervascular and hypovascular lesions (0% vs. 3.8%, p = 1.000). Therefore, EUS-FNB may be safe with a high diagnostic yield, even for hypervascular solid pancreatic lesions.

Diagnostic Endoscopic Ultrasound in Pancreatology: Focus on Normal Variants and Pancreatic Masses

Background

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is a main tool in gastroenterology for both diagnosis and exclusion of pancreatic pathology. It allows minimally invasive assessment of various diseases or anatomic variations affecting the pancreas also with the help of new Doppler technologies, elastography, contrast-enhanced imaging including post hoc image processing with quantification analyses, three-dimensional reconstruction, and artificial intelligence. EUS also allows interventional direct access to the pancreatic parenchyma and the retroperitoneal space, to the pancreatic duct, pancreatic masses, cysts, and vascular structures.

Summary

This review aimed to summarize new developments of EUS in the field of pancreatology. We highlight the role of EUS in evaluating pancreatic pathology by describing normal anatomic variants like pancreas divisum, pancreatic lipomatosis, pancreatic fibrosis in the elderly and characterizing pancreatic masses, both in the context of chronic pancreatitis and within healthy pancreatic parenchyma. EUS is considered the optimal imaging modality for pancreatic masses of uncertain dignity and allows both cytological diagnosis and histology, which is essential not only for neoplastic conditions but also for tailoring therapy for benign inflammatory conditions.

Key Messages

EUS plays an indispensable role in pancreatology and the development of new diagnostic and interventional approaches to the retroperitoneal space and the pancreas exponentially increased over the last years. The development of computer-aided diagnosis and artificial intelligence algorithms hold the potential to overcome the obstacles associated with interobserver variability and will most likely support decision-making in the management of pancreatic disease.

Diagnostic Ability and Safety of Repeated Pancreatic Juice Cytology Using an Endoscopic Nasopancreatic Drainage Catheter for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Multicenter Prospective Study

Pathological examination is essential for the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Moreover, a reliable pathological diagnosis is extremely important for improving prognosis, especially in early-stage PDAC. This study prospectively evaluated the usefulness of repeated pancreatic juice cytology (PJC) using an endoscopic nasopancreatic drainage (ENPD) catheter for the diagnosis of PDAC. We enrolled 82 patients suspected of having resectable PDAC, based on imaging studies, and judged the necessity for cytology. The diagnostic yield of up to six repeated PJCs and the incidence of complications, such as pancreatitis, was evaluated. A total of 60 patients were diagnosed with PDAC. The overall sensitivity and specificity were 46.7% and 95.5%, respectively. The cumulative positivity rate increased with the number of sampling sessions, reaching 58.3% in the sixth session. The sensitivity was significantly higher in the pancreatic head than in the pancreatic tail (p = 0.043). Additionally, it was 100% in four patients with a tumor size ≤10 mm. Pancreatitis occurred in six patients (7.3%), all of whom were treated conservatively. In the diagnosis of PDAC, repeated PJC using an ENPD catheter revealed a cumulative effect of sensitivity up to six times and an excellent diagnostic yield for small PDAC.

Efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition for solid pancreatic lesions 20 mm or less in diameter suspected as neuroendocrine tumors or requiring differentiation

BACKGROUND

For non-functioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) ≤ 20 mm, most guidelines consider follow-up observations as an option; however, the various treatment strategies are defined by size alone, even though the Ki-67 index is important for malignancy grading. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) is the standard for the histopathological diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions; however, recent results for small lesions remain unclear. Therefore, we examined the efficacy of EUS-TA for solid pancreatic lesions ≤ 20 mm suspected as pNETs or requiring differentiation and the non-increase rate in tumor size in follow-up cases.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data of 111 patients (median age = 58 years) with lesions ≤ 20 mm suspected as pNETs or requiring differentiation who underwent EUS-TA. All patients underwent specimen evaluation by rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE).

RESULTS

EUS-TA led to a diagnosis of pNETs in 77 patients (69.4%) and tumors other than pNETs in 22 patients (19.8%). The histopathological diagnostic accuracy of EUS-TA was 89.2% (99/111) overall, 94.3% (50/53) for 10-20 mm lesions, and 84.5% (49/58) for ≤ 10 mm lesions, with no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy (p = 0.13). The Ki-67 index was measurable in all patients with a histopathological diagnosis of pNETs. Among 49 patients with a diagnosis of pNETs who were followed up, one patient (2.0%) showed tumor enlargement.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-TA for solid pancreatic lesions ≤ 20 mm suspected as pNETs or requiring differentiation is safe and has adequate histopathological diagnostic accuracy, suggesting that follow-up observations of pNETs with a histological pathologic diagnosis are acceptable in the short term.

Using Endoscopy in the Diagnosis of Pancreato-Biliary Cancers

Pancreatic cancer and cholangiocarcinoma are life threatening oncological conditions with poor prognosis and outcome. Pancreatic cystic lesions are considered precursors of pancreatic cancer as some of them have the potential to progress to malignancy. Therefore, accurate identification and classification of these lesions is important to prevent the development of invasive cancer. In the biliary tract, the accurate characterization of biliary strictures is essential for providing appropriate management and avoiding unnecessary surgery. Techniques have been developed to improve the diagnosis, risk stratification, and management of pancreato-biliary lesions. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and associated techniques, such as elastography, contrasted-enhanced EUS, and EUS-guided needle confocal laser endomicroscopy, may improve diagnostic accuracy. In addition, intraductal techniques applied during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), such as new generation cholangioscopy and in vivo cellular evaluation through probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy, can increase the diagnostic yield in characterizing indeterminate biliary strictures. Both EUS-guided and intraductal approaches can provide the possibility for tissue sampling with new tools, such as needles, biopsies forceps, and brushes. At the molecular level, novel biomarkers have been explored that provide new insights into diagnosis, risk stratification, and management of these lesions.

A case of needle tract seeding that seemed to be caused by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration

A 66-year-old man underwent a single endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) session and distal pancreatectomy for the pancreatic body adenocarcinoma measuring 12 mm in diameter. At 3 years after surgery, we diagnosed needle tract seeding (NTS) and performed total gastrectomy. NTS can occur with small tumors or after a single session of EUS-FNA.

Comparison of Adverse Events of Different Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition Methods: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis

The efficacy of new generation endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy needles has been promising in recent years. Yet, comparing these needles’ diagnostic yield and safety to conventional needles is not well-known. Our study aims to compare the adverse events of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) with different types of needles, including FNA needles, FNB needles with a Franseen tip and FNB needles with a reverse bevel. Furthermore, we will analyze the risk factors, including tumor vascularity, different needle types, and the underlying disease, which may impact the safety of the procedures. From May 2014 to December 2021, 192 consecutive EUS-TAs were performed on pancreatic and peripancreatic lesions in our hospital using different types of FNA and FNB needles. We retrospectively reviewed the data and identified the risk factors for EUS-TA-related complications. As a result, the hypervascular tumor is a significant risk factor for adverse events in our multivariate analysis, with an odds ratio of 4.96 (95% CI 1.33–18.47), while liver cirrhosis is one of the risk factors for adverse events during EUS-TA, with an odds ratio of 5.3 (95% CI 1.1–25.6). However, the risk of adverse events did not increase using Franseen-tip needles, compared to conventional FNA or FNB needles with a reverse bevel. In conclusion, we must be more cautious in patients with liver cirrhosis and hypervascular tumors, such as pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, when performing EUS-guided tissue acquisition.

A duodenal gastrointestinal stromal tumor mimicking a pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor: a case report

Background

Duodenal gastrointestinal stromal tumors are rare. If tumor growth is extraluminal and involves the head of the pancreas, the diagnosis of a duodenal gastrointestinal stromal tumor is difficult.

Case presentation

A 44-year-old Japanese woman was referred to our hospital with anemia. An enhanced computed tomography scan showed a hypervascular mass 30 mm in diameter, but the origin of the tumor, either the duodenum or the head of the pancreas, was unclear. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy revealed bulging accompanied by erosion and redness in part of the duodenal bulb. Mucosal biopsy was not diagnostic. Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration was difficult to perform because a pulsating blood vessel was present in the region to be punctured. These findings led to a diagnosis of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor invasion to the duodenum. The patient underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy. Histologically, the tumor was made up of spindle-shaped cells immunohistochemically positive for c-Kit and CD34. The tumor was ultimately diagnosed as a duodenal gastrointestinal stromal tumor.

Conclusion

Extraluminal duodenal gastrointestinal stromal tumors are rare and mimic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration is useful for preoperative diagnosis, but it is not possible in some cases. Intraoperative diagnosis based on a completely resected specimen of the tumor may be useful for modifying the surgical technique.

Endoscopic ultrasonography as additional preoperative workup is valuable in half of the patients with a pancreatic body or tail lesion

BACKGROUND

The management of pancreatic body and tail lesions is underexposed. It remains unclear whether endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) increases the accuracy of the preoperative workup. This study assessed the diagnostic value and safety of EUS in addition to cross-sectional imaging in a surgical cohort of patients with pancreatic body or tail lesions.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed of patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy from 2010 to 2017. The composite primary outcome was the additional value of EUS, defined as: (a) EUS confirmed an uncertain diagnosis on cross-sectional imaging, (b) EUS was correct in case of discrepancy with cross-sectional imaging, or (c) EUS provided tissue diagnosis for neoadjuvant treatment. Furthermore, serious adverse events and needle tract seeding were assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 181 patients were included, of whom 123 (68%) underwent EUS besides cross-sectional imaging. Postoperative pathology was heterogeneous: 91 was malignant, 49 premalignant, 41 benign. Most lesions were solid (n = 117). EUS had additional value in 59/123 (48%) patients; 27/50 (54%) of cystic and 32/73 (44%) of solid lesions. No serious adverse event or needle tract seeding following EUS occurred.

CONCLUSION

EUS had additional value besides cross-sectional imaging in half of the patients and showed low associated risks.

Optimal indication of endoscopic retrograde pancreatography-based cytology in the preoperative pathological diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is extremely useful for pathological diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC); however, puncturing is difficult in some cases, and there is a risk of needle tract seeding. This study evaluated the indications for endoscopic retrograde pancreatography-based (ERP)-based cytology for the preoperative diagnosis of PDAC.

METHODS

This study included 267 patients with PDAC who underwent preoperative ERP. The diagnostic performance of ERP-based cytology for PDAC was evaluated based on the sample collection method (pancreatic juice cytology [PJC] during ERP, brush cytology, PJC via endoscopic nasopancreatic drainage [ENPD] catheter), lesion site (pancreatic head, body/tail), and lesion size (≤10 mm, 10-20 mm, >20 mm), and compared with the diagnostic performance of EUS-FNA.

RESULTS

The overall sensitivity of ERP-based cytology was 54.9%; sensitivity by the sampling method was 34.7% for PJC during ERP, 65.8% for brush cytology, and 30.8% for PJC via an ENPD catheter. The sensitivity of EUS-FNA was 85.3%. Brush cytology and PJC via an ENPD catheter were performed more often in pancreatic body/tail lesions than in head lesions (P = 0.016 and P < 0.001, respectively), and the overall sensitivity of ERP-based cytology was better for body/tail lesions (63.2% vs. 49.0%, P = 0.025). The sensitivities of ERP-based cytology and EUS-FNA in diagnosing PDAC ≤10 mm were 92.3% and 33.3%, respectively. Post-ERP pancreatitis was observed in 22 patients (8.2%) and significantly less common with ENPD catheters (P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

ERP-based cytology may be considered the first choice for pathological diagnosis of PDAC ≤10 mm and in the pancreatic body/tail.

Endoscopic ultrasonography‐guided tissue acquisition for small solid pancreatic lesions: Does the size matter?

Endoscopic ultrasonography‐guided tissue acquisition (EUS‐TA) is now an established technique to obtain the pathological diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs), but the diagnosis of small SPLS by EUS‐TA can still be difficult. We conducted a literature review and a meta‐analysis on the diagnostic yield of EUS‐TA according to the tumor size. In a meta‐analysis of 33 studies with 6883 cases, a pooled odds ratio (OR) of sensitivity was significantly higher in SPLs of >20 mm (OR 1.64, p = 0.02) and in SPLs of >10 mm (OR 3.05, p = 0.01), but not in SPLs of >30 mm (OR 1.18, p = 0.46). The meta‐analysis of accuracy also showed a similar trend: OR of 1.59 in SPLs of >20 mm (p < 0.01) and OR of 3.27 in SPLs of >10 mm (p < 0.01) and OR of 1.03 in SPLs of >30 mm (p = 0.87). The use of a 25‐gauge needle tended to improve sensitivity in small SPLs, though not statistically significant: OR of 1.25 and 2.82 in studies with and without a 25‐gauge needle (p = 0.08). The use of fine needle biopsy needles, slow pull method, and rapid on‐site evaluation did not significantly improve sensitivity in small SPLs. EUS‐TA for small SPLs, especially neuroendocrine neoplasms, is reported to have a high risk of adverse events. In summary, the diagnostic yield and safety of EUS‐TA for small (<20 mm) SPLs still needs improvement, and the best needle and technique for small SPLs should be further investigated.

Current role of endoscopic ultrasound in the diagnosis and management of pancreatic cancer

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has emerged as an invaluable tool for the diagnosis, staging and treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). EUS is currently the most sensitive imaging tool for the detection of solid pancreatic tumors. Conventional EUS has evolved, and new imaging techniques, such as contrast-enhanced harmonics and elastography, have been developed to improve diagnostic accuracy during the evaluation of focal pancreatic lesions. More recently, evaluation with artificial intelligence has shown promising results to overcome operator-related flaws during EUS imaging evaluation. Currently, an appropriate diagnosis is based on a proper histological assessment, and EUS-guided tissue acquisition is the standard procedure for pancreatic sampling. Newly developed cutting needles with core tissue procurement provide the possibility of molecular evaluation for personalized oncological treatment. Interventional EUS has modified the therapeutic approach, primarily for advanced pancreatic cancer. EUS-guided fiducial placement for local targeted radiotherapy treatment or EUS-guided radiofrequency ablation has been developed for local treatment, especially for patients with pancreatic cancer not suitable for surgical resection. Additionally, EUS-guided therapeutic procedures, such as celiac plexus neurolysis for pain control and EUS-guided biliary drainage for biliary obstruction, have dramatically improved in recent years toward a more effective and less invasive procedure to palliate complications related to PDAC. All the current benefits of EUS in the diagnosis and management of PDAC will be thoroughly discussed.

Adverse events of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for histologic diagnosis in Japanese tertiary centers: Multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is used for the histopathological diagnosis of any type of gastrointestinal disease. Few adverse events are experienced with this procedure; however, the actual rate of adverse events remains unclear. This study aimed to clarify the current status of cases that experienced adverse events related to the EUS-FNA procedure used for histopathologic diagnoses.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of cases with EUS-FNA-related adverse events in Japanese tertiary centers was conducted by assessing the following clinical data: basic case information, FNA technique, type of procedural adverse events, and prognosis.

RESULTS

Of the 13,566 EUS-FNA cases overall, the total number of cases in which adverse events related to EUS-FNA occurred was 234. The incidence of EUS-FNA-related adverse events was ~1.7%. Bleeding and pancreatitis cases accounted for ~49.1% and 26.5% of all adverse events, respectively. Bleeding was the most common adverse event with only seven cases requiring blood transfusion. In cases with neuroendocrine tumors, pancreatitis was the most frequent adverse event. Needle tract seeding because of EUS-FNA was observed during the follow-up period in only ~0.1% of cases with pancreatic cancer. There was no mortality because of adverse events caused by EUS-FNA.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed that the adverse events-related EUS-FNA for histopathologic diagnoses were not severe conditions, and had low incidence.

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

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

Risk of adverse events associated with upper and lower endoscopic ultrasound: a population-based cohort study

Background and study aim  Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) enables diagnostic evaluation and therapeutic interventions but is associated with adverse events. We conducted a population-based cohort study to determine the risk of adverse events for upper and lower EUS with and without fine-needle aspiration (FNA). Patients and methods  All adults who underwent EUS and resided in Calgary in 2007-2013 were included. Endoscopy and provincial databases were used to identify EUS procedures, unplanned emergency department visits, and hospital admissions within 30 days of the procedures, which were then characterized through formal chart review. Adverse events were defined a priori and classified as definitely, possibly, or not related to EUS. The primary outcome was 30-day risk of adverse events classified as definitely or possibly related to EUS. Univariable and multivariable analyses were conducted with risk factors known to be associated with EUS adverse events. Results  2895 patients underwent 3552 EUS procedures: 3034 (85 %) upper EUS, of which 710 (23 %) included FNA, and 518 (15 %) lower EUS, of which 23 (4 %) involved FNA. Overall, 69 procedures (2 %) involved an adverse event that was either definitely or possibly related to EUS, with 33 (1 %) requiring hospitalization. None of the adverse events required intensive care or resulted in death. On multivariable analysis, only FNA was associated with increased risk of adverse events (odds ratio 6.43, 95 % confidence interval 3.92-10.55; P  < 0.001). Conclusion  Upper and lower EUS were generally safe but FNA substantially increased the risk of adverse events. EUS-related complications requiring hospitalization were rare.

Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer: Risk Factors and the Current State of Screening Modalities

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is expected to become the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States within the next decade. Patients often present at late stages of the disease, when they become symptomatic; in many cases, these patients have unresectable disease that is associated with a poor prognosis. Considering the low incidence of PC in the general population, routine screening of average-risk individuals is not feasible and not recommended. Individuals with familial germline mutations or familial PC are at higher risk of developing PC. Improving detection of PC at an earlier stage entails the recognition of high-risk individuals who may benefit from a long-term screening program. This article identifies patients who may be at increased risk of developing PC, discusses PC screening recommendations, and compares imaging-based modalities and biomarkers for early detection of PC.

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

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

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

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

The bleeding risk after endoscopic ultrasound-guided puncture of pancreatic masses

BACKGROUND

Although EUS-fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is considered to be safe, there are limited studies on adverse events of fine-needle biopsy (FNB).

AIM

To compare the bleeding rate of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB of solid and cystic pancreatic masses.

METHODS

Our retrospective study included EUS-FNA/FNB of solid and cystic pancreatic masses performed between 02/2017-03/2019 in Klinikum Klagenfurt and 11/2018-03/2019 in University Hospital St. Pölten, Austria. Minor bleeding was defined as an event with a duration of more than 1 min, no need for intervention, large coagulum on the puncture site, or decrease in hemoglobin ≥1.5 g/dL (but <2 g/dL). Major bleeding was defined as a reduction in hemoglobin level ≥2 g/dL, need for red cell transfusions, or interventional hemostasis.

RESULTS

About 202 patients were biopsied in that period (141 solid, 61cystic pancreatic masses). FNA needle was used in 54.6% of cases with solid pancreatic masses and 73.7% of cysts. Bleeding with hemodynamic instability was not observed in our cohort. In pancreatic cysts, minor bleeding was observed in 8.2% of cases and was associated with the use of FNB needles and lower platelet count. In solid tumors, one major bleeding (0.7%) from a duodenal vessel occurred and was immediately treated with hemoclip. In this group, minor bleeding was observed in 15.6% of cases. Overall, the bleeding rate correlates with the use of FNB needles.

CONCLUSION

Use of EUS-FNB needles increases the rate of minor bleeding for both solid and cystic pancreatic tumors, while major bleeding is a rare occurrence, irrespective of the needle type.

Complications of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration: A Narrative Review

Considerable progress has been made recently in the use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) to diagnose intra-luminal gastrointestinal lesions and extra-luminal lesions near the gastrointestinal tract. Numerous reports have indicated that EUS-FNA has high diagnostic performance and safety, which has led to the routine use of EUS-FNA and an increasing number of cases. Thus, while EUS-FNA has a low rate of complications, endoscopists may encounter these complications as the number of cases increases. Infrequent reports have also described life-threatening complications. Therefore, endoscopists should possess a comprehensive understanding of the complications of EUS-FNA, which include hemorrhage, perforation, infection, and acute pancreatitis, as well as their management. This review examines the available evidence regarding the complications associated with EUS-FNA, and the findings will be useful for ensuring that endoscopists perform EUS-FNA safely and appropriately.

Overlooked risk for needle tract seeding following endoscopic ultrasound-guided minimally invasive tissue acquisition

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided minimally invasive tissue acquisition can be performed by two approaches as follows: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). These have been evolved into leading approaches and widely used for the histological diagnosis of tumors in the gastrointestinal tract and adjacent organs. However, the role of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB in disease diagnosis and evaluation remains controversial. Although the incidence of surgery-associated complications remains low, the consequences of needle tract seeding can be serious or even life-threatening. Recently, increasing case reports of needle tract seeding are emerging, especially caused by EUS-FNA. This complication needs serious consideration. In the present work, we integrated these case reports and the related literature, and summarized the relevant cases and technical characteristics of needle tract seeding caused by EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB. Collectively, our findings provided valuable insights into the prevention and reduction of such serious complication.

Seeding of a Tumor in the Gastric Wall after Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Aspiration of Solid Pseudopapillary Neoplasm of the Pancreas

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is widely used as a first-line procedure for the definitive diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. Adverse events associated with the EUS-FNA procedure include acute pancreatitis, bleeding, infection, and duodenal perforation. Rarely, pancreatic tumors disseminate in the peritoneal cavity or seed in the gastric wall via the biopsy needle tract after EUS-FNA. Such seeding has been noted primarily in cases of adenocarcinomas and has not been associated with solid pseudopapillary neoplasm (SPN), a rare and potentially malignant tumor of the pancreas. This is the first report of a case of tumor seeding in the gastric wall after EUS-FNA of pancreatic SPN.

Statins decrease the risk of acute pancreatitis after endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic cysts

BACKGROUND

Basic and clinical studies suggest that statins may prevent and even ameliorate acute pancreatitis. The present study was to evaluate whether statin decreases the risk of acute pancreatitis in patients undergoing endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic cysts.

METHODS

Out of 456 patients with pancreatic cysts referred to our center between 2006 and 2018, 365 were finally included in analyses: 86 were treated with statins and 279 were not at the time of endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration. We compared the acute pancreatitis incidence between the two groups, and we also compared other complications such as bleeding and infections.

RESULTS

Median age was 64 years [interquartile range (IQR) 62-69] and median cyst size was 24 mm (IQR, 21-29). The most frequent histology was intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (45.3% and 42.3% in the two groups, respectively; P = 0.98). All 13 patients experiencing post-endoscopic ultrasound acute pancreatitis were from the control group (4.7%), of which 3 were classified as severe pancreatitis. None of statin users developed post-procedural acute pancreatitis (odds ratio: 0.15; 95% confidence interval: 0.03-0.98; P = 0.03). No difference was registered with regard to severe pancreatitis and other complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Statins exert a beneficial role in preventing acute pancreatitis in patients with pancreatic cysts undergoing endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration. If confirmed in prospective trials, our findings may pave the way to an extensive use of statins as prophylactic agents in pancreatic interventional endoscopy.

The Risk Factors for Acute Pancreatitis after Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Biopsy

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The risk of developing pancreatitis induced by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS FNA) is relatively small. However, patients undergoing sampling through the normal pancreatic parenchyma or the pancreatic duct may have a higher rate of pancreatitis. Here, we determine the factors associated with increased risk of acute pancreatitis in patients undergoing FNA through normal pancreatic parenchyma/pancreatic duct.

METHODS

In this prospective study at a tertiary cancer center, patients undergoing sampling through the pancreatic duct or ≥5 mm of the normal parenchyma between December 2013 and September 2017 were included. Post-EUS induced pancreatitis was diagnosed by the presence of abdominal pain with an amylase or lipase level higher than three times normal value.

RESULTS

A total of 712 patients underwent pancreatic EUS FNA. A total of 163 patients were included in the high-risk group. Mean age was 63 years, 82 females, mean number of needle-passes was 3.3 (range, 1-7). Fifteen patients (15/163, 9.2%) developed pancreatitis after EUS FNA through the pancreatic parenchyma compared with only one case among the control group (＜5 mm of normal parenchyma) (0.18%, 1/549, p＜0.0001). Several factors appeared to be associated with pancreatitis, including young age, solid lesion, and a recent history of acute pancreatitis. By logistic regression, a prior history of recent pancreatitis was the only statistically significant factor associated with post-EUS-guided biopsy pancreatitis (p=0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a recent history of acute pancreatitis undergoing EUS FNA through 5 mm or more of the normal pancreatic parenchyma are at a much greater risk of acute pancreatitis.

A "Back Light System" for Identification of Sites for Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration in Solid Pancreatic Masses: A Prospective, Randomized Study with a Crossover Design

Background/Aims

We applied a back light system (BLS) with a magnifying glass to improve the ability to assess the adequacy of specimen sampling using endosonography. We conducted this study to evaluate the efficacy of the BLS in sampling of specimens by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of solid pancreatic masses.

Methods

This was a prospective, randomized, crossover, single-center clinical trial. An endosonographer evaluated adequacy on gross visual inspection and identified whitish specimen sampling sites with and without the BLS according to a randomization sequence in the first and second passes with a 25-G needle. On cytological evaluation, the presence of well-defined pancreatic ductal epithelium was evaluated by a cytopathologist who was blinded to any clinical information.

Results

A total of 80 consecutive patients were eligible during the study period. Adequacy was observed for 52 specimens (65%) with the BLS and 54 (68%) without the BLS (p=0.88). In assessment of specimen adequacy on gross examination, only fair agreement was observed both with and without BLS (kappa score 0.40 and 0.29, respectively).

Conclusions

The BLS did not influence the ability to identify specimen sampling sites or reliable assessment of specimen site adequacy using gross visual inspection.

Prognostic factors of non-functioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor revisited: The value of WHO 2010 classification

Backgrounds/Aims

Various factors have been reported as prognostic factors of non-functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NF-pNETs). There remains some controversy as to the factors which might actually serve to successfully prognosticate future manifestation and diagnosis of NF-pNETs. As well, consensus regarding management strategy has never been achieved. The aim of this study is to further investigate potential prognostic factors using a large single-center cohort to help determine the management strategy of NF-pNETs.

Methods

During the time period 1995 through 2013, 166 patients with NF-pNETs who underwent surgery in Samsung Medical Center were entered in a prospective database, and those factors thought to represent predictors of prognosis were tested in uni- and multivariate models.

Results

The median follow-up time was 46.5 months; there was a maximum follow-up period of 217 months. The five-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were 88.5% and 77.0%, respectively. The 2010 WHO classification was found to be the only prognostic factor which affects overall survival and disease-free survival in multivariate analysis. Also, pathologic tumor size and preoperative image tumor size correlated strongly with the WHO grades (p<0.001, and p<0.001).

Conclusions

Our study demonstrates that 2010 WHO classification represents a valuable prognostic factor of NF-pNETs and tumor size on preoperative image correlated with WHO grade. In view of the foregoing, the preoperative image size is thought to represent a reasonable reference with regard to determination and development of treatment strategy of NF-pNETs.

Diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA of small (≤15 mm) solid pancreatic lesions using a 25-gauge needle

BACKGROUND

Early detection of small solid pancreatic lesions is increasingly common. To date, few and contradictory data have been published about the relationship between lesion size and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) diagnostic yield. The aim of this study was to assess the relation between the size of solid pancreatic lesions and the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA using a 25-gauge needle in a center without available rapid on-site evaluation.

METHODS

In the retrospective cohort study, we selected patients who underwent EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic lesions with a 25-gauge needle from October 2014 to October 2015. Patients were divided into three groups (≤15 mm, 16-25 mm and >25 mm), and the outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

We analyzed 163 patients. Overall adequacy, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 85.2%, 81.8%, 93.7%, and 80.4%, respectively. When stratified by size, the sensitivity and accuracy correlated with size (P = 0.016 and P = 0.042, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that lesion size was the only independent factor (P = 0.019, OR = 4.76) affecting accuracy. The role of size as an independent factor affecting accuracy was confirmed in a separate multivariate analysis, where size was included in the model as a covariate (P = 0.018, OR = 1.08).

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates that, in the absence of rapid on-site evaluation, mass size affects the accuracy of EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions.

Risk factors associated with adverse events during endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling

Background and aim

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is commonly used to obtain tissue external to the gastrointestinal tract. EUS-FNA is relatively safe, but occasionally adverse events have been reported. There is scarcity of data on risk factors of adverse events. The aim of this study is to identify risk factors associated with EUS-FNA.

Methods

In this multicenter case-control study, we retrospectively reviewed 4,097 cases between 2009 and 2012 at 15 hospitals in Korea. Among the patients there were 104 cases (2.5%) who had adverse events of which 12 (0.29%) were severe. We matched 520 controls (1:5 ratios) stratified by hospital to analyze the potential risk factors.

Results

The most common adverse events were pancreatitis (45/104, 43.3%) and infection (46/104, 44.2%). Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) on the same day was a risk factor of all adverse events [OR = 2.41, 95% CI (1.41, 4.12)], pancreatitis [OR = 2.31, 95% CI (1.02, 5.25)], and infection [OR = 2.75, 95% CI (1.31, 5.78)]. More than 15 to-and-fro movements during puncture increased the risk of pancreatitis [OR = 2.30, 95% CI (1.11, 4.77)] and infection [OR = 3.65, 95% CI (1.55, 8.59)]. A higher number of punctures was positively correlated with pancreatitis [OR = 1.34, 95% CI (1.08, 1.67)] but negatively correlated with infection [OR = 0.66, 95% CI (0.48, 0.89)].

Conclusions

EUS-FNA is a safe procedure in which serious adverse events are rare. We define some risk factors of adverse events during EUS-FNA, including ERCP on the same day, a higher number of punctures, and more than 15 to-and-fro movements.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality with mortality rates as high as 14%. This document addresses the indications for imaging UGIB that is nonvariceal and unrelated to portal hypertension. The four variants are derived with respect to upper endoscopy. For the first three, it is presumed that upper endoscopy has been performed, with three potential initial outcomes: endoscopy reveals arterial bleeding source, endoscopy confirms UGIB without a clear source, and negative endoscopy. The fourth variant, "postsurgical and traumatic causes of UGIB; endoscopy contraindicated" is considered separately because upper endoscopy is not performed. When endoscopy identifies the presence and location of bleeding but bleeding cannot be controlled endoscopically, catheter-based arteriography with treatment is an appropriate next study. CT angiography (CTA) is comparable with angiography as a diagnostic next step. If endoscopy demonstrates a bleed but the endoscopist cannot identify the bleeding source, angiography or CTA can be typically performed and both are considered appropriate. In the event of an obscure UGIB, angiography and CTA have been shown to be equivalent in identifying the bleeding source; CT enterography may be an alternative to CTA to find an intermittent bleeding source. In the postoperative or traumatic setting when endoscopy is contraindicated, primary angiography, CTA, and CT with intravenous contrast are considered appropriate. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Imaging modalities for characterising focal pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Differential diagnosis of small solid pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is typically diagnosed at a late stage. Little is known about the incidental finding of early-stage PDAC. The aim of the current study was to determine the etiology of small solid pancreatic lesions (≤15 mm) to optimize clinical management.

METHODS

Inclusion criterion for the retrospective study analysis was the incidental finding of primarily undetermined small solid pancreatic lesions ≤15 mm in 394 asymptomatic patients. Final diagnoses were based on histology or cytology obtained by imaging-guided biopsy (and at least 12-month follow-up) and/or surgery. Contrast-enhanced US or contrast-enhanced EUS was performed in 219 patients.

RESULTS

The final diagnoses of 394 patients were as follows: 146 PDACs, 156 neuroendocrine tumors, 28 metastases into the pancreas from other primary sites, and 64 various other etiologies. Contrast-enhanced US allowed differential diagnosis of PDAC and non-PDAC in 189 of 219 patients (86%).

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 40% of patients with small solid pancreatic lesions had very early stage PDAC. Approximately 60% of small solid pancreatic lesions ≤15 mm are not PDAC and, therefore, do not require radical surgery. Without preoperative diagnosis, an unacceptably large proportion of patients would be exposed to radical surgery with significant morbidity and mortality.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided techniques for diagnosing pancreatic mass lesions: Can we do better?

The diagnostic approach to a possible pancreatic mass lesion relies first upon various non-invasive imaging modalities, including computed tomography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging techniques. Once a suspect lesion has been identified, tissue acquisition for characterization of the lesion is often paramount in developing an individualized therapeutic approach. Given the high prevalence and mortality associated with pancreatic cancer, an ideal approach to diagnosing pancreatic mass lesions would be safe, highly sensitive, and reproducible across various practice settings. Tools, in addition to radiologic imaging, currently employed in the initial evaluation of a patient with a pancreatic mass lesion include serum tumor markers, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). EUS-FNA has grown to become the gold standard in tissue diagnosis of pancreatic lesions.

Complications of diagnostic and therapeutic Endoscopic Ultrasound

Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) provides the unique opportunity to visualize, interrogate and intervene gastrointestinal (GI) luminal, mural or peri-luminal structures and pathology with negligible adverse effects. Diagnostic, upper GI and rectal EUS is feasible, extremely safe, and efficacious. Most EUS guided interventions are safe, effective and minimally invasive, compared to peers in the percutaneous radiological or surgical procedures. As with any endoscopic procedure, EUS and its guided interventions may be accompanied by adverse events. EUS related complications are generally infrequent in expert hands, and mainly include bleeding and perforation. However, the nature and severity of adverse events associated with each EUS guided procedure are unique. Hence, it is paramount for endosonographer to have sufficient knowledge of the indications, techniques, and potential risks involved before contemplating any given procedure. Most common intervention with EUS is transmural fine needle aspiration (FNA), which is an extremely safe procedure. EUS guided drainage procedures are rapidly evolving with newer devices and methods being employed. Among them, EUS guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collection-pseudocyst or walled off necrosis (WON), has largely replaced other methods (surgical, percutaneous or non-EUS endoscopic) with acceptable complications. Currently, dedicated metal stents are more widely used compared to plastic stents for drainage of PFC, especially WON. EUS has made a definite impact in biliary access and drainage of obstructed biliary system, in patients where ERCP has failed or is technically not possible, closely competing with percutaneous biliary drainage. In spite of some complications, recent improvement in devices for bilio-enteric fistula creation and stent designs, has added to its safety and efficacy. EUS guided pancreatic duct drainage remains the most challenging of EUS guided interventions where in-roads are being made.

Randomized trial comparing a side-port needle and standard needle for EUS-guided histology of pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

A side-port needle has been developed to improve diagnostic accuracy by obtaining more cellular material during EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA). We compared the accuracy rate of histology and the quality of histologic specimens from 22-gauge (G) side-port and standard needles for EUS-FNA of a solid pancreatic mass in a multicenter, prospective, randomized control trial.

METHODS

Between January 2013 and September 2013, 160 consecutive patients with a suspected solid pancreatic mass at 5 tertiary referral centers were enrolled. Patients were randomized to the 22G side-port needle or 22G standard needle group. The primary endpoint was the diagnostic accuracy of histology. Secondary endpoints were the quality of the histologic specimen (quantity of tissue, degree of GI contamination, and amount of blood).

RESULTS

An analysis of 154 patients (side-port, 76, vs standard, 78) was performed. Six patients were excluded because of no pancreatic mass on EUS. There was no significant difference in the rate of diagnostic accuracy of histology (side-port, 87% [66/76], vs standard, 82% [64/78]; P = .51). Samples that enabled histologic interpretation were obtained in 64% (47/73) and 43% (33/77) of patients from the side-port and standard groups, respectively (P = .009). No significant difference was seen in the degree of GI contamination and amount of blood between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in the accuracy rate of histology between needle types. The side-port needle was superior to the standard needle in terms of obtaining samples that enabled histologic interpretation.

Diagnosis of pancreatic lesions collected by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration using next-generation sequencing

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUF-FNA) has improved the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) facilitates the production of millions of sequences concurrently. Therefore, in the current study, to improve the detectability of oncogenic mutations in pancreatic lesions, an NGS system was used to diagnose EUS-FNA samples. A total of 38 patients with clinically diagnosed EUS-FNA specimens were analyzed; 27 patients had pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and 11 had non-PDAC lesions. DNA samples were isolated and sequenced by NGS using an Ion Personal Genome Machine system. The Cancer Hotspot Panel v2, which includes 50 cancer-related genes and 2,790 COSMIC mutations, was used. A >2% mutation frequency was defined as positive. KRAS mutations were detected in 26 of 27 PDAC aspirates (96%) and 0 of 11 non-PDAC lesions (0%). The G12, G13, and Q61 KRAS mutations were found in 25, 0, and 1 of the 27 PDAC samples, respectively. Mutations were confirmed by TaqMan^® polymerase chain reaction analysis. TP53 mutations were detected in 12 of 27 PDAC aspirates (44%). SMAD4 was observed in 3 PDAC lesions and cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A in 4 PDAC lesions. Therefore, the current study was successfully able to develop an NGS assay with high clinical sensitivity for EUS-FNA samples.

Endoscopic ultrasonography guided-fine needle aspiration for the diagnosis of solid pancreaticobiliary lesions: Clinical aspects to improve the diagnosis

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has been applied to pancreaticobiliary lesions since the 1990s and is in widespread use throughout the world today. We used this method to confirm the pathological evidence of the pancreaticobiliary lesions and to perform suitable therapies. Complications of EUS-FNA are quite rare, but some of them are severe. Operators should master conventional EUS observation and experience a minimum of 20-30 cases of supervised EUS-FNA on non-pancreatic and pancreatic lesions before attempting solo EUS-FNA. Studies conducted on pancreaticobiliary EUS-FNA have focused on selection of suitable instruments (e.g., needle selection) and sampling techniques (e.g., fanning method, suction level, with or without a stylet, optimum number of passes). Today, the diagnostic ability of EUS-FNA is still improving; the detection of pancreatic cancer (PC) currently has a sensitivity of 90%-95% and specificity of 95%-100%. In addition to PC, a variety of rare pancreatic tumors can be discriminated by conducting immunohistochemistry on the FNA materials. A flexible, large caliber needle has been used to obtain a large piece of tissue, which can provide sufficient histological information to be helpful in classifying benign pancreatic lesions. EUS-FNA can supply high diagnostic yields even for biliary lesions or peri-pancreaticobiliary lymph nodes. This review focuses on the clinical aspects of EUS-FNA in the pancreaticobiliary field, with the aim of providing information that can enable more accurate and efficient diagnosis.

Diagnostic ability of EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid lesions with conventional 22-gauge needle using the slow pull technique: a prospective study

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) using the slow pull technique (SP-FNA) has recently attracted attention as an effective tissue acquisition technique. However, efficacy of SP-FNA with a 22-gauge conventional needle remains unclear. The aim of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic ability of SP-FNA with a 22-gauge needle.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients with a pancreatic solid lesion were prospectively enrolled in this study. SP-FNA was performed at two needle passes with a 22-gauge needle. One dedicated pathologist evaluated the obtained samples in terms of quantity (Grade 0: scant; Grade 1: inadequate; Grade 2: adequate), quality (Grade 0: poor; Grade 1: moderate; Grade 2: good), and blood contamination (Grade 0: significant; Grade 1: moderate; Grade 2: low), and provided a pathological diagnosis. Additional EUS-FNA was performed by applying suction (SA-FNA). The evaluation points were as follows: diagnostic accuracy of SP-FNA compared with that of SA-FNA, and the quantity, quality, and blood contamination level of SP-FNA-obtained samples.

RESULTS

We enrolled 40 cases. The diagnostic accuracy of SP-FNA was 90% (36/40). There was no significant difference in the accuracy between SP-FNA and SA-FNA (90% vs. 90%, p = 1.000). The samples obtained using SP-FNA were assessed as Grade 2 for quantity in 29 cases (73%), quality in 31 (78%), and blood contamination in 25 (63%).

CONCLUSIONS

Adequate, high-quality, and unsubstantially blood-contaminated samples could be obtained using SP-FNA. The diagnostic ability of SP-FNA was 90%, which appeared to be similar to that of SA-FNA.

High risk of acute pancreatitis after endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of side branch intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms

Background and Objectives:

Data on the risk of acute pancreatitis following endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of pancreatic cystic lesions are limited. The aim of our study was to evaluate the frequency of acute pancreatitis after EUS-FNA of pancreatic cysts and solid lesions, and determine whether there was a difference in pancreatitis risk in patients with side branch intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (SB-IPMN).

Patients and Methods:

A retrospective review of patients who underwent EUS-FNA of pancreatic cysts and solid lesions was performed. The primary outcome measure was development of acute pancreatitis after EUS-FNA. Factors associated with acute pancreatitis were examined by statistical analysis to determine independent predictors of acute pancreatitis. Statistical significance was determined at a P ≤ 0.05.

Results:

We identified 186 patients with pancreatic cystic lesions and 557 with solid lesions in which EUS-FNA was performed. The median size of the cysts was 19 mm (range: 10-66 mm). There were 37 IPMNs, 33 mucinous cystic neoplasms, 58 serous cysts and 46 pseudocysts and 12 solid-cystic ductal carcinomas. The majority of patients (75%) with solid lesions were diagnosed with adenocarcinoma. Patients with pancreatic cysts had a statistically greater frequency of developing pancreatitis after EUS-FNA when compared to those with solid lesions (2.6% vs. 0.36% respectively; P = 0.13). In patients with cysts, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups (with and without pancreatitis) with regard to a cyst location, size of the cyst, and number of needle passes or trainee involvement. Patients with SB-IPMN had a statistically higher frequency of pancreatitis after EUS-FNA compared to those with other cyst types (8% vs. 1.3% respectively; odds ratio = 6.4, 95% confidence intervals = 1.0-40.3, P = 0.05).

Discussion:

Patients with SB-IPMN are at a higher risk of developing acute pancreatitis after a EUS-FNA. Alternative means of diagnosis such as magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatogram might be necessary to avoid risk of EUS-FNA.

Optimal number of needle passes in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for pancreatic lesions

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is accurate in cytological diagnosis of pancreatic lesions. Our aim was to determine optimal number of needle passes in EUS-FNA for pancreatic lesions without onsite cytopathologist, who is not routinely available to participate in the procedure.

METHODS

Results of all needle passes in EUS-FNAs for 117 pancreatic neoplasms in 115 patients were reviewed retrospectively. Factors that required 2 or more needle passes for correct diagnosis were identified by multivariate logistic regression analysis. In each lesion group defined by the factors that required 2 or more passes and were known at the time of EUS-FNA, number of needle passes was regarded as optimal when an increase in diagnostic sensitivity by an additional needle pass did not reach 10%.

RESULTS

Size of 15 mm or less (OR 4.58, 95% CI 1.70-12.3, P < 0.01), location of head (OR 5.02, 95% CI 1.82-13.9, P < 0.01), and neuroendocrine tumor (NET) (OR 5.04, 95% CI 1.38-18.4, P = 0.01) independently required 2 or more needle passes. Optimal numbers of needle passes for lesions of 15 mm or less in the head, those of more than 15 mm in the head, those of 15 mm or less in the body or tail, and those of more than 15 mm in the body or tail were 3, 2, 2, and 1, respectively. When these numbers of needle passes were performed, 93% of pancreatic lesions were correctly diagnosed.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimal numbers of needle passes in EUS-FNA for pancreatic lesions without onsite cytopathologist were between 1 and 3.

Importance of lymph node involvement in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: impact on survival and implications for surgical resection

BACKGROUND

Conflicting data exist on predictors of nodal metastases and their impact on survival in patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs). We aim to identify factors associated with lymph node involvement and evaluate the effect of nodal metastases on survival.

METHODS

All patients undergoing surgery for PNETs in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) tumor registry from 1988 to 2010 were included. Predictors of lymph node involvement and disease-specific survival (DSS) were evaluated using logistic regression and Cox regression, respectively.

RESULTS

Patients (1,915) underwent surgery for a PNET (62% nonfunctional). Nodal positivity was associated with increasing tumor size (p < 0.001) and grade (p < 0.001). Unadjusted DSS at 5 years was 81% for N0, 74 for Nx, and 69% for N1, respectively, (p < 0.001). After adjustment for tumor size and grade, DSS was significantly decreased in N1 patients (HR 1.57; 95% CI 1.23-1.95). For patients who had at least one node examined and had low-grade PNETs <1 cm, no nodal metastases were found.

CONCLUSIONS

High tumor grade and increasing size predict nodal metastases in patients with PNETs. N1 status is independently associated with decreased DSS. Low-grade tumors <1 cm may be observed or enucleated.

The usefulness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for the diagnosis of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors based on the World Health Organization classification

BACKGROUND

We assessed the controversial topic of using 22-gauge needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for the diagnosis and evaluation of Ki67 labeling indices (Ki67LI) of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNET).

METHODS

Thirty-eight patients with pNET who underwent EUS-FNA between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2012 were enrolled in this study. When available, the Ki67LI and WHO classifications obtained by EUS-FNA and surgical resection were compared.

RESULTS

EUS-FNA with a 22-gauge needle acquired sufficient histological sample to correctly diagnose pNET in 35 cases (92.1%). Both EUS-FNA and surgical histological specimens were available for 19 cases, and grading classes of the 2 procedures were consistent in 17 cases (89.5%) according to the WHO classification based on the Ki67LI. Tumor size was associated with a difference in the Ki67LI between the 2 procedures, although the Ki67LI was almost completely consistent for tumors less than 18 mm in size.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNA with a 22-gauge needle is a safe and highly accurate technique for the diagnosis of pNET. There was a clear correlation between the Ki67LI of histological specimens acquired by EUS-FNA and surgery. EUS-FNA with a 22-gauge needle is useful to predict the WHO classification of pNET.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy of small solid pancreatic lesions using a 22-gauge needle with side fenestration

BACKGROUND

Early detection of small pancreatic cancer is important because expected survival is markedly better for tumors ≤ 2 cm. A new endoscopic ultrasound-(EUS) guided biopsy needle with side fenestration has been recently developed to enable fine-needle biopsy (FNB) under EUS guidance. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of EUS-FNB using a 22-gauge ProCore needle in solid pancreatic lesions ≤ 2 cm, in terms of diagnostic accuracy and yield.

METHODS

From January 2011 to December 2012, all consecutive EUS-guided tissue sampling of small pancreatic lesions (≤ 2 cm) were performed using 22-gauge ProCore needles; the data of these patients were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight patients with a mean age of 65.7 years were included. The mean lesion size was 16.5 mm (range 5-20). None of the patients developed complications. On pathological examination, the tissue retrieved was judged adequate in 58 out of 68 cases (85.3 %) and the presence of a tissue core was recorded in 36 out of 68 cases (52.9 %). The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were 80, 100, 100, 40, and 82 %, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggested that EUS-FNB of small pancreatic lesions using a 22-gauge ProCore needle is effective and safe, and supports our hypothesis that EUS-FNB is highly useful in establishing the nature of small pancreatic lesions.

An expanded training program for endosonographers improved self-diagnosed accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology of the pancreas

OBJECTIVE

Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) of cytologic adequacy improves the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). However, on-site advice from a cytotechnologist or cytopathologist is not always available during EUS-FNA. To enhance endosonographers' ability to assess the adequacy of EUS-FNA specimens, we designed an intensive, 2-h interactive training program. The aim of this study was to determine the usefulness of the program.

METHODS

Four cytological pictures were selected by a trained cytotechnologist and board-certified cytopathologist from each of the seven patients who underwent EUS-FNA for pancreatic mass in Okayama University Hospital. In total, 28 pictures were used in this study. Twenty endosonographers and 14 cytologists with different levels of EUS-FNA experience evaluated cytological pictures independently before and after the training program.

RESULTS

Endosonographers' skill in evaluating the adequacy of EUS-FNA specimens was significantly improved after the completion of the training program (p < 0.001). In contrast, almost all cytologists correctly judged the adequacy of the specimens before taking the training program.

CONCLUSIONS

This intensive, 2-h interactive training program is useful for endosonographers and capable of improving ROSE of EUS-FNA specimens.