Providing on-site diagnosis of malignancy on endoscopic-ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspirates: should it be done?

Accuracy of definitive rapid onsite evaluation cytopathology diagnoses: Assessment of potentially critical diagnoses as a quality assurance measure

INTRODUCTION

Intraprocedural rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE) of cytology specimens enhances cytopathology practice. More recently, ROSE diagnoses, like frozen section (FS) diagnoses, have guided immediate clinical decisions. In this study, we evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of definitive ROSE diagnoses in our quality assurance system over a 52-month period.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cytopathology cases with ROSE from January 2017 to April 2021were retrieved from our laboratory information system. After excluding cases that were deferred or nondiagnostic/unsatisfactory, each definitive ROSE diagnosis (ie, negative for malignant cells or positive for malignant cells) was categorized as having agreement or disagreement with the final diagnosis. For comparison, concordance of FS diagnoses from the same time period were tabulated and compared to those of ROSE diagnoses by using χ² testing with P < 0.05 considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Of the 1649 ROSE diagnoses, there were 15 disagreements (0.9%) with 1 final moderate interpretive disagreement (0.06%). By comparison, of the 17,469 FS diagnoses, there were 141 disagreements (0.8%) with 49 final moderate or major interpretive disagreements (0.3%). The remaining disagreements were minor. There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of final moderate and major interpretive disagreements.

CONCLUSIONS

The final interpretive disagreement rates for definitive ROSE and FS diagnoses were similar in this study. Given the expanding role of ROSE and its use for immediate clinical decisions in some cases, monitoring the accuracy of definitive diagnoses may serve as an initial quality assurance measure.

[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.

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.

Prospective evaluation of EUS-guided fine needle biopsy in pancreatic mass lesions

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM

Due to the scarcity of specific data on endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle biopsies (SharkCore) FNB in the evaluation of pancreatic lesions, we performed a prospective study of the diagnostic performance of EUS SharkCore FNB in patients with pancreatic lesions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Single-center prospective study of 41 consecutive patients referred for EUS-FNB from October 2015 to April 2016 at our center. EUS-FNB was obtained in a predefined setting regarding the procedure and pathological evaluation. Data regarding demographics, lesion, technical parameters, and diagnostic accuracy were obtained.

RESULTS

The study included 41 consecutive patients (22 males (54 %); median age 68 years). The average size of the lesions was 28 mm (median: 30 mm). A diagnostic specimen was identified in 40 (98 %) cases during microscopy with an average of 2.4 passes. The route was trans-duodenal in 20 cases (49 %). The histological diagnosis of the specimens was malignant in 29 cases (71 %), benign in 8 (20 %), suspicious in 2 (5 %), atypical in 1 (2 %) and in 1 (2 %) no material for microscopic evaluation was obtained. This led to a diagnostic accuracy of 93 %, sensitivity of 91 % and a specificity of 100 %. 2 cases (5 %) of self-limiting bleeding were observed. The diagnosis at follow up was malignant in 32 (78 %) of the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNB of pancreatic mass lesions with the SharkCore needle produced specimens with a diagnostic accuracy of 93 %. The procedure was safe and easy to perform, and these data support the use of EUS-FNB in a routine setting.

Pathological and Molecular Aspects to Improve Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration From Solid Pancreatic Lesions

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has been applied to pancreatic lesions since the 1990s, and its use is now widespread. Improvements in endoscopic devices and sampling techniques have resulted in excellent diagnostic ability for solid pancreatic lesions. However, clinical improvements alone are not responsible for it; pathological aspects have also played important roles. Rapid on-site evaluation minimizes endoscopic procedures, although its value at improving the diagnostic ratio is still debated. Diagnostic efficacy differs by sample preparations (direct smear, cytospin, liquid-based cytology, cell block, and biopsy) and by staining methods (Papanicoloau, Diff-Quik, hematoxylin-eosin, and Giemsa). Several immunocytochemistry protocols aid in diagnosing epithelial components with cytological atypia and in differentiating various tumor types. One cytopathology diagnostic system is telecytology, which uses transmitted digital images and enables real-time diagnosis of EUS-FNA samples by expert cytologists at remote locations. However, EUS-FNA samples are useful for more than just diagnoses, as molecular analysis of these samples allows the identification of prognostic markers, such as genetic alterations in K-ras and EGFR. Expression of drug-metabolizing enzymes, human equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1, correlates with the response to gemcitabine-based chemotherapy. These pathology efforts have enhanced the diagnostic efficacy of EUS-FNA, thereby leading to better outcomes for patients with pancreatic diseases.

Onsite evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration: the endosonographer, the cytotechnologist and the cytopathologist

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has become an essential tool in the management of multiple diseases. Its accuracy is related to different aspects of the technique, one of the most important being the experience and interaction of the endosonographer and pathologist. Certain studies over the past years have highlighted the importance of having rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) of samples obtained at the time of EUS-FNA. We have reviewed the role of ROSE, performed by the same endosonographer, a cytotechnologist and an expert cytopathologist. The available data suggest that ROSE (either by the endosonographer, the cytotechnologist, or the cytopathologist) improves sample adequacy and diagnostic yield, with the best option to have ROSE performed by an expert cytopathologist. However, if non-ROSE accuracy is already very high, any improvement is harder to achieve.

Imaging modalities for characterising focal pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Endoscopic ultrasound in the diagnosis and management of carcinoma pancreas

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become an important component in the diagnosis and treatment of carcinoma pancreas. With the advent of advanced imaging techniques and tissue acquisition methods the role of EUS is becoming increasingly important. Small pancreatic tumors can be reliably diagnosed with EUS. EUS guided fine needle aspiration establishes diagnosis in some cases. EUS plays an important role in staging of carcinoma pancreas and in some important therapeutic methods that include celiac plexus neurolysis, EUS guided biliary drainage and drug delivery. In this review we attempt to review the role of EUS in diagnosis and management of carcinoma pancreas.

Endoscopic ultrasound in the diagnosis and management of carcinoma pancreas

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become an important component in the diagnosis and treatment of carcinoma pancreas. With the advent of advanced imaging techniques and tissue acquisition methods the role of EUS is becoming increasingly important. Small pancreatic tumors can be reliably diagnosed with EUS. EUS guided fine needle aspiration establishes diagnosis in some cases. EUS plays an important role in staging of carcinoma pancreas and in some important therapeutic methods that include celiac plexus neurolysis, EUS guided biliary drainage and drug delivery. In this review we attempt to review the role of EUS in diagnosis and management of carcinoma pancreas.

COST ANALYSIS OF INTRA PROCEDURAL RAPID ON SITE EVALUATION OF CYTOPATHOLOGY WITH ENDOBRONCHIAL ULTRASOUND

Background: Rapid on site evaluation (ROSE) allows immediate processing and interpretation of the aspirate in the procedural suite. It improves diagnostic yield and lowers patient care costs. There are limited data on its cost-effectiveness with endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS).

Methods: We developed an economic model with two arms, no ROSE (our current practice) and simulated ROSE. To simulate ROSE, a cytopathologist retrospectively identified the first diagnostic slide in each case. Using a decision analytic modeling technique under a hospital diagnostic unit perspective, the benefits of simulated ROSE were estimated as cost-savings. The model input was estimated from actual data, consulting experts, and the literature. The benefits were estimated as cost savings per patient and for the province of Alberta per year. Due to differences in the procedure, sarcoidosis and cancer patients were analyzed separately. The costs are shown in 2012 Canadian dollars, CAD.

Results: In our model without ROSE, the procedure cost/patient was CAD 646.00(USD 523.32) for cancer and CAD 1,170.00 (USD 947.73) for sarcoidosis. With simulated ROSE cost savings of CAD 63.00(37.00 to 89.00) [USD 51.04(29.97 to 72.10)], CAD 544.00(490.00 to 598.00) [USD 440.65(397.05 to 484.44)] for cancer and sarcoidosis, respectively. Extrapolating this to provincial data, our model estimates that EBUS with ROSE would lead to savings of CAD 50,000.00(30,000 to 71,000) [USD 40,501.24 (24,300.75 to 57,531.34)] for cancer and CAD 109,000.00 (87,000 to 130,000) [USD 88,337.07 (70,546.45 to 105,313.04) for sarcoidosis.

Conclusion: The use of ROSE with EBUS is cost saving. The projected savings were CAD 50,000.00 (USD 40,501.24) and CAD 109,000.00(USD 88,337.07) in cancer and sarcoidosis, respectively, for the province of Alberta, Canada.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for the diagnosis of pancreatic cysts by combined cytopathology and cystic content analysis

Recent advances in imaging technology have resulted in an increase in incidental discoveries of pancreatic cystic lesions. Pancreatic cysts comprise a wide variety of lesions and include non-neoplastic cysts and neoplastic cysts. Because some pancreatic cysts have more of a malignant potential than others, it is absolutely essential that an accurate diagnosis is rendered so that effective care can be given to each patient. In many centers, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) has emerged as the modality of choice that enables one to distinguish between mucinous and non-mucinous lesion, diagnose malignancy and collect cyst fluid for further diagnostic studies, such as pancreatic enzyme levels, molecular analysis and other tumor biomarkers. The current review will focus on EUS-guided FNA and the cytological diagnosis for pancreatic cysts.

Usefulness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration in the diagnosis of hepatic, gallbladder and biliary tract Lesions

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) of the liver is a safe procedure in the diagnosis and staging of hepatobiliary malignancies with a minimal major complication rate. EUS-FNA is useful for liver lesions poorly accessible to other imaging modalities of the liver. EUS-guided FNA of biliary neoplasia and malignant biliary stricture is superior to the conventional endoscopic brushing and biopsy.

Rapid on-site evaluation with BIOEVALUATOR(®) during endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration for diagnosing pulmonary and mediastinal diseases

AIM:

Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) is used widely during endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA). BIOEVALUATOR^® is a device used for determining whether the tissues obtained by EBUS-TBNA are appropriate for a pathological diagnosis. This study describes our experience with ROSE using BIOEVALUATOR^® during EBUS-TBNA for diagnosing pulmonary and mediastinal diseases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

We retrospectively evaluated the results of 35 patients who underwent EBUS-TBNA with BIOEVALUATOR^® between December 2011 and February 2013. For the diagnosis, the tissue areas were appearing white and red through BIOEVALUATOR^® are considered to be appropriate and inappropriate, respectively. We examined their medical records to obtain information concerning the examination of BIOEVALUATOR^® results of the patient's materials (white/red), the diagnosis yield, site and size of lymph nodes and number of needle passes.

RESULTS:

The median longest diameter of 40 lymph nodes (21 #7, 13 #4R, 4 #4L and 2 #11) from 35 patients was 27.9 (range 12.4-50.6) mm and the median number of needle passes was 2 (range 1-5). The definitive diagnosis was made by EBUS-TBNA in 28 of 35 patients, by thoracotomy in one patient and BIOEVALUATOR^® results were white and lymphocytes were seen in the rest six patients. The BIOEVALUATOR^® results of other patients without accurate diagnosis were left indefinitive. Finally, the six patients were judged as having benign lymphadenopathy because the lymph node size on computed tomography decreased or remained stable after for at least 8 months.

CONCLUSIONS:

Checking aspirated samples using BIOEVALUATOR^® appears useful for determining their adequacy for pathological diagnosis.

Rapid on-site cytologic evaluation during endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration for nodal staging in patients with lung cancer

BACKGROUND

The utility of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) during endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) for lymph node staging in lung cancer is still controversial. The aim of this study was to assess the role of ROSE during EBUS-TBNA and the interpretation of its results.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review of patients with suspected or diagnosed lung cancer who underwent EBUS-TBNA for lymph node staging. The slides were air-dried and Diff-Quik (American Scientific Products, McGaw Park, IL) staining was used for ROSE. Additional smears were prepared for Papanicolaou staining and any remaining sample was placed in 10% formalin for histologic evaluation. The results of ROSE were compared with the results of the final pathologic diagnosis.

RESULTS

EBUS-TBNA was performed in 438 patients on 965 lymph nodes. Eighty-four lymph nodes (8.7%) were determined insufficient for definitive diagnosis by final cytologic evaluation. However 45 of the 84 lymph nodes were able to be diagnosed by histologic examination. The non-diagnostic sampling rate was 4.0%. There were no false-positive results on ROSE; however 25 cases (5.7%) were falsely evaluated as negative on ROSE. The concordance rate for staging between ROSE and final pathologic diagnosis was 94.3%. The sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy rate of EBUS-TBNA for correct lymph node staging was 96.5%, 100%, 89.8%, and 98.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

ROSE during EBUS-TBNA for material adequacy showed a low rate of non-diagnostic sampling. There was a high agreement between the on-site and final pathologic evaluation during EBUS-TBNA; however immediate diagnosis should be approached with caution.

Does on-site adequacy evaluation reduce the nondiagnostic rate in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic lesions?

BACKGROUND

This retrospective study compared the nondiagnostic rate for endoscopic ultrasound-guided (EUS) fine-needle aspiration (FNA) of pancreatic lesions in 2 settings: 1 with and 1 without on-site evaluation.

METHODS

The authors reviewed 381 consecutive cases and divided them into groups with and without on-site adequacy evaluation. For the group with on-site evaluation, cytopathology personnel prepared and evaluated Diff-Quik-stained direct smears and rinsed the remaining material in CytoLyt solution (Cytyc Corporation, Marlborough, Mass). The group without on-site evaluation was divided into 2 subgroups: the clinical team either prepared an air-dried smear for each FNA pass and then rinsed the remaining material in CytoLyt, or the entire sample was rinsed in CytoLyt. The cytologic diagnoses were reviewed and the nondiagnostic rates for each group were calculated.

RESULTS

On-site evaluation was provided for 167 cases with a nondiagnostic rate of 25.8% (43 of 167 cases). On-site evaluation was not provided for 214 cases with a nondiagnostic rate of 24.3% (52 of 214 cases). The nondiagnostic rate for the subgroup with air-dried smears prepared by the clinical team was 25.6% (43 of 168 cases) and that for the subgroup with the entire sample rinsed in CytoLyt was 19.6% (9 of 46 cases). There were no significant statistical differences in nondiagnostic rates noted among the different groups or subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the current study indicate that when experienced operators perform EUS FNA of pancreatic lesions, on-site adequacy evaluation offers no benefit in reducing the nondiagnostic rate. Optimizing visualization of the sampled material by omitting the preparation of direct smears and rinsing the entire sample in liquid-based media demonstrated a trend toward improving the diagnostic rate.

Histologic evaluation of intrahepatic micrometastases in patients treated with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal carcinoma liver metastasis

Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas (SPN) is relatively rare and it occurs almost exclusively in women. We recently experienced three cases of SPN diagnosed by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). These three cases were two male and one female patient whose age was 29, 37, and 44 years old. Radiological diagnosis was pancreatic endocrine tumor (PEN) showing solid with a heterogenous echogenicity. EUS-FNA cytology specimens consisted of single cells and aggregates of uniform cells, forming microadenoid structures, branching, papillary clusters with delicate fibrovascular cores. In conclusion, a single diagnosis of SPN based on clinical and radiological findings would be risky because there is a possibility of it being misdiagnosed as PEN or other malignancies. An EUS-FNA is therefore essential for establishing the diagnosis. In addition, the pathologists should recognize the characteristic cytologic findings with immunoprofiles of SPN to prevent misdiagnosis of SPN.

The role of endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnosis and management of pancreatic cancer

EUS with FNA is highly sensitive and specific for diagnosing pancreatic cancer. However, in certain situations, such as in patients with chronic pancreatitis, this high sensitivity and specificity can significantly diminish. The use of new technology, such as EUS elastography, CE-EUS, and gene mutations detection in FNA specimens, can help to differentiate chronic pancreatitis from pancreatic cancer. EUS has evolved from a diagnostic procedure to a therapeutic intervention in pancreatic cancer. EUS-guided fiducial insertion and EUS-guided delivery of antitumor agents, in addition to celiac plexus neurolysis, are the main therapeutic applications of EUS in pancreatic cancer.

Diagnosis of metastatic fibrolamellar hepatocellular carcinoma by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration

The fibrolamellar variant of hepatocellular carcinoma (FL-HCC) is distinguished from other hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC) by its unique clinical and pathologic features. Cytological features for this tumor on fine needle aspiration (FNA) of primary tumors have been described earlier. We present here a unique case of metastatic FL-HCC diagnosed by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of mediastinal adenopathy. A 32-year-old woman with a history of oral contraceptive use presented with nausea and severe abdominal pain but no ascites or stigmata of cirrhosis. She had a past history of resection of a liver lesion. Serial computed tomography scans revealed mediastinal lymphadenopathy and the patient was referred for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). A transesophageal EUS-FNA was performed and tissue was collected for cytological evaluation by an on-site pathologist with no knowledge of prior history. Based on morphology correlated with prior history received later, a final diagnosis of metastatic FL-HCC in the retrocardiac lymph node was rendered on the EUS-FNA samples. There are very few reports in the literature where a diagnosis of FL-HCC is rendered at unusual sites. This case highlights that EUS-FNA is a relatively non-invasive, rapid, accurate and effective modality in obtaining tissue from otherwise hard-to-reach areas. It also suggests that metastasis of FL-HCC can be observed in mediastinal nodes and that diagnosis based on cytological features can be rendered even when the tumor is identified at unusual locations.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses: the impact on patient-management strategy

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a safe and accurate technique for diagnosing pancreatic cancer. However, its impact for management of these patients is poorly investigated.

AIMS

To investigate the diagnostic yield and the therapeutic impact of EUS-FNA in the management of solid pancreatic masses.

METHODS

One hundred consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNA for a solid pancreatic mass were included. Aspirates were placed onto glass slides for cytological examination and microbiopsies were fixed in formaldehyde for histology. The impact on clinical management was analysed retrospectively according to different endpoints, such as its impact on indications for chemotherapy, surgery or appropriate follow-up modality.

RESULTS

Eight procedures were considered failures and two patients were lost to follow-up. A final diagnosis was obtained in 90 patients. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of combined cytology and histology for the diagnosis of malignant or potentially-malignant tumours were 78%, 75%, and 78% respectively. The sensitivity and accuracy of cytology alone were significantly higher than those of histology alone (P = 0.0003). By intention-to-diagnose analysis, EUS-FNA directly influenced the management strategy in 62 of 100 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with pancreatic mass and suspected malignancy, EUS-FNA provides an accurate diagnosis in approximately 80% of cases. EUS-FNA directly influences the management in two-thirds of patients.

Preoperative tissue diagnosis for tumours of the pancreas

BACKGROUND

Preoperative biopsy of pancreatic lesions suspected of malignancy is controversial.

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Focal hepatic lesions: US-guided biopsy--lessons from review of cytologic and pathologic examination results

PURPOSE

To retrospectively assess factors affecting the success of ultrasonographically (US)-guided core liver biopsy of focal lesions on the basis of experience when both cytologic and pathologic examination results were available.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This HIPAA-compliant retrospective study was granted an exemption from the institutional review board. All percutaneous US-guided biopsies of focal liver lesions performed at one institution from January 2000 through February 2006 for which both cytologic and pathologic examination results were available were included. Specimen adequacy was determined with on-site cytologic examination performed with a "touch prep" technique. Of 1910 liver biopsies, 240 (12.6%) revealed focal lesions, and cytologic and pathologic examination results were available for 208 (86.7%) of these 240 lesions. The number of biopsy passes and concordance between cytologic and pathologic findings were evaluated, and correlation between lesion size, type, and location and the number of passes was assessed. The Pearson correlation chi(2) test and the Wilcoxon test were used.

RESULTS

Biopsy specimens were diagnostic in 205 cases (98.6%) and were nondiagnostic in three cases (1.4%); 85.9% of the lesions were malignant. There was a single lesion in 89 patients (42.8%), and there were multiple lesions in 119 patients (57.2%). One biopsy pass was sufficient in 58 patients (27.9%); two passes were sufficient in 75 patients (36.1%); and three, four, five, and six passes were sufficient in 51 (24.5%), 17 (8.2%), five (2.4%), and two (1.0%) patients, respectively. There was no relationship between lesion size or location and the number of passes, according to the Pearson correlation and chi(2) test (P = .16 and P = .22, respectively). On average, 1.9 passes were required for metastatic lesions, versus 2.8 for nonmetastatic lesions (P < .001, Wilcoxon test). Cytologic and histopathologic findings were discordant in 25 cases (12.0%).

CONCLUSION

The size and location of liver lesions sampled for biopsy do not influence the number of passes needed, while metastatic lesions require fewer passes. Without the on-site cytologic examination service, a predetermined number of three passes would be diagnostic in almost 90% of all cases.

Large, clear cytoplasmic vacuolation: an under-recognized cytologic clue to distinguish solid pseudopapillary neoplasms of the pancreas from pancreatic endocrine neoplasms on fine-needle aspiration

BACKGROUND

Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm (SPN) and pancreatic endocrine neoplasm (PEN) are uncommon neoplasms that demonstrate characteristic cytologic features. It is also known that both these tumors may share similar morphologic changes. These features not uncommonly pose significant diagnostic challenge for unsuspecting cytopathologists. In the current study, the authors report that recognition of clear cytoplasmic vacuoles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) samples from SPN serves as a useful clue that can distinguish this tumor from PEN.

METHODS

The cytologic features from 5 SPN and 20 PEN cases were evaluated. Both Diff-Quik and Papanicolaou stains from these cases were examined. A Fisher exact test of probability was performed to determine differences in the individual cytologic features noted in these 2 tumor types.

RESULTS

The results demonstrated that pseudopapillary groups (P = .004); metachromatic matrix material (P = .004); nuclear membrane irregularity (P = .004); and large, clear cytoplasmic vacuoles (P = .001) are noted significantly more frequently in SPN. The authors also demonstrated that large, clear cytoplasmic vacuoles can serve as a powerful cytologic clue for the suspicion of SPN over PEN when there is a paucity of papillary groups within the smears. Large, clear cytoplasmic vacuoles, however, were noted only in Diff-Quik-stained smears, but not in Papanicolaou-;stained smears.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the current study highlight that large, clear cytoplasmic vacuoles can serve as a critical clue with which to distinguish SPN from PEN in diagnostically challenging cases.