Is diagnostic accuracy of fine needle aspiration on solid pancreatic lesions aspiration-related? A multicentre randomised trial

Updated techniques and evidence for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition from solid pancreatic lesions

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA), including fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB), has revolutionized specimen collection from intra-abdominal organs, especially the pancreas. Advances in personalized medicine and more precise treatment have increased demands to collect specimens with higher cell counts, while preserving tissue structure, leading to the development of EUS-FNB needles. EUS-FNB has generally replaced EUS-FNA as the procedure of choice for EUS-TA of pancreatic cancer. Various techniques have been tested for their ability to enhance the diagnostic performance of EUS-TA, including multiple methods of sampling at the time of puncture, on-site specimen evaluation, and specimen processing. In addition, advances in next-generation sequencing have made comprehensive genomic profiling of EUS-TA samples feasible in routine clinical practice. The present review describes updates in EUS-TA sampling techniques of pancreatic lesions, as well as methods for their evaluation.

Consensus statements on endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition. Guidelines from the Asian Endoscopic Ultrasound Group

OBJECTIVES

This consensus was developed by the Asian EUS Group (AEG), who aimed to formulate a set of practice guidelines addressing various aspects of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA).

METHODS

The AEG initiated the development of consensus statements and formed an expert panel comprising surgeons, gastroenterologists, and pathologists. Three online consensus meetings were conducted to consolidate the statements and votes. The statements were presented and discussed in the first two consensus meetings and revised according to comments. Final voting was conducted at a third consensus meeting. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system was adopted to define the strength of the recommendations and quality of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 20 clinical questions and statements regarding EUS-TA were formulated. The committee recommended that fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles be preferred over conventional fine-needle aspiration (FNA) needles for EUS-TA of subepithelial lesions. For solid pancreatic masses, rapid on-site evaluation is not routinely recommended when FNB needles are used. For dedicated FNB needles, fork-tip and Franseen-tip needles have essentially equivalent performance.

CONCLUSION

This consensus provides guidance for EUS-TA, thereby enhancing the quality of EUS-TA.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Diagnosis of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the most common (90%) type of solid pancreatic neoplasm. Due to its late presentation and poor survival rate, early diagnosis and timely treatment is of utmost importance for better clinical outcomes. Endoscopic ultrasound provides high-resolution images of the pancreas and has excellent sensitivity in the diagnosis of even small (<2 cm) pancreatic lesions. Apart from imaging, it also has an advantage of tissue acquisition (EUS fine-needle aspiration, FNA; or fine-needle biopsy, FNB) for definitive diagnoses. EUS-guided tissue acquisition plays a crucial role in genomic and molecular studies, which in today's era of personalized medicine, are likely to become important components of PDAC management. With the use of better needle designs and technical advancements, EUS has now become an indispensable tool in the management of PDAC. Lastly, artificial intelligence for the detection of pancreatic lesions and newer automated needles for tissue acquisition will obviate observer dependency in the near future, resulting in the wider dissemination and adoption of this technology for improved outcomes in patients with PDAC.

Comparing fine needle biopsy techniques in solid pancreatic lesions: A prospective randomized study

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsies (EUS-FNB) are the best technique for sampling solid pancreatic lesions. However, the most appropriate biopsy technique has not been standardized using Fine Needle Biopsy (FNB) needles. The aim of this work was to identify the best biopsy technique to achieve the best tissue integrity and cause the least blood contamination.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients ≥18 years of age with solid pancreatic lesions who underwent EUS-FNB at our institution from January 2020 to May 2021 were consecutively selected. Three passes were performed with each of the threee techniques to obtain tissue: suction with 10 ml of vacuum, capillary, and wet. An independent pathologist evaluated the received tissue integrity and the degree of blood contamination of each sample according to scales.

RESULTS

Seventy-five patients were recruited for our study. A superior tissue integrity was observed using the wet-suction technique in lesions located in the body and/or tail of the pancreas, and an average score of 4.40 (p = 0.027) was assigned for this technique. Regarding the contamination of the sample in the whole cohort, the simple-suction technique shown a higher contamination, 1.55 (p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference among the techniques when evaluating tissue integrity or contamination in lesions larger or smaller than 3 cm.

CONCLUSION

When performing EUS-FNB for solid pancreatic lesions located in the head/uncinated process, the three methods provided similar diagnostic yields. The wet-suction technique had a higher score in tissue integrity when lesions were located in the body and/or tail of the pancreas.

Comprehensive review on endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition techniques for solid pancreatic tumor

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is speculated to become the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality by 2030, a high mortality rate considering the number of cases. Surgery and chemotherapy are the main treatment options, but they are burdensome for patients. A clear histological diagnosis is needed to determine a treatment plan, and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition (TA) is a suitable technique that does not worsen the cancer-specific prognosis even for lesions at risk of needle tract seeding. With the development of personalized medicine and precision treatment, there has been an increasing demand to increase cell counts and collect specimens while preserving tissue structure, leading to the development of the fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needle. EUS-FNB is rapidly replacing EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) as the procedure of choice for EUS-TA of pancreatic cancer. However, EUS-FNA is sometimes necessary where the FNB needle cannot penetrate small hard lesions, so it is important clinicians are familiar with both. Given these recent dev-elopments, we present an up-to-date review of the role of EUS-TA in pancreatic cancer. Particularly, technical aspects, such as needle caliber, negative pressure, and puncture methods, for obtaining an adequate specimen in EUS-TA are discussed.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A Bibliometric Analysis of Publications on Endoscopic Ultrasound

Background

Over the past 40 years, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become a safe and effective tool for both diagnostic and therapeutic applications. A growing number of articles have been published annually. We aimed to explore global scientific outputs and hotspots of EUS published by different countries, organizations, and authors.

Methods

The global literature regarding EUS during the 1900–2020 period was identified from the Web of Science (WOS) Core database. “Bibliometrix” and software VOSviewer were applied to perform bibliometric analysis.

Results

The annual growth rate of publications from 1980 to 2020 was around 16% and the number of EUS-related articles had experienced a sudden increase in the last decade. Bhutani MS was the most productive author over the past years, with 94 publications. Hawes RH had the highest number of citations, with 6,034 citations. The United States and institutions from United States dominated the EUS research. Among the journals, GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY published the highest number of articles, followed by ENDOSCOPY. The majority of top 10 frequently cited references were cited more than 200 times. Carcinoma, diagnosis, fine-needle-aspiration, cytology, and pancreatitis were the important keywords in co-occurrence analysis of keywords. Recent studies focused more on tissue acquisition, size of the needle, lumen-apposing metal stent, and fine-needle- biopsy.

Conclusion

Research on EUS has significantly increased in the last decade globally and it will continue to increase. Active collaboration among different authors and countries was observed in the EUS field. Tissue acquisition, size of the needle, apposing metal stent, and fine-needle-biopsy might be the latest research frontiers and should receive more attention.

Cumulative sum learning curves guiding multicenter multidisciplinary quality improvement of EUS-guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic lesions

Background and study aims  In this study, we evaluated the performance of community hospitals involved in the Dutch quality in endosonography team regarding yield of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition (TA) of solid pancreatic lesions using cumulative sum (CUSUM) learning curves. The aims were to assess trends in quality over time and explore potential benefits of CUSUM as a feedback-tool. Patients and methods  All consecutive EUS-guided TA procedures for solid pancreatic lesions were registered in five community hospitals between 2015 and  2018. CUSUM learning curves were plotted for overall performance and for performance per center. The American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy-defined key performance indicators, rate of adequate sample (RAS), and diagnostic yield of malignancy (DYM) were used for this purpose. Feedback regarding performance was provided on multiple occasions at regional interest group meetings during the study period. Results  A total of 431 EUS-guided TA procedures in 403 patients were included in this study. The overall and per center CUSUM curves for RAS improved over time. CUSUM curves for DYM revealed gradual improvement, reaching the predefined performance target (70 %) overall, and in three of five contributing centers in 2018. Analysis of a sudden downslope development in the CUSUM curve of DYM in one center revealed temporary absence of a senior cytopathologist to have had a temporary negative impact on performance. Conclusions  CUSUM-derived learning curves allow for assessment of best practices by comparison among peers in a multidisciplinary multicenter quality improvement initiative and proved to be a valuable and easy-to-interpret means to evaluate EUS performance over time.

The Role of Endoscopic Ultrasonography in the Diagnosis and Staging of Pancreatic Cancer

Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death and the second gastrointestinal cancer-related death in the United States. Early detection and accurate diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer are paramount in guiding treatment plans, as surgical resection can provide the only potential cure for this disease. The overall prognosis of pancreatic cancer is poor even in patients with resectable disease. The 5-year survival after surgical resection is ~10% in node-positive disease compared to ~30% in node-negative disease. The advancement of imaging studies and the multidisciplinary approach involving radiologists, gastroenterologists, advanced endoscopists, medical, radiation, and surgical oncologists have a major impact on the management of pancreatic cancer. Endoscopic ultrasonography is essential in the diagnosis by obtaining tissue (FNA or FNB) and in the loco-regional staging of the disease. The advancement in EUS techniques has made this modality a critical adjunct in the management process of pancreatic cancer. In this review article, we provide an overall description of the role of endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer.

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.

Endoscopic ultrasound assessment and tissue acquisition of mediastinal and abdominal lymph nodes

The differential diagnosis between benign and malignant lymph nodes (LNs) has a fundamental role in the characterization and staging of malignant conditions, as well as in subsequent patients’ management. All imaging modalities (i.e. computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging) rely mainly on size; endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) criteria based on B-mode evaluation and Doppler features fail to adequately characterize with high specificity LNs nature. The introduction of EUS-elastography and contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS are useful techniques to increase the diagnostic yield in identifying metastatic LNs, to identify which suspicious LN should require pathological characterization and, finally, to target tissue acquisition. EUS-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) is increasingly being used for diagnosing lymphadenopathy whenever the characterization modifies patients’ subsequent management and when no superficial LN is accessible. Since target therapy are currently available (i.e. lung cancer, breast cancer), EUS-TA of malignant LNs could be required to identify tumor biology. In this field, both fine needle aspiration and biopsy needles are able to guarantee accurate results with almost perfect specificity and sub-optimal sensitivity. We finally propose a diagnostic algorithm based on most recent, high-level evidence for the diagnostic approach to suspected LNs assessment.

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

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

The Impact of Recent Advances in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition on the Management of Pancreatic Cancer

Over the last few decades, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition has become the method of choice for the pathological diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions. Due to its high diagnostic yield and low complication rate, EUS-guided tissue acquisition has surpassed percutaneous sampling techniques. For many years, EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) was traditionally used to obtain cytological aspirates of solid pancreatic lesions, with sensitivity values ranging from 80 to 90% for the diagnosis of malignancy. Nevertheless, despite numerous technical advances, EUS-FNA still presents some limitations. Therefore, EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) has been introduced to provide tissue core biopsies, allowing histological assessment. A newly developed generation of FNB needles has demonstrated an outstanding diagnostic accuracy of over 95% for solid pancreatic lesions and provides samples appropriate for ancillary testing, such as immunohistochemistry and tumour molecular profiling. As a result, EUS-FNB is rapidly replacing EUS-FNA and is now the recommended technique for EUS-guided tissue acquisition in pancreatic cancer. Furthermore, with the recent expansion of neoadjuvant treatment criteria and with the advent of novel and personalised anti-cancer therapies, EUS-FNB is gaining a pivotal role in pancreatic cancer management and might soon be generalised to all patients, independent of disease stage. In this article, the authors present an updated review of the role of EUS-guided tissue acquisition in pancreatic cancer. Current indications, several technical aspects and new applications of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB are discussed.

Intermittent endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions. Pilot study

Background and purpose of the study: endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the method of choice for sampling pancreatic solid lesions. However, there is significant heterogeneity in terms of the technique used. Intermittent aspiration has not been evaluated in pancreatic solid lesions and could improve the diagnostic performance.

METHODS

Single-blind, non-inferiority pilot study. Patients with solid pancreatic lesions and indication for EUS-FNA were prospectively included. Patients were randomly assigned to intermittent (IS) or continuous (CS) suction techniques. Diagnostic performance, cellularity, blood contamination and number of passes required to reach diagnosis were evaluated.

MAIN RESULTS

33 patients were assigned to CS (16 patients) or IS (17 patients). Diagnostic performance was 87.5% for CS and 94.1% for IS (OR 2.29, 95%CI 0.19-27.99, p = 0.51). In the IS group samples had higher cellularity (OR 1.83, 95%CI 0.48-6.91, p = 0.37) and lower blood contamination (OR 0.38, 95%CI 0.09-1.54, p = 0.18). The number of passes required to reach diagnosis was 2.12 for CS and 1.94 for IS (p = 0.64). Liquid cytology was obtained in 73.3% of IS and 61.5% of CS (OR 1.72, 95%CI 0.35-8.50).

CONCLUSIONS

The IS technique was not inferior to CS in terms of diagnostic accuracy in the evaluation of pancreatic solid lesions, with a tendency to obtain higher cellularity, lower blood contamination and frequent presence of cell block.

Use of suction during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions with a Franseen-tip needle: a pilot comparative trial

Background and study aims  The utility of suction during endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle biopsy (FNB) using Franseen-tip needle remains unclear and has not been evaluated in randomized trials. We designed a randomized crossover trial to compare the diagnostic yield during EUS-FNB using a 22G Franseen-tip needle, with and without standard suction. Patients and methods  Consecutive patients undergoing EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions were recruited. A minimum of two passes were performed for each case: one with 20-mL syringe suction (S+) and another without (S-). The order of passes was randomized and the pathologist blinded. The endpoints were the diagnostic yield and the impact of blood contamination in the diagnosis. Results  Fifty consecutive patients were enrolled. The overall diagnostic accuracy was 84 %. A diagnosis of malignancy was obtained in 70 samples: 36 in the S+group and 34 in the S-group. A statistically significant difference was seen in the diagnostic accuracy (S+: 78 % vs. S-: 72 %, P  < 0.01) and blood contamination (S+: 68 %; S-: 44 %, P  < 0.01). The sensitivity, specificity, negative likelihood ratio and positive likelihood ratio for S+vs. S-samples were 76.6 % vs. 73.9 %, 100 % vs. 100 % and 0.23 vs. 0.26, NA vs NA, respectively. A negative impact of blood contamination in the overall diagnostic yield wasn't seen, even in samples where suction was used (OR 0.36, P  = 0.15) Conclusions  We found a higher diagnostic yield with the use of suction. It was associated with a higher degree of sample blood contamination that did not affect the diagnostic performance.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration (EUS-FNA) with Image Enhancement

Although endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is useful in the differential diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions, lymph nodes, and liver lesions, inadequate sampling may result in an incorrect pathological diagnosis. The accuracy of EUS for the evaluation of pancreatobiliary lesions may be increased by image enhancement technologies, including contrast-enhanced harmonic (CH)-EUS and EUS-elastography. These methods can provide information that complement EUS-FNA for the diagnosis and staging of pancreatobiliary cancer, and can help to identify the EUS-FNA target, reducing the requirement for repeat FNA.

Slow-pull compared to suction technique for EUS-guided sampling of pancreatic solid lesions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background and study aims  Current ESGE guidelines suggest employing the suction (SU) technique for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling of pancreatic solid lesions. Nonetheless, recent randomized controlled trials (RCT) have reported that the slow-pull (SP) technique has similar diagnostic accuracy with possibly less blood contamination. However, these results are heterogeneous and limited to small cohorts. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare adequacy, accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of the SU and SP techniques for EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions. Methods  A computerized bibliographic search was restricted to RCTs. Pooled effects were calculated using a random-effects model and expressed in terms of pooled sensitivity and specificity and OR (95 % CI) for adequacy and accuracy. Results  Overall, seven RCTs were included, for a total of 475 patients (163 lesions sampled with SU, 164 with SP and 148 by both). The adequacy was similar (OR = 0.98) without heterogeneity (I 2  = 0 %), but a high degree of blood contamination was more common with SU than SP (pooled rate 27.6 % vs 19.7 %). A non-significant superiority of SP in terms of pooled accuracy (OR = 0.82; 95 % CI 0.36-1.85) was recorded, with moderate heterogeneity (I 2  = 52.4 %). The SP technique showed a slightly higher pooled sensitivity compared to SU (88.7 % vs 83.4 %), while specificity was similar (97.2 % SP vs 96.9 % SU), with considerable heterogeneity. Conclusion  The current meta-analysis reveals non-superiority of SU over SP, while SP results in reduced blood contamination. If the 5 % accuracy difference favouring SP is true, with alfa error = 0.05 and beta = 0.20, a RCT of 982 patients per arm is needed to confirm significance.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling of pancreatic lesions

Important advancements in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling techniques and development of new needle designs have improved the diagnostic yield of pancreatic lesions. This innovation in endoscopic ultrasound has also opened the door for early diagnosis and precision therapy in the management of cancer patients. Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle biopsy is an invaluable tool and newer biopsy designs will probably play a pivotal role in the management of pancreatic lesions in the next future. Aim of the current review was to provide an overview on the available techniques and devices for the endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of pancreatic solid and cystic lesions.

Safety and efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for pancreatic masses: A prospective multicenter study

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for solid pancreatic lesions has high diagnostic yield. However, few prospective multicenter studies have been performed. We performed a prospective cohort study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EUS-FNA for diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study involved five hospitals in Japan. The primary outcome was sensitivity of EUS-FNA for diagnosing malignant lesions. We also evaluated parameters of diagnostic sufficiency and the safety of EUS-FNA.

RESULTS

In total, 246 patients were enrolled. The absolute values of the parameters evaluated showed no significant differences; however, the percentage changes in the white blood cell counts and C-reactive protein levels after examination were significantly higher, and the percentage change in hemoglobin concentrations was significantly lower. The minor and major complication rates at the time of puncture, 24 h, 7 days and 28 days were 4.1%, 2.8%, 1.6%, and 0.0%, respectively. The true complication rate was 1.2%. The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 97.2%, 88.0%, 96.2%, 100%, and 81.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic lesions has high diagnostic yield and is safe, consistent with previously studies.

EUS tissue acquisition: From A to B

EUS-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) has made rapid development since its introduction in the early 1990s. The technique is widely accepted and invaluable for staging and diagnosis of a variety of upper gastrointestinal and mediastinal lesions. Fine-needle aspiration (FNA) has long been the gold standard, but due to its limitations such as the inability to retain stroma and associated cellular architecture, novel biopsy needles (FNB) were designed. Overall, FNA and FNB needles perform seemingly equally in terms of diagnostic accuracy, however, the second-generation FNB needles require less passes. The third-generation FNB needles (crown-cut needle types) seem to be preferable to FNA needles as well as to the second-generation FNB needles, when larger histological specimens and preserved tissue architecture are required. EUS-TA is constantly under development, and new applications of this technique include tumor risk stratification according to its genetic profile as well as minimally invasive creation of patient-derived organoids, hallmarks of personized medicine. It remains yet to be shown, whether these applications will lead to a decisive shift from aspiration to biopsy, i.e., from A to B.

Benefit of high negative pressure during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with standard 22-gauge needles for pancreatic lesions: a retrospective comparative study

OBJECTIVES

Few studies are available on high negative pressure (HNP) during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). This study compared the diagnostic yield between HNP and normal negative pressure (NNP) during EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic masses.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with pancreatic masses who underwent EUS-FNA using a 22-G needle with either HNP or NNP for both the first and second passes were retrospectively examined for diagnostic yield. Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) was unavailable at our center. The main outcome measures were the number of passes, diagnostic accuracy and quantity of histological samples.

RESULTS

Two hundred patients underwent EUS-FNA (n = 97, HNP; n = 103, NNP) over a 22-month period. A significantly lower median number of passes was required for HNP than for NNP (2 vs. 3; p < .001). There was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between the two groups. The rate of obtaining a histological sample larger than a 10× power field in length was significantly higher for HNP than for NNP (76.4% vs. 59.6%; p = .0019). In the multivariate analysis, a large tumor size (>20 mm) and HNP were identified as factors influencing the acquisition of a larger histological sample.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between HNP and NNP. HNP required fewer passes without ROSE and was related to the acquisition of a larger histological sample. HNP may be useful when few samples are available for EUS-FNA with NNP or a larger histological sample is needed.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration versus endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle biopsy in sampling pancreatic masses: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The comparison between endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for the diagnosis of pancreatic masses is still controversial. Many factors can affect the final results.

METHODS

Databases, such as PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Science Citation Index updated from 2000 to 2016 were searched to include eligible articles. In the meta-analysis, the main outcome measurements were the diagnostic accuracy, number of needle passes, specimen adequacy, the rate of complications, and technical success.

RESULTS

Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified, and a total of 921 cases were included in the meta-analysis. The diagnostic accuracy was not significantly different between the FNA and FNB groups. The specimen adequacy was higher in the FNB group compared with the FNA group. The number of needle passes to obtain sufficient tissue was lower in the FNB group. The rate of adverse events and technical success did not significantly differ between the 2 groups. But, the forest plot showed a trend toward lower technical success rate and a trend toward higher diagnostic accuracy in the FNB group, compared with FNA.

CONCLUSION

We provide the evidence that FNB is comparable to FNA in terms of diagnostic accuracy, adverse events, and technical success. FNB gives higher specimen adequacy than that of FNA, despite performance of fewer needle passes.

Imaging modalities for characterising focal pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided 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.

Meta-analysis of transcriptome data identifies a novel 5-gene pancreatic adenocarcinoma classifier

PURPOSE

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is largely incurable due to late diagnosis. Superior early detection biomarkers are critical to improving PDAC survival and risk stratification.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Optimized meta-analysis of PDAC transcriptome datasets identified and validated key PDAC biomarkers. PDAC-specific expression of a 5-gene biomarker panel was measured by qRT-PCR in microdissected patient-derived FFPE tissues. Cell-based assays assessed impact of two of these biomarkers, TMPRSS4 and ECT2, on PDAC cells.

RESULTS

A 5-gene PDAC classifier (TMPRSS4, AHNAK2, POSTN, ECT2, SERPINB5) achieved on average 95% sensitivity and 89% specificity in discriminating PDAC from non-tumor samples in four training sets and similar performance (sensitivity = 94%, specificity = 89.6%) in five independent validation datasets. This classifier accurately discriminated PDAC from chronic pancreatitis (AUC = 0.83), other cancers (AUC = 0.89), and non-tumor from PDAC precursors (AUC = 0.92) in three independent datasets. Importantly, the classifier distinguished PanIN from healthy pancreas in the PDX1-Cre;LSL-KrasG12D PDAC mouse model. Discriminatory expression of the PDAC classifier genes was confirmed in microdissected FFPE samples of PDAC and matched surrounding non-tumor pancreas or pancreatitis. Notably, knock-down of TMPRSS4 and ECT2 reduced PDAC soft agar growth and cell viability and TMPRSS4 knockdown also blocked PDAC migration and invasion.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified and validated a highly accurate 5-gene PDAC classifier for discriminating PDAC and early precursor lesions from non-malignant tissue that may facilitate early diagnosis and risk stratification upon validation in prospective clinical trials. Cell-based experiments of two overexpressed proteins encoded by the panel, TMPRSS4 and ECT2, suggest a causal link to PDAC development and progression, confirming them as potential therapeutic targets.

Contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The negative predictive value of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions remains low, and the biopsy specimens are sometimes inadequate for appropriate pathological diagnosis.

AIMS

To evaluate the usefulness of a novel method of contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration for the differential diagnosis and adequate sampling of solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

Patients with a diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions who underwent fine-needle aspiration guided by contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography or by endoscopic ultrasonography from October 2010 to July 2013 were retrospectively identified and classified into the CH-EUS or EUS group, respectively. Surgical pathology and/or follow-up results were defined as the final diagnosis. Operating characteristics and adequacy of biopsy specimens by fine-needle aspiration were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Operating characteristics for contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration in solid pancreatic lesions were as follows: area under the curve = 0.908, sensitivity = 81.6%, specificity = 100%, positive predictive value = 100%, negative predictive value = 74.1%, and accuracy = 87.9%. The percentage of adequate biopsy specimens in the CH-EUS group (96.6%) was greater than that in the EUS group (86.7%).

CONCLUSION

Simultaneous contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography during fine-needle aspiration is useful for improving the diagnostic yield and adequate sampling of solid pancreatic lesions.