Advantage of EUS Trucut biopsy combined with fine-needle aspiration without immediate on-site cytopathologic examination

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Accuracy of Classifying Lung Carcinoma Using Immunohistochemical Markers on Limited Biopsy Material: A Two-Center Study

Introduction Accurate classification of lung cancer into primary and metastatic carcinomas is critical for treatment approaches. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) has always been pivotal in unveiling the diverse cell differentiation lineages present in lung cancer by using specific biomarkers such as TTF1 and p63/p40, which closely reflect the relationship between genotype and phenotype.. Methods A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted to evaluate 57 Tru-Cut biopsies over two years, from 2020-2022. Tumour morphology was evaluated, and IHC for TTF-1, Napsin A, CK-7, P-63, P-40, and CD-56 was performed in two steps. Results Of the lung cancer cases, 58.5% were adenocarcinoma (ADC), 24.5% were squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), 9.4% were small cell carcinoma, and 7.5% were poorly differentiated carcinoma. TTF1 stain had sensitivity and specificity of 78.9% and 50% in 33 cases of ADC, respectively, while CK7 and Napsin A had 100% sensitivity. P63 stain had 77% sensitivity and 50% specificity in 15 cases of SCC, while P-40 had 100% sensitivity. The CD56 stain was 100% sensitive in five cases of small cell carcinoma. Conclusion IHC staining on small lung biopsies allows accurate sub-classification of poorly differentiated lung cancers; however, there is still significant variability. Surgical resection specimens can be further classified due to architectural features that biopsies lack. Morphological findings would be beneficial in the development of an algorithm for sub-classifying lung carcinoma using a variety of markers.

The diagnostic performance of combined conventional cytology with smears and cell block preparation obtained from endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for intra-abdominal mass lesions

BACKGROUND/AIM

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the primary method for tissue acquisition of intra-abdominal masses. However, the main limitation of cytology alone is the lack of tissue architecture and inadequate samples. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of combined conventional cytology and cell block preparation obtained from EUS-FNA of intra-abdominal masses without Rapid On-site Evaluation (ROSE).

METHODS

Cytologic smears and cell block slides of 166 patients undergoing EUS-FNA during 2010-2015 were reviewed by an experienced cytopathologist blinded to clinical data.

RESULTS

125 patients had neoplastic lesions. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma was the most common etiology (35.5%), followed by lymph node metastasis (27.7%). The mean mass size was 2.5±1.3 cm. The mean number of passes was 1.9±1.28. Tissue adequacy for conventional cytology and cell block preparation was 78.9% and 78.1%, respectively. Factors associated with tissue adequacy were assessed. For cytology, lesions of > 2.1 cm, masses in the pancreatic body or tail, malignancy, and pancreatic cancer were positively associated with adequate cellularity. For cell block preparation, lesions of > 3 cm and malignancy were associated with increased tissue adequacy. The conventional cytology alone had a sensitivity of 68.5%, a specificity of 95.7%, and an area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) of 0.821. The cell block preparation alone had a sensitivity of 65.4%, a specificity of 96%, and an AUROC of 0.807. The combined conventional cytology and cell block preparation performed significantly better than either method alone (p<0.05), as demonstrated by an increased AUROC of 0.853. Furthermore, cell block detected malignancy in 9.3% of cases where the cytologic smears failed to identify malignant cells.

CONCLUSIONS

The combined conventional cytology and cell block preparation increased the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA compared to either method alone. This approach should be implemented in routine practice, especially where ROSE is unavailable.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration and Biopsy in Gastrointestinal Subepithelial Tumors

The incidence of asymptomatic and incidentally found upper gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors (SETs) is increasing with the implementation of national cancer screening and the development of high-resolution endoscopy in Korea. However, endoscopy alone cannot be used to determine whether SETs are benign or malignant. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is used to further characterize these lesions through the examination of their layered structure, internal echogenicity, size, and relationship to the extramural structure. These provide additional information on whether the lesion is benign or malignant. Nevertheless, the sensitivity and specificity of EUS alone in predicting malignancy is unsatisfactory. Recent guidelines have recommended deciding the timing of EUS-fine needle aspiration and biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) for SETs based on tumor size, malignant features on endoscopy, and high-risk features on EUS. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA/B is reportedly influenced by factors including needle size, number of needle passes, use of suction, use of a stylet in the needle assembly, fanning technique, availability of an on-site cytopathologist, and experience of the endosonographer. Therefore, according to the characteristics of the SETs, various subsequent methods and techniques should be appropriately employed to improve the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA/B.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Liver Biopsy Using a Core Needle for Hepatic Solid Mass

Background/Aims

This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) using a core needle for hepatic solid masses (HSMs). Additionally, the study aimed to assess factors that influence the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB for HSMs.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent EUS-FNB for the pathological diagnosis of HSMs was conducted between January 2013 and July 2017. The procedure had been performed using core needles of different calibers. The assessed variables were mass size, puncture route, needle type, and the number of needle passes.

Results

Fifty-eight patients underwent EUS-FNB for the pathologic evaluation of HSMs with a mean mass size of 21.4±9.2 mm. EUS-FNB was performed with either a 20-G (n=14), 22-G (n=29) or a 25-G core needle (n=15). The diagnostic accuracy for this procedure was 89.7%, but both specimen adequacy for histology and available immunohistochemistry stain were 91.4%. The sensitivity and specificity of EUS-FNB were 89.7% and 100%, respectively. There was one case involving bleeding as a complication, which was controlled with endoscopic hemostasis. According to the multivariate analysis, no variable was independently associated with a correct final diagnosis.

Conclusions

EUS-FNB with core biopsy needle is a safe and highly accurate diagnostic option for assessing HSMs. There were no variable factors associated with diagnostic accuracy.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition Using Fork-Tip Needle Improves Histological Yield, Reduces Needle Passes, Without On-Site Cytopathological Evaluation

Background and Aim: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle biopsy (FNB) and fine needle aspiration (FNA) are established methods in tissue acquisition. A new fork-tip FNB needle has been used to obtain core tissue samples. We compared the performance of the FNB using fork-tip needles with that of the FNA using conventional needles in patients who had solid neoplastic lesions within and around the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract.

Methods: In this retrospective single-center study, patients who underwent EUS examinations for solid neoplastic lesions between October 2013 and February 2017 were included. The procedures were performed in the absence of an on-site cytologist. The main objectives were to compare the diagnostic yield and average number of passes of FNB using fork-tip needles versus those of FNA using conventional needles.

Results: EUS/FNA and EUS/FNB were performed on 181 solid neoplastic lesions primarily in the pancreas and GI tract walls. There was no significant difference in patient's age, gender, tumor location, or tumor size. The mean number of needle passes was significantly lower in the fork-tip needle group than in the conventional needle group (3.8 vs. 5.9; p < 0.0001). There was a trend toward higher sensitivity (89.9% vs. 81%) using the fork-tip needles than when using the conventional needles (p = 0.119). No significant difference in rates of adverse events between two groups was found.

Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that, compared with FNA using conventional needles, FNB using fork-tip needles required significantly fewer needle passes while achieving a relatively higher diagnostic yield due to its superior capacity in tissue acquisition from solid neoplastic lesions in and around GI tract walls without on-site cytological assessment.

Clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasonography on the management of neuroendocrine tumors: lights and shadows

The incidence of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms has increased in the recent decades. An extensive bibliographical search was performed in PubMed to identify guidelines and primary literature (retrospective and prospective studies, systematic reviews, case series) published mostly between year 1997 and June 2017, using both medical subject heading (MeSH) terms and free-language keywords about the accuracy and diagnostic and therapeutic role of endoscopic ultrasound in the context of gastro-entero-pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms. Endoscopic ultrasound is the modality of choice for diagnosing pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms and for the locoregional staging of gastric, duodenal, pancreatic and rectal neuroendocrine neoplasms; in particular, in the setting of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms it has demonstrated higher accuracy in tumor detection than other imaging modalities. Furthermore, the possibility of tattooing pancreatic lesions by endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration may help surgeons to locate the tumor and avoid any demolition surgery. Finally, endoscopic ultrasound-guided therapies have been proposed and used in several studies for patients unsuitable for surgery, with good results on the control of symptoms and the reduction of tumor burden.

New Developments in Endoscopic Ultrasound Tissue Acquisition

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition has greatly evolved since the first EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration was reported nearly 25 years ago. EUS-guided tissue acquisition has become the procedure of choice for sampling of the pancreas, subepithelial lesions, and other structures adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract. This review focuses on recent developments in procedural techniques and needle technologies for EUS-guided tissue acquisition.

A meta-analysis of endoscopic ultrasound-fine-needle aspiration compared to endoscopic ultrasound-fine-needle biopsy: diagnostic yield and the value of onsite cytopathological assessment

Background The diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is variable, and partly dependent upon rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE) by a cytopathologist. Second generation fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles are being increasingly used to obtain core histological tissue samples. Aims Studies comparing the diagnostic yield of EUS guided FNA versus FNB have reached conflicting conclusions. We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic yield of FNA with FNB, and specifically evaluating the diagnostic value of ROSE while comparing the two types of needles. Methods We searched several databases from inception to 10 April 2016 to identify studies comparing diagnostic yield of second generation FNB needles with standard FNA needles. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated for categorical outcomes of interest (diagnostic adequacy, diagnostic accuracy, and optimal quality histological cores obtained). Standard mean difference (SMD) was calculated for continuous variables (number of passes required for diagnosis). These were pooled using random effects model of meta-analysis to account for heterogeneity. Meta-regression was conducted to evaluate the effect of ROSE on various outcomes of interest. Results Fifteen studies with a total of 1024 patients were included in the analysis. We found no significant difference in diagnostic adequacy [RR 0.98 (0.91, 1.06), (I² = 51 %)]. Although not statistically significant (P = 0.06), by meta-regression, in the absence of ROSE, FNB showed a relatively better diagnostic adequacy. For solid pancreatic lesions only, there was no difference in diagnostic adequacy [RR 0.96 (0.86, 1.09), (I² = 66 %)]. By meta-regression, in the absence of ROSE, FNB was associated with better diagnostic adequacy (P = 0.02). There was no difference in diagnostic accuracy [RR 0.99 (0.95, 1.03), (I² = 27 %)] or optimal quality core histological sample procurement [RR 0.97 (0.89, 1.05), (I² = 9.6 %)]. However, FNB established diagnosis with fewer passes [SMD 0.93 (0.45, 1.42), (I² = 84 %)]. The absence of ROSE was associated with a higher SMD, i. e., in the presence of an onsite pathologist, FNA required relatively fewer passes to establish the diagnosis than in the absence of an onsite pathologist. Conclusions There is no significant difference in the diagnostic yield between FNA and FNB, when FNA is accompanied by ROSE. However, in the absence of ROSE, FNB is associated with a relatively better diagnostic adequacy in solid pancreatic lesions. Also, FNB requires fewer passes to establish the diagnosis.

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.

Subepithelial rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumor - the use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration to establish a definitive cytological diagnosis: a case report

Background

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors are the most common mesenchymal neoplasms affecting the gastrointestinal tract. The stomach is the most common location to be affected, and the rectum one of the rarest, but the whole gastrointestinal tract remains susceptible. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors account for only 0.1% of rectal tumors. Currently, endoscopic ultrasound plays an essential role in the diagnostic process of gastrointestinal stromal tumors, especially when the affected sites have a worse outcome and higher morbidity rates.

Case presentation

We describe the case of a 68-year-old white Japanese man with a history of long-term mild rectal pain and tenesmus. A digital rectal examination revealed a right palpable solid mass ranging from 3 to 7 cm from his anal verge. A colonoscopy was performed and showed a 5 cm elevated lesion covered by normal mucosa, located 4 cm above the pectineal line. Endoscopic ultrasound confirmed the diagnosis of a homogeneous hypoechoic mass with areas of necrosis as a rectal subepithelial lesion originating at the fourth layer (muscularis propria). He then underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of the lesion, followed by cytological and immunohistochemistry evaluation. The evaluation showed spindle and epithelioid cells of variable sizes, in fascicles separated by stroma, which reacted firmly and consistently to CD117/c-kit and CD34, and negative to desmin and S-100 protein. There was weak staining for nuclear Ki-67 in the tumor cells. A diagnosis of rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumor was confirmed. After a multidisciplinary meeting, an abdominoperineal resection of his rectum was performed. The pathology of the specimen confirmed the diagnosis of rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumor. He is now asymptomatic after 3 months’ follow-up and is on adjuvant therapy with a tyrosine-kinase inhibitor.

Conclusions

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors are rare tumors, and among the variety of primary location sites, the rectum is one of the rarest. The localization of this type of tumor has worse outcomes and higher morbidity rates. We report this rare case to emphasize the need for precise diagnosis and the important role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration in such situations.

Tissue diagnosis of GI subepithelial tumor only through Trucut biopsy under a forward-viewing endoscope: applicability as newer diagnostic modality

BACKGROUND

Trucut biopsy (TCB) has been proposed to overcome the limitations of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration for the pathologic diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal (GI) subepithelial tumor (SET); however, it can be difficult to perform because the Trucut biopsy needle is very stiff. Although technical failures have been reported with the use of TCB, recently the forward-viewing echoendoscope showed a high diagnostic accuracy. We hypothesized that TCB under a conventional forward-viewing endoscope can be applied with higher yield of tissue diagnosis.

METHODS

To evaluate the feasibility of TCB under a forward-looking endoscopy without cumbersome EUS guidance, we introduced a 19-gauge TCB needle into the working channel of a conventional upper endoscope in 27 patients with GI SET to make tissue diagnosis. Prospectively collected data were analyzed, including technical success rate, pathologic result, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients with GI SET (18 esophageal tumors and nine gastric tumors) underwent TCB under a forward-looking endoscope. All procedures were performed safely without any TCB-related complications. Subsequently, histopathology examination revealed gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) in three cases and leiomyomas in 21 cases. Histologic assessment was completed in 24 out of 27 patients (88.9 %) because tissue obtained from three patients, whose tumors were located in the stomach, was not sufficient for the pathologic diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

TCB using a conventional forward-viewing endoscope without EUS guidance provided an excellent pathologic diagnosis of upper GI SET.

EUS-guided FNA and FNB after on-site cytological evaluation in gastric subepithelial tumors

OBJECTIVE

Acquiring adequate tissue for immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis is important in the differential diagnosis of subepithelial tumors (SETs). In this study, we aimed to compare the diagnostic yield based on IHC analysis between endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) after on-site cytological evaluation for cellularity in gastric SETs.

METHODS

In 22 patients with gastric SETs, EUS-guided tissue sampling was performed on the same SET in a randomized sequence, with EUS-FNA followed by EUS-FNB, or vice versa. After on-site cytological evaluation for cellularity, the cytological and histological examinations were performed.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference in the median number of needle passes to obtain adequate cellularity in the on-site cytological evaluation (2.0 for EUS-FNA vs 1.0 for EUS-FNB, P = 0.008). The proportion of adequate cellularity on the first needle pass was significantly higher in the EUS-FNB than in the EUS-FNA group (68.2% vs 31.8%, P = 0.034). However, diagnosis based on IHC examination was established in 15 (68.2%) and 18 (81.8%) cases by EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB, respectively (P = 0.488).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNB decreases the number of needle passes to obtain adequate cellularity and yields a higher proportion of adequate cellularity during the first needle pass compared with EUS-FNA in gastric SETs. However, there was no significant difference in diagnostic yield with IHC stain between the two procedures after on-site cytological evaluation for adequate cellularity.

Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided single-incision needle knife biopsy for gastric subepithelial tumors: comparison with resected specimens

BACKGROUND

Several techniques are recommended for the histologic diagnosis of gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs). The purpose of our study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield and safety of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided single-incision needle knife (SINK) biopsy for the diagnosis of gastric SETs.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who received biopsy for gastric SETs from August 2012 to May 2015 was conducted. Patients who received endoscopic ultrasonography and were found to have a SET originating from the muscularis propria of the stomach were included in the study. The aim of our study was to investigate the safety and diagnostic yield of SINK biopsy for gastric SETs.

RESULTS

A total of 31 patients received SINK biopsy for SETs. The diagnostic yield of SINK biopsy was 87 % (95 % CI 75-100 %), and the diagnostic accuracy was 89 % (95 % CI 74-105 %). The sensitivity of SINK biopsy to identify gastrointestinal stromal tumors was 83 % (95 % CI 52-98 %); the specificity was 100 % (95 % CI 59-100 %); the positive predictive value was 100 % (95 % CI 69-100 %); and the negative predictive value was 78 % (95 % CI 40-97 %). There were no procedure-related adverse events during and after procedure.

CONCLUSION

The use of SINK biopsy technique in patients with SETs is a good diagnostic tool with high diagnostic yield and accuracy. The method is simple, safe, and associated with few complications.

Role of Endoscopic Ultrasonography in Guiding Treatment Plans for Upper Gastrointestinal Subepithelial Tumors

Gastrointestinal (GI) subepithelial tumors (SETs) are usually observed incidentally by endoscopy and have diverse prognoses, varying from benign to potentially malignant. When a GI SET is suspected, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is the most accurate diagnostic method to differentiate it from extraluminal compression. To determine the nature of GI SETs, EUS is also the most accurate diagnostic method, and reveals the precise sonographic nature of the lesion. There are some SETs with typical EUS findings of GI SETs, but most hypoechoic lesions are difficult to diagnose based on EUS images alone. EUS is also helpful to determine GI wall involvement in SETs and optimal treatment methods. For the diagnosis of GI SETs, obtaining a proper specimen is essential. EUS-guided cytology or biopsy methods such as fine-needle aspiration, Tru-Cut biopsy, and the newly introduced fine-needle biopsy (FNB) provide good results. To increase the diagnostic yield for GI SETs, cytology with immunocytochemical staining is used for cytological interpretation, resulting in good diagnostic yields. Recently, EUS-FNB using cheese slicer technology has been introduced, and has been reported to provide good diagnostic results for GI SETs.

Evaluating the Minimal Specimens From Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration in Pancreatic Masses

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has become one of the most useful diagnostic modalities for the diagnosis of pancreatic mass. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of analyzing the minimal specimens obtained by EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of solid masses of pancreas.This study consisted of retrospective and prospective analyses. The retrospective study was performed on 116 patients who underwent EUS-FNA of solid masses for cytological smear, histological analysis, and combined analysis including immunohistochemical (IHC) staining. In the prospective study, 79 patients were enrolled to evaluate the quality and accuracy of EUS-FNA histological analysis and feasibility of IHC staining.The final diagnoses of all patients included pancreatic cancer (n = 126), nonpancreatic cancer (n = 21), other neoplasm (n = 27), and benign lesions (n = 21). In our retrospective study, the combined analysis was more sensitive than cytological analysis alone (P < 0.01). The overall sensitivity of cytology, histology, and combined analysis was 69.8%, 67.2%, and 81.8%, respectively. In the prospective analysis, 64.2% of all punctures were helpful for determining the diagnosis and 40.7% provided sufficient tissue for IHC staining. Histological analysis was helpful for diagnosis in 74.7% of patients. IHC staining was necessary for a definite diagnosis in 11.4% of patients, especially in the cases of nonmalignant pancreatic mass.Histological analysis and IHC study of EUS-FNA specimens was useful for the accurate diagnosis of pancreatic and peripancreatic lesions. Combined analysis showed significantly higher sensitivity than cytology alone because IHC staining was helpful for a diagnosis in some patients.

Randomized Noninferiority Trial Comparing Diagnostic Yield of Cytopathologist-guided versus 7 passes for EUS-FNA of Pancreatic Masses

BACKGROUND AND AIM

To improve diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in solid pancreatic lesions, on-site cytology review has been recommended. Because this is not widely available throughout the world, the aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA performed with rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) versus 7 FNA passes without ROSE in pancreatic masses.

METHODS

In this multicenter randomized noninferiority trial, patients were randomized to ROSE versus 7 passes into a solid pancreatic mass. On the basis of the absolute difference in diagnostic yield with 7 passes versus cytopathologist-guidance, the noninferiority margin for the difference in diagnostic yield was defined as -15%. Definite diagnosis was defined to include positive for malignancy, neoplastic cells present, and negative for malignancy.

RESULTS

A total of 142 patients were randomized with 73 in the cytopathologist arm and 69 in the 7 passes arm. Diagnostic yield for definite diagnosis was 78.3% with 7 passes and 78.1% with cytopathology guidance. With an absolute difference 0.2%, 95% CI -14.4 to 14.6, performing 7 passes was noninferior to cytopathologist-guided EUS-FNA. There was no significant difference in complications or time to perform FNA. A median of 5 passes were performed with ROSE. The median charge with onsite cytopathology was significantly greater than performing 7 passes [$1058 (958, 1445) versus $375 (275, 460), p<0.001].

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnostic yield for performing 7 passes during EUS-FNA into solid pancreatic masses is noninferior with lower charge compared to cytopathologist-guidance. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Comparison of EUS-guided tissue acquisition using two different 19-gauge core biopsy needles: a multicenter, prospective, randomized, and blinded study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

The optimal core biopsy needle for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is unknown. The principle aim of this study is to compare outcomes of EUS-fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) with a new 19-gauge EUS histology needle (ProCore, Cook Medical Inc., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, United States) to a conventional 19-gauge Tru-Cut biopsy (EUS-TCB) needle (19G, Quick-Core, Cook Medical Inc.).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients referred for EUS who require possible histologic biopsy were prospectively randomized to EUS-FNB or EUS-TCB. With the initial needle, ≤ 3 biopsies were obtained until either technical failure or an adequate core was obtained. Patients with suspected inadequate biopsies were crossed over to the other needle and similarly ≤ 3 passes were obtained until adequate cores or technical failure occurred. Technical success, diagnostic histology, accuracy and complication rates were evaluated.

RESULTS

Eighty-five patients (mean 58 years; 43 male) were randomized to FNB (n = 44) and TCB (n = 41) with seven patients excluded. Procedure indication, biopsy site, mass size, number of passes, puncture site, overall technical success and adverse events were similar between the two groups. FNB specimens had a higher prevalence of diagnostic histology (85 % vs. 57 %; P = 0.006), accuracy (88 % vs. 62 %; P = 0.02), mean total length (19.4 vs. 4.3 mm; P = 0.001), mean complete portal triads from liver biopsies (10.4 vs. 1.3; P = 0.0004) and required fewer crossover biopsies compared to those of TCB (2 % vs. 65 %; P = 0.0001). Overall technical success and complication rates were comparable.

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNB using a 19-gauge FNB needle is superior to 19-gauge EUS-TCB needle.

Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsy Specimens: Adequate Diagnostic Yield and Accuracy Can Be Achieved without On-Site Evaluation

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNA) is the preferred method for biopsying the gastrointestinal tract, and rapid on-site cytological evaluation is considered standard practice. Our institution does not perform on-site evaluation; this study analyzes our overall diagnostic yield, accuracy, and incidence of nondiagnostic cases to determine the validity of this strategy.

DESIGN

Data encompassing clinical information, procedural records, and cytological assessment were analyzed for gastrointestinal EUS-FNA procedures (n = 85) performed at Vancouver General Hospital from January 2012 to January 2013. We compared our results with those of studies that had on-site evaluation and studies that did not have on-site evaluation.

RESULTS

Eighty-five biopsies were performed in 78 patients, from sites that included the pancreas, the stomach, the duodenum, lymph nodes, and retroperitoneal masses. Malignancies were diagnosed in 45 (53%) biopsies, while 24 (29%) encompassed benign entities. Suspicious and atypical results were recorded in 8 (9%) and 6 (7%) cases, respectively. Only 2 (2%) cases received a cytological diagnosis of 'nondiagnostic'. Our overall accuracy was 72%, our diagnostic yield was 98%, and our nondiagnostic rate was 2%. Our results did not significantly differ from those of studies that did have on-site evaluation.

CONCLUSION

Our study highlights that adequate diagnostic accuracy can be achieved without on-site evaluation.

Forward-viewing versus oblique-viewing echoendoscopes in the diagnosis of upper GI subepithelial lesions with EUS-guided FNA: a prospective, randomized, crossover study

BACKGROUND

The role of the forward-viewing echoendoscope compared with the oblique-viewing echoendoscope for EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) of upper GI subepithelial lesions has not been defined.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the diagnostic yield and clinical efficacy of EUS-FNA by using the 2 echoendoscopes in the same upper GI subepithelial lesion.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, crossover study.

SETTING

Tertiary-care medical center.

PATIENTS

Forty-one patients with an upper GI subepithelial lesion.

INTERVENTIONS

All patients first underwent EUS-FNA with a 19-gauge needle by using both echoendoscopes, based on random selection. When required, 22-gauge or 25-gauge needles were used additionally.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Comparison of diagnostic yield, tissue sample area, puncture success rates, procedure time, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Forty-one patients (median lesion size 22 mm, range 15-63 mm) were enrolled. Rates of histologic diagnosis were 80.5% (33/41) and 73.2% (30/41) (P=.453) by using forward-viewing and oblique-viewing echoendoscopes, respectively. Median tissue sample area in GI stromal tumors (n=22) obtained with the forward-viewing echoendoscope was larger than with the oblique-viewing echoendoscope (2.46 mm2 vs 1.00 mm2; P=.046). Puncture success rates were 39 of 41 (95.1%) and 35 of 41 (85.4%; P=.289) with forward-viewing and oblique-viewing echoendoscopes, respectively. Median procedure time was 21 minutes with the forward-viewing echoendoscope and 27 minutes with the oblique-viewing echoendoscope (P=.009). An infectious adverse event occurred in a patient and was treated with antibiotics.

LIMITATIONS

Small sample size.

CONCLUSION

Diagnostic yield did not differ between the 2 echoendoscopes. However, tissue sample area and procedure time were superior with the forward-viewing echoendoscope.

The clinical usefulness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration and biopsy for rectal and perirectal lesions

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration and/or biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) have been used to diagnose subepithelial tumors (SETs) and extraluminal lesions in the gastrointestinal tract. Our group previously reported the usefulness of EUS-FNA/B for rectal and perirectal lesions. This study reports our expanded experience with EUS-FNA/B for rectal and perirectal lesions in terms of diagnostic accuracy and safety. We also included our new experience with EUS-FNB using the recently introduced ProCore needle.

METHODS

From April 2009 to March 2014, EUS-FNA/B for rectal and perirectal lesions was performed in 30 consecutive patients. We evaluated EUS-FNA/B performance by comparing histological diagnoses with final results. We also investigated factors affecting diagnostic accuracy.

RESULTS

Among 10 patients with SETs, EUS-FNA/B specimen results revealed a gastrointestinal stromal tumor in 4 patients and malignant lymphoma in 1 patient. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA/B was 50% for SETs (5/10). Among 20 patients with non-SET lesions, 8 patients were diagnosed with malignant disease and 7 were diagnosed with benign disease based on both EUS-FNA/B and the final results. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA/B for non-SET lesions was 75% (15/20). The size of lesions was the only factor related to diagnostic accuracy (P=0.027). Two complications of mild fever and asymptomatic pneumoperitoneum occurred after EUS-FNA/B.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA/B for rectal and perirectal lesions was 67% (20/30). EUS-FNA/B is a clinically useful method for cytological and histological diagnoses of rectal and perirectal lesions.

Yields and Utility of Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided 19-Gauge Trucut Biopsy versus 22-Gauge Fine Needle Aspiration for Diagnosing Gastric Subepithelial Tumors

Background/Aims

To evaluate the yields and utility of 19-gauge (G) Trucut biopsy (TCB) versus 22 G fine needle aspiration (FNA) for diagnosing gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs).

Methods

We retrieved data for 152 patients with a gastric SET larger than 2 cm who had undergone endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided 19 G TCB (n=90) or 22 G FNA (n=62). Relevant clinical, tumor-specific, and EUS procedural information was reviewed retrospectively.

Results

A specific diagnosis was made for 76 gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) and 51 non-GIST SETs. The diagnostic yield of TCB was greater than that of FNA (77.8% vs. 38.7%, p<0.001). The percentage of non-diagnostic specimens (suspicious and insufficient) was significantly lower in the TCB group (6.7% and 15.5%, respectively) than in the FNA group (22.6% and 38.7%, respectively; both p<0.001). TCB accurately diagnosed 90.9% of GISTs and 81.1% of non-GIST SETs, whereas FNA accurately diagnosed 68.8% of GISTs and 14.3% of non-GIST SETs. There were nine technical failures with TCB, and the rate of adverse events did not differ between the groups (TCB vs. FNA, 3.3% vs. 8.1%; p=0.27).

Conclusions

Nineteen-gauge TCB is safe and highly valuable for diagnosing gastric SETs larger than 2 cm if technical failure can be avoided.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with on-site cytopathology versus core biopsy: a comparison of both techniques performed at the same endoscopic session

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) with bedside cytopathology is the gold standard for assessment of pancreatic, subepithelial, and other lesions in close proximity to the gastrointestinal tract, but it is time-consuming, has certain diagnostic limitations, and bedside cytopathology is not widely available.

AIMS

The goal of this study is to compare the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided FNA with on-site cytopathology and EUS-guided core biopsy.

METHODS

Twenty-six patients with gastrointestinal mass lesions requiring biopsy at a tertiary medical center were included in this retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort. Two core biopsies were taken using a 22 gauge needle followed by FNA guided by a bedside cytopathologist at the same endoscopic session. The diagnostic yield and test characteristics of EUS core biopsy and EUS FNA with bedside cytopathology were examined.

RESULTS

The mean number of passes was 3.2 for FNA, and the mean procedure time was 39.4 minutes. The final diagnosis was malignant in 92.3 %. Sensitivity and specificity were 83 % and 100 %, respectively, for FNA, and 91.7 % and 100 %, respectively, for core biopsy. Diagnostic accuracy was 92.3 % for FNA and 84.6 % for core biopsy. The two approaches were in agreement in 88.4 % with a kappa statistic of 0.66 (95 % confidence interval 0.33 - 0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

An approach using two passes with a core biopsy needle is comparable to the current gold standard of FNA with bedside cytopathology. The performance of two core biopsies is time-efficient and could represent a good alternative to FNA with bedside cytopathology.

Fine-needle biopsy: should this be the first choice in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition?

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition is an indispensable technique for the diagnosis of many diseases of the gastrointestinal tract and adjacent structures. EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is known for its high accuracy and low complication rate. However, the outcome of EUS-FNA highly depends on several factors such as the location and characteristics of the lesion, endosonographer's experience, technique of sampling and sample preparation, type and size of the needle used, and presence of a cytopathologist for rapid on-site examination. EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy is useful to obtain core tissue samples with relatively fewer passes. Aspiration of core tissue with preserved architecture is beneficial for the diagnosis of certain diseases and the performance of ancillary testing such as tumor molecular profiling. Issues related to needle size, type, and their acquired samples for cytologic and histologic evaluation are discussed here.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration cytology and biopsy in the evaluation of lymphoma

Accurate diagnosis and subtyping of lymphoma have important prognostic implications and are generally required for treatment planning. Histological assessment, immunophenotyping, and genetic studies are usually necessary. Endoscopic ultrasound guided-fine needle aspiration cytology (EUS-FNAC) is a minimally invasive technique widely used for the evaluation of deep-seated benign and malignant lesions. However, the value of cytological samples in lymphoma diagnosis is still a matter of debate. Endoscopic ultrasound guided-fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNAB) can provide tissue core samples that may help overcome the limitations of cytology. The aim of this review is to summarize the available literature regarding EUS-FNAC and EUS-FNAB for the diagnosis and subtyping of lymphoma. In addition, we discuss its usefulness in the management of primary extra-nodal lymphomas, as well as technical issues that may influence sample quality.

Addition of Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration and On-Site Cytology to EUS-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy Increases Procedure Time but Not Diagnostic Accuracy

Background/Aims

Although the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound with fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in pancreas adenocarcinoma is high, endoscopic ultrasound with fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is often required in other lesions; in these cases, it may be possible to forgo initial EUS-FNA and rapid on-site cytology evaluation (ROSE). The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB alone (EUS-FNB group) with a conventional sampling algorithm of EUS-FNA with ROSE followed by EUS-FNB (EUS-FNA/B group) in nonpancreas adenocarcinoma lesions.

Methods

Retrospective cohort study of subjects who underwent EUS sampling of nonpancreatic adenocarcinoma lesions between February 2011 and May 2013.

Results

Over the study period, there were 43 lesions biopsied in 41 unique patients in the EUS-FNB group and 53 patients in the EUS-FNA/B group. Overall diagnostic accuracy was similar between the EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA/B groups (83.7% vs. 84.9%; p=1.0). In the subgroup of subepithelial mass lesions, diagnostic accuracy remained similar in the EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA/B groups (81.0% and 70.6%; p=0.7). EUS-FNB procedures were significantly shorter than those in the EUS-FNA/B group (58.4 minutes vs. 73.5 minutes; p<0.0001).

Conclusions

EUS-FNB without on-site cytology provides a high diagnostic accuracy in nonpancreas adenocarcinoma lesions. There appears to be no additive benefit with initial EUS-FNA but this requires further study in a prospective study.

Techniques for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy

Although endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the method of choice to obtain samples to reach definitive diagnosis of lesions of the gastrointestinal tract and of adjacent organs, it cannot fully characterize certain neoplasms. The lack of cytology expertise has hindered the dissemination of EUS, limiting its widespread use. The obtainment of a tissue specimen through EUS fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) may overcome the limitations of EUS-FNA. EUS-FNB is expected to move the practice of EUS from cytology to histology, expanding the use of EUS and facilitating targeted therapies and monitoring of treatment response in a more biologically driven manner.

Tips to overcome technical challenges in EUS-guided tissue acquisition

The diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA depends on several factors, such as the experience of the endosonographer, the characteristics of the lesion, the clinical status of the patient, the size and type of needles, the methods of specimen preparation, as well as cytopathologist expertise. The endosonographic technique can be improved when several tips and tricks useful to overcome challenges of FNA are known. Technical challenges of FNA are related to the characteristics of the lesion and its surroundings, sonographic imaging, and limitations related to the needle. Several tips and tricks necessary to overcome them are presented in this review.

Diagnosing a gastric submucosal tumor using jumbo biopsy "unroofing" technique: a case report and review of the literature

We report a case of a 40-year-old female who presented with dyspeptic symptoms for six months. Upper GI endoscopy revealed a submucosal nodule in gastric antrum. Using “jumbo biopsy unroofing technique” we were able to get adequate tissue for analysis. Histopathology revealed a type III gastric carcinoid. Patient was treated with laparoscopic distal subtotal gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction and partial omentectomy. Although there was no evidence of metastasis on initial presentation, eighteen months later, patient was found to have multiple metastatic lesions in her liver. Patient's lesions were treated with intra-arterial (hepatic artery) Yttrium-90.

Technical Advances in Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-Guided Tissue Acquisition for Pancreatic Cancers: How Can We Get the Best Results with EUS-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration?

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is one of the least invasive and most effective modality in diagnosing pancreatic adenocarcinoma in solid pancreatic lesions, with a higher diagnostic accuracy than cystic tumors. EUS-FNA has been shown to detect tumors less than 3 mm, due to high spatial resolution allowing the detection of very small lesions and vascular invasion, particularly in the pancreatic head and neck, which may not be detected on transverse computed tomography. Furthermore, this minimally invasive procedure is often ideal in the endoscopic procurement of tissue in patients with unresectable tumors. While EUS-FNA has been increasingly used as a diagnostic tool, most studies have collectively looked at all primary pancreatic solid lesions, including lymphomas and pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms, whereas very few studies have examined the diagnostic utility of EUS-FNA of pancreatic ductal carcinoma only. As with any novel and advanced endoscopic procedure that may incorporate several practices and approaches, endoscopists have adopted diverse techniques to improve the tissue procurement practice and increase diagnostic accuracy. In this article, we present a review of literature to date and discuss currently practiced EUS-FNA technique, including indications, technical details, equipment, patient selection, and diagnostic accuracy.

Highlights of international digestive endoscopy network 2013

Rapid advances in the technology of gastrointestinal endoscopy as well as the evolution of science have made it necessary for us to continue update in either various endoscopic techniques or state of art lectures relevant to endoscopy. International Digestive Endoscopy Network (IDEN) 2013 was held in conjunction with Korea-Japan Joint Symposium on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KJSGE) during June 8 to 9, 2013 at Seoul, Korea. Two days of impressive scientific program dealt with a wide variety of basic concerns from upper gastrointestine (GI), lower GI, pancreaticobiliary endoscopy to advanced knowledge including endoscopic submucosal dissection forum. IDEN seems to be an excellent opportunity to exchange advanced information of the latest issues on endoscopy with experts from around the world. In this special issue of Clinical Endoscopy, we prepared state of art review articles from contributing authors and the current highlights will skillfully deal with very hot spots of each KJSGE, upper GI, lower GI, and pancreaticobiliary sessions by associated editors of Clinical Endoscopy.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Fine Needle Aspiration versus Core Biopsy for the Diagnosis of Subepithelial Tumors

Subepithelial lesions are frequently encountered and remain a diagnostic challenge. Imaging of subepithelial lesions using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) can be helpful in narrowing the differential diagnosis of the lesion; however, definitive diagnosis typically requires tissue. Many methods for acquiring tissue exist including EUS-guided fine needle aspiration, Trucut biopsy, and fine needle biopsy. Obtaining adequate tissue is important for cytologic and histologic exams including immunohistochemical stains, thus a great deal of effort has been made to increase tissue acquisition in order to improve diagnostic yield in subepithelial lesions.

Ultrasound-guided vs endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic cancer diagnosis

AIM: To clarify the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer (PC).

METHODS: Patients who were diagnosed with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic PC between February 2006 and September 2011 were selected for this retrospective study. FNA biopsy for pancreatic tumors had been performed percutaneously under extracorporeal ultrasound guidance until October 2009; then, beginning in November 2009, EUS-FNA has been performed. We reviewed the complete medical records of all patients who met the selection criteria for the following data: sex, age, location and size of the targeted tumor, histological and/or cytological findings, details of puncture procedures, time from day of puncture until day of definitive diagnosis, and details of severe adverse events.

RESULTS: Of the 121 patients who met the selection criteria, 46 had a percutaneous biopsy (Group A) and 75 had an EUS-FNA biopsy (Group B). Adequate cytological specimens were obtained in 42 Group A patients (91.3%) and all 75 Group B patients (P = 0.0192), and histological specimens were obtained in 41 Group A patients (89.1%) and 65 Group B patients (86.7%). Diagnosis of malignancy by cytology was positive in 33 Group A patients (78.6%) and 72 Group B patients (94.6%) (P = 0.0079). Malignancy by both cytology and pathology was found in 43 Group A (93.5%) and 73 Group B (97.3%) patients. The mean period from the puncture until the cytological diagnosis in Group B was 1.7 d, which was significantly shorter than that in Group A (4.1 d) (P < 0.0001). Severe adverse events were experienced in two Group A patients (4.3%) and in one Group B patient (1.3%).

CONCLUSION: EUS-FNA, as well as percutaneous needle aspiration, is an effective modality to obtain cytopathological confirmation in patients with advanced PC.

A comparative needle study: EUS-FNA procedures using the HD ProCore(™) and EchoTip(®) 22-gauge needle types

The specific needle sizes/types used in performing endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspirations (EUS-FNA) vary. The HD ProCore(™) is a 22-gauge beveled needle allowing for core biopsy along with aspiration material. In this study we compare this needle with a standard 22-gauge needle. Between April 1, 2011 and November 15, 2011, 18 patients undergoing EUS-FNA using the HD ProCore(™) needle were compared to a control group of 18 cases using the standard 22-gauge needle. Smears were assessed for: three-dimensional clusters, thick obscuring clusters, monolayer sheets, cellularity, crowded obscuring single cells, blood, and nuclear staining. Cell blocks were assessed for cellularity and presence of diagnostic material. Records were reviewed for the overall adequacy, number of FNA passes, and patient follow-up. Overall, the two needle groups demonstrated similar results for the cytology parameters, amount of diagnostic cell block material, adequacy, and accuracy. The mean number of passes to achieve adequacy varied between the groups [2.94 for the standard 22-gauge needle group versus 2.11 for the beveled needle group (P=0.03)] with no meaningful difference in case duration between needle groups. No complications were reported. The beveled EUS needle affords similar cytologic interpretability, adequacy, diagnostic accuracy, and amount of cell block material as a standard needle. There was a statistically significant trend toward fewer passes to achieve adequacy with the beveled EUS-FNA needle. Therefore, the EUS-FNA needle with a lateral bevel is a diagnostically similar alternative to standard endoscopy needles, the possibility that this beveled needle may improve per pass adequacy requires further verification.

Endosonographic large-bore biopsy of gastric subepithelial tumors: a prospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Once gastric subepithelial lesions (SEL) are found, tissue diagnosis is required, considering the possible differential diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST). Previous studies have shown insufficient accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) using cytologic analysis.

METHODS

The feasibility and yield of EUS-FNA-based histologic tissue acquisition for gastric SEL, using 19 G large-bore needles, was assessed in a 4-year multicenter, prospective study. All consecutive patients, who were referred for EUS-FNA for all SEL greater than 1 cm, were included.

RESULTS

Of 100 patients with suspected gastric SEL, 71 lesions were found to be eligible. Endoscopic biopsies or resections or surgery were used alternatively for a variety of reasons in 25 patients. EUS-FNA using the 19 G needle was finally performed in 46/71 cases (65%) with one to four needle passes. Sufficient material for a definite or a suspected histological diagnosis was obtained in 52 and 7% of the cases, respectively. In 41%, the samples were not informative. Immunohistochemistry was possible in 91% of cases with sufficient amounts of tissue; 30% were GIST. Self-limited, mild hemorrhage occurred in 22%; one patient developed a fatal abscess.

CONCLUSION

Even when intended, EUS-guided 19 G FNA is only feasible in 46% of gastric SEL. The diagnostic yield of 19 G FNA was only 52%, but with excellent differentiation between GIST and leiomyoma. Infectious complications must be prevented.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration of lymph nodes and solid masses: factors influencing the cellularity and adequacy of the aspirate

GOALS

To study the factors that influence the cellularity and adequacy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA).

BACKGROUND

An on-site cytopathology service is preferred during EUS-guided FNA. However, this is not always available. Factors that influence the aspirate cellularity and adequacy have not been well defined in the absence of on-site cytopathology.

STUDY

EUS-guided FNA procedures without an on-site cytopathologist from a single center were retrospectively studied. FNA of solid masses and lymph nodes (LN) were included. The FNA cellularity, hemorrhagic content, and endoscopists' assessment of adequacy were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 166 patients from January 2009 to October 2010 were included. A total of 520 FNA passes were performed. Of the 166 lesions, 70 (42.2%) were solid masses and 96 (57.8%) were LNs. A 22-G needle was used in 72.3% and 25 G in 27.7% of the patients. The median (range) number of FNA passes was 3 (1 to 7) for LNs and 3 (1 to 5) for solid masses. With this, the endoscopists had an accuracy of 92.2% (153/166) for obtaining an adequate aspirate. Of the 166 samples, 4 (2.4%) were acellular, 20 (12.0%) sparsely cellular, 52 (31.4%) moderately cellular, and 90 (54.2%) highly cellular. The 25-G needle had significantly more adequate aspirates than the 22-G needle for solid masses (P=0.011). Also, increasing passes correlated with higher cellularity (P=0.002) and an adequate aspirate (P=0.021). No correlation was found for LN FNA. Lesion size did not influence the cellularity or adequacy (P>0.05). The degree of hemorrhage was not influenced by the needle gauge, number of passes, or lesion size. The diagnostic yield was not affected by hemorrhage in the sample (P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-guided FNA obtains a high proportion of adequate aspirates for LNs and solid masses, even without an on-site cytopathologist. Small proportions of inadequate samples still occur. For solid masses, a 25-G needle with at least 3 passes is more likely to provide an adequate aspirate than a 22-G needle and fewer passes. Hemorrhage did not affect the cytopathology's ability to make a diagnosis.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration in submucosal lesion

A submucosal lesion, more appropriately a subepithelial lesion, is hard to diagnose. Endoscopic ultrasonography is good to differentiate the nature of submucosal lesion. For definite diagnosis, tissue acquisition from submucosal lesion is necessary, and many methods have been introduced for this purpose mainly by endoscopic ultrasonography, such as endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), EUS-guided Trucut Biopsy (TCB), and EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (FNB). For EUS-FNA, adequate processing of specimen is important, and for proper diagnosis of EUS-FNA specimen, both cytologic and histologic examinations, including immunohistochemical stains, are important. All gastrointestinal stromal tumors have some degree of malignant potential, so there have been a lot of efforts and methods to increase diagnostic yields of submucosal lesion. We herein review the current hot topics on EUS-FNA for submucosal tumor, such as needles, on-site cytopathologists, immunohistochemical stains, EUS-TCB, EUS-FNB, Ki-67 labelling index, DOG1, and combining EUS-FNA and EUS-TCB.

Unusual, metastatic, or neuroendocrine tumor of the pancreas: a diagnosis with endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and immunohistochemistry

BACKGROUND/AIM

To determine the yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in combination with immunostains in diagnosing unusual solid pancreatic masses (USPM) in comparison with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (ACP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic masses performed with a 22-gauge needle were included. Data on clinical presentations, mass characteristics, presence of pancreatitis, yield of tissue, and final diagnosis were compared between the two groups. On site cytopathology was provided and additional passes were requested to perform immunostains.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twenty-nine cases with either adenocarcinoma or USPM were included. The median age of the cohort was 65 years. ACP (210/229, 92%) accounted for the majority of the cases. The USPM included neuroendocrine (NET) masses (n=13), metastatic renal carcinoma (n=3), metastatic melanoma (n=1), lymphoma (n=1), and malignant fibrous histiocytoma (n=1). Subjects with ACP were significantly more likely to present with loss of weight (P=0.02) or obstructive jaundice (P<0.001). Subjects with ACP were more likely to have suspicious/atypical FNA biopsy results as compared with USPM (10% vs 0%). The sensitivity of EUS-FNA with immunostains was 93% in ACP as compared with 100% in USPM. Diagnostic accuracy was higher in USPM as compared with ACP (100% vs 93%).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNA using a 22-gauge needle with immunostains has excellent diagnostic yield in patients with USPMs, which is comparable if not superior to the yield in pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Clinical impact of EUS-guided Trucut biopsy results on decision making for patients with gastric subepithelial tumors ≥ 2 cm in diameter

BACKGROUND

Preoperative pathologic diagnosis of a gastric subepithelial tumor (SET) may improve clinical decision making. However, the clinical impact of EUS-guided Trucut biopsy (EUS-TCB) data on decision making in patients with a gastric SET has not been assessed.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of EUS-TCB information on the clinical management of patients with a gastric SET.

DESIGN

Retrospective review of prospectively collected data.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

Sixty-five patients with gastric SETs 2 cm or larger in diameter.

INTERVENTION

EUS-TCB.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The number of patients for whom treatment plans were changed because of EUS-TCB results.

RESULTS

Nine SETs were not punctured by the TCB needle because of technical problems, and we were unable to obtain adequate subepithelial tissue from 19 SETs. Treatment plans were changed for 18 of 65 patients (27.7%). The changes were avoiding unnecessary resection (7 benign SETs ≥ 3 cm in diameter), scheduling for definitive treatment (6 GI stromal tumors and 1 carcinoid tumor), and modifying the surgical field (3 large GI stromal tumors and 1 carcinoma). When we assessed treatment plans relative to tumor location, we found that avoiding unnecessary resection was associated with the presence of cardiac SETs.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective study with a small number of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-TCB changed or influenced management decisions in 18 of 65 patients (27.7%) with gastric SETs. Patients could receive proper and tailored surgery, medical treatment, or surveillance according to size and location of SETs with EUS-TCB.

Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with 22- and 25-gauge needles in the same patients

BACKGROUND: Various factors, such as the optimal number of passes, aspiration pressure, and the use of 19-gauge and Trucut biopsy needles, have been studied to improve the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). We retrospectively compared the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA between 25- and 22-gauge needles, which have been widely used recently. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The study group comprised 47 consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNA with both 22- and 25-gauge needles from October 2007 through March 2010. Their underlying diseases were pancreatic cancer in 24 patients, submucosal tumors in 11, other pancreatic tumors in 4, chronic pancreatitis in 4, enlarged lymph nodes in 3, and gall bladder cancer in 1. Tissue specimens, which were pushed out of the puncture needle, were placed into physiological saline solution. Gray-whitish, worm-like specimens were used for histologic diagnosis. The remaining specimen was centrifuged, and the sediment was plated on slides and examined by a cytopathologist to obtain the cytologic diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 75 punctures (mean, 1.6) were performed with 25-gauge needles, and 69 punctures (mean, 1.4) were performed with 22-gauge needles. The overall tissue-sampling rate for cytology was 100% (47/47), which was significantly (p=0.01) superior to 83% (39/47) for histology. The overall diagnostic accuracy on the cytologic and histologic examinations was 79% (37/47) and 85% (33/39) (p=0.48). According to needle type, the tissue-sampling rate for cytology and histology on each puncture was 97% (73/75) and 56% (42/75) with 25-guage needles, and was 97% (67/69) and 58% (40/69) with 22-guage needles, the accuracy of cytologic diagnosis on each puncture was 73% (53/73) with 25-gauge needles and 66% (44/67) with 22-gauge needles (p=0.37); the accuracy of histologic diagnosis on each puncture was 60% (25/42) and 75% (30/40) (p=0.14), respectively. No patient had complications. CONCLUSIONS: The tissue-sampling rate and diagnostic accuracy did not differ significantly between 22- and 25-gauge needles in patients with pancreatic or gastrointestinal diseases who underwent EUS-FNA.

Histological diagnosis by EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy in pancreatic solid masses without on-site cytopathologist: a single-center experience

There are few reports on the histological diagnostic ability of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in a large-series of pancreatic masses. In the present study therefore we retrospectively evaluated the histological diagnostic ability of EUS-FNA in pancreatic masses without on-site cytopathologist. In 355 patients with pancreatic solid masses, EUS-FNA was carried out. EUS-FNA histology showed accuracy, 90.7%; sensitivity, 89.5%; specificity, 95.6%; positive predict value, 98.8%; negative predict value, 68.8% by intention-to-treat analysis. Except for 10 with inadequate materials, EUS-FNA histology showed accuracy, 93.3%; sensitivity, 91.8%; specificity, 100%; positive predict value, 100%; negative predict value, 77.6%. The mean number of puncture was 2.88 (range 1 to 8). There was two (0.6%) procedure-related bleeding. In conclusion, diagnostic ability of EUS-FNA by histological materials was similar to previous literature on the EUS-FNA without on-site cytopathologist.

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration for diagnosing upper gastrointestinal submucosal lesions: a prospective study of 50 cases

The objective was to assess EUS-FNA for diagnosing intramural upper GI tract lesions. The subjects were 50 patients (21M/29F) with upper GI submucosal lesions who underwent EUS-FNA at a referral center for GI system over a 12-month period. All cases were followed for 1 year after initial EUS-FNA. Cytologic diagnoses were categorized as benign, malignant, suspicious for malignancy, mesenchymal tumor, endocrine tumor, or nondiagnostic. All tumors were assessed for various cytomorphologic features. The accuracy of the initial FNA diagnoses was evaluated for each patient who also underwent subsequent histopathological examination of a core biopsy and/or surgical biopsy/resection material of the same lesion. According to the site of the lesions; while 84% of all esophageal lesions were diagnosed as mesenchymal; 67% of all gastric lesions were mesenchymal. The sole lesion was nonmesenchymal (benign cyst) in duodenum. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of EUS-FNA for diagnosing submucosal mesenchymal tumors of the upper GI tract were 82.9, 73.3, 87.9, 64.7, and 80%, respectively. The corresponding values for nonmesenchymal lesions were 100, 85.7, 80, 100, and 90.9%. Our experience confirms that EUS-FNA is an extremely valuable tool for diagnosing submucosal lesions of the upper GI, and is particularly useful in cases where endoscopic forceps biopsy does not lead to diagnosis. Optimal results can be yielded by a close working relationship between the gastroenterologist and pathologist.

The prospective randomized, controlled trial of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration using 22G and 19G aspiration needles for solid pancreatic or peripancreatic masses

OBJECTIVES

A large-caliber needle such as a 19-gauge needle may help overcome the limitations of a 22-gauge needle by acquiring a larger amount of tissue sample. However, there has been no well-designed comparative study for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) with a 19-gauge aspiration needle. We conducted this study to compare the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA using a 19-gauge aspiration needle with that using a 22-gauge aspiration needle in patients with solid pancreatic/peripancreatic mass.

METHODS

From March 2007 to April 2008, a total of 117 patients (60 in a 19-gauge needle group and 57 in a 22-gauge needle group) with solid pancreatic/peripancreatic mass were included. EUS-FNA was performed using the standard technique without an on-site cytopathologist. A single, blinded cytopathologist retrospectively evaluated each set of slides.

RESULTS

The diagnostic accuracy by intention-to-treat analysis was not significantly different (19G: 86.7% vs. 22G: 78.9%, P=0.268). However, the diagnostic accuracy by per-protocol analysis, excluding technical failures, was significantly higher in the 19-gauge needle group (94.5% vs. 78.9%, P=0.015). In the treatment-received group that included crossover cases, although the diagnostic accuracy in all cases was not significantly different (86.1% vs. 76.9%, P=0.164), that of body/tail lesion (95.0% vs. 76.7%, P=0.031) and technically successful cases (93.9% vs. 78.1%, P=0.006) were significantly higher in the 19-gauge needle group. On sample quality analysis, the amount of cellular material obtained was significantly higher in the 19-gauge needle group (P=0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNA with a 19-gauge aspiration needle may be a valuable method for the diagnosis of pancreatic/peripancreatic masses when an on-site cytopathologist is not available.

Diagnostic efficacy of the cell block method in comparison with smear cytology of tissue samples obtained by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration

BACKGROUND

The diagnostic efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) cytology may vary greatly depending on the treatment of the samples obtained and the level of proficiency of the cytopathologist or cytoscreener.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated the diagnostic efficacy of the cell block (CB) method and that of smear cytology using tissue samples obtained in the same needle pass at EUS-FNA in 33 patients with pancreatic tumors, abdominal tumors or swollen lymph nodes. An average of 3.1 passes were applied during the procedure without affirmation by rapid cytology. About half of the material obtained by each single pass was subjected to smear cytology, while the other half was evaluated by the CB method. Four to 12 glass slides were prepared for both Papanicolaou stain and Giemsa stain. The CB sections were prepared using the sodium alginate method and subjected to HE, PAS-AB and immunohistochemical stains. Two pathologists independently made cytological and histological diagnoses. The final diagnosis was based on integration of cytohistological findings, diagnostic imaging, and clinical course.

RESULTS

The diagnostic accuracy of the CB method and that of smear cytology were 93.9 and 60.6%, respectively (p = 0.003), and their respective sensitivities were 92.0 and 60.0% (p = 0.02). It was easier to make a definite diagnosis of not only malignancies but also benign conditions by the CB method than by the smear method.

CONCLUSION

The CB method with immunostaining showed a higher diagnostic yield than smear cytology in patients who had undergone EUS-FNA without rapid on-site cytology.