Pitfalls in EUS FNA

EUS-guided FNAC in intra-abdominal lesions: Technique of tissue acquisition, ancillary testing, pearls and perils, and prospects

Endoscopic ultrasound enables visualization of lesions within and in the vicinity of the gastrointestinal tract. Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration cytology (EUS-FNAC) helps in targeting various luminal and extraluminal lesions both diagnostically and therapeutically. Various intra-abdominal organs amenable to EUS-FNA include the gastrointestinal tract (GIT), pancreas, kidney, adrenal gland, liver, bile duct, gallbladder, spleen, and lymph nodes. EUS-FNAC is mostly done for pancreatic and intra-abdominal lymph nodal lesions. In the present review, we have discussed various aspects of EUS-FNAC.

Analysis of Decreasing Adverse Events with Endoscopic Ultrasound in a New Advanced Endoscopy Program Over Time

OBJECTIVE

New innovations and increasing utility of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) are associated with rare but serious risks. We investigate the rates and risk factors for post-procedural complications over a four-year period at a new advanced endoscopy program.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of all adult patients who underwent upper EUS at an academic level-1 trauma center between April 2015 and November 2019. The primary outcome was the incidence of adverse events within 1 week of EUS. Secondary outcomes included emergency department visits and mortality within 30 days after EUS. Chi-square test, t test, and multivariable logistic regression were used to assess risk factors for post-procedural complications.

RESULTS

A total of 968 EUS procedures were performed on 864 patients (54% female; 79% Caucasian; mean age 61 years). The overall incidence of post-procedural adverse event with EUS was 5.6%. The probability of an adverse event decreased by an average of 22% per year (p =0.01, OR 0.78). The risk for adverse events were 3.3% acute pancreatitis, 1.9% clinically significant bleeding, 0.3% bacteremia, 0.2% perforation, and 2.4% 30-day mortality. The adverse event rate was highest among low volume proceduralists (p =0.04). The 30-day mortality was more than threefolds among patients who had an adverse event within 7 days after EUS.

CONCLUSION

The overall incidence of post-procedural adverse events at a new EUS program was 5.6%, with an average of 22% relative decrease in adverse events per year in the first 4 years.

Amyloid-Rich Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: a Potential Diagnostic Pitfall in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology (EUS-FNAC)

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs) are rare neoplasms that include even rarer variants that may pose different diagnostic problems, especially in fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC). We describe the diagnostic clues of the amyloid-rich variant of PanNETs in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration cytology (EUS-FNAC). Three cases of PanNETs with an amyloid-rich stromal component were retrieved and retrospectively reviewed. For every case, the pancreatic lesion was investigated by a EUS-FNAC procedure. The final diagnosis was supported by immunocytochemistry and Congo red staining. All cases had similar EUS-FNAC features: neoplastic cells were entrapped in an eosinophilic, homogeneous dense and amorphous matrix. The neuroendocrine nature was confirmed by immunoexpression of synaptophysin and chromogranin A, while the amorphous stroma was characterized as amyloid based on positive Congo red staining. Regarding the hormonal profile, no insulin or proinsulin reactivity was observed, but all cases were diffusely positive for amylin. The diagnosis of uncommon variants of PanNETs, such as the amyloid-rich, is challenging especially in EUS-FNAC procedures because of a unique and misleading morphology, potentially mimicking fibrotic conditions and amyloid deposition within systemic amyloidosis. In cytology specimens, the presence of amorphous material requires amyloid deposition to be considered in the differential diagnosis of pancreatic neoplasms with neuroendocrine phenotype.

Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle biopsy was not more cost-effective than fine-needle aspiration with rapid on-site evaluation in gastrointestinal lesions diagnosis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Cost-effectiveness comparison between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided acquisition techniques by fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) in gastrointestinal lesions is still scarce. EUS-FNB has been shown to be more cost-effective than EUS-FNA, however, when adding rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) to EUS-FNA, it is unclear whether EUS-FNB remains more cost-effective. Our aim was to assess cost-efficacy of EUS-FNB as compared to EUS-FNA with ROSE in gastrointestinal lesions.

METHOD

All patients who underwent EUS-FNA with ROSE or EUS-FNB at Galilee Medical Center were retrospectively reviewed. Cost-effectiveness analysis was based on the additional EUS sessions needed and on the average cost expenditure to achieve one final pathological diagnosis.

RESULTS

Seventy-four cases were included in the final analysis. Of them, 21 patients (28.4%) were in the EUS-FNB group (group A), as compared to 53 patients (71.6%) who underwent EUS-FNA with ROSE (group B). Additional EUS sessions needed to achieve one final pathological diagnosis were needed in 14.3% of group A patients vs 9.4% in group B patients (P = .5). and, the average cost for achieving one final pathological diagnosis was similar in both groups (1226 ± 369$ for group A vs 1158 ± 309.6.7$ for group B, P = .2). Notably, even after analyzing pancreatic and non-pancreatic gastrointestinal lesions separately, there was no cost benefit of EUS-FNB over EUS-FNA with ROSE.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost-effectiveness analysis was not different between EUS-FNB vs EUS-FNA with ROSE. Thus, the preference of one modality over the other should be based on availability and local expertise.

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.

New Devices for Endoscopic Treatments in Gastroenterology: A Narrative Review

Endoscopy is in a period of continuous innovations in terms of image quality, endoscopes, post-processing software and lastly, application of Artificial Intelligence. Therapeutic boundaries have expanded, widening the grey zone between endoscopy and surgery, and increasing endoscopic approaches in clinical scenarios where, until a few years ago, surgery was the only option. New scopes and accessories have made it easier to access critical areas such as the biliary tree and the small bowel intestine. In the field of hepato-pancreato-biliary endoscopy (HPB), it is now possible to directly access the biliary ducts or cystic lesions though dedicated stents and scopes, rather than having to rely only on fluoroscopy and ultrasound, increasing the diagnostic and therapeutic options by applying a three-dimensional approach. This narrative review will give an overview of some of the most relevant emerging fields in luminal and HPB endoscopy, highlighting advantages and main limitations of the techniques, and providing considerations for future development.

Comparison between two types of needles for Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine aspiration biopsy of pancreatic and upper gastrointestinal masses

BACKGROUND

EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) has long been the main method for sampling pancreatic lesions. Recently, the method of fine-needle biopsy (FNB) was introduced in practice, allowing for the acquisition of tissue cores while aspirating the lesion. We hereby report our experience with a new FNB needle compared with the standard FNA needle.

METHODS

Retrospective data from our department were collected on patients who underwent FNB using the Acquire EUS-FNB needle (Boston Scientific, Massachusetts) and FNA using the EchoTip Ultra EUS-FNA Needle (Cook Medical, Indiana) between January 2017 and February 2018. The cases were reviewed independently by two cytopathologists and evaluated for the presence of cell block or core tissue material, adequacy for potential ancillary testing, and number of passes.

RESULTS

The number of passes ranged from 1 to 16, with a mean of 5.52 ± 3.74 in the FNA group, and from 1 to 6, with a mean of 2.74 ± 1.11 passes in the FNB group (P < .0001). Tissue cores were present in 87.23% of the FNB needle samples. A cell block was adequate in 36.36% of cases using the FNA needle. The diagnostic yield as well as the adequacy for ancillary testing were significantly different between the two groups (P = .0001). The tumor size, location and patients' demographics were not statistically significant between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Compared with the conventional needle, the new FNB needle was associated with a lower number of passes and a better yield for histological material.

Recent advancement in EUS-guided fine needle sampling

EUS-guided tissue acquisition technique plays an essential role for evaluation of gastrointestinal tumors. Several components affect the yield of EUS-guided tissue acquisition outcomes such as sampling techniques, use of ROSE (rapid onsite evaluation), training and experience, and needle designs. In this review we discuss advancement in EUS-guided fine needle sampling.

Advanced EUS Guided Tissue Acquisition Methods for Pancreatic Cancer

Pancreas cancer is a lethal cancer as the majority patients are diagnosed at an advanced incurable stage. Despite improvements in diagnostic modalities and management strategies, including surgery and chemotherapies, the outcome of pancreas cancer remains poor. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is an important imaging tool for pancreas cancer. For decades, resected pancreas cancer and other cancer specimens have been used to identify tissue biomarkers or genomics for precision therapy; however, only 20% of patients undergo surgery, and thus, this framework is not useful for unresectable pancreas cancer. With advancements in needle technologies, tumor specimens can be obtained at the time of tissue diagnosis. Tumor tissue can be used for development of personalized cancer treatment, such as performing whole exome sequencing and global genomic profiling of pancreas cancer, development of tissue biomarkers, and targeted mutational assays for precise chemotherapy treatment. In this review, we discuss the recent advances in tissue acquisition of pancreas cancer.

Utility of core biopsy with concurrent ROSE FNA in the diagnosis of pancreatic tumor-does the biopsy add any diagnostic benefit?

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided core-needle biopsy (EUS-CNB) are widely used for diagnosis of pancreatic tumors. The aim of our study was to compare the diagnostic performance of ROSE EUS-FNA and EUS-CNB for diagnosis of pancreatic malignancy during the same EUS.

METHODS

Patients who underwent both FNA and CNB during the same EUS for pancreatic solid lesion were reviewed retrospectively. Sample adequacy, diagnostic yield (defined as percentage of definitive diagnosis), sensitivity and specificity for malignancy were compared between FNA and CNB.

RESULTS

A total of 48 patients with solid pancreatic lesions were evaluated. The proportions of adequate samples were 48/48 (100%) for FNA and 45/48 (93.7%) for core biopsy (P = .24). The diagnostic yield was 42/48 (87.5%) and 33/48 (68.7%) for FNA and CNB respectively (P = .046). The incremental increase in diagnostic yield by combining both methods was 2/48 (4%). The diagnostic yield for malignancy was 30/32 (93.7%) for FNA and 23/32 (71.8%) for CNB (P = .043). The sensitivity for the diagnosis of malignancy for FNA and CNB were 90.6% and 69%, respectively (P = .045). The specificity was 100% for both methods. The sensitivity for diagnosing malignancy increased to 93.8% when the two methods were combined. The difference in diagnostic yield was not associated with lesion size or location.

CONCLUSION

EUS-guided FNA is a superior method of assessing solid pancreatic lesion and pancreatic malignancy with better diagnostic yield and higher sensitivity than EUS-CNB.

Novel fork-tip needles versus standard needles for EUS-guided tissue acquisition from solid masses of the upper GI tract: a matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

There are very few available data on the novel SharkCore™ needles for EUS-FNB.

AIM

Comparison of the performance of the SharkCore™ needles with the standard EUS-FNA needles for the diagnosis of solid upper GI masses.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Single-center, retrospective cohort study in an academic tertiary referral hospital. Patients were matched 1:1 for the site of the lesion and the presence or absence of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE).

RESULTS

A total of 102 patients were included. There was no statistically significant difference in the mean number of passes (3.3 ± 1.3 versus 3.4 ± 1.5; p = .89). Similar results were observed at the subgroup with ROSE (4.3 ± 1.3 versus 3.7 ± 1.5; p = .26). More histological specimens were obtained with the SharkCore™ needles compared to standard needles (59 versus 5%; p < .001). Diagnostic test characteristics were not significantly different (sensitivity: 91.5 versus 85.7; specificity: 100 versus 100%; accuracy: 92.2 versus 85.4% for SharkCore™ versus standard needles, p > .05 in all cases). At multivariable analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in the mean number of passes in all patients (p = .23) and in the ROSE subgroup (p = .66). However, the SharkCore™ needle obtained significantly more histological material than the standard needle (odds ratio 66; 95% confidence interval: 11.8, 375.8, p < .001). There was no significant difference in complication rates (p = .5).

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective study, single-center.

CONCLUSION

The SharkCore needles were similar to standard FNA needles in terms of the number of passes to reach diagnosis, but obtained significantly more histological specimen.

Increasing Number of Passes Beyond 4 Does Not Increase Sensitivity of Detection of Pancreatic Malignancy by Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration

BACKGROUND & AIMS

It is not clear exactly how many passes are required to determine whether pancreatic masses are malignant using endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). We aimed to define the per-pass diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA for establishing the malignancy of a pancreatic mass, and identify factors associated with detection of malignancies.

METHODS

In a prospective study, 239 patients with solid pancreatic masses were randomly assigned to groups that underwent EUS-FNA, with the number of passes determined by an on-site cytopathology evaluation or set at 7 passes, at 3 tertiary referral centers. A final diagnosis of pancreatic malignancy was made based on findings from cytology, surgery, or a follow-up evaluation at least 1 year after EUS-FNA. The cumulative sensitivity of detection of malignancy by EUS-FNA was calculated after each pass; in the primary analysis, lesions categorized as malignant or suspicious were considered as positive findings.

RESULTS

Pancreatic malignancies were found in 202 patients (84.5% of the study population). EUS-FNA detected malignancies with 96% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI], 92%-98%); 4 passes of EUS-FNA detected malignancies with 92% sensitivity (95% CI, 87%-95%). Tumor size greater than 2 cm was the only variable associated with positive results from cytology analysis (odds ratio, 7.8; 95% CI, 1.9-31.6). In masses larger than 2 cm, 4 passes of EUS-FNA detected malignancies with 93% sensitivity (95% CI, 89%-96%) and in masses ≤2 cm, 6 passes was associated with 82% sensitivity (95% CI, 61%-93%). Sensitivity of detection did not increase with increasing number of passes.

CONCLUSIONS

In a prospective study, we found 4 passes of EUS-FNA to be sufficient to detect malignant pancreatic masses; increasing the number of passes did not increase the sensitivity of detection. Tumor size greater than 2 cm was associated with malignancy, and a greater number of passes may be required to evaluate masses 2 cm or less. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01386931.

Accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle aspiration of solid lesions over time: Experience from a new endoscopic ultrasound program at a Canadian community hospital

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

A Canadian Community Hospital launched a new Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) Program in 2011. The aim of this study was to report the accuracy of EUS-fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of solid lesions over time as it pertains to cytotechnologists' involvement and learning curves.

METHODS

The electronic medical records of patients that had a EUS from July 2011 to January 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Only solid lesions with FNA sampling were included in the study. The primary outcome assessed was the accuracy of specimen acquisition for pathological review. The secondary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Cases were separated by chronological order into thirds for the assessment of learning curves. Cytotechnologists' involvement was correlated to determine its impact on accuracy.

RESULTS

Two hundred and seventy-one EUS-FNA procedures were completed for solid lesions. Cytotechnologists' involvement resulted in a specimen acquisition accuracy of 82.6%, compared with 68.8% without a cytotechnologist (P = 0.009; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.2%-25.0%). Diagnostic accuracy was 74.2% with a cytotechnologist while 62.4% without a cytotechnologist (P = 0.038; 95% CI 0.3%-23.7%). The specimen acquisition accuracy increased from 73.2% from the first third of cases to 92.3% for the last third with a cytotechnologist (P = 0.004; 95% CI 6%-33.0%). Without a cytotechnologist, the specimen accuracy was 67.6% for the first third while 57.7% for the last third of cases (P = 0.434; 95% CI - 33.9-14.4%). In the multivariable regression analysis, after adjusting for other predictors, a present cytotechnologist (P = 0.022) and lesion size 21 mm-30 mm (P = 0.039) and >30 mm (P = 0.001) were significantly associated with increased specimen acquisition accuracy. Only a present cytotechnologist (P = 0.046) was significantly associated with increased diagnostic accuracy.

INTERPRETATION

Cytotechnologists' involvement significantly improved the accuracy of specimen acquisition. Although accuracy was impacted by a cytotechnologist learning curve, our results highlight the importance of a cytotechnologist being present for EUS-FNA sampling of solid lesions.

Improving the diagnostic yield of single-operator cholangioscopy-guided biopsy of indeterminate biliary strictures: ROSE to the rescue? (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Tissue diagnosis, regardless of technique or endoscope used, can be challenging in patients with indeterminate biliary strictures (IDBSs). This exploratory study evaluated the utility and role of rapid onsite evaluation of touch imprint cytology (ROSE-TIC) when single-operator cholangioscopy (SOC)-guided biopsies of IDBSs are performed.

METHODS

Patients with IDBSs were evaluated by intraprocedural ROSE-TIC during SOC-guided biopsy procedures. Final diagnosis was established by long-term patient follow-up in conjunction with off-site findings or surgical histology. The main outcome measure was to evaluate the utility of ROSE-TIC by determination of its operating characteristics and comparison with off-site histologic assessment.

RESULTS

Of 31 patients with IDBSs, tissue diagnosis was indeterminate at prior ERCP-guided brush and/or biopsy in 14, prior EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) in 6, and a mass could not be identified at EUS in 11. The mean number of biopsies performed was 3.3 (range 1-8), and diagnostic interpretation by ROSE-TIC was diagnostic and/or suspicious for carcinoma in 15, benign in 13, atypical-reactive in 2, and bile duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm in 1. Final diagnosis by surgical histology (n = 4), death by disease (n = 10), and patient follow-up (n = 17) showed that the overall sensitivity of ROSE-TIC for diagnosing malignancy was 100%, specificity 88.9%, positive predictive value 86.7%, negative predictive value 100%, and diagnostic accuracy 93.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Preliminary data suggest that the diagnostic outcomes of SOC-guided biopsies in IDBSs can be significantly improved by using ROSE-TIC. This technique also may benefit centers that rely mainly on fluoroscopy-guided intraductal biopsies.

A randomized controlled cross-over trial and cost analysis comparing endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration and fine needle biopsy

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Techniques to optimize endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) in a variety of lesion types have not yet been established. The primary aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic yield (DY) of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) to endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for pancreatic and non-pancreatic masses.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients referred for EUS-TA underwent randomization to EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB at four tertiary-care medical centers. A maximum of three passes were allowed for the initial method of EUS-TA and patients were crossed over to the other arm based on on-site specimen adequacy.

RESULTS

A total of 140 patients were enrolled. The overall DY was significantly higher with specimens obtained by EUS-FNB compared to EUS-FNA (90.0 % vs. 67.1 %, P = 0.002). While there was no difference in the DY between the two groups for pancreatic masses (FNB: 91.7 % vs. FNA: 78.4 %, P = 0.19), the DY of EUS-FNB was higher than the EUS-FNA for non-pancreatic lesions (88.2 % vs. 54.5 %, P = 0.006). Specimen adequacy was higher for EUS-FNB compared to EUS-FNA for all lesions (P = 0.006). There was a significant rescue effect of crossover from failed FNA to FNB in 27 out of 28 cases (96.5 %, P = 0.0003). Decision analysis showed that the strategy of EUS-FNB was cost saving compared to EUS-FNA over a wide range of cost and outcome probabilities.

CONCLUSIONS

RESULTS of this RCT and decision analysis demonstrate superior DY and specimen adequacy for solid mass lesions sampled by EUS-FNB.

Eliminating the Residual Negative Pressure in the Endoscopic Ultrasound Aspirating Needle Enhances Cytology Yield of Pancreas Masses

BACKGROUND

Prior to withdrawing the EUS-FNA needle from the lesion, the stopcock of the suction syringe is closed to reduce contamination. Residual negative pressure (RNP) may persist in the needle despite closing the stopcock.

AIMS

To determine whether neutralizing RNP before withdrawing the needle will improve the cytology yield.

METHODS

Bench-top testing was done to confirm the presence of RNP followed by a prospective, randomized, cross-over study on patients with pancreas mass. Ten milliliters of suction was applied to the FNA needle. Before withdrawing the needle from the lesion, the stopcock was closed. Based on randomization, the first pass was done with the stopcock either attached to the needle (S+) or disconnected (S-) to allow air to enter and neutralize RNP and accordingly the second pass was crossed over to S+ or S-. On-site cytopathologist was blinded to S+/S-.

RESULTS

Bench tests confirmed the presence of RNP which was successfully neutralized by disconnecting the syringe (S-) from the needle. Sixty patients were enrolled, 120 samples analyzed. S+ samples showed significantly greater GI tract contamination compared to S- samples (16.7 vs. 6.7%, p = 0.03). Of the 53 patients confirmed to have pancreas adenocarcinoma, FNA using S- approach was positive in 49 (93%) compared to 40 using the S+ approach (76%, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite closing the stopcock of the suction syringe, RNP is present in the FNA needle. Neutralizing RNP prior to withdrawing the needle from the target lesion significantly decreased GI tract contamination of the sample thereby improving the FNA cytology yield.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01995474.

The clinical impact of immediate on-site cytopathology evaluation during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic masses: a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Observational data on the impact of on-site cytopathology evaluation (OCE) during endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of pancreatic masses have reported conflicting results. We aimed to compare the diagnostic yield of malignancy and proportion of inadequate specimens between patients undergoing EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses with and without OCE.

METHODS

In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, consecutive patients with solid pancreatic mass underwent randomization for EUS-FNA with or without OCE. The number of FNA passes in the OCE+ arm was dictated by the on-site cytopathologist, whereas seven passes were performed in OCE- arm. EUS-FNA protocol was standardized, and slides were reviewed by cytopathologists using standardized criteria for cytologic characteristics and diagnosis.

RESULTS

A total of 241 patients (121 OCE+, 120 OCE-) were included. There was no difference between the two groups in diagnostic yield of malignancy (OCE+ 75.2% vs. OCE- 71.6%, P=0.45) and proportion of inadequate specimens (9.8 vs. 13.3%, P=0.31). Procedures in OCE+ group required fewer EUS-FNA passes (median, OCE+ 4 vs. OCE- 7, P<0.0001). There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to overall procedure time, adverse events, number of repeat procedures, costs (based on baseline cost-minimization analysis), and accuracy (using predefined criteria for final diagnosis of malignancy). There was no difference between the two groups with respect to cytologic characteristics of cellularity, bloodiness, number of cells/slide, and contamination.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this study demonstrated no significant difference in the diagnostic yield of malignancy, proportion of inadequate specimens, and accuracy in patients with pancreatic mass undergoing EUS-FNA with or without OCE.

Trans-organ versus trans-mesenteric computed tomography-guided percutaneous fine-needle aspiration biopsy of pancreatic masses: feasibility and safety

AIM

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of computed tomography (CT)-guided percutaneous fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) of pancreatic masses that traverses the gastrointestinal tract or solid viscera.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From January 2002 to December 2012, 144 patients underwent 165 CT-guided biopsies of pancreatic masses. Biopsies were performed using a 21 or 22 G needle. Cytology reports, medical records, and procedure details for all patients were retrospectively reviewed to evaluate the biopsy route, complications, and diagnostic accuracy.

RESULTS

Trans-organ biopsies of pancreatic masses were safely performed via a direct pathway traversing the stomach (n = 45), colon (n = 14), jejunum (n = 4), or liver (n = 5). There were five self-limiting mesenteric haematomas along the biopsy route on immediate post-procedure CT and all patients remained asymptomatic. All haematomas occurred after a trans-mesenteric approach rather than passage through abdominal organs. Three patients had acute pancreatitis. There was no significant difference in complications and diagnostic yields between the groups. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of final FNAB cytology for malignancy were 98.3%, 100%, 100% and 71.4%, respectively. The overall accuracy was 98.4%.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous FNAB using the trans-organ approach is a safe and effective technique to diagnose pancreatic malignancy.