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

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.

Advances and efficacy in specimen handling for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration and biopsy: A comprehensive review

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration and biopsy have significantly evolved since they offer a minimally invasive approach for obtaining pathological specimens from lesions adjacent to or within the intestine. This paper reviews advancements in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration and biopsy techniques and devices, emphasizing the importance of handling specimens for diagnostic accuracy. Innovations of fine needle biopsy needles with features like side holes and Franseen shapes have enhanced histological sampling capabilities. Techniques for specimen handling, including rapid on-site evaluation and macroscopic on-site evaluation, play pivotal roles in assessing sample adequacy, thereby influencing diagnostic outcomes. The utility of artificial intelligence in augmenting rapid on-site evaluation and macroscopic on-site evaluation, although still in experimental stages, presents a promising avenue for improving procedural efficiency and diagnostic precision. The choice of specimen handling technique is dependent on various factors including endoscopist preference, procedure objectives, and available resources, underscoring the need for a comprehensive understanding of each method's characteristics to optimize diagnostic efficacy and procedural safety.

Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Diagnosis of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

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

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

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

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

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

The Utility of Endoscopic-Ultrasonography-Guided Tissue Acquisition for Solid Pancreatic Lesions

Endoscopic-ultrasonography-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) has been widely performed for the definitive diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs). As the puncture needles, puncture techniques, and sample processing methods have improved, EUS-TA has shown higher diagnostic yields and safety. Recently, several therapeutic target genomic biomarkers have been clarified in pancreatic ductal carcinoma (PDAC). Although only a small proportion of patients with PDAC can benefit from precision medicine based on gene mutations at present, precision medicine will also be further developed for SPLs as more therapeutic target genomic biomarkers are identified. Advances in next-generation sequencing (NGS) techniques enable the examination of multiple genetic mutations in limited tissue samples. EUS-TA is also useful for NGS and will play a more important role in determining treatment strategies. In this review, we describe the utility of EUS-TA for SPLs.

Two Needle Passes Achieve Similar Diagnostic Yield Compared to Three Passes Regarding Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration

Current guidelines advocate 3–4 passes with a fine-needle aspiration (FNA) to achieve high rates of diagnostic samples for malignancy when performing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions, in the absence of on-site cytologic evaluation. The aim of this study is to compare 2 vs. 3 needle passes in EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic lesions in terms of incremental diagnostic yield and to identify factors associated with the procedure’s outcome. In this retrospective study, 2 passes of EUS-FNA were found to have similar diagnostic yield compared to 3 passes for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses, suggesting that there might be no significant incremental tissue yield when 3 passes are performed.

Optimal number of needle punctures in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy for gastric subepithelial lesions without rapid on-site evaluation

PURPOSE

The utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for gastric subepithelial lesions (SELs) has been reported. In this study, we examined the optimal number of needle punctures during EUS-FNB for gastric SELs without rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE). The factors that allowed for a single needle puncture to arrive at the correct diagnosis were also analyzed.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of all patients who underwent EUS-FNB to evaluate gastric SELs between April 2015 and September 2020; 51 patients with 57 gastric SELs were enrolled. The optimal number of needle punctures was determined when additional needle passes did not increase diagnostic sensitivity by more than 10%. Factors allowing for only a single needle puncture to arrive at the correct diagnosis were identified by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

EUS-FNB resulted in a definitive final diagnosis in 48 of 57 lesions (84%). Lesions in the gastric body (odds ratio [OR] 6.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.75-21.6; P < 0.01) and lesions punctured using a 22G Franseen needle (OR 3.61, 95% CI 1.07-12.3; P = 0.04) were independent factors that allowed for only a single needle puncture to arrive at the correct diagnosis. The optimal number of needle punctures for lesions using a 22G Franseen needle in the gastric body and other lesions was two and three, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The optimal number of needle punctures in EUS-FNB for gastric SELs without ROSE was two or three, depending on the location and type of needle used.

Comparison of contrast-enhanced versus conventional EUS-guided FNA/fine-needle biopsy in diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS (CEH-EUS) is useful in the differential diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs). However, there is lack of verification about the usefulness of CEH-EUS-guided FNA/fine-needle biopsy (FNB) sampling. This study aimed to investigate the usefulness of CEH-EUS-guided FNA/FNB sampling without on-site cytopathology.

METHODS

Patients with SPLs were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned (1:1) to 2 parallel groups, the interventional group (CEH-EUS) or the control group (conventional EUS). The diagnostic sensitivity and optimal number of needle passes for pathologic diagnosis were investigated and compared between groups.

RESULTS

Two hundred forty patients were enrolled from March 2016 to September 2019, with 120 patients assigned to each group. Pancreatic malignancies and neuroendocrine tumors were found in 202 (90.83%) and 9 (3.75%) patients, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of age, sex, lesion size (30.96 ± 12.09 mm in the CEH-EUS group vs 33.09 ± 16.39 mm in the conventional EUS group; P = .252), lesion location, adverse event rate, and disease distribution. The diagnostic sensitivity values in the CEH-EUS and conventional EUS groups were 85.8% and 88.3%, respectively (P = .564). All patients in the conventional EUS group and most in the CEH-EUS group received a pathologic diagnosis within 3 needle passes.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic sensitivity for SPLs was not different between the CEH-EUS and conventional EUS groups, and no independent factors were found that could improve diagnostic sensitivity. CEH-EUS-guided FNA/FNB sampling does not need to be used routinely and may be selectively considered for small, indeterminate lesions. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT 0001840.).

Contrast-enhanced harmonic versus standard endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in solid pancreatic lesions: a single-center prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasound (CH-EUS) can visualize necrotic areas and vessels inside lesions. CH-EUS findings combined with EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) improves diagnosis in pancreatic solid masses. CH-EUS can also guide EUS-FNA (CH-EUS-FNA), potentially improving the diagnostic rate of EUS-FNA, but such superiority has not been proved in prospective studies. We aimed to assess whether CH-EUS-FNA is superior to standard EUS-FNA for specific diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses and what factors affect the diagnostic rate.

METHODS

This randomized controlled study in one tertiary medical academic center included patients with suspected pancreatic solid masses on transabdominal ultrasound or computed tomography (CT) scan. Two passes with a 22-G standard FNA needle were done using EUS-FNA and CH-EUS-FNA in random order, and the visible core obtained was sent for histological analysis. Final diagnosis was based on EUS-FNA or surgical specimen results and on 12-month follow-up by imaging.

RESULTS

148 patients were evaluated. EUS-FNA and CH-EUS-FNA showed diagnostic sensitivities of 85.5 % and 87.6 %, respectively (not significantly different) and the combined sensitivity of the two passes was 93.8 %. The false-negative rate was not significantly different when hypoenhanced or hyperenhanced lesions were compared with the EUS-FNA results. No differences were seen for the results related to location, size, tumor stage, chronic pancreatitis features, or presence of biliary plastic stent.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnostic rates for samples obtained using 22-G needles with standard EUS-FNA and CH-EUS-FNA were not statistically significantly different.

Endoscopic ultrasonography-fine needle aspiration of solid pancreatic masses: Do we need the fourth pass? A prospective study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is important for the differential diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions. Sample adequacy is related to the number of needle passes, and European guidelines recommend three to four needle passes with a standard EUS-FNA needle. We aimed to evaluate the optimal number of passes with standard EUS-FNA needles in solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

Patients with solid pancreatic masses without cystic component >20% on computed tomography scan, and without biliary metallic stents, or coagulation problems were included prospectively. Standard 22G needles were used (maximum four passes); each sample was paraffin-embedded and analyzed separately. Final diagnosis was established by EUS-FNA, repeat EUS-FNA, surgery, or follow-up.

RESULTS

Sixty-one of 65 patients were included. The final diagnoses were adenocarcinoma (n = 44, 72%), neuroendocrine tumor (NET) (n = 10, 16%), metastasis (n = 1, 4%) and nonmalignant lesion (n = 6, 10%). Immunohistochemical staining was possible in 17 cases. The diagnosis was established by the first pass in 62% of cases (n = 38), by the second in 15% (n = 9), by the third in 15% (n = 9), and by the fourth in 3% (n = 2). The diagnostic accuracy for all four passes compared to the first three passes was 95% vs 92% (P = .5). The contribution of the fourth pass was not different between adenocarcinoma and NET (2% vs 10%, respectively; P = .667).

CONCLUSION

Three passes with standard EUS-FNA was optimal for a specific diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses, regardless of the histological type of the lesion.

Suction versus slow-pull for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic tumors: a prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Suction (S) is commonly used to improve cell acquisition during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). Slow-pull (SP) sampling is another technique that might procure good quality specimens with less bloodiness. We aimed to determine if SP improves the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses.

METHODS

Patients with pancreatic solid masses were randomized to four needle passes with both techniques in an alternate fashion. Sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values were calculated. Cellularity and bloodiness of cytological samples were assessed and compared according to the technique.

RESULTS

Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of suction vs. SP were 95.2% vs. 92.3%; 100% vs. 100; 95.7% vs. 93%, respectively. As to the association of methods, they were 95.6, 100 and 96%, respectively. Positive predictive values for S and SP were 100%. There was no difference in diagnostic yield between S and SP (p = 0.344). Cellularity of samples obtained with SP and Suction were equivalent in both smear evaluation (p = 0.119) and cell-block (0.980). Bloodiness of SP and suction techniques were similar as well.

CONCLUSIONS

S and SP techniques provide equivalent sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. Association of methods seems to improve diagnostic yield. Suction does not increase the bloodiness of samples compared to slow-pull.

Prospective evaluation of 25-gauge Franseen needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic masses

Background and study aims  The ideal puncture needle for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling is maneuverable and easy to puncture with, and can obtain sufficient material in almost one pass. The novel 25-gauge Franseen needle may provide a good balance between maneuverability and sample yield. Patients and methods  Between July 2017 and December 2018, 116 patients with solid pancreatic masses were prospectively enrolled and investigated. We evaluated the diagnostic yield associated with using the 25-gauge Franseen needle for EUS-guided sampling of pancreatic masses. Results  The technical success rate was 100 % (116/116). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy for malignancy were 98 % (105/107), 100 % (9/9), 100 % (105/105), 82 % (9/11), and 98 % (114/116), respectively. Cumulative sensitivities for malignancy were 87 % (93/107) on pass 1, 97 % (104/107) on pass 2, and 98 % (105/107) on pass 3, respectively, with no increase in sensitivity after 4 or more. An adequate specimen for histological assessment was obtained in 79 % (92/116) of cases. Multivariate logistic analyses showed that lesion size smaller than 13 mm was a risk factor for failure of obtaining an adequate specimen for histological assessment ( P  = 0.010) Conclusions  The novel 25-gauge Franseen needle showed excellent diagnostic yield for solid pancreatic masses. However, its ability to obtain an adequate specimen for histological assessment may still be insufficient, especially when dealing with small lesions.

The diagnostic performance of novel torque technique for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition in solid pancreatic lesions: A prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Although several techniques for improved outcomes in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition have been reported, the reported diagnostic yield for pancreatic masses is not satisfactory. The effects of novel technique (torque method) on twisting the scope in the clockwise or counterclockwise direction during EUS-fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) are unknown. We compared the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNB for pancreatic masses using the torque and standard techniques.

METHODS

From April 20, 2017, to March 16, 2018, 124 consecutive patients with solid pancreatic mass who underwent EUS-FNB using either the torque or standard technique were randomly assigned. Three passes were made with each technique, comprising 10 uniform to-and-fro movements on each pass with a 10-mL syringe suction. The primary outcome was procurement rates of histologic cores, and the secondary outcomes were the diagnostic performance and technical failure.

RESULTS

There were significant differences between the groups regarding the procurement rate of the histologic core and optimal quality core (standard vs torque: 87.1% [54/62] vs 98.4% [61/62], P = 0.038 and 79.0% [49/62] vs 93.5% [58/62], P = 0.037). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive values of EUS-FNB were 85.45%, 100%, 100%, and 46.67%, respectively, for the standard technique and 96.49%, 100%, 100%, and 71.43%, respectively, for the torque technique. The diagnostic accuracies of the standard and torque techniques were 87.10% and 96.77%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The torque technique for EUS-FNB offered acceptable technical feasibility and superior diagnostic performance, including optimal histologic core procurement, compared with the standard technique.

Endoscopic ultrasonography in pancreatic diseases: advances in tissue acquisition

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) improved the diagnostic performance and upgraded the role of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) into an interventional modality, able to guide patient management and treatment.This review aimed to highlight the advances, emerging practices, procedural techniques and technological innovations in EUS tissue acquisition in pancreatic diseases. Methods  A thorough review of the literature was performed using PubMed to identify articles that describe techniques, advances, and practices in EUS tissue acquisition in gastrointestinal diseases. Conclusion  Since the first EUS-FNA procedure, EUS guided-tissue acquisition has been evolving continuously. Development of needles with innovative tip design enabled procurement of larger samples with preserved histological architecture. Moreover, sampling techniques and complementary methods, such as contrast harmonic imaging and EUS-elastography, have been introduced in an effort to improve diagnostic performance and sample adequacy.

It is necessary to exam bottom and top slide smears of EUS-FNA for pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite many reports on the diagnostic yield of cytology from endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), inter-slide differences are unknown. This prospective study aimed to compare diagnostic yield and cellular characteristics of bottom slides (BS) and top slides (TS) from EUS-FNA cytology performed without an on-site cytopathologist.

METHODS

In patients with suspected pancreatic cancer on previous imaging explorations, a single endoscopist performed EUS-FNA and obtained 2 sets of cytology slide (8 BS and 8 TS), 1 cellblock slide, and 1 biopsy slide. Both slide sets were randomly assigned. A cytopathologist with more than 10 years of expertise in pancreatic cytopathology blindly inspected and compared two slide sets.

RESULTS

In total, 73 specimens [42 head (57.5%), 16 body (21.9%), and 15 tail (20.5%)] were acquired for final analysis. Seventy-one cases were finally diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. The sensitivity and specificity of BS were 80.3% and 100.0%; and of TS 78.9% and 100.0%, respectively. In analyzing inter-slide difference, 66 cases (90.4%) showed consistent results between BS and TS. However, seven (9.6%) were positive only in one slide sets (4 BS and 3 TS). The proportions of specimens more than moderate and high cellularity were 75.3% and 60.3% in both slide sets (P> 0.99), and the proportion of artifact-free sets were 50.7%, and 52.1% for the BS and TS, respectively (P= 0.869).

CONCLUSIONS

Although BS and TS exhibited highly consistent diagnostic yields in cytologic smears from EUS-FNA, the proportion of inter-slide discordance is clinically considerable. Both slide sets need to be examined if there is no on-site cytopathologist.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for pancreatic cancer

Since the development of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in the early 1990s, its application has been extended to various diseases. For pancreatic cancer (PC), EUS-FNA can obtain specimens from the tumor itself with fewer complications than other methods. EUS-FNA can also be more useful for TNM staging than other imaging modalities. Furthermore, EUS-FNA can contribute to precision medicine by obtaining tissue for immunohistochemical or genetic studies from primary or metastatic sites of diseases. This paper will focus on the role of EUS-FNA in PC.

Imaging of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: recent advances, current status, and controversies

INTRODUCTION

Recently, there have been a number of advances in imaging pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (panNETs), as well as other neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), which have had a profound effect on the management and treatment of these patients, but in some cases are also associated with controversies. Areas covered: These advances are the result of numerous studies attempting to better define the roles of both cross-sectional imaging, endoscopic ultrasound, with or without fine-needle aspiration, and molecular imaging in both sporadic and inherited panNET syndromes; the increased attempt to develop imaging parameters that correlate with tumor classification or have prognostic value; the rapidly increasing use of molecular imaging in these tumors and the attempt to develop imaging parameters that correlate with treatment/outcome results. Each of these areas and the associated controversies are reviewed. Expert commentary: There have been numerous advances in all aspects of the imaging of panNETs, as well as other NETs, in the last few years. The advances are leading to expanded roles of imaging in the management of these patients and the results being seen in panNETs/GI-NETs with these newer techniques are already being used in more common tumors.

Push vs pull method for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic head lesions: Propensity score matching analysis

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of pancreatic head cancer when pushing (push method) or pulling the echoendoscope (pull method).

METHODS

Overall, 566 pancreatic cancer patients had their first EUS-FNA between February 2001 and December 2017. Among them, 201 who underwent EUS-FNA for pancreatic head lesions were included in this study. EUS-FNA was performed by the push method in 85 patients, the pull method in 101 patients and both the push and pull methods in 15 patients. After propensity score matching (age, sex, tumor diameter, and FNA needle), 85 patients each were stratified into the push and pull groups. Patient characteristics and EUS-FNA-related factors were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups. The distance to lesion was significantly longer in the push group than in the pull group (13.9 ± 4.9 mm vs 7.0 ± 4.9 mm, P < 0.01). The push method was a significant factor influencing the distance to lesion (≥ median 10 mm) (P < 0.01). Additionally, tumor diameter ≥ 25 mm (OR = 1.91, 95%CI: 1.02-3.58, P = 0.043) and the push method (OR = 1.91, 95%CI: 1.03-3.55, P = 0.04) were significant factors contributing to the histological diagnosis of malignancy.

CONCLUSION

The pull method shortened the distance between the endoscope and the lesion and facilitated EUS-FNA of pancreatic head cancer. The push method contributed to the histological diagnosis of pancreatic head cancer using EUS-FNA specimens.

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.

"Clinical" cytology for endoscopists: A practical guide

Clinical cytology was originally used by clinicians to provide rapid diagnosis. However, with advancing medical subspecialization, few clinicians interpret cytology themselves these days, for example, gynecologists, hematologists, urologists, and occasional gastroenterologist (mainly in Asian countries). Cytological assessment enjoyed a renaissance with the development of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA). Subsequently, pathologists, most of them more experienced in histology, had to take over. Recently, it has been shown that in-room cytology can be easily performed by the endoscopist themselves for initial evaluation of the quality of the EUS-FNA specimen and an initial diagnosis distinguishing benign or malignant cells. Bringing cytology back to the clinician has some advantages but does not substitute the professional cytopathologist. This report has written to lower the threshold for the clinician to find his way back to the microscope, which may improve both their diagnostic yield and assessment of EUS-FNA sample quality.

High-resolution endoscopic ultrasound imaging and the number of needle passages are significant factors predicting high yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for pancreatic solid masses without an on-site cytopathologist

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the accurate diagnostic method for pancreatic masses and its accuracy is affected by various FNA methods and EUS equipment. Therefore, we aimed to elucidate the instrumental and methodologic factors for determining the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid masses without an on-site cytopathology evaluation.We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 260 patients (265 pancreatic solid masses) who underwent EUS-FNA. We compared historical conventional EUS groups with high-resolution imaging devices and finally analyzed various factors affecting EUS-FNA accuracy.In total, 265 pancreatic solid masses of 260 patients were included in this study. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid masses without on-site cytopathology evaluation were 83.4%, 81.8%, 100.0%, 100.0%, and 34.3%, respectively. In comparison with conventional image group, high-resolution image group showed the increased accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of EUS-FNA (71.3% vs 92.7%, 68.9% vs 91.9%, and 100% vs 100%, respectively). On the multivariate analysis with various instrumental and methodologic factors, high-resolution imaging (P = 0.040, odds ratio = 3.28) and 3 or more needle passes (P = 0.039, odds ratio = 2.41) were important factors affecting diagnostic yield of pancreatic solid masses.High-resolution imaging and 3 or more passes were the most significant factors influencing diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA in patients with pancreatic solid masses without an on-site cytopathologist.