Cytology and histology: Complementary diagnostic modalities during endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition

The additive diagnostic value of cytology in fine needle biopsy of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A tertiary center experience

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic ultrasound guide fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is the main diagnostic tool for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. In most instances, only histology is obtained via FNB, without sending cytological slides. The aim of our study was to assess the additive diagnostic yield of cytology performed through FNB.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of all patients with histological diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma who were diagnosed by EUS-FNB.

RESULTS

Overall, 80 patients were included in the study period. The overall concordance between cytology and histology all FNB needles was 78.2%. Notably, cytological assessment improved the diagnostic yield for malignancy by 12.8%. The overall kappa coefficient correlation between histology and cytology was .501, 95% CI 0.361-0.641. However, the kappa correlation for suspicious of malignancy and malignant was excellent of .872, 95% CI 0.733-1, suggesting that cytology is crucial when histology is inconclusive. Further analysis showed that the Acquire and Sharkcore needles outperformed the Procore needle in term of concordance between cytology and histology (kappa correlation of .527, 95% CI 0.331-0.724, .515, 95% CI 0.265-0.764, and .297, 95% CI -0.051-0.646), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Performing cytology specimen when using FNB improves the diagnostic yield in pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

The Value of Computed Tomography-Guided Percutaneous Lung Biopsy Combined With Rapid On-Site Evaluation in Diagnosis of Peripheral Pulmonary Nodules

Objective: To investigate the value of computed tomography-guided percutaneous lung biopsy (CT-PLB) combined with rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) in the diagnosis of peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPLs). Methods: A total of 108 patients who diagnosed with PPLs by chest CT examination were prospectively collected and randomly divided into ROSE group (n = 56) and No-ROSE group (n = 52). Both groups received CT-PLB and pathological examination. The smear submitted for ROSE was stained using Diff Quik dye. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), number of punctures, puncture time and incidence of complications were compared between the two groups. Results: The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of the ROSE group were 89.29%, 87.50%, 91.67%, 93.33%, and 84.62%, respectively. The number of punctures in the ROSE group was significantly lower than that in the No-ROSE group (P < .05). The incidence of pneumothorax and hemoptysis in the ROSE group were lower than those in the No-ROSE group, but there was no statistical difference between the two groups (P > .05). ROSE has good concordance with routine pathological examination in the diagnosis of unidentified PPLs (Kappa = 0.786, P < .01). Conclusions: CT-PLB combined with ROSE is a safe and effective method for the diagnosis of PPLs.

Diagnostic Concordance of Cytology and Histology in Samples Obtained via Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy (EUS-FNB)

Introduction Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration and biopsy (FNA/FNB) to obtain cytological aspirates and histological core samples, respectively, are the standard of care for diagnosing lesions in/adjacent to the upper/lower gastrointestinal tract. Due to the lack of standardization of tissue processing, it is unclear whether core samples should be sent only for histology (formalin) or cytology (CytoLyt), or both. The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic concordance rates between cytology and histology on EUS-FNB core samples. Methods A total of 227 patients underwent EUS-FNB between October-2017 and February-2019 by a single therapeutic endoscopist; 44 core-tissue samples (41 patients) were placed alternately in CytoLyt (cytology) and formalin (histology), with equal passes into each, to best achieve a proportionate sample amount. The patient's demographics, medical history, pertinent imaging, EUS indication/findings were reviewed. Main outcomes included concordance rates between cytology-histology and diagnostic accuracy for malignancy. Results Cytology and histology were discordant in five cases (11.5%); four with negative cytology but a definite diagnosis of malignancy achieved with histology. One case was suspected as neoplasm on cytology but further characterized as benign on histology. Cytology failed to sub-characterize an additional four mass-like pancreatic benign entities, due to inadequate tissue architecture assessment in the CytoLyt sample. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of cytology for diagnosis of malignancy were 87.88% (95%CI: 71.8-96.6), 90.91% (95%CI: 58.7-99.7), 96.67% (95%CI: 81.6-99.4), and 71.43% (95%CI: 49.4-86.4). Discussion We observed 11.5% diagnostic discordance between cytology and histology on EUS-FNB core samples, with histology being superior. Future multicenter prospective randomized studies are needed to establish an accurate and cost-effective diagnostic process.

Touch imprint cytology on endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle biopsy provides comparable sample quality and diagnostic yield to standard endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration specimens in the evaluation of solid pancreatic lesions

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the gold standard for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs). Cytological samples can also be obtained using touch imprint cytology (TIC) on EUS fine-needle biopsy (FNB) specimens. We aimed to compare sample quality and diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA-standard cytology (EUS-FNA-SC) to that of EUS-FNB-TIC in a series of patients with SPLs.

METHODS

Thirty-two consecutive patients referred for EUS-tissue acquisition of SPLs who underwent rapid on-site evaluation of both EUS-FNA-SC and paired EUS-FNB-TIC during the same endoscopic session were retrospectively identified. Sample quality (evaluated in terms of blood contamination, presence of clots, tissue casts, cellularity, and necrosis) and diagnostic yield were compared between the techniques.

RESULTS

The mean number of passes to reach diagnosis at rapid on-site evaluation was similar between EUS-FNA-SC and EUS-FNB-TIC (1.09 ± 0.3 vs 1.13 ± 0.34, P = .711). EUS-FNA-SC scores of sample quality were comparable to those of EUS-FNB-TIC (blood contamination, 2.47 ± 1.11 vs 2.25 ± 1.14, P = .109; clots, 1.25 ± 0.76 vs 1.19 ± 0.69, P = .624; tissue casts, 3.56 ± 0.88 vs 3.59 ± 1.09, P = .872; cellularity, 2.84 ± 1.11 vs 3.09 ± 1.09, P = .244; necrosis, 2.25 ± 1.08 vs 2.53 ± 1.02 P = .059; total score, 12.38 ± 2.88 vs 17.66 ± 2.38, P = .536). Adequacy, sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy of the two sampling techniques were equal (93.7%, 90.6% and 90.6%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNB-TIC provides comparable samples to those of EUS-FNA-SC and combines the benefits of cytology and histology for the evaluation of SPLs by employing a single needle during the same endoscopic procedure.