The rate of false-positive results with EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration

A rare case of pancreatic head hydatid cyst

Hydatidosis or Echinococcosis is a parasitic disease caused by infection with the larval stage of Echinococcus granulosus. Primary isolated pancreatic hydatidosis is very rare even in countries where echinococcosis disease is highly endemic. The objective of this case report is to highlight this unusual and rare hydatid cyst presentation to avoid incorrect diagnosis and management. In our case, preoperative evaluation guided the diagnosis toward cystic pancreatic neoplasms, leading us to contemplate a radical surgical approach (Pancreaticoduodenectomy). Pancreatic hydatid cysts can be confused with cystic pancreatic neoplasms, it should always be considered as a differential diagnosis in endemic areas, to prevent misdiagnosis and inappropriate management.

Randomized controlled trial comparing the Franseen needle with the Fork-tip needle for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EUS-guided FNA primarily provides cytologic samples. EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB) with needles that provide histologic specimens may enhance diagnostic yield and facilitate accessory tissue staining. Several different needle designs are currently available and design superiority is unknown. We designed a randomized controlled trial to compare 2 commonly used EUS-FNB needles in their ability to provide histologic tissue samples (primary endpoint) and to reach an accurate diagnosis (secondary endpoint).

METHODS

A total of 150 lesions from 134 patients (November 2018 to June 2019) were randomized 1:1 between biopsy with a Franseen needle and a Fork-tip needle. The groups were compared regarding the quality of the tissue samples and diagnostic accuracy.

RESULTS

Of 150 lesions, 75 were pancreatic and 75 were other solid lesions in and around the GI tract. There was no statistically significant difference between the Franseen needle and the Fork-tip needle in the yield of adequate histologic samples, 71 of 75 (94.7%) versus 72 of 75 (96%), (P = 1.00), an absolute difference of -1.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], -8.1% to 5.4%). The 2 groups were similar in the diagnostic accuracy of histologic analysis, 64 of 75 (85.3%) versus 68 of 75 (90.7%) (P = .45), absolute difference -5.4% (95% CI, -15.7% to 5%); and in the diagnostic accuracy of combined cytologic and histologic analysis, 65 of 75 (86.7%) versus 69 of 75 (92%) (P = .43), absolute difference -5.3% (95% CI, -15.2% to 4.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in the performance of the Franseen needle versus the Fork-tip needle. Both needles achieved a high yield of histologic tissue samples and high diagnostic accuracy. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03672032.).

Modified Endoscopic Ultrasound Needle to Obtain Histological Core Tissue Samples: A Retrospective Analysis

Background/Aims

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration is very effective for providing specimens for cytological evaluation. However, the ability to provide sufficient tissue for histological evaluation has been challenging due to the technical limitations of dedicated core biopsy needles. Recently, a modified EUS needle has been introduced to obtain tissue core samples for histological analysis. We aimed to determine (1) its ability to obtain specimens for histological assessment and (2) the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) using this needle.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed consecutive cases of FNB using modified EUS needles for 342 lesions in 303 patients. The cytology and histological specimens were analyzed. Diagnostic accuracy was calculated.

Results

Adequate cytological and histological assessment was possible in 293/342 (86%) and 264/342 (77%) lesions, respectively. Diagnostic accuracy of the cytological specimen was 294/342 (86%) versus 254/342 (74%) for the histological specimen (p<0.01). Diagnostic accuracy of the combined cytological and histological assessment was 323/342 (94.4%), which was significantly higher than that of both histology alone (p<0.001) and cytology alone (p=0.001).

Conclusions

EUS-FNB with the modified EUS needle provided histologic tissue cores in the majority of cases and achieved excellent diagnostic accuracy with few needle passes.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The Use of a Stylet in Endoscopic Ultrasound With Fine-Needle Aspiration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the most efficacious way to collect specimens from a solid lesion adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract and is performed with an internal stylet during puncture. However, its reinsertion into the needle is time-consuming. Controversy surrounds whether quality of cytology specimen improves with stylet use. We performed a meta-analysis comparing the use of stylet versus no stylet with EUS-FNA of gastrointestinal-related masses.

METHODS

Multiple databases were searched from inception until April 28, 2016. Discordant findings from independent extractions were reviewed by at least 2 investigators. Methods were executed as per the standards of the Cochrane Collaboration. Primary outcomes assessed were diagnostic adequacy of individual specimen samples, accuracy, and yield. Secondary outcomes included overall diagnostic accuracy of per-malignant lesion, cellularity, contamination, and bloodiness of the sample, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Five randomized control trials were identified comparing stylet versus no stylet use, which enrolled 504 patients, evaluated 537 lesions, and 1914 distinct specimens. There was no difference in diagnostic adequacy [risk ratio (RR)=1.00; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.95-1.07], accuracy (RR=0.98; 95% CI, 0.90-1.06), or yield (RR=0.96; 95% CI, 0.89-1.03). No stylet use was favored in per-lesion malignant diagnosis (RR=0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.96). There was no difference in representative cellularity, contamination, or bloodiness of specimens obtained with or without stylet use.

CONCLUSIONS

Stylet use confers no significant advantage in diagnostic adequacy, accuracy, yield, contamination, bloodiness, or cellularity over no stylet. We reinforce that no stylet use may be used preferentially in EUS-FNA as a more convenient technique and is favored with a higher per-lesion malignant diagnosis.

Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Fine-Needle Aspiration and Endoscopic Ultrasound-Fine-Needle Biopsy for Solid Lesions in a Multicenter, Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is the standard of care for tissue sampling of solid lesions adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract. Fine-needle biopsy (FNB) may provide higher diagnostic yield with fewer needle passes. The aim of this study was to assess the difference in diagnostic yield between FNA and FNB.

METHODS

This is a multicenter, prospective randomized clinical trial from 6 large tertiary care centers. Patients referred for tissue sampling of solid lesions were randomized to either FNA or FNB of the target lesion. Demographics, size, location, number of needle passes, and final diagnosis were recorded.

RESULTS

After enrollment, 135 patients were randomized to FNA (49.3%), and 139 patients were randomized to FNB (50.7%).The following lesions were sampled: mass (n = 210, 76.6%), lymph nodes (n = 46, 16.8%), and submucosal tumors (n = 18, 6.6%). Final diagnosis was malignancy (n = 192, 70.1%), reactive lymphadenopathy (n = 30, 11.0%), and spindle cell tumors (n = 24, 8.8%). FNA had a diagnostic yield of 91.1% compared with 88.5% for FNB (P = .48). There was no difference between FNA and FNB when stratified by the presence of on-site cytopathology or by type of lesion sampled. A median of 1 needle pass was needed to obtain a diagnostic sample for both needles.

CONCLUSIONS

FNA and FNB obtained a similar diagnostic yield with a comparable number of needle passes. On the basis of these results, there is no significant difference in the performance of FNA compared with FNB in the cytologic diagnosis of solid lesions adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01698190.

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided tissue acquisition: How to achieve excellence

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition is a basic forte of an endosonographer. The multiple skills required to accomplish successful results include not only the puncture itself, but also proper lesion identification, correct puncture sequence, collaboration with the pathologist onsite or remotely, proper handling of the specimens, choosing one or more of cytology, cell-block, and/or tissue core preparation and, last, deciding the immunohistochemistry (IHC) panels and ancillary tests which may be needed for the current case. Error in any of these decisions may lead to incomplete or inconclusive information from the procedure, even if the aspirate is 'adequate.' In the present review, we will describe the technical aspects of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, current needles available and how to choose between them, and how to appropriately handle the specimen. We will also discuss the optimal approach to common targets including lymph nodes, pancreatic masses, pancreatic cysts, and subepithelial lesions.

Role of the preoperative usefulness of the pathological diagnosis of pancreatic diseases

Pancreatic cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer death and has the lowest survival rate of any solid cancer. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNA) is currently capable of providing a cytopathological diagnosis of pancreatic malignancies with a higher diagnostic power, with a sensitivity and specificity of 85%-89% and 98%-99%, compared to pancreatic juice cytology (PJC), whose sensitivity and specificity are only 33.3%-93% and 83.3%-100%. However, EUS-FNA is not effective in the cases of carcinoma in situ and minimally invasive carcinoma because both are undetectable by endoscopic ultrasonography, although PJC is able to detect them. As for the frequency of complications such as post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis, EUS-FNA is safer than PJC. To diagnose pancreatic cancer appropriately, it is necessary for us to master both procedures so that we can select the best methods of sampling tissues while considering the patient’s safety and condition.

Ultrasound-guided percutaneous fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic neoplasms: 10-year experience with more than 2,000 cases and a review of the literature

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and complication rate of percutaneous ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (US-FNA) of solid pancreatic neoplasms through the analysis of 10-year experiences of two centres.

METHODS

Clinical, radiological and pathologic data of 2,024 patients with solid pancreatic masses who underwent US-FNAs were retrospectively evaluated. Indications for aspiration were: unresectable lesions before neo-adjuvant therapy; doubtful imaging findings; and suspicion of uncommon neoplasms with prognostic or therapeutic implications such as metastases or lymphoma. US-FNAs were performed using aspiration needles with a cytopathologist present in centre 1. In centre 2, cytologic samples were collected with Chiba needles and separately evaluated by a cytopathologist.

RESULTS

US-FNA had a diagnostic sample rate of 92.2 % (centre 1: 95.9 %; centre 2: 87.2 %). US-FNA repetition after non-diagnostic samples provided a diagnosis in 86.3 % of cases. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy were 98.7 %, 100 %, 100 %, 75.5 %, and 98.7 %, respectively. The complication rate was 0.8 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous US-FNA is a sensitive, accurate and safe method for the invasive diagnosis of solid pancreatic neoplasms. The use of aspiration needles and the on-site presence of a cytopathologist may lead to a high rate of diagnostic samples, thus reducing the need for US-FNA repetition.

KEY POINTS

• Percutaneous ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic neoplasms is sensitive and accurate. • The short-term complication rate of percutaneous ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration is low. • Technical aspects may influence the rate of diagnostic samples.

Fine-Needle Aspiration Cytology in the Diagnosis of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: A Single-Center Experience of 25 Cases

OBJECTIVE

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (Pan NETs) are rare but are being increasingly diagnosed. The objective of this retrospective study was to share our experience of fine-needle aspiration (FNA), including endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNA with rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), with the use of immunohistochemical (IHC) markers in the diagnosis of Pan NET.

STUDY DESIGN

A total of 25 cases of Pan NET diagnosed on pancreatic FNA between 2008 and 2013 were identified from our hospital database. Clinical history, radiology, cytomorphological features, and IHC performed were reviewed.

RESULTS

The mean age of our patient group was 52 years; 15/25 were male. Most presented with abdominal pain and the majority of the lesions were in the pancreatic body, the largest being 14 cm in size. Based on the 2010 World Health Organization criteria, cases were further graded as follows: 21 cases were grade 1, 2 cases were grade 2 and 2 cases were grade 3. Proliferation marker Ki-67 was utilized in 6 cases for definitive grading. Of the 25 cases, 23 were diagnosed as nonfunctional while 2 were functional; 1 patient had MEN-1 syndrome and 1 had von Recklinghausen's syndrome.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggests that FNA, with ROSE and IHC markers, is highly sensitive and specific for diagnosing Pan NET.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic fine-needle aspiration: potential pitfalls in one institution's experience of 1212 procedures

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has emerged as the diagnostic modality of choice for mass lesions in the pancreas. The objective of the current study was to determine the accuracy and pitfalls of EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions in cases that involved follow-up surgical resection.

METHODS

Cases of EUS-FNA of pancreatic lesions performed from 2007 to mid-2012 for which subsequent surgical resection was performed were retrieved from the department's database. The accuracy of the cytologic diagnosis was assessed using the histological diagnosis as the gold standard. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated. "Neoplastic," "suspicious," and "malignant" were classified as a positive cytologic diagnosis. In one calculation method, "atypical" was also included as a positive cytologic diagnosis whereas in another it was not considered to be a positive cytological result. The cases with a cytologic-histological discrepancy were reviewed to identify sources of errors.

RESULTS

A total of 1212 cases from 1104 patients (518 women and 586 men; age range, 18-94 years [average age, 63.5 years]) were identified. Cytologic diagnoses included 52 unsatisfactory, 224 benign, 129 atypical, 140 neoplasm, 35 suspicious, and 632 malignant diagnoses. Of these cases, 397 patients had histological follow-up information available. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 83.2%, 85.9%, 95.9%, and 56.1%, respectively, with atypical cases excluded from the analysis. When atypical cases were included as a positive cytologic diagnosis, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 86.7%, 67.9%, 90.7%, and 58.5%, respectively, and were 73.7%, 87.7%, 95.6%, and 48.0%, respectively, when atypical cases were included as a negative cytologic diagnosis. The major difficulty in EUS-FNA cytology was to differentiate pancreatic mucinous neoplasms from contaminants of gastric mucosa. Other pitfalls included differentiating mucinous neoplasm from extensive pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia, and endocrine tumor from nesidioblastosis versus acinar cell carcinoma or intrapancreatic spleen.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNA is a valuable tool for the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions, especially solid malignant tumors. Cytologic-radiological correlation is essential in differentiating pancreatic mucinous neoplasms from gastric mucosa, because the former usually are found to have characteristic features on imaging. Pathologists should be aware of the pitfalls in the cytologic diagnosis of pancreatic lesions that may significantly change the clinical management of the patients.

False-negative rate of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic solid and cystic lesions with matched surgical resections as the gold standard: one institution's experience

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of pancreatic tumors is often complicated because of sampling and interpretive challenges. The current study was performed to determine the rates, types, and causes of diagnostic discrepancies.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively reviewed cytology cases from 2004 to 2010 using matched surgical resection cases as the gold standard.

RESULTS

A total of 733 cases were divided into 3 categories: 1) positive or suspicious (290 cases); 2) negative or atypical (403 cases); and 3) unsatisfactory (40 cases). Of these cases, 101 fine-needle aspiration (FNA) cases had matched surgical resections including 58 positive diagnoses, 39 negative diagnoses, and 4 unsatisfactory diagnoses. All 19 discrepant cases represented false-negative diagnoses without any false-positive cases noted, which included 2 cases with interpretive errors (10%) and 17 cases with sampling errors (90%). All matched cytology cases were divided into 5 subgroups based on the type of lesion or type of error and were analyzed for sensitivity and specificity. The sampling error rate in cystic lesions (8 of 24; 33%) was significantly higher than that in solid lesions (9 of 73; 12%). The false-negative rate in the interpretive error group (3%) was significantly lower than that in the sampling error group (23%).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the current study confirm that pancreatic endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNA diagnosis has a very low false-positive rate but a relatively high false-negative rate using matched surgical resections as the gold standard. The major cause of a false-negative cytology diagnosis is sampling error and the rate of sampling error in cystic lesions is significantly higher than that in solid lesions.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration for the diagnosis of pancreatic cystic neoplasms: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Mucinous cystic neoplasms and intraductal papillary mucinous tumours have greater malignant potential than serous cystic neoplasms. EUS alone is inadequate for characterising these lesions but the addition of FNA may significantly improve diagnostic accuracy. The performance of EUS-FNA is highly variable in published studies.

AIM

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA to differentiate mucinous versus non-mucinous cystic lesions with cyst fluid analysis for cytology and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) by performing a meta-analysis of published studies.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified via structured database search and included if they used a reference standard of definitive surgical histology or clinical follow-up of at least 6 months. Data from selected studies were pooled to give summary sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, diagnostic odds ratio and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve. Pre-defined subgroup analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies (published 2002-2011) were included, with a total of 1438 patients. For cytology, pooled sensitivity was 54(95%CI 49-59)% and specificity 93(90-95)%. The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 13.3 (4.37-49.43), with I(2) of 77.1%. For CEA sensitivity was 63(59-67)% and specificity 88(83-91)%. The DOR was 10.76(6.29-18.41) with an I(2) of 25.4%. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA was enhanced in prospective studies and studies of <36 months duration. No impact of publication bias on our results was demonstrated.

CONCLUSIONS

Fine-needle aspiration has moderate sensitivity but high specificity for mucinous lesions. EUS-FNA, when used in conjunction with cross sectional imaging, is a useful diagnostic tool for the correct identification of mucinous cysts.

Comparison of methods to detect neoplasia in patients undergoing endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Digital image analysis (DIA) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) can be used to evaluate biliary strictures with greater accuracy than conventional cytology (CC). We performed a prospective evaluation of the accuracy of CC, compared with that of DIA and FISH, in detection of malignancy in patients undergoing endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) fine-needle aspiration (FNA).

METHODS

We collected a minimum of 6 FNA samples from each of 250 patients during EUS. CC or DIA and FISH analyses were performed on every other specimen (from every other FNA pass); patients were randomly assigned to the first test performed. CC slides were reviewed by gastrointestinal cytopathologists who were blinded to all data. Findings from cytohistologic analysis, after a minimum 24-month follow-up period, were used as the standard (n = 202; median age, 65 years).

RESULTS

Aspirates were collected from lymph nodes (n = 111), pancreas (n = 61), gastrointestinal lumen wall (n = 9), periluminal mass (n = 4), liver (n = 8), and miscellaneous sites (n = 9). Matched samples provided a mean of 3.2 passes for CC and 1.6 passes for DIA and FISH. The data indicate a potential lack of utility for DIA. The combination of CC and FISH detected malignancy with 11% greater sensitivity than CC alone (P = .0002), but specificity was reduced from 100% to 96%.

CONCLUSIONS

FISH analysis identifies neoplastic lesions with significantly greater sensitivity than CC in patients with diverse pathologies who underwent EUS with FNA, despite limited tissue sampling for FISH analysis.

EUS-guided FNA for diagnosis of solid pancreatic neoplasms: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Preoperative diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions remains challenging despite advancement in imaging technologies. EUS has the benefit of being a minimally invasive, well-tolerated procedure, although results are operator-dependent. The addition of FNA (EUS-guided FNA) provides samples for cytopathologic analysis, a major advantage over other imaging techniques.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA for pancreatic cancer.

DESIGN

This is a meta-analysis of published studies assessing the diagnostic capability of EUS-FNA. Relevant studies were identified via MEDLINE and were included if they used a reference standard of definitive surgical histology or clinical follow-up of at least 6 months.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Data from selected studies were analyzed by using test accuracy meta-analysis software, providing a pooled value for sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, and summary receiver operating characteristic curve. Cytology results were classified as inadequate, benign, atypical, suspicious, or malignant. Predefined subgroup analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies published between 1997 and 2009 were included, with a total number of 4984 patients. The pooled sensitivity for malignant cytology was 85% (95% confidence interval [CI], 84-86), and pooled specificity was 98% (95% CI, 0.97-0.99). If atypical and suspicious cytology results were included to determine true neoplasms, the sensitivity increased to 91% (95% CI, 90-92); however, the specificity was reduced to 94% (95% CI, 93-96). The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA was enhanced in prospective, multicenter studies.

LIMITATION

Publication bias was not a significant determinant of pooled accuracy.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrates that EUS-FNA is a highly accurate diagnostic test for solid neoplasms of the pancreas and should be considered when algorithms for investigating solid pancreatic lesions are being planned.

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.

Prospective cytological assessment of gastrointestinal luminal fluid acquired during EUS: a potential source of false-positive FNA and needle tract seeding

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine needle aspiration (FNA) can result in false-positive cytology and can also cause needle tract seeding. Our goal was to evaluate a potential cause, namely, the presence of malignant cells within gastrointestinal (GI) luminal fluid, either as a result of tumor sloughing from luminal cancers or secondary to FNA of extraluminal sites.

METHODS

During EUS, luminal fluid that is usually aspirated through the echoendoscope suction channel and discarded was instead submitted for cytological analysis among patients with cancer and benign disease. Pre- and post-FNA luminal fluid samples were collected to discern the role of FNA in inducing a positive cytology. When not performing FNA, one sample was collected for the entire examination. The final diagnosis was based on strict clinicopathological criteria and >or=2-year follow-up. This study was conducted in a tertiary referral center.

RESULTS

We assessed the prevalence of luminal fluid-positive cytology among patients with luminal (e.g., esophageal), extraluminal (e.g., pancreatic), and benign disease. Among the 140 patients prospectively enrolled with sufficient sampling and follow-up, an examination of luminal fluid cytology showed positive results for malignancy in luminal and extraluminal cancer patients, 48 and 10%, respectively. This included 8 out of 23 esophageal, 4 of 5 gastric, and 9 of 15 rectal cancers. The positive luminal fluid cytology rate with luminal cancers was not affected by performing FNA. Post-FNA luminal fluid cytology was positive in 3 out of 26 with pancreatic cancers. Cytological examination of luminal fluid aspirates did not demonstrate malignant cells in any patient with nonmalignant disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Malignant cells are commonly present in the GI luminal fluid of patients with luminal cancers and can also be found in patients with pancreatic cancer after EUS FNA. Further study is needed to determine the impact of these findings on cytological interpretation, staging, risk of needle tract seeding, and patient care and outcomes.

Endosonographic staging of upper intestinal malignancy

Numerous studies conducted over the last 25 years provide evidence on the high diagnostic accuracy and important role of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in staging oesophageal and gastric carcinoma. This extensive research was recently subjected to metaanalyses, condensing our knowledge on EUS performance and facilitating its comparison with competing methods. It is, however, important to realise that the management of oesophageal and gastric carcinoma is evolving and so are staging algorithms, setting new challenges for EUS and re-defining its position. Restaging after neoadjuvant treatment and precise assessment of early carcinoma before endoscopic treatment are areas of growing interest, but the role of EUS in these settings is rather limited. Rapidly developing cross-sectional imaging has the potential to challenge the position of EUS as the most accurate method in loco-regional staging. On the other hand, EUS guided fine-needle aspiration offers the unique opportunity to obtain cytological confirmation of lymph node metastases, with future potential for molecular staging.

Endoscopic ultrasound: it's accuracy in evaluating mediastinal lymphadenopathy? A meta-analysis and systematic review

AIM

To evaluate the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), EUS-fine needle aspiration (FNA) in evaluating mediastinal lymphadenopathy.

METHODS

Only EUS and EUS-FNA studies confirmed by surgery or with appropriate follow-up were selected. Articles were searched in Medline, Pubmed, and Cochrane control trial registry. Only studies from which a 2 multiply 2 table could be constructed for true positive, false negative, false positive and true negative values were included. Two reviewers independently searched and extracted data. The differences were resolved by mutual agreement. Meta-analysis for the accuracy of EUS was analyzed by calculating pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratios. Pooling was conducted by both Mantel-Haenszel method (fixed effects model) and DerSimonian Laird method (random effects model). The heterogeneity of studies was tested using Cochran's Q test based upon inverse variance weights.

RESULTS

Data was extracted from 76 studies (n = 9310) which met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 44 studies used EUS alone and 32 studies used EUS-FNA. FNA improved the sensitivity of EUS from 84.7% (95% CI: 82.9-86.4) to 88.0% (95% CI: 85.8-90.0). With FNA, the specificity of EUS improved from 84.6% (95% CI: 83.2-85.9) to 96.4% (95% CI: 95.3-97.4). The P for chi-squared heterogeneity for all the pooled accuracy estimates was > 0.10.

CONCLUSION

EUS is highly sensitive and specific for the evaluation of mediastinal lymphadenopathy and FNA substantially improves this. EUS with FNA should be the diagnostic test of choice for evaluating mediastinal lymphadenopathy.

Staging accuracy of esophageal cancer by endoscopic ultrasound: A meta-analysis and systematic review

AIM: To evaluate the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in the staging of esophageal cancer.

METHODS: Only EUS studies confirmed by surgery were selected. Articles were searched in Medline and Pubmed. Two reviewers independently searched and extracted data. Meta-analysis of the accuracy of EUS was analyzed by calculating pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio. Pooling was conducted by both the Mantel-Haenszel method (fixed effects model) and DerSimonian Laird method (random effects model). The heterogeneity of studies was tested using Cochran’s Q test based upon inverse variance weights.

RESULTS: Forty-nine studies (n = 2558) which met the inclusion criteria were included in this analysis. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of EUS to diagnose T1 was 81.6% (95% CI: 77.8-84.9) and 99.4% (95% CI: 99.0-99.7), respectively. To diagnose T4, EUS had a pooled sensitivity of 92.4% (95% CI: 89.2-95.0) and specificity of 97.4% (95% CI: 96.6-98.0). With Fine Needle Aspiration (FNA), sensitivity of EUS to diagnose N stage improved from 84.7% (95% CI: 82.9-86.4) to 96.7% (95% CI: 92.4-98.9). The P value for the χ² test of heterogeneity for all pooled estimates was > 0.10.

CONCLUSION: EUS has excellent sensitivity and specificity in accurately diagnosing the TN stage of esophageal cancer. EUS performs better with advanced (T4) than early (T1) disease. FNA substantially improves the sensitivity and specificity of EUS in evaluating N stage disease. EUS should be strongly considered for staging esophageal cancer.

Endoscopic ultrasound as a first test for diagnosis and staging of lung cancer: a prospective study

RATIONALE

Multiple tests are required for the management of lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) was evaluated as a single test for the diagnosis and staging (thoracic and extrathoracic) of lung cancer.

METHODS

Consecutive subjects with computed tomography (CT) findings of a lung mass were enrolled for EUS and results were compared with those from CT and positron emission tomography scans.

RESULTS

Of 113 subjects with lung cancer, EUS was performed as a first test (after CT scan) for diagnosis in 93 (82%) of them. EUS-FNA established tissue diagnosis in 70% of cases. EUS-FNA, CT, and positron emission tomography detected metastases to the mediastinal lymph nodes with accuracies of 93, 81, and 83%, respectively. EUS-FNA was significantly better than CT at detecting distant metastases (accuracies of 97 and 89%, respectively; p = 0.02). Metastases to lymph nodes at the celiac axis (CLNs) were observed in 11% of cases. The diagnostic yields of EUS-FNA and CT for detection of metastases to the CLNs were 100 and 50%, respectively (p < 0.05). EUS was able to detect small metastases (less than 1 cm) often missed by CT. Metastasis to the CLNs was a predictor of poor survival of subjects with non-small cell lung cancer, irrespective of the size of the CLNs. Of 44 cases with resectable tumor on CT scan, EUS-FNA avoided thoracotomy in 14% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNA as a first test (after CT) has high diagnostic yield and accuracy for detecting lung cancer metastases to the mediastinum and distant sites. Metastasis to the CLNs is associated with poor prognosis. EUS-FNA is able to detect occult metastasis to the CLNs and thus avoids thoracotomy.

Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound in discrimination between focal pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer

AIM: To evaluate the contrast-enhanced endosonography as a method of differentiating inflammation from pancreatic carcinoma based on perfusion characteristics of microvessels.

METHODS: In 86 patients with suspected chronic pancreatitis (age: 62 ± 12 years; sex: f/m 38/48), pancreatic lesions were examined by conventional endoscopic B-mode, power Doppler ultrasound and contrast-enhanced power mode (Hitachi EUB 525, SonoVue^®, 2.4 mL, Bracco) using the following criteria for malignant lesions: no detectable vascularisation using conventional power Doppler scanning, irregular appearance of arterial vessels over a short distance using SonoVue^® contrast-enhanced technique and no detectable venous vessels inside the lesion. A malignant lesion was assumed if all criteria were detectable [gold standard endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration cytology, operation]. The criteria of chronic pancreatitis without neoplasia were defined as no detectable vascularisation before injection of SonoVue^®, regular appearance of vessels over a distance of at least 20 mm after injection of SonoVue^® and detection of arterial and venous vessels.

RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of conventional EUS were 73.2% and 83.3% respectively for pancreatic cancer. The sensitivity of contrast-enhanced EUS increased to 91.1% in 51 of 56 patients with malignant pancreatic lesion and the specificity increased to 93.3% in 28 of 30 patients with chronic inflammatory pancreatic disease.

CONCLUSION: Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound improves the differentiation between chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic carcinoma.

EUS-guided FNA combined with flow cytometry in the diagnoses of suspected or recurrent intrathoracic or retroperitoneal lymphoma

BACKGROUND

Limited data exist on the combined use of EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) and flow cytometry (FC) in the diagnosis of lymphoma. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of EUS-FNA combined with FC in the diagnosis of primary or recurrent lymphoma.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective analysis of a prospective collection of data over a 3-year period. Over 3 years, 29 patients with lesions (n=31) suspicious for lymphoma underwent EUS-FNA and FC.

RESULTS

Of the 29 patients, 10 patients had lymphoma and 17 patients had nonlymphoma lesions; for two patients, final diagnosis was indeterminate because of insufficient material for FC. The lymphoma cases included non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (n=6, including 3 recurrences), mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphoma (n=2), a non-GI lymphoma with mediastinal lymphadenopathy (n=1), and an uncharacterized lymphoma (n=1). Of the 31 lesions, 8 were true positive, 18 were true negative, and 3 were false negative; for two lesions, we could not determine the final diagnosis. No false-positive results were encountered. The sensitivity, the specificity, and the accuracy of EUS-FNA combined with FC for diagnosing lymphoma were 72.7%: 95% CI [43.3%, 90.3%], 100%: 95% CI [82.4%, 100.0%], and 89.7%: 95% CI [73.6%, 96.4%], respectively. Limitations to this study include a short duration of follow-up and a lack of a surgical criterion standard.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNA in combination with FC allows the diagnosis of primary suspected or recurrent lymphoma. It also is an adjunct in staging MALT lymphoma and could direct clinicians toward further investigative procedures.

Malignant mediastinal lymphadenopathy detected by staging EUS in patients with pancreaticobiliary cancer

BACKGROUND

In patients with pancreatic cancer, the presence of malignant mediastinal lymphadenopathy (MML) would preclude definitive resection. A recent study suggested routine evaluation for mediastinal lymph-node metastases in all patients being evaluated for pancreaticobiliary masses. In our practice, we routinely assess for mediastinal lymph-node metastases in all patients undergoing EUS for pancreaticobiliary cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated the presence of MML by EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) in 160 consecutive patients with a definite diagnosis of pancreaticobiliary cancer (pancreatic and periampullary cancers) who underwent EUS-FNA by a single operator from 2000 to 2004. Lymph nodes that were round and hypoechoic with sharp margins were considered suspicious and were sampled by FNA.

RESULTS

Of the 160 patients included in this study, 78 had peripancreatic lymph nodes (49%: 95% CI[41%, 58%]), 25 had celiac lymph nodes (16%: 95% CI[10%, 22%]), and 14 patients had mediastinal lymph nodes (9%: 95% CI[4%, 13%]) that were suspicious for malignancy by morphologic criteria. In 8 of 14 patients with suspicious mediastinal lymph nodes, FNA documented MML in 5%: 95% CI[2%, 8%]. Only one of these 8 patients with MML had other sites of documented distant metastases by CT and/or positron emission tomography scans. However, 7 of 8 patients had locally advanced cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

MML is detected by staging EUS-FNA in 5% of patients with pancreaticobiliary cancer. Because of its important implications, endosonographers should routinely assess for MML in patients who undergo staging EUS for pancreaticobiliary malignancy.

Impact of EUS-guided FNA of enlarged mediastinal lymph nodes on subsequent thoracic surgery rates

BACKGROUND

A histopathologic diagnosis of metastasis in enlarged mediastinal lymph nodes usually results in non-surgical management. Cytologic specimens obtained by EUS-guided FNA can be used to detect malignancy in posterior mediastinal lymph nodes. The purpose of this study was to determine the rate of thoracic surgery after EUS-guided FNA of enlarged mediastinal lymph nodes.

METHODS

A prospective observational study of patients with enlarged posterior mediastinal lymphadenopathy who were referred for EUS-guided FNA. All patients were candidates for mediastinoscopy. Patients were followed for 12 months to determine the subsequent rate of mediastinoscopy or thoracotomy and the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided FNA.

RESULTS

Evaluation of cytologic specimens obtained by EUS-guided FNA revealed malignancy in 23 of 59 (39%) patients. The overall rate of surgery was 22% (13/59): 95% CI[0.12, 0.35]. The surgery rate for patients with a positive cytologic result was 4% (1/23) compared with 33% (12/36) for those with a negative result (p=0.009). Of patients with CT findings of a peripheral lung mass plus mediastinal lymphadenopathy, 22 of 26 (42%) underwent surgery after EUS-guided FNA, compared with two of 33 (6%) of those with mediastinal lymphadenopathy alone (p=0.0009). For cytologic evaluation of specimens obtained by EUS-guided FNA, the overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for the diagnosis of malignant lymphadenopathy were 96%, 100%, and 98%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Few patients who undergo EUS-guided FNA of enlarged posterior mediastinal lymph nodes require subsequent thoracic surgery.

Endoscopic ultrasound in lung cancer patients with a normal mediastinum on computed tomography

BACKGROUND

Computed tomography (CT) is the most common method of staging lung cancer. We have previously shown endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) to be highly accurate in staging patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have enlarged mediastinal lymph nodes on CT scan. In this study we report the accuracy and yield of EUS-FNA in staging patients without enlarged mediastinal lymph nodes by CT.

METHODS

Patients with NSCLC and CT scan showing no enlarged mediastinal lymph nodes (> 1 cm for all nodes except > 1.2 cm for subcarinal) in the mediastinum underwent EUS. Fine needle aspiration was performed on at least one lymph node, if present, in the upper mediastinum, aortopulmonary window, subcarinal, and periesophagus regions. Each specimen was evaluated with on-site cytopathology and confirmed with complete cytopathologic examination.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine patients without enlarged mediastinal lymph nodes were evaluated. Endoscopic ultrasound detected malignant mediastinal lymph nodes in 14 of 69 patients as well as other advanced (American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC] stage III/IV) in 3 others (1 left adrenal, and 2 with mediastinal invasion of tumor) for a total of 17 of 69 (25%, 95% confidence interval: 16% to 34%) patients. Eleven additional patients were found to have advanced disease by bronchoscopy (2), mediastinoscopy (2), and thoracotomy with mediastinal lymph node dissection (7). The sensitivity of EUS for advanced mediastinal disease was 61% (49% to 75%), and the specificity was 98% (95% to 100%).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration can detect advanced mediastinal disease and avoid unnecessary surgical exploration in almost one of four patients who have no evidence of mediastinal disease on CT scan. In addition to previously reported results in patients with enlarged lymph nodes on CT, these data suggest that all potentially operable patients with nonmetastatic NSCLC may benefit from EUS staging.

Endoscopic ultrasound for rectal cancer

The application of EUS has improved the way we evaluate and manage patients with rectal cancer. EUS has substantially greater sensitivity than CT in detecting advanced T stage tumors. Such improved sensitivity results in changes in preoperative therapy that would not otherwise have occurred without EUS. Although the addition of FNA provides little incremental effect on patient management, it carries the most potential for impacting management in those patients with early T stage disease, and its use should be considered in this subgroup of patients. Whether the accurate staging ability of EUS translates into improved outcomes in terms of reduced recurrence rates and ultimately prolonged survival remains uncertain. This will require further long-term outcome studies focusing on the endpoint of tumor recurrence and patient survival.