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

Comparison of FNA-based conventional cytology specimens and digital image analysis in assessment of pancreatic lesions

Objectives

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is one of the most important diagnostic tools for investigation of suspected pancreatic masses, although the interpretation of the results is controversial. In recent decades, digital image analysis (DIA) has been considered in pathology. The aim of this study was to assess the DIA in the evaluation of EUS-FNA based cytopathological specimens of pancreatic masses and comparing it with conventional cytology analysis by pathologist.

Material and Methods

This study was performed using cytological slides related to EUS-FNA samples of pancreatic lesions. The digital images were prepared and then analyzed by ImageJ software. Factors such as perimeter, circularity, area, minimum, maximum, mean, median of gray value, and integrated chromatin density of cell nucleus were extracted by software ImageJ and sensitivity, specificity, and cutoff point were evaluated in the diagnosis of malignant and benign lesions.

Results

In this retrospective study, 115 cytology samples were examined. Each specimen was reviewed by a pathologist and 150 images were prepared from the benign and malignant lesions and then analyzed by ImageJ software and a cut point was established by SPSS 26. The cutoff points for perimeter, integrated density, and the sum of three factors of perimeter, integrated density, and circularity to differentiate between malignant and benign lesions were reported to be 204.56, 131953, and 24643077, respectively. At this cutting point, the accuracy of estimation is based on the factors of perimeter, integrated density, and the sum of the three factors of perimeter, integrated density, and circularity were 92%, 92%, and 94%, respectively.

Conclusion

The results of this study showed that digital analysis of images has a high accuracy in diagnosing malignant and benign lesions in the cytology of EUS-FNA in patients with suspected pancreatic malignancy and by obtaining cutoff points by software output factors; digital imaging can be used to differentiate between benign and malignant pancreatic tumors.

Endoscopic Ultrasound for the Diagnosis and Staging of Biliary Malignancy

Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is the most common neoplasm of the biliary tract. The biological behavior and prognosis of CCA vary depending on the tumor's location in the biliary tree, dictating a different diagnostic, and treatment approach. Establishing a diagnosis of CCA remains a challenge and up to 20% of biliary strictures can yield indeterminate results, despite extensive evaluation. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become an effective diagnostic tool, as it provides high-quality images of the bile duct and allows for the sampling of strictures in the same plane of view. In this chapter, we explore the utility of EUS as a diagnostic and staging tool for biliary cancers.

[Clinical and Technical Guideline for Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Tissue Acquisition of Pancreatic Solid Tumor: Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy]

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence- based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.

Clinical and Technical Guideline for Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-Guided Tissue Acquisition of Pancreatic Solid Tumor: Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE)

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a task force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice. (Gut Liver 2021;15:-374)

An Investigation on the Results of Cytopathologic Tests of Pancreatobiliary System Performed in the Pathology Department in Iran

Background & Objective

Pancreatobiliary system disorders commonly include inflammatory diseases and tumors. Diagnosis of pancreatic cancer is challenging and is mostly achieved when the disease has extensively progressed, and metastasis has occurred. Therefore, this study was performed to evaluate cytopathology in the diagnosis of Pancreatobiliary malignancies, which can improve diagnostic adequacy and accuracy.

Methods

A total of 116 cytopathologic results of the Pancreatobiliary system, performed in the Pathology Department of Taleghani Hospital, Tehran, Iran during 2017-2018 were selected and examined in this observational study. The frequency of different results was determined and compared with other variables.

Results

The most common location of the lesions was the pancreas (47%). The lesions were categorized as malignant, benign, negative, suspicious for malignancy (SFM), and atypical in 28%, 10%, 24%, 14%, and 9% of the cases, respectively. In other cases, lesions were considered non-diagnostic. Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) was conducted in 25% of patients. Compatibility of the initial and final diagnoses was 100%, 50%, and 60% in cases with "malignant", "benign", and "negative" diagnoses, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, as well as positive and negative predictive values of cytopathology in the diagnosis of Pancreatobiliary lesions were 75.8%, 92.3%, 95.9%, and 61.5%, respectively.

Conclusion

Our findings indicated that half of the lesions of the Pancreatobiliary system were positive, SFM, and atypical. Fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) were effective modalities in diagnosing Pancreatobiliary malignancies. The most important point in our experience is the increase in diagnostic sensitivity in the presence of ROSE. Therefore, the simultaneous use of ROSE and EUS-FNA can reduce the need for re-sampling.

Clinical and Technical Guideline for Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-Guided Tissue Acquisition of Pancreatic Solid Tumor: Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE)

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in 8 categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.

Ancillary Techniques in Cytologic Specimens Obtained from Solid Lesions of the Pancreas: A Review

Advanced methods of molecular characterization have elucidated the genetic, epigenetic, and proteomic alterations associated with the broad spectrum of pancreatic disease, particularly neoplasia. Next-generation sequencing, in particular, has revealed the genomic diversity among pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, neuroendocrine and acinar tumors, solid pseudopapillary neoplasm, and other pancreatico-biliary neoplasms. Differentiating these entities from one another by morphologic analysis alone may be challenging, especially when examining the small quantities of diagnostic material inherent to cytologic specimens. In order to enhance the sensitivity and specificity of pancreatic cytomorphology, multiple diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive ancillary tests have been and continue to be developed. Although a great number of such tests have been developed for evaluation of specimens collected from cystic lesions and strictures, ancillary techniques also play a significant role in the evaluation of cytologic specimens obtained from solid lesions of the pancreas. Furthermore, while some tests have been developed to differentiate diagnostic entities from one another, others have been developed to simply identify dysplasia and malignancy. Ancillary studies are particularly important in the subset of cases for which cytomorphologic analysis provides a result that is equivocal or insufficient to guide clinical management. Selection of appropriate ancillary testing modalities requires familiarity with both their methodology and the molecular basis of the pancreatic diseases for which testing is being performed.

A prospective comparison of conventional cytology and digital image analysis for the identification of pancreatic malignancy in patients undergoing EUS-FNA

Background and Objectives

Digital image analysis (DIA) has been reported to be a sensitive method to detect pancreatic neoplasms by assessing nuclear DNA content. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of DIA for pancreatic malignancy relative to conventional cytology (CC) in patients undergoing EUS-FNA.

Patients and Methods

One hundred and forty-two patients with suspected pancreatic malignancy were enrolled prospectively in this study. FNA sample from each patient was evenly divided and assessed by CC and DIA. Findings from histopathology of FNA specimens and a minimum 12-month follow-up were used as the standard.

Results

Total 102 out of 142 patients were determined as pancreatic cancer (PC) in this study. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CC were 75%, 85%, and 78%, whereas the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of DIA were 84%, 80%, and 83%, respectively. A combination of CC and DIA (CC/DIA) showed greater sensitivity than CC alone (92% vs. 75%, P < 0.01), but the specificity was reduced from 85% to 70% (P = 0.03).

Conclusions

In this study, we demonstrated that DIA provided comparable diagnostic performance to CC in detecting PC. This objective diagnostic method, DIA, emerged as an important supplementary tool to endoscopic biopsy and cytology for diagnosing patients undergoing EUS-FNA with suspected pancreatic malignancy.

Pathological and Molecular Aspects to Improve Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration From Solid Pancreatic Lesions

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has been applied to pancreatic lesions since the 1990s, and its use is now widespread. Improvements in endoscopic devices and sampling techniques have resulted in excellent diagnostic ability for solid pancreatic lesions. However, clinical improvements alone are not responsible for it; pathological aspects have also played important roles. Rapid on-site evaluation minimizes endoscopic procedures, although its value at improving the diagnostic ratio is still debated. Diagnostic efficacy differs by sample preparations (direct smear, cytospin, liquid-based cytology, cell block, and biopsy) and by staining methods (Papanicoloau, Diff-Quik, hematoxylin-eosin, and Giemsa). Several immunocytochemistry protocols aid in diagnosing epithelial components with cytological atypia and in differentiating various tumor types. One cytopathology diagnostic system is telecytology, which uses transmitted digital images and enables real-time diagnosis of EUS-FNA samples by expert cytologists at remote locations. However, EUS-FNA samples are useful for more than just diagnoses, as molecular analysis of these samples allows the identification of prognostic markers, such as genetic alterations in K-ras and EGFR. Expression of drug-metabolizing enzymes, human equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1, correlates with the response to gemcitabine-based chemotherapy. These pathology efforts have enhanced the diagnostic efficacy of EUS-FNA, thereby leading to better outcomes for patients with pancreatic diseases.

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.

Time-of-day effect and the yield of endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration

Background and Objectives:

The timing of the endoscopic procedures has been recently proposed to be a factor in the quality of colonoscopic polyp detection. We aimed to investigate whether the time-of-day has an effect on the diagnostic yield and specimen adequacy of endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA).

Materials and Methods:

The retrospective study was set in a safety net community hospital. The 212 EUS-FNAs performed at our institution between July 2011 and January 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. Pancreatic masses, pancreatic cysts, and lymphadenopathy were most common indications for EUS-FNAs. Data were collected with regard to the timing of the procedure, presence of on-site cytopathologic evaluation, the number of needle passes, diagnosis, and specimen adequacy for cytopathologic evaluation. Statistical analysis was performed using unpaired two-tailed Student's t-test.

Results:

There was no difference in the diagnostic yield for malignancy across all indications between the AM and PM groups. In the morning group 31/87 (36%) procedures and in the afternoon group 50/125 (40%) procedures were diagnostic for malignancy (P = 0.522). There was no difference in the specimen adequacy for cytopathologic evaluation across all indications between the AM and PM groups. In the morning group, 58/87 (67%) procedures and in the afternoon group 90/125 (72%) procedures were adequate for cytopathologic evaluation (P = 0.408). On-site cytopathologist was more available for AM than PM procedures; however, the lack of AM vs. PM difference in the yield and specimen adequacy persisted regardless of on-site cytopathologist presence.

Conclusions:

Time-of-day of the procedure (morning vs. afternoon) does not affect EUS-FNA diagnostic yield for malignancy or specimen adequacy for cytopathologic evaluation.

Frequency of mitogen-activated protein kinase and phosphoinositide 3-kinase signaling pathway pathogenic alterations in EUS-FNA sampled malignant lymph nodes in rectal cancer with theranostic potential

BACKGROUND

Targeted next-generation sequencing has the potential to stratify a tumor by molecular subtype and aid the development of a biomarker profile for prognostic risk stratification and theranostic potential.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the frequency and distribution of pathogenic alterations in malignant lymph node cytology specimens.

DESIGN

Multigene molecular profiling of archived malignant EUS-FNA lymph node cytology specimens using the Ion Ampliseq Cancer Hotspot Panel v2, which targets at least 2855 possible mutations within 50 cancer-associated genes.

SETTING

Single tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

Sporadic, treatment naive, locally advanced primary rectal cancer by EUS-FNA (n = 76) who subsequently completed neoadjuvant therapy with on-site oncologic surgery.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The frequency and distribution of pathogenic alterations in malignant lymph node cytology specimens by the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) or phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) signaling pathways, by KRAS or NRAS wild-type lymph node status, by extramesenteric lymph node status, and by a complete pathologic response status.

RESULTS

Eleven patients (14.5%) were 50-gene panel wild-type. Sixty-five patients had 139 pathogenic alterations (2 [1-3] per patient) in 13 of 50 evaluated genes. The following represent a spectrum of identified alterations: TP53 (n = 52; 68.4%), APC (n = 36; 47.4%), KRAS (n = 22; 28.9%), FBXW7 (n = 8; 10.5%), NRAS (n = 6; 7.9%), PIK3CA (n = 4; 5.3%), SMAD4 (n = 3; 3.9%), and BRAF (n = 3; 3.9%). Pathogenic alterations were identified in the MAPK and PI3K signaling pathways in 41% and 5% of patients, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

Findings were limited to a 50 cancer-associated gene analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Molecular EUS lymph node assessments using cancer "hotspot" panels can identify pathogenic alteration frequency and distribution and have theranostic potential for individualized patient care.

Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration cytology mutation profiling using targeted next-generation sequencing: personalized care for rectal cancer

OBJECTIVES

In an era of precision medicine, our aim was to determine the frequency and theranostic potential of mutations identified in malignant lymph nodes (LNs) sampled by endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration (EUS FNA) of patients with rectal cancer by targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS).

METHODS

The NGS Ion AmpliSeq Cancer Hotspot Panel v2 (Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA) and MiSeq (Illumina, San Diego, CA) sequencers were used to sequence and assess for 2,800 or more possible mutations in 50 established cancer-associated genes.

RESULTS

Among 102 patients, 89% had 194 pathogenic alterations identified in 19 genes. The identification of KRAS, NRAS, or BRAF mutations suggests that 42% are likely nonresponders to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy. Among KRAS, NRAS, or BRAF wild-type patients, alterations in eight genes linked to alternative therapies were identified in 44%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data demonstrate the successful ability to apply a single multiplex test to allow multigene mutation detection from malignant LN cytology specimen DNA collected by EUS FNA.

PDX-1 mRNA expression in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle cytoaspirate: perspectives in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration is routinely used in the diagnostic work up of pancreatic cancer but has a low sensitivity. Studies showed that Pancreatic Duodenal Homeobox-1 (PDX-1) is expressed in pancreatic cancer, which is associated with a worse prognosis. We aimed to verify whether the assessment of PDX-1 in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration samples may be helpful for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

mRNA of 54 pancreatic cancer and 25 cystic lesions was extracted. PDX-1 expression was assessed by Real-Time PCR.

RESULTS

In all but two patients with pancreatic cancer, PDX-1 was expressed and was found positive in 7 patients with pancreatic cancer in which cytology was negative. The positivity was associated with a probability of 0.98 (95% CI 0.90-1.00) of having cancer and the negativity with one of 0.08 (95% CI 0.01-0.27). The probability of cancer rose to 1.00 (95% CI 0.97-1.00) for patients positive to both PDX-1 and cytology and fell to 0.0 (95% CI 0.00-0.15) in patients negative for both.

CONCLUSIONS

PDX-1mRNA is detectable in samples of pancreatic cancer. Its quantification may be helpful to improve the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.

Kinase genotype analysis of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor cytology samples using targeted next-generation sequencing

Gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) usually contain the mast/stem cell growth factor receptor Kit gene (KIT) or platelet-derived growth factor receptor A (PDGFRA) mutations that can be targeted by, or mediate resistance to, imatinib. Diagnostic material often is obtained by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration, which often is unsuitable for molecular analysis. We investigated whether targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) can be used in multiplex genotype analysis of cytology samples collected by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration. We used the Ion AmpliSeq V2 Cancer Hotspot NGS Panel (Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA) to identify mutations in more than 2800 exons from 50 cancer-associated genes in GIST samples from 20 patients. We identified KIT mutations in 58% of samples (91% in exon 11 and 9% in exon 17) and PDGFRA mutations in 26% (60% in exon 18 and 40% in exon 12); 16% of samples had no mutations in KIT or PDGFRA. No pathogenic alterations were found in PIK3CA, BRAF, KRAS, NRAS, or FGFR3. We predicted that 32% of patients would have primary resistance to imatinib, based on mutations in exon 17 of KIT, exon 18 of PDGFRA (D842V), or no mutation in either gene. Targeted NGS of cytology samples from GISTs is feasible and provides clinically relevant data about kinase genotypes that can help guide individualized therapy.

Characterization of endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration cytology by targeted next-generation sequencing and theranostic potential

Determination of tumor genetic architecture based on tissue analysis yields important information on signaling pathways involved in cancer pathogenesis and plays a growing role in choosing the optimal medical management of malignancies. Specifically, the advent of next-generation sequencing has led to a rapidly evolving era of relatively inexpensive, high-throughput DNA sequencing of tumors. One such example is multiplexed tumor genotyping (ie, panel testing) of more than 2800 mutations across 50 commonly mutated cancer-associated genes. This resulting mutational landscape shows medically actionable pathogenic alterations to optimize antitumor therapy. We recently assessed the performance and outcome of targeted next-generation sequencing with archived endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspirates across a broad range of primary and metastatic sites with encouraging accuracy. As a result, endoscopic ultrasound has the potential to move from a test for diagnosis or confirmation of malignancy, to one in which it could facilitate the personalization of cancer-directed therapy.

Moving beyond morphology: new insights into the characterization and management of cystic pancreatic lesions

The frequency of detection of cystic pancreatic lesions with cross-sectional imaging, particularly with multidetector computed tomography, magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, and MR cholangiopancreatography, is increasing, and many of these cystic pancreatic lesions are being detected incidentally in asymptomatic patients. Because there is considerable overlap in the cross-sectional imaging findings of cystic pancreatic lesions, and because many of these lesions being detected are smaller than 3 cm in diameter and lack any specific cross-sectional imaging features, it has become difficult to make informed decisions about patient management when the precise diagnosis remains uncertain. This article presents the limitations of cross-sectional imaging in patients with cystic pancreatic lesions, details advances in knowledge of the genomic and epigenomic changes that lead to progression of carcinogenesis, outlines the current understanding of the natural history of mucinous cystic lesions, and includes the current use and future potential of novel tumor markers and molecular analysis to characterize cystic pancreatic lesions more precisely. The need to move beyond cross-sectional imaging morphology and toward the use of new techniques to diagnose these lesions accurately is emphasized. An algorithm that uses these techniques is proposed and will hopefully lead to improved patient management.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration with fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis in 104 patients with pancreatic mass

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Diagnosis of pancreatic malignancy is often based on cytological specimens collected by endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration (EUS FNA). Several factors can decrease sensitivity of EUS FNA for pancreatic cancer: well-differentiated tumors, pancreatitis, blood, necrosis and slides with low cellularity. The objective of this study is to report on the use of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis combined with cytology in pancreatic masses.

METHODS

EUS database and medical records of patients referred for EUS between January 2009 through august 2013 were reviewed. Data on cytology, FISH and surgical pathology were reviewed. Surgical pathology, death or extended clinical follow-up were used to verify correct diagnosis of malignancy. FISH performed using a four-set DNA probe for chromosomes 3, 7, 17, and band 9p21 in patients with inconclusive immediate cytology reading. Sensitivity of cytology and FISH were compared.

RESULTS

Study cohort comprised of 104 patients with FISH analysis on EUS FNA specimens of pancreatic masses (74 adenocarcinoma, 7 neuroendocrine tumor and 23 benign. Sensitivity of cytology and FISH for carcinoma was respectively: 62% and 81%. Sensitivity of FISH + cytology was 89%. The specificity of FISH and cytology was 100%. The most common abnormality on FISH was a 9p21 deletion seen in 43 patients (58%) followed by polysomy of 7 (46%). FISH detected malignancy in 23 patients with negative cytology.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with inconclusive immediate cytology reading, FISH is superior to cytology and improves overall sensitivity. The 9p21 deletion is the most common abnormality seen in this cohort of patients with pancreatic cancer.

The role of K-ras gene mutation analysis in EUS-guided FNA cytology specimens for the differential diagnosis of pancreatic solid masses: a meta-analysis of prospective studies

BACKGROUND

Differential diagnosis of pancreatic solid masses with EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) is still challenging in about 15% of cases. Mutation of the K-ras gene is present in over 75% of pancreatic adenocarcinomas (PADC).

OBJECTIVE

To assess the accuracy of K-ras gene mutation analysis for diagnosing PADC.

DESIGN

We systematically searched the electronic databases for relevant studies published. Data from selected studies underwent meta-analysis by use of a bivariate model providing a pooled value for sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, and summary receiver operating characteristic curve.

SETTING

Meta-analysis of 8 prospective studies.

PATIENTS

Total of 931 patients undergoing EUS-FNA for diagnosis of pancreatic solid masses.

INTERVENTION

K-ras mutation analysis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Diagnostic accuracy of K-ras mutation analysis and of combined diagnostic strategy by using EUS-FNA and K-ras mutation analysis in the diagnosis of PADC.

RESULTS

The pooled sensitivity of EUS-FNA for the differential diagnosis of PADC was 80.6%, and the specificity was 97%. Estimated sensitivity and specificity were 76.8% and 93.3% for K-ras gene analysis, respectively, and 88.7% and 92% for combined EUS-FNA plus K-ras mutation analysis. Overall, K-ras mutation testing applied to cases that were inconclusive by EUS-FNA reduced the false-negative rate by 55.6%, with a false-positive rate of 10.7%. Not repeating EUS-FNA in cases in which mutation testing of the K-ras gene is inconclusive would reduce the repeat-biopsy rate from 12.5% to 6.8%.

LIMITATIONS

Small number of studies and between-study heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

K-ras mutation analysis can be useful in the diagnostic work-up of pancreatic masses, in particular when tissue obtained by EUS-FNA is insufficient, and the diagnosis inconclusive.

Endoscopic approach to the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to examine the recent developments in the use of endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in the management of patients with pancreatic-biliary disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

The use of ERCP to guide selective placement of pancreatic sphincterotomes, stone extraction balloons, and stents enables clinicians to treat pancreatic sphincteric and ductal disorders. Pancreatic stones are a remediable cause of recurrent pancreatitis and small calculi can be easily removed. The gold standard for the diagnosis of pancreas divisum remains ERCP and sphincterotomy is highly effective in the treatment of relapsing pancreatitis. Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms are the most common pancreatic malignancy and ERCP, as well as EUS can identify and sample the solid and cystic lesions. Mural nodules can be detected and sampled effectively by EUS-fine needle aspiration (FNA). The sensitivity of EUS-FNA for pancreatic adenocarcinoma is excellent (more than 85%). Although cyst fluid carcinoembryonic antigen is a very good marker for the presence of a mucinous cystic lesion, it is not an indicator of malignancy.

SUMMARY

In summary, ERCP and EUS are important tools for the management of benign and malignant lesions of the pancreas.