A prospective randomized study of the difference in diagnostic yield between endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUSFNA) needles with and without a side port in pancreatic masses

Avoid non-diagnostic EUS-FNA: a DNN model as a possible gatekeeper to distinguish pancreatic lesions prone to inconclusive biopsy

OBJECTIVE

This work aimed to explore the utility of CT radiomics with machine learning for distinguishing the pancreatic lesions prone to non-diagnostic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA).

METHODS

498 patients with pancreatic EUS-FNA were retrospectively reviewed [Development cohort: 147 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC); Validation cohort: 37 PDAC]. Pancreatic lesions not PDAC were also tested exploratively. Radiomics extracted from contrast-enhanced CT was integrated with deep neural networks (DNN) after dimension reduction. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, and decision curve analysis (DCA) were performed for model evaluation. And, the explainability of the DNN model was analyzed by integrated gradients.

RESULTS

The DNN model was effective in distinguishing PDAC lesions prone to non-diagnostic EUS-FNA (Development cohort: AUC = 0.821, 95% CI: 0.742-0.900; Validation cohort: AUC = 0.745, 95% CI: 0.534-0.956). In all cohorts, the DNN model showed better utility than the logistic model based on traditional lesion characteristics with NRI >0 (p < 0.05). And, the DNN model had net benefits of 21.6% at the risk threshold of 0.60 in the validation cohort. As for the model explainability, gray-level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) features contributed the most averagely and the first-order features were the most important in the sum attribution.

CONCLUSION

The CT radiomics-based DNN model can be a useful auxiliary tool for distinguishing the pancreatic lesions prone to nondiagnostic EUS-FNA and provide alerts for endoscopists preoperatively to reduce unnecessary EUS-FNA.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

This is the first investigation into the utility of CT radiomics-based machine learning in avoiding non-diagnostic EUS-FNA for patients with pancreatic masses and providing potential pre-operative assistance for endoscopists.

Diagnostic performance of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition by EUS-FNA versus EUS-FNB for solid pancreatic mass without ROSE: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) is an established diagnostic procedure for solid pancreatic mass. However, the diagnostic yield between fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (FNB) remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic yields between FNA and FNB using conventional FNA and Franseen needles of the same size 22-gauge needle, in patients with solid pancreatic mass who underwent EUS-TA without rapid onsite cytopathology evaluation (ROSE).

METHODS

All cases of EUS-TA by FNA or FNB for solid pancreatic mass between January 2017 and October 2020 in a single-centre university hospital were retrospectively reviewed. All procedures were performed without an onsite cytologist. Before the endoscopist finished the procedure, macroscopic onsite evaluation (MOSE) was confirmed. The diagnostic yield and the average number of needle passes between FNB and FNA were then compared.

RESULTS

A total of 151 patients (FNA, n = 77; FNB, n = 74) with solid pancreatic mass detected by cross-sectional imaging underwent EUS-TA. The mean age was 62.3 ± 12.8 years, with 88 (58.3%) males. Age, sex, mass location, tumour size and disease stage from imaging were not significantly different between the two groups. The diagnostic performance was higher in EUS-FNB (94.6%) than in EUS-FNA (89.6%). The mean number of needle passes was clearly fewer in FNB than in FNA (2.8 vs. 3.8, p < 0.001). The total procedure time was shorter in FNB (34.7 min) than in FNA (41 min). The adverse event rate between FNB and FNA was not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnostic yield of solid pancreatic mass was higher in FNB using the Franseen needle than in FNA using the conventional FNA needle in a centre where ROSE is unavailable, without serious adverse event. In addition, FNB had fewer needle passes and shorter total procedure time.

[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)

The evolving role of EUS-guided tissue acquisition

The introduction of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration into clinical practice was a pivotal moment for diagnostic gastrointestinal endoscopy. It facilitates the ease of tissue acquisition from previously inaccessible sites. The performance characteristics of cytological diagnosis are excellent. However, there remain areas of inadequacies. These include procedural inefficiencies such as the need for rapid on-site cytological evaluation or macroscopic on-site evaluation, the crucial role of histology for diagnosis in specific conditions, the issue of sampling errors and the need for repeat procedures, and the shift towards personalized medicine, which requires histology, immunohistochemical studies, and molecular analysis. The original Trucut biopsy needle had been cumbersome to use, but the recent introduction of newer-generation biopsy needles has transformed the landscape, such that there is now a greater focus on tissue acquisition for histological assessment. Concomitant technological advances of endoscopic ultrasound processors enabled higher-resolution imaging, and facilitated image enhancement using contrast harmonic endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic ultrasound elastography. These techniques can be used as an adjunct to guide tissue acquisition in challenging situations. There is ongoing research on the use of artificial intelligence to complement diagnostic endoscopic ultrasound and the early data are promising. Artificial intelligence may be especially important to guide clinical decision-making if biopsy results are nondiagnostic.

Does ProCore Fine-Needle Biopsy Really Improve the Clinical Outcome of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Sampling of Pancreatic Masses?

INTRODUCTION

Fine-needle biopsy (FNB) has been suggested to provide better histological samples as compared to endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). However, studies comparing EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for pancreatic lesions reported contrasting results. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical performance of EUS-FNA versus EUS-FNB with the ProCore needle for the investigation of pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

We reviewed all patients undergoing EUS for the investigation of pancreatic lesions from August 2012 to September 2018. From August 2012 to January 2015, all procedures were performed with standard needles, whereas from February 2015 to September 2018, the use of ProCore needles had been introduced. Data on diagnostic accuracy, number of needle passes, and/or adverse events were collected.

RESULTS

Three hundred twenty-four patients were retrospectively evaluated: 190 (58.6%) underwent EUS-FNA and 134 (41.4%) EUS-FNB. Both EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB showed high diagnostic accuracy for malignancy (94% [95% CI: 89-97%] vs. 94% [95% CI: 89-98%]). Notably, there were no differences between EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio, histological core tissue retrieval, adverse events, or number of needle passes. However, subgroup analysis noted a higher diagnostic accuracy for 25G EUS-FNB as compared to 25G EUS-FNA (85.7 vs. 55.5%; *p = 0.023).

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNB with the ProCore needle is safe and feasible in pancreatic lesions. The ProCore needle did not provide any advantage in terms of diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and/or negative likelihood ratio, or acquisition of the core specimen; therefore, its routine application is not supported.

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.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses: the fine needle aspiration or fine needle biopsy dilemma. Is the best needle yet to come?

Fine needle aspiration (FNA) is currently the standard of care for sampling pancreatic solid masses by using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). The accuracy of the technique is reported to be high, especially if coupled with the rapid on site evaluation (ROSE), and it has a high safety profile. However, FNA presents some limitations, such as the small amount of tissue that can be collected and the inability of obtaining a core tissue with intact histological architecture, which is relevant to perform immunohistochemical analysis, molecular profiling and, therefore, targeted therapies. Moreover, the presence of the ROSE by an expert cytopathologist is very important to maximize the diagnostic yield of FNA technique; however, it is not widely available, especially in small centers. Hence, the introduction of EUS fine needle biopsy (FNB) with a new generation of needles, which show a high safety profile too and a satisfying diagnostic accuracy even in the absence of ROSE, could be the key to overcome the limitations of FNA. However, FNB has not yet shown diagnostic superiority over FNA. Considering all the technical aspects of FNA and FNB, the different types of needle currently available, comparisons in term of diagnostic yield, and the different techniques of sampling, a tailored approach should be used in order to determine the needle that is most appropriate for the different specific scenarios.

Diagnostic Endoscopic Ultrasound: Technique, Current Status and Future Directions

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is now well established as an important tool in clinical practice. From purely diagnostic imaging, it has progressed to include tissue acquisition, which provided the basis for therapeutic procedures. Even as interventional EUS developed, there has been ongoing progress in EUS diagnostic capabilities due to improved imaging systems, better needles for tissue acquisition and development of enhanced imaging functions such as contrast harmonic EUS (CHEUS) and EUS elastography. EUS is well established for differentiation of subepithelial lesions, for T-staging of luminal gastrointestinal and pancreaticobiliary malignancies, for differentiation of benign pancreaticobiliary disorders and for diagnostic tissue acquisition, which can be achieved by EUS-guided fine needle aspiration or by EUS-guided fine needle biopsy using dedicated biopsy needles. This review briefly describes the technique of performing EUS and then discusses its clinical utility in terms of gastrointestinal cancer staging, the evaluation of pancreaticobiliary disorders and tissue acquisition. Enhanced imaging techniques such as CHEUS and EUS elastography are briefly reviewed.

A comparison of the efficiency of 22G versus 25G needles in EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic mass assessment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Our aim in this study was to compare the efficiency of 25G versus 22G needles in diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions by EUS-FNA. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. Studies were identified in five databases using an extensive search strategy. Only randomized trials comparing 22G and 25G needles were included. The results were analyzed by fixed and random effects. A total of 504 studies were found in the search, among which 4 randomized studies were selected for inclusion in the analysis. A total of 462 patients were evaluated (233: 25G needle/229: 22G needle). The diagnostic sensitivity was 93% for the 25G needle and 91% for the 22G needle. The specificity of the 25G needle was 87%, and that of the 22G needle was 83%. The positive likelihood ratio was 4.57 for the 25G needle and 4.26 for the 22G needle. The area under the sROC curve for the 25G needle was 0.9705, and it was 0.9795 for the 22G needle, with no statistically significant difference between them (p=0.497). Based on randomized studies, this meta-analysis did not demonstrate a significant difference between the 22G and 25G needles used during EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions.

Randomized trial comparing a side-port needle and standard needle for EUS-guided histology of pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

A side-port needle has been developed to improve diagnostic accuracy by obtaining more cellular material during EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA). We compared the accuracy rate of histology and the quality of histologic specimens from 22-gauge (G) side-port and standard needles for EUS-FNA of a solid pancreatic mass in a multicenter, prospective, randomized control trial.

METHODS

Between January 2013 and September 2013, 160 consecutive patients with a suspected solid pancreatic mass at 5 tertiary referral centers were enrolled. Patients were randomized to the 22G side-port needle or 22G standard needle group. The primary endpoint was the diagnostic accuracy of histology. Secondary endpoints were the quality of the histologic specimen (quantity of tissue, degree of GI contamination, and amount of blood).

RESULTS

An analysis of 154 patients (side-port, 76, vs standard, 78) was performed. Six patients were excluded because of no pancreatic mass on EUS. There was no significant difference in the rate of diagnostic accuracy of histology (side-port, 87% [66/76], vs standard, 82% [64/78]; P = .51). Samples that enabled histologic interpretation were obtained in 64% (47/73) and 43% (33/77) of patients from the side-port and standard groups, respectively (P = .009). No significant difference was seen in the degree of GI contamination and amount of blood between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in the accuracy rate of histology between needle types. The side-port needle was superior to the standard needle in terms of obtaining samples that enabled histologic interpretation.