Update on endoscopic ultrasound: how much for imaging, needling, or therapy?

Quality in pancreatic endoscopic ultrasound: what's new in 2020?

Quality assessment and improvement of an endoscopic service has emerged as a basic component of everyday gastrointestinal endoscopy. In order to ensure a high level of quality, a series of actions must be adopted when performing an endoscopic examination. Nonetheless, quality still remains a qualitative parameter; thus, implementation of specific indicators of quality is warranted. Irrespective of the nature of the endoscopic procedure, quality indicators usually refer to either structural properties of an endoscopy unit (e.g., examination availability), procedural factors (e.g., diagnostic accuracy), or patient outcomes (e.g., occurrence of an adverse event related to performance of an endoscopic procedure). Moreover, they are usually classified into 3 distinct sections, according to the phase of the procedure they relate to: i.e., before, during, and after the examination. The aim of this review is to present measures that need to be adopted in order to reach an optimal quality level during an endoscopic ultrasound examination and to provide up-to-date data regarding the respective quality indicators implicated.

Endoscopic ultrasonography for gastric submucosal lesions

Gastric submucosal tumors (SMTs) are a rather frequent finding, occurring in about 0.36% of routine upper GI-endoscopies. EUS has emerged as a reliable investigative procedure for evaluation of these lesions. Diagnostic Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has the ability to differentiate intramural tumors from extraluminal compressions and can also show the layer of origin of gastric SMTs. Tumors can be further characterized by their layer of origin, echo pattern and margin. EUS-risk criteria of their malignant potential are presented, although the emergence of EUS-guided fne needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has opened new indications for transmural tissue diagnosis and expanded the possibilities of EUS in SMTs of the stomach. Tissue diagnosis should address whether the SMT is a Gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) or another tumor type and evaluate the malignant potential of a given GIST. However, there seems to be a lack of data on the optimal strategy in SMTs suspected to be GISTs with a negative EUS-FNA tissue diagnosis. The current management strategies, as well as open questions regarding their treatment are also presented.

Endoscopic ultrasonography for gastric submucosal lesions

Gastric submucosal tumors (SMTs) are a rather frequent finding, occurring in about 0.36% of routine upper GI-endoscopies. EUS has emerged as a reliable investigative procedure for evaluation of these lesions. Diagnostic Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has the ability to differentiate intramural tumors from extraluminal compressions and can also show the layer of origin of gastric SMTs. Tumors can be further characterized by their layer of origin, echo pattern and margin. EUS-risk criteria of their malignant potential are presented, although the emergence of EUS-guided fne needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has opened new indications for transmural tissue diagnosis and expanded the possibilities of EUS in SMTs of the stomach. Tissue diagnosis should address whether the SMT is a Gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) or another tumor type and evaluate the malignant potential of a given GIST. However, there seems to be a lack of data on the optimal strategy in SMTs suspected to be GISTs with a negative EUS-FNA tissue diagnosis. The current management strategies, as well as open questions regarding their treatment are also presented.

Role of pancreatic endoscopic ultrasonography in 2010

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) was introduced 25 years ago aiming at better visualization of the pancreas compared to transabdominal ultrasonography. This update discusses the current evidence in 2010 concerning the role of EUS in the clinical management of patients with pancreatic disease. Major indications of EUS are: (1) Detection of common bile duct stones (e.g. in acute pancreatitis); (2) Detection of small exo- and endocrine pancreatic tumours; and (3) Performance of fine needle aspiration in pancreatic masses depending on therapeutic consequences. EUS seems to be less useful in cases of chronic pancreatitis and cystic pancreatic lesions. Moreover the constant improvement of computed tomography has limited the role of EUS in pancreatic cancer staging. On the other hand, new therapeutic options are available due to EUS, such as pancreatic cyst drainage and celiac plexus neurolysis, offering a new field in which new techniques may arise. So the main goal of this review is to determine the exact role of EUS in a number of pancreatic and biliary diseases.

The usefulness of endoscopic ultrasound in the differential diagnosis between benign and malignant gastric ulcer

OBJECTIVE

Gastric cancer can present as an exophytic lesion, diffuse infiltration of the gastric mucosa or even as a gastric ulcer, which can mimic a benign gastric ulcer. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the value of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in the differential diagnosis between benign and malignant gastric ulcer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

176 patients with gastric ulcer were divided into two groups on the basis of the cause of ulcer. Benign gastric ulcer group consisted of 102 patients and malignant gastric ulcer group consisted of 74 patients. All patients were examined by radial scanning echoendoscope (Olympus GF-UM 2000).

RESULTS

For diagnosis of malignant gastric ulcer, the sensitivity of EUS is 83.8%, the specificity is 62.7% and the accuracy is 71.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

The results demonstrate that EUS is a useful examination in differential diagnosis between benign and malignant gastric ulcer. However, it also has certain limitation which may be solved with more newer EUS applications and development.

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.