High-resolution endoscopic ultrasound imaging and the number of needle passages are significant factors predicting high yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for pancreatic solid masses without an on-site cytopathologist

Factors Influencing the Diagnostic Performance of Repeat Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration/Biopsy after the First Inconclusive Diagnosis of Pancreatic Solid Lesions

Background/Aims

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) is essential in diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs), but without rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), a repeat EUS-FNA/B is crucial for clarifying an inconclusive diagnosis. We aimed to evaluate factors associated with improved diagnostic performance of repeat EUS-FNA/B for initially inconclusive SPL diagnoses without ROSE.

Methods

Of 5,894 patients subjected to EUS-FNA/B, 237 (4.0%) with an initially inconclusive diagnosis of SPLs were retrospectively enrolled from five tertiary medical centers between January 2016 and June 2021. Diagnostic performance and procedural factors of EUS-FNA/B were analyzed.

Results

The diagnostic accuracies of first and repeat EUS-FNA/B were 96.2% and 67.6%, respectively. Of 237 patients with an inconclusive diagnosis from initial EUS-FNA/B, 150 were pathologically diagnosed after repeat EUS-FNA/B. In multivariate analysis of repeat EUS-FNA/B, tumor location (body/tail vs head: odds ratio [OR], 3.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.48 to 9.46), number of needle passes (≥4 vs ≤3: OR, 4.80; 95% CI, 1.44 to 15.99), needle type (FNB vs FNA: OR, 3.26; 95% CI, 1.44 to 7.36), needle size (22 gauge vs 19/20 gauge: OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.19 to 4.62), and suction method (suction vs others: OR, 5.19; 95% CI, 1.30 to 20.75) were associated with a significantly improved diagnostic performance.

Conclusions

Repeat EUS-FNA/B is essential for patients with an inconclusive EUS-FNA/B without ROSE. To improve the diagnostic performance of repeated EUS-FNA/B, it is recommended that 22-gauge FNB needles, ≥4 needle passes, and suction methods are used.

Endoscopic ultrasonography-fine needle aspiration of solid pancreatic masses: Do we need the fourth pass? A prospective study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is important for the differential diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions. Sample adequacy is related to the number of needle passes, and European guidelines recommend three to four needle passes with a standard EUS-FNA needle. We aimed to evaluate the optimal number of passes with standard EUS-FNA needles in solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

Patients with solid pancreatic masses without cystic component >20% on computed tomography scan, and without biliary metallic stents, or coagulation problems were included prospectively. Standard 22G needles were used (maximum four passes); each sample was paraffin-embedded and analyzed separately. Final diagnosis was established by EUS-FNA, repeat EUS-FNA, surgery, or follow-up.

RESULTS

Sixty-one of 65 patients were included. The final diagnoses were adenocarcinoma (n = 44, 72%), neuroendocrine tumor (NET) (n = 10, 16%), metastasis (n = 1, 4%) and nonmalignant lesion (n = 6, 10%). Immunohistochemical staining was possible in 17 cases. The diagnosis was established by the first pass in 62% of cases (n = 38), by the second in 15% (n = 9), by the third in 15% (n = 9), and by the fourth in 3% (n = 2). The diagnostic accuracy for all four passes compared to the first three passes was 95% vs 92% (P = .5). The contribution of the fourth pass was not different between adenocarcinoma and NET (2% vs 10%, respectively; P = .667).

CONCLUSION

Three passes with standard EUS-FNA was optimal for a specific diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses, regardless of the histological type of the lesion.

Analysis of the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration in patients with a suspected pancreatic malignancy

OBJECTIVES

to determine the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for suspected pancreatic malignancy. As well as to identify factors that affect the incidence of false-negative cases and evaluate the value of repeated EUS-FNA in patients with inconclusive results.

METHODS

we retrospectively evaluated the data of patients who underwent EUS-FNA due to a suspected pancreatic malignancy in our hospital from January 2015 to December 2016.

RESULTS

a total of 194 EUS-FNA procedures performed and 175 cases were analyzed. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy were 83.4% (151/181), 100% (13/13), 100% (151/151), 30.2% (13/43), and 84.5% (164/194), respectively. The combination of cytological and histological examination significantly increased the diagnostic performance compared to either method alone. The diagnostic sensitivity in metastatic tumors was significantly lower than that for adenocarcinoma. EUS-FNA performed using standard needles combined with the "slow-pull" technique had a lower sensitivity than other methods. According to the multivariate analysis, neither the combination of needle type and suction technique nor final diagnosis were independent factors that affected the diagnostic sensitivity. The sensitivity of repeated EUS-FNA was 50.0% (8/16). Definitive results after a repeated puncture were more likely for pancreatic body and tail masses, heterogeneous lesions and poorly demarcated lesions. However, the difference was not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNA was accurate for the evaluation of a suspected pancreatic malignancy. Metastatic tumors and the use of a standard needle in combination with the slow-pull technique may increase the incidence of false-negative results. Repeated EUS-FNA has limited value but should be considered for selected cases where the suspicion of malignancy persists.

Predictive Factors for Inaccurate Diagnosis of Swollen Lymph Nodes in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration

Background/Aims

This study aimed to identify the predictive factors for inaccurate endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) diagnosis of swollen lymph nodes without rapid on-site cytopathological evaluation.

Methods

Eighty-three consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNA for abdominal or mediastinal lymph nodes from January 2008 to June 2017 were included from a prospectively maintained EUS-FNA database and retrospectively reviewed. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of EUS-FNA for the detection of neoplastic diseases were calculated. Candidate factors for inaccurate diagnosis (lymph node size and location, needle type, puncture route, number of passes, and causative disease) were evaluated by comparison between accurately diagnosed cases and others.

Results

The final diagnosis of the punctured lymph node was classified as neoplastic (65 cases: a metastatic lymph node, malignant lymphoma, or Crow-Fukase syndrome) or non-neoplastic (18 cases: a reactive node or amyloidosis). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 83%, 94%, and 86%, respectively. On multivariate analyses, small size of the lymph node was the sole predictive factor for inaccurate EUS-FNA diagnosis with a significant difference (odds ratios, 19.8; 95% confidence intervals, 3.15–124; p=0.0015).

Conclusions

The lymph node size of <16 mm was the only independent factor associated with inaccurate EUS-FNA diagnosis of swollen lymph nodes.

What should be known prior to performing EUS exams? (Part II)

In “What should be known prior to performing EUS exams, Part I,” the authors discussed the need for clinical information and whether other imaging modalities are required before embarking EUS examinations. Herewith, we present part II which addresses some (technical) controversies how EUS is performed and discuss from different points of view providing the relevant evidence as available. (1) Does equipment design influence the complication rate? (2) Should we have a standardized screen orientation? (3) Radial EUS versus longitudinal (linear) EUS. (4) Should we search for incidental findings using EUS?

Endoscopic Ultrasound Imaging for Differential Diagnosis of Pancreatic Neoplasms: A 7-Year Study in a Chinese Population

Background

Currently, non-invasive methods for screening pancreatic cancer are lacking. There is little information regarding whether endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) imaging has a discriminatory ability for detecting benign and malignant pancreatic neoplasms. In this study, we retrospectively analyzed the demographic, clinicopathologic, and EUS features and follow-up information.

Material/Methods

A total of 58 patients with pancreatic neoplasms who underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) over a 7-year period (2009–2016) at our Department of Digestive Diseases were enrolled in our study.

Results

Of the 58 patients, 38 (65.5%) were diagnosed with malignant pancreatic neoplasms and 20 (34.5%) were benign ones. Of all the EUS findings, size of neoplasm (P=0.037) and regularity of margin (P=0.011) were significantly different between malignant and benign pancreatic neoplasms. However, age, sex, location, echo pattern, and dilation of main pancreatic duct did not show any significant difference (P>0.05). Size combined with regularity to detect malignant pancreatic neoplasms showed the following diagnostic values: sensitivity, 73.68%; specificity, 90%; positive predictive value, 76.60%; negative predictive value 81.82%; and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.887 (95% CI: 0.777–0.955, P<0.0001).

Conclusions

Our results showed the high value of EUS for differentiating malignant pancreatic neoplasms from benign ones. Due to this and its non-invasive nature, EUS should be the first-line method for detection of neoplastic pancreatic lesions.