Diagnostic efficacy of liquid-based cytology for solid pancreatic lesion samples obtained with endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration: Propensity score-matched analysis

Tissue processing of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration specimens from solid pancreatic lesions

Now that tissue cores can be obtained using fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles, the ways tissues are handled for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) are changing. Direct smear, touch smear of core tissues, and centrifugation have been used for cytological examinations, and liquid-based cytology (LBC), which allows immunostaining and genetic tests that use residual samples, is emerging as an alternative. We emphasize that liquid cytology (Cytospin™ cytology and LBC) is still important, because it enables the diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) when cancerous cells are scarce in specimens. Cell blocks are being replaced by core tissues obtained via FNB needles. Recent reports indicate that rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) is not necessary when FNB needles are used, and macroscopic on-site evaluation is used to evaluate specimen adequacy. Macroscopic findings of specimens are helpful in the diagnostic workup and for clarifying specimen-handling methods. In addition to the red strings and white cores observed in PDAC, mixed red and white strings, gray tissues, and gelatinous tissues are observed. Gray (necrotic) tissues and gelatinous (mucus) tissues are more suitable than histology for cell block or cytological processing. Tumor cells in neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are numerous in red strings but cannot be observed macroscopically. ROSE might thus be necessary for lesions that may be NETs. Core tissues can be used for genetic tests, such as those used for KRAS mutations and comprehensive genomic profiling. Cytological materials, including slides and LBC specimens, can also be genetic test materials.

Evaluation of the diagnostic efficacy of liquid-based cytology obtained via percutaneous ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic masses: a large tertiary center's 8-year experience

PURPOSE

There were limited data on the diagnostic efficacy of liquid-based cytology (LBC) for pancreatic tissues acquired by percutaneous ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (US-FNA). This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of LBC acquired via percutaneous US-FNA for pancreatic tumors compared with LBC combined with smear cytology (SC).

METHODS

A retrospective database search (January 2014 and February 2022) was performed for patients who underwent percutaneous US-FNA with both LBC and SC. Clinical and pathological data were collected from 298 patients; eventually, 251 cases met the inclusion criteria. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were compared. Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) was not available in all cases.

RESULTS

Based on the pancreaticobiliary cytology guidelines published by the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology, 224 (89.2%), 13 (5.2%) and 14 (5.6%) cases were diagnosed as malignant, pre-malignant and benign lesions, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of the LBC + SC (88.5%) was better than that of LBC (87.3%) but without statistical significance (P = 0.125). The SEN, SPE, PPV and NPV were 87.5%, 85.2%, 98.0% and 45.1%, respectively, in the LBC group and 88.8%, 85.2%, 98.0% and 47.9%, respectively, in the LBC + SC group. According to univariate and multivariate analyses, there were no factors have significant association with the diagnostic sensitivity of LBC.

CONCLUSIONS

LBC obtained via percutaneous US-FNA provides good diagnostic value for pancreatic lesions and there was no significant difference between the diagnostic accuracy of LBC and LBC + SC when ROSE was unavailable.

Diagnostic role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in abdominal lymphadenopathy of unknown etiology

Background

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is an established method for the evaluation of abdominal organ lesions. However, there are few studies on EUS-FNA for abdominal lymph node (LN) lesions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic role of EUS-FNA in isolated abdominal lymphadenopathy (LAP).

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed on patients with isolated abdominal LAP who underwent a EUS-FNA examination. The diagnosis was made based on cytology, histology, and immunohistochemical (IHC) studies. The area under curve (AUC) value, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy were calculated.

Results

A total of 99 patients were included in this study. The final diagnoses were metastatic tumor (n = 32), lymphoma (n = 32), tuberculosis (n = 17), sarcoidosis (n = 5), castleman's disease (n = 1), and reactive LAP (n = 12). The AUC value, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of malignant LAP were 0.9531, 90.6, 100, 100, 85.4, and 93.9%, respectively. For the diagnosis of lymphoma, the accuracy of EUS-FNA combined with IHC staining was 94.9%. Retroperitoneal LN enlargement is more commonly associated with lymphoma, while hepatic hilar LN enlargement predominantly suggests benign conditions or metastatic tumors. Malignant lymph nodes are more likely to be regular border, circular/quasi-circular, and fusion. Lymphomas are more likely to present with fusion and heterogeneous echogenicity than metastatic tumors.

Conclusion

EUS-FNA is a safe and effective method to diagnose isolated abdominal LAP.

A prospective randomized noninferiority trial comparing conventional smears and SurePathTM liquid-based cytology in endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of esophageal, gastric, and duodenal lesions

BACKGROUND

Several liquid-based cytology (LBC) methods are currently used, but the diagnostic accuracy of each method is not well known. We aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of SurePathTM LBC and conventional smear (CS) cytology in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) samples of esophageal, gastric, and duodenal lesions.

METHODS

As a prospective randomized noninferiority study, patients who needed EUS-FNA due to subepithelial mass in the upper gastrointestinal tract were randomly assigned 1:1 to the LBC and CS groups. Cytologic preparation was carried out using a crossover design where 1 method was used for the first needle-pass sample and another method was used for the second needle-pass sample. The primary outcome was to compare the diagnostic performance between LBC and CS using the final diagnosis as the gold standard.

RESULTS

A total of 87 patients were randomized and 60 patients were analyzed. There were no differences between LBC and CS in diagnostic accuracy (91.7% vs 86.7%, P = .380), sensitivity (97.7% vs 90.7%, P = .169), specificity (76.5% vs 76.5%, P > .99), negative predictive value (92.9% vs 76.5%, P = .225), or positive predictive value (91.3% vs 90.7%, P = .921). The background of LBC was less bloody than that of CSs (5.0% vs 53.3%, P < .001) and the sample preparation time of LBC was shorter than that of CSs (29 ± 7 seconds vs 90 ± 17 seconds, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

In the EUS-FNA of a subepithelial mass in the upper gastrointestinal tract, the diagnostic performance of LBC was not inferior to that of CS. The field of view was better in LBC, because the background was less bloody and necrotic. As LBC is more convenient to perform and takes shorter time, it is expected that it can replace the CS method for EUS-FNA samples.

Next-Generation Sequencing Analysis of Pancreatic Cancer Using Residual Liquid Cytology Specimens from Endoscopic Ultrasound—Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy: A Prospective Comparative Study with Tissue Specimens

This study evaluated the feasibility and clinical utility of liquid-based cytology (LBC) specimens via endoscopic ultrasound–guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for next-generation sequencing (NGS) of pancreatic cancer (PC). We prospectively evaluated the performance of DNA extraction and NGS using EUS-FNB samples obtained from PC. Thirty-three consecutive patients with PC who underwent EUS-FNB at our hospital were enrolled. DNA samples were obtained from 96.8% of the patients. When stratified with a variant allele frequency (VAF) > 10% tumor burden, the NGS success rate was 76.7% (n = 23) in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE), 83.3% (n = 25) in LBC, and 76.7% (n = 23) in frozen samples. The overall NGS success rate was 86.7% (n = 26) using FFPE, LBC, or frozen samples. The detection rates for the main mutated genes were as follows: 86.7% for KRAS, 73.3% for TP53, 66.7% for CDKN2A, 36.7% for SMAD4, and 16.7% for ARID1A. LBC had the highest median value of VAF (23.5%) for KRAS and TP53. PC mutation analysis using NGS was successfully performed using LBC compared with FFPE and frozen samples. This approach provides an alternative and affordable source of molecular testing materials.

Diagnostic yield of liquid-based cytology in serial pancreatic juice aspiration cytological examination

Objectives

Serial pancreatic juice aspiration cytological examination (SPACE) via endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is a useful diagnostic method for early‐stage pancreatic cancer, such as carcinoma in situ that are difficult to diagnose by endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine needle aspiration (EUS‐FNA). However, the diagnostic accuracy of SPACE is low, which is attributed to problems regarding specimen treatment. Hence, we evaluated the diagnostic efficacy of liquid‐based cytology (LBC) in pancreatic juice cytology for pancreatic cancer.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 24 patients with suspected pancreatic cancer that was difficult to diagnose by endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine needle aspiration who underwent SPACE using LBC between April 2017 and April 2021.

Results

The most common reason for performing SPACE was localized stenosis of the main pancreatic duct without a mass. Eleven patients were diagnosed with malignancy after surgical resection, nine of whom had pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Ten patients were diagnosed as benign after a follow‐up of more than 1 year. The nine cases of malignancy were diagnosed before surgical resection by SPACE using LBC, with a sensitivity of 81.8% and specificity of 100%. The overall diagnostic accuracy was 91.7%. A total of 152 LBC examinations were performed via SPACE, with an adequate sample collection rate of 88.9%. No adverse events, including acute pancreatitis, occurred after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

Conclusion

SPACE with LBC offers good diagnostic efficacy in patients with pancreatic cancer that is difficult to diagnose by endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine needle aspiration.

The usefulness of liquid-based cytology for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic masses

Liquid-based cytology (LBC) is used primarily for cervical cytology, although it is also used for analyzing liquid samples such as urine and ascites specimens, as well as fine needle aspiration material, such as those obtained from breast and thyroid. The usefulness of the LBC method for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) of solid pancreatic masses was recently reported. The LBC method can produce multiple pathological slides and can be applied to immunocytochemistry and genetic analyses. In this article, we review the usefulness of LBC for EUS-TA of solid pancreatic masses.

The Utility of Endoscopic-Ultrasonography-Guided Tissue Acquisition for Solid Pancreatic Lesions

Endoscopic-ultrasonography-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) has been widely performed for the definitive diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs). As the puncture needles, puncture techniques, and sample processing methods have improved, EUS-TA has shown higher diagnostic yields and safety. Recently, several therapeutic target genomic biomarkers have been clarified in pancreatic ductal carcinoma (PDAC). Although only a small proportion of patients with PDAC can benefit from precision medicine based on gene mutations at present, precision medicine will also be further developed for SPLs as more therapeutic target genomic biomarkers are identified. Advances in next-generation sequencing (NGS) techniques enable the examination of multiple genetic mutations in limited tissue samples. EUS-TA is also useful for NGS and will play a more important role in determining treatment strategies. In this review, we describe the utility of EUS-TA for SPLs.

Evaluation and diagnostic value of next-generation sequencing analysis of residual liquid-based cytology specimens of pancreatic masses

BACKGROUND

Liquid-based cytology (LBC) is a widely used method for processing specimens obtained by endoscopic biopsy. This study evaluated next-generation sequencing (NGS) analysis of LBC specimens to improve the diagnostic accuracy of pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

Upon the diagnosis of a suspected pancreatic mass, LBC residues were used retrospectively. The quantity and quality of DNA extracted from residual LBC samples were evaluated, and an NGS analysis targeting 6 genes (KRAS, GNAS, TP53, CDKN2A, SMAD4, and PIK3CA) was performed.

RESULTS

The library was prepared from LBC specimens taken from 52 cases: 44 were successful, and 8 preparations failed. An analysis of DNA quantity and quality suggested that the success or failure of NGS implementation depended on both properties. The final diagnosis was achieved by a combination of the pathological analysis of the surgical excision or biopsy material with clinical information. Among the 33 cases of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), KRAS, TP53, CDKN2A, and SMAD4 mutations were identified in 31 (94%), 16 (48%), 3 (9%), and 2 (6%), respectively. Among the 11 benign cases, only a KRAS mutation was identified in 1 case. On the basis of NGS results, 18 of 33 PDACs (55%) were classified as highly dysplastic or more, and 10 of 11 benign lesions were evaluated as nonmalignant, which was consistent with the final diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

NGS analysis using LBC specimens from which DNA of appropriate quantity and quality has been extracted could contribute to improving the assessment of pancreatic tumor malignancies and the application of molecular-targeted drugs.

Impact of LBC fixative type and fixation time on molecular analysis of pancreatic cancer cells: A comparative study of cell morphology, antigenicity and nucleic acids

Introduction:

Liquid-based cytology (LBC) has been widely used since 2000. Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) analysis of residual specimens in LBC fixative may also be performed for pancreatic cancer in the near future. We examined cell morphology, antigenicity and nucleic acids in pancreatic cancer cells at different fixation times using two types of LBC fixatives.

Methods:

PANC-1 cells were fixed in 1 ml CytoRich Red (CR), CytoRich Blue (CB), 95% ethanol (95% AL) or 10% neutral buffered formalin (10% NBF) and evaluated for cell area, antigenicity and nucleic acids with fixation times of 1 hour and 1, 3, 9, and 14 days. Antigenicity was evaluated by immunocytochemical staining for p53 and CK20, and nucleic acid fragmentation was assessed by real-time PCR.

Results:

There was no difference in total cell area between 1 hour and 14 day fixation times for the CR group, but the CB group showed cell contraction with 9 days fixation. In immunocytochemical staining, the CR group showed high p53 and CK20 positivity even after 14 days fixation. The CB group had a lower p53 positive rate than the CR group from 1 hour fixation. For nucleic acid fragmentation, Ct values for the CR group increased with fixation time. The CB group had consistently low Ct values.

Conclusion:

Different LBC fixatives and fixation time can have varying effects on cell morphology, antigenicity and nucleic acids in pancreatic cancer cells. Therefore, fixative type and fixation time should be considered for molecular testing on residual samples in LBC fixatives.

Comparison of smear cytology with liquid-based cytology in pancreatic lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a safe and accurate technique to confirm the diagnosis of pancreatic cancers. Recently, numerous studies comparing the diagnostic efficacy of smear cytology (SC) and liquid-based cytology (LBC) for pancreatic lesions yielded mixed results.

AIM

To compare and identify the better cytology method for EUS-FNA in pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane was undertaken through July 18, 2020. The primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity). Secondary outcomes included sample adequacy and post procedure complications. In addition, factors affecting diagnostic efficacy were discussed.

RESULTS

Data on a total of 1121 comparisons from 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. Pooled rates of sensitivity for SC and LBC were 78% (67%-87%) vs 75% (67%-81%), respectively. In any case, both SC and LBC exhibited a high specificity close to 100%. Inadequate samples more often appeared in LBC compared with SC. However, the LBC samples exhibited a better visual field than SC. Very few post procedure complications were observed.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggested that for EUS-FNA in pancreatic lesions (particularly solid lesions), SC with Rapid On-Site Evaluation represents a superior diagnostic technique. If Rapid On-Site Evaluation is unavailable, LBC may replace smears. The diagnostic accuracy of LBC depends on different LBC techniques.

Comparison of EUS-guided conventional smear and liquid-based cytology in pancreatic lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has limitations of inadequate sampling and false-negative results for malignancy. It has been performed using conventional smear (CS) cytology with rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) with reasonable diagnostic accuracy. An alternative to ROSE is liquid-based cytology (LBC). Commonly used LBC techniques include precipitation-based (SurePath™) and filtration-based (ThinPrep ^® , CellPrep ^® ). Data regarding the diagnostic efficacy of LBC compared with CS are limited. Methods  Multiple databases were searched through March 2020 to identify studies reporting diagnostic yield of EUS-guided CS and LBC in pancreatic lesions. Pooled diagnostic odds and rates of performance for the cytologic diagnoses of benign, suspicious, and malignant lesions were calculated. Diagnostic efficacy was evaluated by pooled rates of accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). Results  Nine studies with a total of 1308 patients were included in our final analysis. Pooled diagnostic odds of CS cytology were 1.69 (CI 1.02-2.79) and 0.39 (CI 0.19-0.8) for malignant lesions when compared to filtration-based and precipitation-based LBC techniques, respectively. For CS, precipitation-based and filtration-based LBC, pooled diagnostic accuracy was 79.7 %, 85.2 %, 77.3 %, sensitivity was 79.2 %, 83.6 %, 68.3 %, and specificity was 99.4 %, 99.5 %, 99.5 %, respectively. Conclusions  The precipitation-based LBC technique (SurePath™) had superior diagnostic odds for malignant pancreatic lesions compared with CS cytology in the absence of ROSE. It showed superior accuracy and sensitivity, but comparable specificity and PPV. Diagnostic odds of CS cytology in the absence of ROSE were superior to the filtration-based LBC technique (ThinPrep ^® , Cellprep ^® ) for diagnosing malignant pancreatic lesions.

Optimizing cytological specimens of EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions: A pilot study to the effect of a smear preparation training for endoscopy personnel on sample quality and accuracy

BACKGROUND

In the absence of rapid on-side pathological evaluation, endoscopy staff generally "smears" endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) specimens on a glass slide. As this technique is vulnerable to preparation artifacts, we assessed if its quality could be improved through a smear-preparation-training for endoscopy staff.

METHODS

In this prospective pilot study, 10 endosonographers and 12 endoscopy nurses from seven regional EUS-centers in the Netherlands were invited to participate in a EUS-FNA smear-preparation-training. Subsequently, post training slides derived from solid pancreatic lesions were compared to pre-training "control" slides. Primary outcome was to assess if the training positively affects smear quality and, consequently, diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions.

RESULTS

Participants collected and prepared 71 cases, mostly pancreatic head lesions (48%). Sixty-eight controls were selected from the pretraining period. The presence of artifacts was comparable for smears performed before and after training (76% vs 82%, P = .36). Likewise, smear cellularity (≥50% target cells) before and after training did not differ (44% (30/68) vs 49% (35/71), P = .48). Similar, no difference in diagnostic accuracy for malignancy was detected (P = .10).

CONCLUSION

In this pilot EUS-FNA smear-preparation-training for endoscopy personnel, smear quality and diagnostic accuracy were not improved after the training. Based on these results, we plan to further study other training programs and possibilities.

Diagnostic value of liquid-based cytology and smear cytology in pancreatic endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Smear cytology (SC) using endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the established and traditional choice for diagnosing pancreatic lesions. Liquid-based cytology (LBC) is a novel alternative cytological method, however, the comparative diagnostic efficacy of LBC remains inconclusive.

AIM

To examine the diagnostic efficacy of LBC and SC for pancreatic specimens obtained through EUS-FNA via a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. The numbers of true positives, false positives, true negatives, and false negatives for each cytological test (LBC and CS) were extracted from the included studies. The pooled sensitivity and specificity and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated, and the AUC was compared by Tukey's multiple comparisons test. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies II tool.

RESULTS

A total of 1656 patients in eight studies were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity and the AUC for LBC were 0.76 (95%CI: 0.72-0.79), 1.00 (95%CI: 0.98-1.00), and 0.9174, respectively, for diagnosing pancreatic lesions. The pooled estimates for SC were as follows: Sensitivity, 0.68 (95%CI: 0.64-0.71); specificity, 0.99 (95%CI: 0.96-100.00); and AUC, 0.9714. Similarly, the corresponding values for LBC combined with SC were 0.87 (95%CI: 0.84-0.90), 0.99 (95%CI: 0.96-1.00), and 0.9894. Tukey’s multiple comparisons test was used to compare the sensitivities and AUCs of the three diagnostic methods; statistically significant differences were found between the three methods, and LBC combined with SC was superior to both LBC (P < 0.05) and SC (P < 0.05). The pooled sensitivity and AUC did not change significantly in the sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSION

LBC may be sensitive than SC in the cytological diagnosis of pancreatic lesions, however, the superior diagnostic performance of their combination emphasizes their integrated usage in the clinical evaluation of pancreatic lesions.

Comparison between Conventional Smear and Liquid-Based Preparation in Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology of Pancreatic Lesions

The present study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy between conventional smear (CS) and liquid-based preparation (LBP) in endoscopic ultrasonography-fine needle aspiration cytology (EUS-FNAC) of pancreatic lesions. Using 31 eligible studies, the diagnostic accuracy of cytologic examination in CS and LBP was evaluated through a conventional meta-analysis and diagnostic test accuracy review. Overall concordance rates were 82.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 79.8–85.5%) and 94.0% (95% CI, 84.4–97.8%) in CS and LBP, respectively. CS with rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) showed a higher concordance rate than CS without ROSE. In CS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 89.8% (95% CI, 85.2–93.1%) and 95.0% (95% CI, 90.0–97.6%), respectively. The diagnostic odds ratio (OR) and area under curve (AUC) of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve were 90.32 (95% CI, 43.85–147.11) and 0.945, respectively. In LBP, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 80.9% (95% CI, 69.7–88.7%) and 99.9% (95% CI, 1.5–100.0%), respectively. The diagnostic OR and AUC of the SROC curve were 57.21 (95% CI, 23.61–138.64) and 0.939, respectively. Higher concordance rates were found in CS with ROSE and LBP in EUS-FNAC of pancreatic lesions. Regardless of the cytologic preparation method, EUS-FNAC is a useful and accurate diagnostic tool for pancreatic lesions.

Comparison of liquid-based cytology with conventional smear cytology for EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: a prospective randomized noninferiority study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There are limited data on the efficacy of liquid-based cytology (LBC) for EUS-guided FNA specimens. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of LBC for solid pancreatic neoplasms compared with conventional smears (CSs).

METHODS

In this randomized, crossover, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned (1:1) patients with suspected pancreatic cancer to the LBC group or the CS group. Aspirates from the first needle pass were processed by one method, aspirates from the second pass by the other method, and specimens from the last pass were processed as core biopsy samples. The primary endpoint was the diagnostic efficacy of each method, with the final diagnosis as the gold standard. A noninferiority margin of -10% was assumed.

RESULTS

Of 170 randomized patients, 165 were classified as malignant and 5 as benign. Unsatisfactory samples were less frequent in the LBC group (1.78%) compared with the CS group (5.33%). The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of LBC versus CS were 88.0% versus 83.8% (P = .276), 87.7% versus 83.2% (P = .256), 100% versus 100% (P = .999), 100% versus 100% (P = .999), and 16.7% versus 16.1% (P = .953), respectively. A bloody background was significantly more frequent in the CS group (CS, 85.2%; LBC, 1.8%; P < .001), whereas the nuclear features were similar for both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnostic usefulness of LBC was comparable with that of CS. The cytomorphologic features did not differ significantly between the 2 methods, and the reduced bloody backgrounds allowed better visibility in the LBC method. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03606148.).

Comparison of smear cytology and liquid-based cytology in EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic lesions: experience from a large tertiary center

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Studies comparing the diagnostic efficacy of liquid-based cytology (LBC) and smear cytology (SC) of pancreatic tissue sampling obtained via EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) are still insufficient, mainly because results were controversial. We compared the diagnostic efficiency of LBC and SC of EUS-FNA of pancreatic lesions in one of the largest tertiary hospitals in China.

METHODS

A retrospective database search (January 2015 to January 2019) was performed for patients who underwent EUS-FNA with both LBC and SC. Demographic, cytologic, and endosonographic data were collected from 819 patients; 514 cases met the inclusion criteria. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were compared. Rapid on-site evaluation was not available in all cases.

RESULTS

Three hundred eighty-five cases (74.90%) had confirmed malignancy, and 40 cases (7.78%) confirmed benign neoplasm. Adequate tissue sampling rates showed no significant difference between the 2 groups. The sensitivity, accuracy, and negative predictive value (NPV) of LBC were higher than those of SC with statistical significance (71.4% vs 55.1%, 76.1% vs 61.6%, and 40.6% vs 27.7%, respectively). The sensitivity, accuracy, and NPV of combined SC and LBC were higher than those of LBC alone with statistical significance (83.9% vs 71.4%, 86.5% vs 76.1%, and 56.8% vs 40.6%, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed that pancreatic neck/body/tail lesions (P = .003), solid lesions (P < .001), 22-gauge needle size (P < .001), and number of needle passage >3 (P = .041) were associated with higher diagnostic sensitivity in all participants using LBC, whereas number of needle passage >3 (P = .017) was associated with higher diagnostic sensitivity using SC.

CONCLUSIONS

LBC was more accurate and sensitive than SC in EUS-FNA of pancreatic lesions with higher NPV when rapid on-site evaluation is unavailable. Pancreatic neck/body/tail lesions, solid lesions, 22-gauge needle, and more than 3 passes were associated with higher sensitivity when using LBC. Performing more than 3 passes is associated with higher sensitivity when using SC.

Diagnostic yield and agreement on fine-needle specimens from solid pancreatic lesions : comparing the smear technique to liquid-based cytology

Background and study aims  The traditional "smear technique" for processing and assessing endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is sensitive to artifacts. Processing and evaluation of specimens collected in a liquid medium, liquid-based cytology (LBC) may be a solution. We compared the diagnostic value of EUS-FNA smears to LBC in pancreatic solid lesions in the absence of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE). Patients and methods  Consecutive patients who required EUS-FNA of a solid pancreatic lesion were included in seven hospitals in the Netherlands and followed for at least 12 months. Specimens from the first pass were split into two smears and a vial for LBC (using ThinPrep and/or Cell block). Smear and LBC were compared in terms of diagnostic accuracy for malignancy, sample quality, and diagnostic agreement between three cytopathologists. Results  Diagnostic accuracy for malignancy was higher for LBC (82 % (58/71)) than for smear (66 % (47/71), P  = 0.04), but did not differ when smears were compared to ThinPrep (71 % (30/42), P  = 0.56) or Cell block (62 % (39/63), P  = 0.61) individually. Artifacts were less often present in ThinPrep (57 % (24/42), P  = 0.02) or Cell block samples (40 % (25/63), P  < 0.001) than smears (76 % (54/71)). Agreement on malignancy was equally good for smears and LBC (ĸ = 0.71 versus ĸ = 0.70, P  = 0.98), but lower for ThinPrep (ĸ = 0.26, P  = 0.01) than smears. Conclusion  After a single pass, LBC provides higher diagnostic accuracy than the conventional smear technique for EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions in the absence of ROSE. Therefore, LBC, may be an alternative to the conventional smear technique, especially in centers lacking ROSE.

A "Back Light System" for Identification of Sites for Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration in Solid Pancreatic Masses: A Prospective, Randomized Study with a Crossover Design

Background/Aims

We applied a back light system (BLS) with a magnifying glass to improve the ability to assess the adequacy of specimen sampling using endosonography. We conducted this study to evaluate the efficacy of the BLS in sampling of specimens by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of solid pancreatic masses.

Methods

This was a prospective, randomized, crossover, single-center clinical trial. An endosonographer evaluated adequacy on gross visual inspection and identified whitish specimen sampling sites with and without the BLS according to a randomization sequence in the first and second passes with a 25-G needle. On cytological evaluation, the presence of well-defined pancreatic ductal epithelium was evaluated by a cytopathologist who was blinded to any clinical information.

Results

A total of 80 consecutive patients were eligible during the study period. Adequacy was observed for 52 specimens (65%) with the BLS and 54 (68%) without the BLS (p=0.88). In assessment of specimen adequacy on gross examination, only fair agreement was observed both with and without BLS (kappa score 0.40 and 0.29, respectively).

Conclusions

The BLS did not influence the ability to identify specimen sampling sites or reliable assessment of specimen site adequacy using gross visual inspection.

Diagnostic Efficacy of Liquid-Based Cytology in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration for Pancreatic Mass Lesions During the Learning Curve: A Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVES

The diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) cytology widely varies depending on the treatment method used. Liquid-based cytology (LBC) has gained popularity in the gynecological field because of its efficacy in collection of target cells and simplicity in the manipulation of specimens. Since the introduction of EUS-FNA at our institution, we have used LBC for the diagnosis of pancreatic mass lesions. This study aims to investigate the diagnostic efficacy of EUS-FNA with LBC in patients with pancreatic mass lesions during the learning curve for EUS-FNA.

METHODS

In this study, we retrospectively enrolled 222 patients with pancreatic mass lesions who were diagnosed using EUS-FNA with LBC between 2011 and 2016. The diagnostic yields for EUS-FNA with LBC for pancreatic mass lesions were evaluated.

RESULTS

The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for malignancy were found to be 93.9%, 95.1%, and 94.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that EUS-FNA with LBC for specimens provides good diagnostic efficacy in patients with pancreatic mass lesions even during the learning curve for EUS-FNA.

Diagnostic efficacy of smear plus liquid-based cytology for EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions: A propensity-matched study

Liquid-based cytology (LBC) is a thin-layer slide preparation procedure that was developed to overcome the cell crowding and contamination associated with smear cytology (SC). The present study compared diagnostic efficacy between SC alone and SC combined with LBC (SLBC) using endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) samples of pancreatic lesions.We retrospectively analyzed data derived from 311 consecutive patients. Specimens obtained via EUS-FNA from 179 patients between December 2011 and May 2016 were analyzed by SC, and those obtained from 132 patients between June 2016 and October 2017 were analyzed by SLBC. The 2 groups were compared in terms of adequate sample rate, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity using propensity score matching.SC and SLBC were compared using propensity score-matching in 204 patients (n = 102 per group). The adequate sample rate did not differ significantly between SLBC (100%) and SC (99.0%, P = 1). Diagnostic sensitivity, negative predictive value and accuracy were better for SLBC than for SC in terms of cytological (93.2% vs 67.4%, 68.4% vs 23.1%, and 94.1% vs 69.6%, P < .01 each, respectively) and cytohistological (95.5% vs 81.5%, 76.5% vs 34.6%, and 96.1% vs 82.4%, P < .01, P = .02, and P < .01, respectively) analyses.SLBC improves the diagnostic efficacy of EUS-FNA for pancreatic lesions compared to LBC.

In memoriam: Fine-needle aspiration, birth: Fine-needle biopsy: The changing trend in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Fine-needle aspiration (FNA) cytology has been the preferred technique for procuring tissue at endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) procedures for the past 25 years. To overcome some of the limitations of FNA cytology, fine-needle biopsy (FNB) has been recently developed to yield histological tissue. Main objective was to compare the diagnostic yield of FNB compared to FNA for both onsite and offsite specimen assessment.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted at a single tertiary referral center to evaluate the outcomes of FNA and FNB over a 4-year period. EUS-guided tissue sampling was carried out using 22- or 25-G FNA needles from 2014 to 2015, and 22-G FNB needle was used from 2016 to 2017.

RESULTS

Of 3020 patients undergoing EUS-guided sampling of solid mass lesions (pancreatic masses 71.3%, other lesions 28.7%), FNA was carried out in 68.9% and FNB in 31.1%. Median number of passes required for diagnostic adequacy on rapid onsite evaluation was significantly lower for FNB compared to FNA (1 [IQR: 1-2] vs 2 [IQR 1-3], P < 0.001). Diagnostic yield on cell block was also significantly superior with FNB compared to FNA (92.3 vs 71.1%, P < 0.001). The superior performance of FNB over FNA was observed for both pancreatic (P < 0.001) and non-pancreatic lesions (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Given these promising findings, in the future, EUS-guided FNB will likely be the preferred technique for sampling of solid mass lesions.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration with liquid-based cytology preparation in the diagnosis of metastatic small-cell carcinoma in the pancreas

Pancreatic metastasis is extremely rare, particularly from small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Studies on the role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) with liquid-based cytology (LBC) in the diagnosis of metastatic small-cell carcinoma in the pancreas have been rarely conducted. We report herein a case of pancreatic metastasis from SCLC diagnosed using EUS-FNA with LBC (ThinPrep). A 71-year-old man presented with chief complaints of hemoptysis and jaundice over the past 1 month. Lung & pancreas tumors with multiple liver nodules were detected on computed tomography. The aspirated material from the pancreas using EUS-FNA was prepared as a cytologic specimen with ThinPrep method, which revealed scattered and clustered "small blue cells" with scant cytoplasm and stippled chromatin with frequent apoptotic bodies. Immunocytochemical staining of the cellblock material revealed strong positivity for CD56 and thyroid transcription factor-1. Endobronchial biopsy for lung mass revealed nests of small, round, blue tumor cells with hyperchromatic nuclei showing salt and pepper chromatin, scant cytoplasm, and brisk mitotic activity. Therefore, a diagnosis of metastatic small-cell carcinoma to the pancreas with an extensive stage was finally made.

Comparing endoscopic ultrasound-guided core biopsies of solid pancreatic and extrapancreatic lesions: a large single-operator experience with a new fine-needle biopsy needle

Background

There has been a paradigm shift in tertiary centers from endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle aspiration to EUS fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for tissue acquisition in solid lesions. While data exists on the use of FNB needles in solid pancreatic lesions, very few studies looked at the utility of FNB in solid extrapancreatic lesions. Our aim was to study and compare the technical success and feasibility of EUS-FNB in evaluating solid pancreatic and extrapancreatic lesions using a novel FNB needle.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with solid masses or lesions needing EUS-guided core biopsy at the University of Utah between May 2016 and November 2017. All core biopsies were obtained using an Acquire™Fine Needle Biopsy Device (Boston Scientific Corporation, Natick MA, USA). Rapid on-site evaluation was performed by a board-certified cytopathologist in all cases.

Results

One hundred thirty-two patients (87 male) were included. Ninety-nine (73.3%) of the lesions were located in the pancreas. All needle sizes (19 G, 22 G and 25 G) had similar yield. The mean number of passes needed was 2.28±0.7. EUS-FNB of the pancreatic lesions had a diagnostic accuracy of 97.9%, comparable to the 97.2% for the biopsied extra-pancreatic lesions. Only 3 of 132 cases needed re-biopsy at a later date. No immediate adverse events were reported.

Conclusion

In this large, single-center study, EUS-FNB with a novel Franseen-design needle was proven to be an effective modality for tissue acquisition from both pancreatic and extrapancreatic solid lesions.

K-ras mutation analysis of residual liquid-based cytology specimens from endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration improves cell block diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Background

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) technology is widely used for the diagnosis of pancreatic masses. However, in some cases, inadequate tissue volume or difficulty of morphological diagnosis are constraining factors for adequate cytopathological evaluation. K-ras mutation is the most frequently acquired genetic abnormality, occurring in approximately 90% of all patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). In the present study, the clinical utility of residual liquid-based cytology (LBC) specimens obtained using EUS-FNA for K-ras mutation analysis was evaluated.

Methods

In this study, 81 patients with pancreatic lesions were examined. The cell block (CB) specimens separated from EUS-FNA samples were morphologically evaluated by hematoxylin–eosin (HE) staining. Final diagnoses were confirmed by CB specimens, surgical resection specimens, diagnostic imaging, and clinical follow-up. Genomic DNA of residual LBC specimens stored at 4°C for several months were extracted and assessed for K-ras mutations using a fluorescence resonance energy transfer-based preferential homoduplex formation assay.

Results

K-ras mutation analysis using residual LBC samples was successful in all cases. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CB examination alone were 77.4%, 100%, and 81.3%, respectively, and those of the combination of CB examination and K-ras mutation analysis were 90.3%, 92.3%, and 90.7%, respectively. Furthermore, K-ras mutations were detected in 8 (57.1%) of 14 PDAC samples for which the CB results were inconclusive.

Conclusion

These findings suggest that K-ras mutation analysis using residual LBC specimens improves the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration: What variables influence diagnostic yield?

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) plays an important role in the diagnosis of various lesions. We sought to determine factors that influence the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA, specifically, the presence of a cytopathologist, FNA site, and the endoscopist's skill.

METHODS

The data on cytopathologist's availability, duration of procedure, number of passes made, and diagnostic material for cell block (CB) preparation was collected over an 18 months period.

RESULTS

230 specimens (218 patients) were obtained from pancreas (114), lymph node (64), submucosal lesions of the gastrointestinal tract (27), liver (8), and miscellaneous (17) sites. The results were classified as informative (77.8%) and non-informative (NI) (22.2%). The NI rate was significantly high, when a cytopathologist was absent (P = .0008). As the likelihood of cytopathologist's presence increased from 35.8% to 82.9%, the CB quality increased (P < .0001). In the absence of a cytopathologist, the likelihood of NI result increased more than 2-fold (P = .03) and of an inadequate CB increased 3-fold (P < .0001). The more experienced endoscopist "C" (compared to the less experienced "A + B") was less likely to get inadequate material (40.5% vs. 66.3%) (P = .0001).

CONCLUSION

The diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA is significantly related to the presence of an on-site cytopathologist and endoscopist's skill in procuring diagnostic material.