Prospective evaluation of the optimal number of 25-gauge needle passes for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions in the absence of an onsite cytopathologist

Advances and efficacy in specimen handling for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration and biopsy: A comprehensive review

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration and biopsy have significantly evolved since they offer a minimally invasive approach for obtaining pathological specimens from lesions adjacent to or within the intestine. This paper reviews advancements in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration and biopsy techniques and devices, emphasizing the importance of handling specimens for diagnostic accuracy. Innovations of fine needle biopsy needles with features like side holes and Franseen shapes have enhanced histological sampling capabilities. Techniques for specimen handling, including rapid on-site evaluation and macroscopic on-site evaluation, play pivotal roles in assessing sample adequacy, thereby influencing diagnostic outcomes. The utility of artificial intelligence in augmenting rapid on-site evaluation and macroscopic on-site evaluation, although still in experimental stages, presents a promising avenue for improving procedural efficiency and diagnostic precision. The choice of specimen handling technique is dependent on various factors including endoscopist preference, procedure objectives, and available resources, underscoring the need for a comprehensive understanding of each method's characteristics to optimize diagnostic efficacy and procedural safety.

A multicenter comparative study of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy using a Franseen needle versus conventional endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration to evaluate microsatellite instability in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Immune checkpoint blockade has recently been reported to be effective in treating microsatellite instability (MSI)-high tumors. Therefore, sufficient sampling of histological specimens is necessary in cases of unresectable pancreatic cancer (UR-PC). This multicenter study investigated the efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) using a Franseen needle for MSI evaluation in patients with UR-PC.

METHODS

A total of 89 patients with UR-PC who underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) or EUS-FNB using 22-G needles at three hospitals in Japan (2018-2021) were enrolled. Fifty-six of these patients (FNB 23 and FNA 33) were followed up or evaluated for MSI. Patient characteristics, UR-PC data, and procedural outcomes were compared between patients who underwent EUS-FNB and those who underwent EUS-FNA.

RESULTS

No significant difference in terms of sufficient tissue acquisition for histology was observed between patients who underwent EUS-FNB and those who underwent EUS-FNA. MSI evaluation was possible significantly more with tissue samples obtained using EUS-FNB than with tissue samples obtained using EUS-FNA (82.6% [19/23] vs. 45.5% [15/33], respectively; p<0.01). In the multivariate analysis, EUS-FNB was the only significant factor influencing the possibility of MSI evaluation.

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNB using a Franseen needle is desirable for ensuring sufficient tissue acquisition for MSI evaluation.

Two Needle Passes Achieve Similar Diagnostic Yield Compared to Three Passes Regarding Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration

Current guidelines advocate 3–4 passes with a fine-needle aspiration (FNA) to achieve high rates of diagnostic samples for malignancy when performing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions, in the absence of on-site cytologic evaluation. The aim of this study is to compare 2 vs. 3 needle passes in EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic lesions in terms of incremental diagnostic yield and to identify factors associated with the procedure’s outcome. In this retrospective study, 2 passes of EUS-FNA were found to have similar diagnostic yield compared to 3 passes for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses, suggesting that there might be no significant incremental tissue yield when 3 passes are performed.

IS THE NEW PROCORE 20G DOUBLE FORWARD-BEVEL NEEDLE CAPABLE TO OBTAIN BETTER HISTOLOGICAL SAMPLES BY ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND FOR DIAGNOSING SOLID PANCREATIC LESIONS?

BACKGROUND

Fine needle biopsy (FNB) histological samples by endoscopic ultrasound. It is important to obtain representative histological samples of solid biliopancreatic lesions without a clear indication for resection. The role of new needles in such task is yet to be determined.

AIM

To compare performance assessment between 20G double fine needle biopsy (FNB) and conventional 22G fine needle aspiration (FNA) needles for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biopsy.

METHODS

This prospective study examined 20 patients who underwent the random puncture of solid pancreatic lesions with both needles and the analysis of tissue samples by a single pathologist.

RESULTS

The ProCore 20G FNB needle provided more adequate tissue samples (16 vs. 9, p=0.039) with better cellularity quantitative scores (11 vs. 5, p=0.002) and larger diameter of the histological sample (1.51±1.3 mm vs. 0.94±0.55 mm, p=0.032) than the 22G needle. The technical success, puncture difficulty, and sample bleeding were similar between groups. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy were 88.9%, 100%, and 90% and 77.8%, 100%, and 78.9% for the 20G and 22G needles, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The samples obtained with the ProCore 20G FNB showed better histological parameters; although there was no difference in the diagnostic performance between the two needles, these findings may improve pathologist performance.

The usefulness of EUS-FNA with contrast-enhanced harmonic imaging of solid pancreatic lesions: A prospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Few studies have investigated endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with contrast-enhanced harmonic imaging (EUS-FNA-CHI) for diagnosing and adequately sampling pancreatic lesions. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of EUS-FNA-CHI compared with that of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with fundamental B mode imaging (EUS-FNA-FBI) for diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with solid pancreatic lesions were enrolled prospectively (UMIN 000024467). Only samples obtained during the first needle pass (EUS-FNA-FBI) and second needle pass (EUS-FNA-CHI) were used to compare the accuracy rate for diagnosing pancreatic lesions and rate of adequate sampling for histological evaluation. In patients with hypo-enhancing lesions on contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS (CH-EUS), subgroup analyses were performed. Patients were classified into those with a heterogeneous area in the whole lesion (whole group), those with a heterogeneous area with a non-enhancing area (non-enhancing group), and those with a heterogeneous area with a homogeneous area (homogeneous group).

RESULTS

Ninety-three patients were enrolled. Overall, the rates of adequate sampling and sensitivity were significantly higher with EUS-FNA-CHI than with EUS-FNA-FBI (84.9% vs 68.8%, P = 0.003 and 76.5% vs 58.8%, P = 0.011, respectively). The adequate sampling rate and sensitivity were significantly higher with EUS-FNA-CHI than with EUS-FNA-FBI when the mass was > 15 mm. In the non-enhancing and homogeneous groups, the adequate sampling rate and sensitivity were significantly higher with EUS-FNA-CHI than with EUS-FNA-FBI.

CONCLUSIONS

CH-EUS enables improved observation of pancreatic lesions and helps identify the target of EUS-FNA among different pathological areas of the lesions particularly of > 15 mm.

Anticoagulation and antiplatelet management in gastrointestinal endoscopy: A review of current evidence

The role of endoscopic procedures, in both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes is continually expanding and evolving rapidly. In this context, endoscopists will encounter patients prescribed on anticoagulant and antiplatelet medications frequently. This poses an increased risk of intraprocedural and delayed gastrointestinal bleeding. Thus, there is now greater importance on optimal pre, peri and post-operative management of anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet therapy to minimise the risk of post-procedural bleeding, without increasing the risk of a thromboembolic event as a consequence of therapy interruption. Currently, there are position statements and guidelines from the major gastroenterology societies. These are available to assist endoscopists with an evidenced-based systematic approach to anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet management in endoscopic procedures, to ensure optimal patient safety. However, since the publication of these guidelines, there is emerging evidence not previously considered in the recommendations that may warrant changes to our current clinical practices. Most notably and divergent from current position statements, is a growing concern regarding the use of heparin bridging therapy during warfarin cessation and its associated risk of increased bleeding, suggestive that this practice should be avoided. In addition, there is emerging evidence that anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet therapy may be safe to be continued in cold snare polypectomy for small polyps (< 10 mm).

Suction versus slow-pull for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic tumors: a prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Suction (S) is commonly used to improve cell acquisition during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). Slow-pull (SP) sampling is another technique that might procure good quality specimens with less bloodiness. We aimed to determine if SP improves the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses.

METHODS

Patients with pancreatic solid masses were randomized to four needle passes with both techniques in an alternate fashion. Sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values were calculated. Cellularity and bloodiness of cytological samples were assessed and compared according to the technique.

RESULTS

Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of suction vs. SP were 95.2% vs. 92.3%; 100% vs. 100; 95.7% vs. 93%, respectively. As to the association of methods, they were 95.6, 100 and 96%, respectively. Positive predictive values for S and SP were 100%. There was no difference in diagnostic yield between S and SP (p = 0.344). Cellularity of samples obtained with SP and Suction were equivalent in both smear evaluation (p = 0.119) and cell-block (0.980). Bloodiness of SP and suction techniques were similar as well.

CONCLUSIONS

S and SP techniques provide equivalent sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. Association of methods seems to improve diagnostic yield. Suction does not increase the bloodiness of samples compared to slow-pull.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy Using 22-Gauge Franseen Needle for the Histological Diagnosis of Solid Lesions: A Multicenter Prospective Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Recently, a novel 22-gauge needle with three symmetric needle points and crown-shaped cutting heels, known as a Franseen needle, has been developed for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB).

AIM

To assess the histological material acquisition rate and histological diagnostic capability of the 22-gauge Franseen needle (AC22) during EUS-FNB for solid lesions.

METHODS

This study was designed as an open-label, multicenter, prospective, single-arm pilot study of EUS-FNB using AC22 for the diagnosis of solid lesions. Three passes of FNB using AC22 were performed for all lesions. The primary endpoints were the histological material acquisition rate and histological diagnostic capability. The secondary endpoints were the technical success rate, quality of histological samples, number of passes for diagnosis, and safety.

RESULTS

Between September 2017 and May 2018, 75 patients were enrolled. The final diagnoses were malignancy in 65 and benign in 10. Three passes of FNB were technically successful in all patients. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for the malignancy of histological analyses were 92.3% (60/65), 100% (10/10), and 93.3% (70/75), respectively, for the first pass and 95.4% (62/65), 100% (10/10), and 96% (72/75), respectively, for combined three passes. The diagnostic yield plateaued after the second pass. Sufficient tissue samples for histological interpretation were obtained in 96% (72/75) and 100% (75/75) patients for the single pass and combined three passes, respectively. Two patients (2.7%) developed mild pancreatitis as an adverse event.

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNB using AC22 showed high histological diagnostic capability with the high first pass yield.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY

UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN ID: UMIN000036641).

The diagnostic performance of novel torque technique for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition in solid pancreatic lesions: A prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Although several techniques for improved outcomes in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition have been reported, the reported diagnostic yield for pancreatic masses is not satisfactory. The effects of novel technique (torque method) on twisting the scope in the clockwise or counterclockwise direction during EUS-fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) are unknown. We compared the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNB for pancreatic masses using the torque and standard techniques.

METHODS

From April 20, 2017, to March 16, 2018, 124 consecutive patients with solid pancreatic mass who underwent EUS-FNB using either the torque or standard technique were randomly assigned. Three passes were made with each technique, comprising 10 uniform to-and-fro movements on each pass with a 10-mL syringe suction. The primary outcome was procurement rates of histologic cores, and the secondary outcomes were the diagnostic performance and technical failure.

RESULTS

There were significant differences between the groups regarding the procurement rate of the histologic core and optimal quality core (standard vs torque: 87.1% [54/62] vs 98.4% [61/62], P = 0.038 and 79.0% [49/62] vs 93.5% [58/62], P = 0.037). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive values of EUS-FNB were 85.45%, 100%, 100%, and 46.67%, respectively, for the standard technique and 96.49%, 100%, 100%, and 71.43%, respectively, for the torque technique. The diagnostic accuracies of the standard and torque techniques were 87.10% and 96.77%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The torque technique for EUS-FNB offered acceptable technical feasibility and superior diagnostic performance, including optimal histologic core procurement, compared with the standard technique.

Can the wet suction technique change the efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for diagnosing autoimmune pancreatitis type 1? A prospective single-arm study

BACKGROUND

Other than surgery, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the only procedure for histologically diagnosing autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP). However, adequate specimens are difficult to obtain. Recently, more adequate specimens were reported to be obtained with EUS-FNA with a wet suction technique (WEST) than with conventional EUS-FNA.

AIM

To histologically diagnose AIP by EUS-FNA with a WEST.

METHODS

Eleven patients with possible type 1 AIP between February 2016 and August 2018 underwent EUS-FNA with a WEST (WEST group), with four punctures by 19 or 22 G needles. As a historical control, 23 type 1 AIP patients who underwent no fewer than four punctures with 19 or 22 G needles were enrolled (DRY group). Patient characteristics and histological findings were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Three histopathological factors according to the International Consensus Diagnostic Criteria were significantly greater in the WEST group than the DRY group [lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate without granulocytic infiltration: 9 (81.8%) vs 6 (26.1%), P = 0.003, storiform fibrosis: 5 (45.5%) vs 1 (4.3%), P = 0.008, abundant (> 10 cells/HPF) IgG4-positive cells: 7 (63.6%) vs 5 (21.7%), P = 0.026]. Level 1 or level 2 histopathological findings were observed more often in the WEST group than in the DRY group [8 (72.7%) vs 3 (13.0%), P = 0.001].

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNA with a WEST was more successful than standard EUS-FNA in histologically diagnosing AIP.

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.

It is necessary to exam bottom and top slide smears of EUS-FNA for pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite many reports on the diagnostic yield of cytology from endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), inter-slide differences are unknown. This prospective study aimed to compare diagnostic yield and cellular characteristics of bottom slides (BS) and top slides (TS) from EUS-FNA cytology performed without an on-site cytopathologist.

METHODS

In patients with suspected pancreatic cancer on previous imaging explorations, a single endoscopist performed EUS-FNA and obtained 2 sets of cytology slide (8 BS and 8 TS), 1 cellblock slide, and 1 biopsy slide. Both slide sets were randomly assigned. A cytopathologist with more than 10 years of expertise in pancreatic cytopathology blindly inspected and compared two slide sets.

RESULTS

In total, 73 specimens [42 head (57.5%), 16 body (21.9%), and 15 tail (20.5%)] were acquired for final analysis. Seventy-one cases were finally diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. The sensitivity and specificity of BS were 80.3% and 100.0%; and of TS 78.9% and 100.0%, respectively. In analyzing inter-slide difference, 66 cases (90.4%) showed consistent results between BS and TS. However, seven (9.6%) were positive only in one slide sets (4 BS and 3 TS). The proportions of specimens more than moderate and high cellularity were 75.3% and 60.3% in both slide sets (P> 0.99), and the proportion of artifact-free sets were 50.7%, and 52.1% for the BS and TS, respectively (P= 0.869).

CONCLUSIONS

Although BS and TS exhibited highly consistent diagnostic yields in cytologic smears from EUS-FNA, the proportion of inter-slide discordance is clinically considerable. Both slide sets need to be examined if there is no on-site cytopathologist.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy of Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration (FNA) Using 22-gauge and 25-gauge Needles for Pancreatic Masses

BACKGROUND Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has been used for detecting pancreatic cancer. We aimed to compare the diagnostic yield of both 22-gauge and 25-gauge EUS-FNA for the detection of pancreatic cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS We searched the electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library up to June 13, 2017. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. RESULTS We analyzed data from 1824 patients from 16 included studies. The estimated pooled data for the 22-gauge needles reported sensitivity was 0.89 (0.83-0.93), specificity was 1.00 (0.74-1.00), positive LR was 485.28 (2.55-92 000) and negative LR was 0.11 (0.07-0.17). Results for the 25-gauge needles showed the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative LR was 0.90 (0.86-0.93), 0.99 (0.89-1.00), 59.53 (7.99-443.66), and 0.10 (0.07-0.14), respectively. The 25-gauge needle had significantly higher pooled sensitivity than the 22-gauge needle (0.90 vs. 0.87, χ²=5.26, P=0.02) while there was no difference in the pooled specificity (0.96 vs. 0.98, χ²=2.12, P=0.15). The quality of most studies was assessed favorable using QUADAS-2 (quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-2). CONCLUSIONS Our findings revealed that the 25-gauge EUS-FNA used for pancreatic lesions could have a higher diagnostic yield than using 22-gauge EUS-FNA. Nevertheless, well-designed prospective studies recruiting more patients are needed.

Cost-effectiveness of rapid on-site evaluation of the adequacy of FNA cytology samples performed by nonpathologists

BACKGROUND

Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) can increase adequacy and reduce needle passes in fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) procedures. However, ROSE increases the cost of FNAC. Costs may be reduced if ROSE is performed by an alternate evaluator (AE), such as a cytotechnologist (CT), endoscopist, or pulmonologist, rather than a cytopathologist (CP). Studies have shown that AEs can perform ROSE with high accuracy but are generally not as accurate as CPs. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of AEs on the cost-effectiveness of ROSE.

METHODS

A cost model, based on a mathematical sampling model, was developed. The cost model was used to compare the impact of the evaluator type on overall costs.

RESULTS

CTs were likely to be cost-effective for simple procedures and were unlikely to be cost-effective for only the most complex procedures. The model demonstrated the tradeoff in cost savings from using AEs and the potential costs associated with repeated procedures due to the lower accuracy of AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effectiveness of AEs is context-dependent. AEs can be cost-effective even if they are less accurate than CPs. AEs are likely to be cost-effective in most contexts.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for pancreatic cancer

Since the development of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in the early 1990s, its application has been extended to various diseases. For pancreatic cancer (PC), EUS-FNA can obtain specimens from the tumor itself with fewer complications than other methods. EUS-FNA can also be more useful for TNM staging than other imaging modalities. Furthermore, EUS-FNA can contribute to precision medicine by obtaining tissue for immunohistochemical or genetic studies from primary or metastatic sites of diseases. This paper will focus on the role of EUS-FNA in PC.

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.

Onsite evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration: the endosonographer, the cytotechnologist and the cytopathologist

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has become an essential tool in the management of multiple diseases. Its accuracy is related to different aspects of the technique, one of the most important being the experience and interaction of the endosonographer and pathologist. Certain studies over the past years have highlighted the importance of having rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) of samples obtained at the time of EUS-FNA. We have reviewed the role of ROSE, performed by the same endosonographer, a cytotechnologist and an expert cytopathologist. The available data suggest that ROSE (either by the endosonographer, the cytotechnologist, or the cytopathologist) improves sample adequacy and diagnostic yield, with the best option to have ROSE performed by an expert cytopathologist. However, if non-ROSE accuracy is already very high, any improvement is harder to achieve.

Comparison of cytological and histological preparations in the diagnosis of pancreatic malignancies using endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has become a crucial diagnostic technique for pancreatic malignancies. The specimen obtained by EUS-FNA can be prepared for either cytological or histological examinations. This study was to compare diagnostic performance of cytological and histological preparations using EUS-FNA in the same lesions when pancreatic malignancies were suspected.

METHODS

One hundred and eighteen patients who underwent EUS-FNA for suspected pancreatic malignancies were consecutively enrolled. All procedures were conducted by a single echoendoscopist under the same conditions. Four adequate preparations were obtained by 22-gauge needles with 20 to-and-fro movements for each pass. The 4 preparations included 2 cytological and 2 histological specimens. The pathologic reviews of all specimens were conducted independently by a single experienced cytopathologist. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the 2 preparations were compared.

RESULTS

The enrolled patients consisted of 62 males (52.5%), with the mean age of 64.6±10.5 years. Surgery was performed in 23 (19.5%) patients. One hundred and sixteen (98.3%) lesions were classified as malignant, while 2 (1.7%) were benign. Sensitivity of cytology and histology were 87.9% and 81.9%, respectively, with no significant difference (P=0.190). Accuracy was also not significantly different. Cytological preparation was more sensitive when the size of lesion was <3 cm (86.7% vs 68.9%, P=0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggested that the diagnostic performances of cytological and histological preparations are not significantly different for the diagnosis of pancreatic malignancies. However, cytological preparation might be more sensitive for pancreatic lesions <3 cm.

Contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography in gallbladder cancer and pancreatic cancer

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) plays a major role in diagnosing gallbladder (GB) cancer and pancreatic cancer (PC). In cases of GB cancer, EUS allows for precise observations of morphology and wall layers. However, proficiency is required for the morphologic diagnosis of GB tumors. Therefore, contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS (CH-EUS) began to be performed to diagnose GB lesions. CH-EUS enables real-time observation of the hemodynamics of GB tumors. The enhanced patterns generated by CH-EUS improve precision in the diagnosis of such tumors.PC appears as a hypoechoic mass on EUS. However, distinguishing between PC and mass-forming pancreatitis or focal autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is difficult via conventional EUS. CH-EUS allows for differentiating among these diseases (PC is hypoenhanced and heterogeneously enhanced, pancreatitis is isoenhanced, and a pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor is hyperenhanced). EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) also contributes to pathological diagnoses of pancreatic lesions. However, certain PC patients cannot be diagnosed via EUS-FNA. PC is heterogeneously enhanced on CH-EUS, and unenhanced regions have been reported to be areas of fibrosis or necrosis. CH-EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (CH-EUS-FNA) permits puncturing of the enhanced area while avoiding necrotic and fibrotic regions. Moreover, as CH-EUS findings have been quantitatively analyzed, a time-intensity curve (TIC) has become usable for diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions. CH-EUS-related techniques have been developed and increasingly utilized in the pancreaticobiliary area.

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.

Novel quantitative analysis of the S100P protein combined with endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration cytology in the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Specimens obtained with endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) are often tiny and fragmented leading to an inconclusive and doubtful diagnosis. To overcome the limitations of EUS-FNA in the cytological diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PCA), we evaluated whether quantification of the S100P protein combined with EUS-FNA reliably discriminated between PCA and benign pancreatic lesions (BPL). A high sensitivity sandwich ELISA for S100P protein was developed to aid in the detection of PCA in small samples obtained using EUS-FNA. After experimental verification of the sandwich ELISA with cell lines and mouse xenograft tumors, 27 consecutive patients with suspicious PCA who underwent EUS-FNA were enrolled in the present study examining the combination of S100P protein assessment and EUS-FNA cytology. The concentration of the S100P protein in EUS-FNA samples from the PCA group was significantly higher than that in the BPL group (P=0.04). Using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, we determined the S100P protein cut-off value for PCA diagnosis to be 99.8 ng/ml. The S100P protein levels combined with EUS-FNA cytology to detect PCA showed the following diagnostic values: sensitivity, 94.4% [95% confidence interval (CI), 75.7-99.1%]; specificity, 88.9% (95% CI, 51.8-99.7%); positive predictive value, 94.4% (95% CI, 72.7-99.9%); negative predictive value, 88.9% (95% CI, 51.8-99.7%); accuracy, 92.6% (95% CI, 75.7‑99.1%); and area under the curve, 0.92 (95% CI, 0.79-1.00). We established a novel quantitative analysis for the S100P protein in EUS-FNA samples which, when combined with EUS-FNA cytology, could provide promising results for the reliable diagnosis of PCA.

Comparison of two different size needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions: A meta-analysis of prospective controlled trials

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aimed to provide a pooled analysis of prospective controlled trials comparing the diagnostic accuracy of 22-G and 25-G needles on endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS-FNA) of the solid pancreatic mass.

METHODS

We established a rigorous study protocol according to Cochrane Collaboration recommendations. We systematically searched the PubMed and Embase databases to identify articles to include in the meta-analysis. Sensitivity, specificity, and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated for 22-G and 25-G needles of individual studies from the contingency tables.

RESULTS

Eleven prospective controlled trials included a total of 837 patients (412 with 22-G vs 425 with 25-G). Our outcomes revealed that 25-G needles (92% [95% CI, 89%-95%]) have higher sensitivity than 22-G needles (88% [95% CI, 84%-91%]) on solid pancreatic mass EUS-FNA (P = 0.046). However, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups in overall diagnostic specificity (P = 0.842). The pooled positive and negative likelihood ratio of the 22-G needle were 12.61 (95% CI, 5.65-28.14) and 0.16 (95% CI, 0.12-0.21), respectively. The pooled positive likelihood ratio was 12.61 (95% CI, 5.65-28.14), and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.16 (95% CI, 0.12-0.21) for the 22-G needle. The pooled positive likelihood ratio was 8.44 (95% CI, 3.87-18.42), and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.13 (95% CI, 0.09-0.18) for the 25-G needle. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.97 for the 22-G needle and 0.96 for the 25-G needle.

CONCLUSION

Compared to the study of 22-G EUS-FNA needles, our study showed that 25-G needles have superior sensitivity in the evaluation of solid pancreatic lesions by EUS-FNA.

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

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the accurate diagnostic method for pancreatic masses and its accuracy is affected by various FNA methods and EUS equipment. Therefore, we aimed to elucidate the instrumental and methodologic factors for determining the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid masses without an on-site cytopathology evaluation.We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 260 patients (265 pancreatic solid masses) who underwent EUS-FNA. We compared historical conventional EUS groups with high-resolution imaging devices and finally analyzed various factors affecting EUS-FNA accuracy.In total, 265 pancreatic solid masses of 260 patients were included in this study. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid masses without on-site cytopathology evaluation were 83.4%, 81.8%, 100.0%, 100.0%, and 34.3%, respectively. In comparison with conventional image group, high-resolution image group showed the increased accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of EUS-FNA (71.3% vs 92.7%, 68.9% vs 91.9%, and 100% vs 100%, respectively). On the multivariate analysis with various instrumental and methodologic factors, high-resolution imaging (P = 0.040, odds ratio = 3.28) and 3 or more needle passes (P = 0.039, odds ratio = 2.41) were important factors affecting diagnostic yield of pancreatic solid masses.High-resolution imaging and 3 or more passes were the most significant factors influencing diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA in patients with pancreatic solid masses without an on-site cytopathologist.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided techniques for diagnosing pancreatic mass lesions: Can we do better?

The diagnostic approach to a possible pancreatic mass lesion relies first upon various non-invasive imaging modalities, including computed tomography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging techniques. Once a suspect lesion has been identified, tissue acquisition for characterization of the lesion is often paramount in developing an individualized therapeutic approach. Given the high prevalence and mortality associated with pancreatic cancer, an ideal approach to diagnosing pancreatic mass lesions would be safe, highly sensitive, and reproducible across various practice settings. Tools, in addition to radiologic imaging, currently employed in the initial evaluation of a patient with a pancreatic mass lesion include serum tumor markers, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). EUS-FNA has grown to become the gold standard in tissue diagnosis of pancreatic lesions.

Efforts to improve the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic tumors

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is widely used to obtain a definitive diagnosis of pancreatic tumors. Good results have been reported for its diagnostic accuracy, with high sensitivity and specificity of around 90%; however, technological developments and adaptations to improve it still further are currently underway. The endosonographic technique can be improved when several tips and tricks useful to overcome challenges of EUS-FNA are known. This review provides various techniques and equipment for improvement in the diagnostic accuracy in EUS-FNA.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration of Pancreatic Lesions: A Systematic Review of Technical and Procedural Variables

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition has emerged over the last decade as an invaluable diagnostic tool in approaching the different pancreatic lesions. Given the safety and minimal invasiveness of this approach combined with the high diagnostic yield, it became the standard of care when dealing with different pancreatic pathologies. However, some variables regarding this procedure remain not fully understood. These can influence the diagnostic yield of the procedure and include the presence of the on-site cytopathologist, the type and size of the needle used as well as obtaining aspiration versus core biopsy, the number of passes and the sampling technique, and the role of suction and stylet use among others. We performed a comprehensive literature search using PubMed, Google Scholar, and Embase for studies that assessed these variables. Eligible studies were analyzed using several parameters such as technique and procedure, with the aim of reviewing results from an evidence-based standpoint.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid lesions on clopidogrel may not be a high-risk procedure for bleeding: A case series

The major gastrointestinal endoscopy society guidelines list endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) as a high-risk procedure for bleeding. However, there are no studies evaluating the risk of bleeding for EUS-FNA of solid organs while patients continue to take clopidogrel. The aim of the present case series was to evaluate the rate of bleeding in a cohort of patients who underwent EUS-FNA for solid lesions while on clopidogrel. Bleeding was measured at the time of the procedure by bleeding seen on EUS, endoscopic visualization of blood, or drop in hemoglobin after the procedure. From 2013 to 2015, 10 patients were identified for this case series. Lesions that underwent EUS-FNA included gastric and rectal subepithelial lesions, pancreas masses, and liver masses. No immediate or delayed bleeding was observed in any of the patients. EUS-FNA of solid lesions on clopidogrel may not be a high-risk procedure for bleeding. Larger studies are needed to confirm this finding.

Endoscopic ultrasonography guided-fine needle aspiration for the diagnosis of solid pancreaticobiliary lesions: Clinical aspects to improve the diagnosis

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has been applied to pancreaticobiliary lesions since the 1990s and is in widespread use throughout the world today. We used this method to confirm the pathological evidence of the pancreaticobiliary lesions and to perform suitable therapies. Complications of EUS-FNA are quite rare, but some of them are severe. Operators should master conventional EUS observation and experience a minimum of 20-30 cases of supervised EUS-FNA on non-pancreatic and pancreatic lesions before attempting solo EUS-FNA. Studies conducted on pancreaticobiliary EUS-FNA have focused on selection of suitable instruments (e.g., needle selection) and sampling techniques (e.g., fanning method, suction level, with or without a stylet, optimum number of passes). Today, the diagnostic ability of EUS-FNA is still improving; the detection of pancreatic cancer (PC) currently has a sensitivity of 90%-95% and specificity of 95%-100%. In addition to PC, a variety of rare pancreatic tumors can be discriminated by conducting immunohistochemistry on the FNA materials. A flexible, large caliber needle has been used to obtain a large piece of tissue, which can provide sufficient histological information to be helpful in classifying benign pancreatic lesions. EUS-FNA can supply high diagnostic yields even for biliary lesions or peri-pancreaticobiliary lymph nodes. This review focuses on the clinical aspects of EUS-FNA in the pancreaticobiliary field, with the aim of providing information that can enable more accurate and efficient diagnosis.

When Is Rapid On-Site Evaluation Cost-Effective for Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsy?

Background

Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) can improve adequacy rates of fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) but increases operational costs. The performance of ROSE relative to fixed sampling depends on many factors. It is not clear when ROSE is less costly than sampling with a fixed number of needle passes. The objective of this study was to determine the conditions under which ROSE is less costly than fixed sampling.

Methods

Cost comparison of sampling with and without ROSE using mathematical modeling. Models were based on a societal perspective and used a mechanistic, micro-costing approach. Sampling policies (ROSE, fixed) were compared using the difference in total expected costs per case. Scenarios were based on procedure complexity (palpation-guided or image-guided), adequacy rates (low, high) and sampling protocols (stopping criteria for ROSE and fixed sampling). One-way, probabilistic, and scenario-based sensitivity analysis was performed to determine which variables had the greatest influence on the cost difference.

Results

ROSE is favored relative to fixed sampling under the following conditions: (1) the cytologist is accurate, (2) the total variable cost ($/hr) is low, (3) fixed costs ($/procedure) are high, (4) the setup time is long, (5) the time between needle passes for ROSE is low, (6) when the per-pass adequacy rate is low, and (7) ROSE stops after observing one adequate sample. The model is most sensitive to variation in the fixed cost, the per-pass adequacy rate, and the time per needle pass with ROSE.

Conclusions

Mathematical modeling can be used to predict the difference in cost between sampling with and without ROSE.

Endoscopic Ultrasound in the Diagnosis and Staging of Pancreatic Cancer

Pancreatic cancer is one of the digestive cancers with the poorest prognosis, so an early and correct diagnosis is of utmost importance. With the development of new therapeutic options an accurate staging is essential. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has a major role in all stages of the management of these patients. EUS has a high accuracy in the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma and the possibility to perform fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (FNA/FNB) increases the diagnostic yield of EUS. There is still no consensus on the several technical aspects of FNA, namely on the rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), the diameter and type of needle, the number of passes and the use of stylet and suction. Contrast-enhanced EUS (CE-EUS) and EUS elastography (EUS-E) have been used in recent years as an adjunct to EUS-FNA. Given the higher sensitivity of these techniques a negative cytology by EUS-FNA should not exclude malignancy when CE-EUS and/or EUS-E are suggestive of pancreatic neoplasia. EUS remains one of the main methods in the staging of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, namely to further evaluate patients with non-metastatic disease that appears resectable on initial imaging. EUS is crucial for an accurate preoperative evaluation of pancreatic cancer which is essential to choose the correct management strategy. The possibility to obtain samples from suspicious lesions or lymph nodes, by means of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration as well as the use of contrast-enhanced and elastography, makes EUS an ideal modality for the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer.

Conventional versus contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration for diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions: A prospective randomized trial

OBJECTIVES

Contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography (CEH-EUS) has been used to diagnose solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs). The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of CEH-EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (CEH-EUS-FNA) compared with that of conventional EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of SPLs.

METHODS

Forty patients with solid pancreatic lesions who visited Fukushima Medical University between September 2013 and June 2014 were recruited for this prospective study. Twenty patients underwent CEH-EUS-FNA, and 20 patients underwent conventional EUS-FNA. The sampling rate, sensitivity, accuracy, and number of needle passes required to obtain sufficient samples were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics, sampling rate, accuracy, and sensitivity were not significantly different between the two groups. The final diagnosis of patients who underwent CEH-EUS-FNA was pancreatic cancer in 19 and intraductal papillary mucinous carcinoma in one. Nineteen patients who underwent conventional EUS-FNA were finally diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and one was diagnosed as cancer of the common bile duct. There was a significant difference in the number of needle passes required. A sufficient sample was obtained on one needle pass in 60% (12/20) of CEH-EUS-FNA group compared with 25% (5/20) of the conventional EUS-FNA group.

CONCLUSIONS

Fewer needle passes were required to obtain samples from solid pancreatic lesions using CEH-EUS-FNA than those required using conventional EUS-FNA. Therefore, CEH-EUS-FNA may be more efficient and safer than conventional EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions.

Optimal number of needle passes in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for pancreatic lesions

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is accurate in cytological diagnosis of pancreatic lesions. Our aim was to determine optimal number of needle passes in EUS-FNA for pancreatic lesions without onsite cytopathologist, who is not routinely available to participate in the procedure.

METHODS

Results of all needle passes in EUS-FNAs for 117 pancreatic neoplasms in 115 patients were reviewed retrospectively. Factors that required 2 or more needle passes for correct diagnosis were identified by multivariate logistic regression analysis. In each lesion group defined by the factors that required 2 or more passes and were known at the time of EUS-FNA, number of needle passes was regarded as optimal when an increase in diagnostic sensitivity by an additional needle pass did not reach 10%.

RESULTS

Size of 15 mm or less (OR 4.58, 95% CI 1.70-12.3, P < 0.01), location of head (OR 5.02, 95% CI 1.82-13.9, P < 0.01), and neuroendocrine tumor (NET) (OR 5.04, 95% CI 1.38-18.4, P = 0.01) independently required 2 or more needle passes. Optimal numbers of needle passes for lesions of 15 mm or less in the head, those of more than 15 mm in the head, those of 15 mm or less in the body or tail, and those of more than 15 mm in the body or tail were 3, 2, 2, and 1, respectively. When these numbers of needle passes were performed, 93% of pancreatic lesions were correctly diagnosed.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimal numbers of needle passes in EUS-FNA for pancreatic lesions without onsite cytopathologist were between 1 and 3.

The 25-gauge EUS-FNA needle: Good for on-site but poor for off-site evaluation? Results of a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

When on-site cytopathology support is not available, EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is performed for cell-block preparation to allow off-site interpretation.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the number of passes required to obtain a diagnostic cell block by using a 25-gauge needle for sampling pancreatic masses.

DESIGN

Randomized trial.

SETTING

Tertiary care hospital.

PATIENTS

Sixty-two patients with solid pancreatic mass lesions.

INTERVENTIONS

EUS-FNA was performed by using a 25-gauge needle. After establishing a preliminary on-site diagnosis, patients were randomized to 2 or 4 FNA passes for a cell block. A cell block was evaluated by a pathologist blinded to on-site interpretation for the presence of a tissue pellet, histological core tissue size, and diagnostic accuracy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

To determine the number of passes required to obtain a diagnostic cell block with a 25-gauge FNA needle.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients were randomized to undergo either 2 (n = 31) or 4 (n = 31) FNA passes for a cell block. Before randomization, an on-site diagnosis was established in all 62 patients (100%). The final diagnosis was adenocarcinoma in 45 (72.6%), neuroendocrine/other tumor in 7 (11.3%), and chronic pancreatitis in 10 (16.1%). There was no difference in the presence of a tissue pellet (93.5 vs 96.8%; P = .99), the median size of the histological core (0.006 vs 0.05 mm(2); P = .12), or the presence of a diagnostic cell block (80.6 vs 80.6%; P = .99) between patients randomized to 2 or 4 FNA passes, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

Only pancreatic masses were evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

The 25-gauge FNA needle yielded a diagnostic cell block in only 81% of patients, irrespective of whether 2 or 4 FNA passes were performed. These findings have important implications for centers without on-site cytopathology services. (Clinical trial registration number NCT01809028.).

Mathematical modelling can predict adequacy rates and needle passes for fine needle aspiration cytology with rapid on-site evaluation

OBJECTIVE

Fine needle aspiration is widely used to obtain tissue samples. There are two types of sampling processes: fixed and variable. In fixed sampling, the samples are not observed for adequacy during the sampling process. In variable sampling, samples are evaluated for adequacy as they are received, and sampling is stopped as soon as an adequate sample is obtained. Each sample involves a risk of harm to the patient, and so limits are often imposed on the number of samples. The impact of such limits has not been investigated. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of sampling limits on the adequacy rate.

METHODS

A mathematical model of the sampling process was developed. The model describes the per-case adequacy rate in terms of the per-pass probability of success, the number of needle passes, the accuracy of the assessor and an upper limit on the number of needle passes.

RESULTS

Per-case adequacy was positively correlated with the per-pass adequacy and the accuracy of the assessor. Sampling limits reduced the per-case adequacy rate. The impact of sampling limits decreased as the sampling limit increased. The model provides good approximations of the adequacy rate even when the constant yield assumption is violated.

CONCLUSION

Mathematical modelling provides a useful approach to study sampling processes that would be difficult to evaluate with clinical studies.

Tips to overcome technical challenges in EUS-guided tissue acquisition

The diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA depends on several factors, such as the experience of the endosonographer, the characteristics of the lesion, the clinical status of the patient, the size and type of needles, the methods of specimen preparation, as well as cytopathologist expertise. The endosonographic technique can be improved when several tips and tricks useful to overcome challenges of FNA are known. Technical challenges of FNA are related to the characteristics of the lesion and its surroundings, sonographic imaging, and limitations related to the needle. Several tips and tricks necessary to overcome them are presented in this review.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is an indispensable tool for tissue acquisition in patients with gastrointestinal tumors. While fine-needle aspiration (FNA) has been routinely carried out for establishing tissue diagnosis, the emerging concept of tailoring chemotherapeutic agents based on molecular markers has increased the demand for core tissue procurement by means of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). In addition, FNB may offset the limitations of FNA wherein the diagnostic sensitivity is incumbent on the availability of an onsite cytopathologist. Given the increasing number of procedures being done, developing a unit-specific algorithmic approach for needle selection is important to improve the procedural efficiency and utilization of resources. Finally, the best outcomes can be attained only by practicing evidence-based techniques, procuring adequate quantity of sample for ancillary studies and processing the specimens appropriately.

Basic technique in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for solid lesions: How many passes?

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has evolved to become an indispensable tool for tissue acquisition in patients with luminal and extra luminal gastrointestinal cancers. Despite the extensive use of EUS-FNA, there still exists a wide variation in the number of samples required to ensure acquisition of diagnostic material from different kind of lesions. There are several factors that may influence the number of fine needle passes made during EUS-FNA, but the main factor seems to be the presence of a Cytopathologist during the EUS procedure. The diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA with rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) in most studies exceeds 90%. Nevertheless, ROSE is not available in many centers. Various studies have investigated the adequate number of needle passes that should be performed if ROSE is not used. Differences exist based on the nature of the target lesion: Five to seven passes for pancreatic masses, three passes for lymphnodes, only one pass for pancreatic cystic lesions. Consider using a core biopsy needle or a 19-G FNA needle for histology could improve the diagnostic yield. Even though EUS-FNA is widely available, some patients still do not receive conclusive diagnoses upon initial EUS-FNA. One way to maximize the benefits for patients might be to centralize cases to several well-equipped, high-volume centers with experienced endosonographers that have universal availability of ROSE.

Rapid on-site evaluation reduces needle passes in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for solid pancreatic lesions: a risk-benefit analysis

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration increases with the number of needle passes but needle passes are also associated with increased risk of adverse events. The trade-off between needle passes and adequacy has not been well-characterized.

AIMS

The purpose of this study was to compare the risk-benefit tradeoff of different sampling protocols with and without rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We used a discrete-event simulation model to compare eight different sampling protocols. Each sampling protocol was simulated 10,000 times to obtain the average performance for each scenario. The per-pass adequacy rates, ROSE, accuracy of the assessor and sampling limits were varied to determine the impact of these factors on the number of needle passes and adequacy rates.

RESULTS

Increasing per-class adequacy can be achieved at a cost of increased needle passes. Sampling with ROSE achieved higher adequacy with fewer needle passes than policies using a fixed number of needle passes without ROSE.

CONCLUSIONS

Variable sampling policies using ROSE generally achieve greater per-case adequacy with fewer needle passes than non-ROSE sampling policies using a fixed number of passes.

Endoscopic ultrasonography for pancreatic cancer: current and future perspectives

A suspected pancreatic lesion can be a difficult challenge for the clinician. In the last years we have witnessed tumultuous technological improvements of the radiological and nuclear medicine imaging. Taking this into account, we will try to delineate the new role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in pancreatic imaging and to place it in a shareable diagnostic and staging algorithm of pancreatic cancer (PC). To date the most accurate imaging techniques for the PC remain contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) and EUS. The latter has the highest accuracy in detecting small lesions, in assessing tumor size and lymph nodes involvement, but helical CT or an up-to-date magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) must be the first choice in patients with a suspected pancreatic lesion. After this first step there is place for EUS as a second diagnostic level in several cases: negative results on CT/MRI scans and persistent strong clinical suspicion of PC, doubtful results on CT/MRI scans or need for cyto-histological confirmation. In the near future there will be great opportunities for the development of diagnostic and therapeutic EUS and pancreatic pathology could be the best testing bench.