Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration characteristics of primary adenocarcinoma versus other malignant neoplasms of the pancreas

A MODEL TO PREDICT DIAGNOSIS OF PANCREATIC NEUROENDOCRINE TUMORS BASED ON EUS IMAGING FEATURES

Background

This study aimed to determine predictive clinical and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) features for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (PNET) diagnosis, utilizing EUS-guided tissue acquisition.

Methods

A prospective study from 2018-2022 included patients with pancreatic masses undergoing EUS with elastography. Univariate binomial logistic regression followed by multiple logistic regression with significant predictors was employed. A forward selection algorithm identified optimal models based on predictor numbers. Variables encompassed EUS tumor characteristics (e.g., location, size, margins, echogenicity, vascularity on Doppler, main pancreatic duct dilation, elastography appearance, vascular invasion, and hypoechoic rim), alongside demographic and risk factors (smoking, alcohol, diabetes).

Results

We evaluated 165 patients (24 PNETs). EUS features significantly linked with PNET diagnosis were well-defined margins (79% vs. 26%, p < 0.001), blue elastography appearance (46% vs. 9.9%, p < 0.001), vascularization (67% vs. 25%, p < 0.001), hypoechoic rim (46% vs. 10%, p < 0.001). The top-performing model, with 89.1% accuracy, included two predictors: a homogeneous lesion (OR, 95% CI) and a hypoechoic rim (OR, 95% CI).

Conclusions

EUS appearance can differentiate PNETs from non-PNETs, with the hypoechoic rim being an independent predictor of PNET diagnosis. The most effective predictive model for PNETs combined the homogeneous lesion and presence of the hypoechoic rim.

Comments on and Illustrations of the EFSUMB CEUS Guidelines: Transabdominal and Endoscopic Ultrasound Features of Intrapancreatic Metastases and the Role of Multiparametric Imaging and EUS-Guided Sampling in Rare Pancreatic Tumors

A definite pathologic diagnosis of intrapancreatic metastasis is crucial for the management decision, i.e., curative or palliative surgery versus chemotherapy or conservative/palliative therapy. This review focuses on the appearance of intrapancreatic metastases on native and contrast-enhanced transabdominal ultrasound and endoscopic ultrasound. Differences and similarities in relation to the primary tumor, and the differential diagnosis from pancreatic carcinoma and neuroendocrine neoplasms are described. The frequency of intrapancreatic metastases in autopsy studies and surgical resection studies will be discussed. Further emphasis is placed on endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling to confirm the diagnosis.

Metastatic tumors to the pancreas: Balancing clinical impression with cytology findings

Backgrounds/Aims

Metastatic lesions of the pancreas (PMET) account for 1%–5% of all malignant solid pancreatic lesions (SPL). In this study we evaluated the utility of endoscopic ultrasonography with fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in diagnosing PMET.

Methods

Patients who underwent EUS-FNA at a community referral center between 2011–2017 for SPL were identified. Clinical, radiologic, and EUS-FNA features of those with PMET were compared to those with primary solid tumors of the pancreas: pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and neuroendocrine tumors (PNET).

Results

A total of 191 patients were diagnosed with solid pancreatic malignancy using EUS-FNA: 156 PDAC, 27 PNET, and eight (4.2%) had PMET. Patients with PMET were less likely to have abdominal pain (25.0% vs. 76.3% vs. 48.2%; p < 0.01) or obstructive jaundice (37.5% vs. 58.3% vs. 0%; p < 0.01) compared to PDAC and PNET. Those with PMET were more likely to have mass lesions with/without biliary or pancreatic ductal dilatations (100% vs. 86.5% vs. 85.2%; p < 0.01) and lower CA19-9 (82.5 ± 43.21 U/mL vs. 4,639.30 ± 11,489.68 U/mL vs. 10.50 ± 10.89 U/mL; p < 0.01) compared to PDAC and PNET. Endosonographic features were similar among all groups. Seven (87.5%) patients with PMET had a personal history of malignancy prior to PMET diagnosis. The primary malignancy was renal cell carcinoma in five PMET.

Conclusions

PMET are exceedingly rare, comprising less than 5% of SLP. Patients with PMET are less likely to present with symptoms and mostly identified by surveillance imaging for the primary malignancy.

EUS-FNA Diagnosis with Core Biopsy of Pancreatic Metastases from Primary Breast Cancer

Background

The pancreas as a site of metastasis of other primary tumors is a rare event. Pancreatic metastases may occur years after the start of treatment of a neoplasm of another organ or may be the initial manifestation of an unidentified primary tumor. The most commonly reported primary sites for pancreatic metastases are the kidneys, lungs, breast, bowel, and skin (melanoma). Case Summary. The authors report a case of pancreatic metastasis derived from a primary breast cancer that underwent endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) core biopsy to obtain tissue, which made it possible to perform an immunohistochemical study.

Conclusion

We emphasize the importance of outpatient follow-up after the treatment of a neoplasia and the completion of control exams. In addition, we should always be aware of the finding of a secondary lesion in patients who have already been diagnosed with cancer, even if it is located in unusual organs, as in this case, where two metastases of a breast carcinoma to the pancreas were detected.

[Value of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration in pretest prediction and diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma]

OBJECTIVE

To identify the predictive factors for differentiating pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) from other neoplastic solid pancreatic lesions and assess the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for diagnosis of PDAC.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of patients referred for EUS-FNA evaluation of pancreatic lesions in the Digestive Endoscopic Center of Nanfang Hospital between January, 2009 and May, 2016. The cases with unknown diagnosis, missing data, repeated punctures, cystic lesions and benign lesions were excluded from the analysis. The positivity rates of EUS-FNA were compared between patients with PDAC and those with non-PDAC lesions, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of EUS-FNA were assessed in the diagnosis of PDAC. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify the factors for differentiating PDAC from non-PDAC lesions based on the demographic characteristics, clinical presentations, laboratory data, and endoscopic ultrasonography imaging features of the patients.

RESULTS

Among the 75 patients with solid neoplastic pancreatic lesions, 54 (72.0%) were found to have PDAC and 21 (28.0%) had non-PDAC lesions. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of PDAC were 77.8%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 63.6% and 84.0%, respectively. No significant difference was found in the positivity rate of EUS-FNA between patients with PDAC and those with non-PDAC lesions (77.8% vs 76.2%, P &gt; 0.05). Multivariate regression analysis identified abdominal pain (OR=5.163, 95%CI: 1.093-24.389, P=0.038), lesion size (OR=0.926, 95%CI: 0.877-0.978, P=0.006), characteristics of the solid lesions (OR=7.105, 95%CI: 1.440-35.043, P=0.016), and evidence of metastases (OR=6.165, 95%CI: 1.332-28.533, P=0.020) as the independent factors for predicting PDAC.

CONCLUSIONS

The pretest characteristics including abdominal pain, evidence of metastases, and lesion size and lesion characteristics defined by endoscopic ultrasonography findings can reliably predict a diagnosis of PDAC. EUS-FNA has a high sensitivity and a high specificity for the diagnosis of PDAC.

Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration and PET/CT in preoperative diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the procedure of choice to investigate and sample pancreatic masses for the preoperative diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The role of ¹⁸fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in PDAC is debated. This study evaluates the role of EUS-FNA as compared to PET/CT in the preoperative evaluation of PDAC.

METHODS

Preoperative evaluation by PET/CT and EUS-FNA was performed on 25 patients with pancreatic solid lesions, who underwent a subsequent Whipple procedure or partial pancreatic resection.

RESULTS

This series included 19 PDACs and 6 non-PDACs including 1 metastatic breast ductal adenocarcinoma, 2 low grade neuroendocrine tumors, 2 chronic pancreatitis and 1 gastrointestinal tumor abutting the pancreas. EUS-FNA correctly diagnosed 18 of 19 PDACs, 1 metastatic breast ductal adenocarcinoma and all 5 of the other non-PDAC cases. One case of well differentiated PDAC was negative on EUS-FNA. PET/CT provided excellent size and was positive in 14 of 19 PDACs and the metastatic breast ductal adenocarcinoma. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy for EUS-FNA in diagnosis of selected pancreatic tumors were 91%, 100%, 100%, 50% and 92%, respectively, while they were 65%, 100%, 100%, 20% and 68% for PET/CT, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to PET/CT, EUS-FNA has a higher sensitivity and accuracy for preoperative diagnosis of PDAC. However, PET/CT provides excellent size, volume and stage information. A combination of both PET/CT and EUS will better help guide diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Pancreatic Cytopathology

Pancreatic cytopathology, particularly through the use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA), has excellent specificity and sensitivity for the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions. Such diagnoses can help guide preoperative management of patients, provide prognostic information, and confirm diagnoses in patients who are not surgical candidates. Furthermore, FNA can be used to obtain cyst fluid for ancillary tests that can improve the diagnosis of cystic lesions. In this article, we describe the cytomorphological features and differential diagnoses of the most commonly encountered pancreatic lesions on FNA.

Diagnostic Differentiation of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumor From Other Neoplastic Solid Pancreatic Lesions During Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration

OBJECTIVES

To identify factors differentiating pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) from non-PNET neoplastic solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs) and assess the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA).

METHODS

This is a retrospective study at a tertiary center of consecutive patients referred for EUS from 2004 to 2011. The main outcomes were pretest predictors and accuracy of EUS-FNA for diagnosis of PNET.

RESULTS

Among a total of 1108 EUS-FNAs for pancreatic lesions, 672 patients (PNET = 91, non-PNET neoplastic-SPLs = 581) had neoplastic-SPLs. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of EUS-FNA for diagnosis of PNETs were 98.9%, 100%, and 99.9%, respectively. The mean needle-passes were 3.0/patient. The EUS volume (mean/year per endosonographer) in preceding 3 years significantly correlated with fewer needle passes (rs: [-0.26]; P = 0.02).Multivariate analysis demonstrated that patients with PNET when compared to non-PNET neoplastic-SPLs were younger (odds ratio [OR], 3.23; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.19-9.09; P = 0.001), have 2 or more pancreatic lesions (OR, 5.63; 95% CI, 1.74-18.2; P = 0.005), and lower CA 19-9 values (OR, 10.0; 95% CI, 3.13-33.3; P = 0.001). Further, PNETs were less likely to have weight loss (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.17-0.90; P = 0.03), current smoking (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.22-0.98; P < 0.05), pancreatic ductal dilation (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.13-0.60; P = 0.002), or imaging evidence of arterial invasion (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.07-0.71; P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Although pre-FNA findings can reliably characterize, EUS-FNA is highly accurate for the diagnosis of PNETs.

Current update on primary pancreatic lymphoma

OBJECTIVE

This article reviews the computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and positron emission tomography (PET) CT findings of primary and secondary pancreatic lymphomas and discusses the role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration in diagnosis and management.

CONCLUSION

Pancreatic lymphoma has certain characteristic imaging features which may help distinguish it from the more common pancreatic adenocarcinoma. It is critical to make an accurate diagnosis, as the management of these two conditions is vastly different.

Pretest prediction and diagnosis of metastatic lesions to the pancreas by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Early diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs) enables prompt treatment. The study aims to identify factors differentiating metastatic lesion to the pancreas (PMET) from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs).

METHODS

This is a retrospective study at a tertiary cancer center. Consecutive patients referred for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) of SPLs from 2004 to 2011 were reviewed. The main outcomes were pre-EUS-FNA (endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration) predictors and diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA for PMETs.

RESULTS

Among a total of 1108 EUS-FNAs for pancreatic lesions, 672 patients had neoplastic SPLs (PMETs = 53; PDACs = 528, PNETs = 91). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and accuracy of EUS-FNA for diagnosis of PMETs were 84.9%, 100%, 100%, and 98.8%, respectively. The mean number of EUS-FNA passes for diagnosis of PMET was 3.1 per patient. For each endosonographer, preceding 3-year EUS volume (mean/year) significantly correlated with fewer needle passes (rs [-0.30], P = 0.03). The most common PMET was renal cell carcinoma. Stratified multivariate analyses were performed. Compared with patients with PDACs, PMETs were more common in men (odds ratio [OR] = 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.0-4.0); located in the pancreatic tail (OR = 2.4; 95%CI = 1.1-5.2); and were less likely with increasing age (OR = 0.95; 95%CI = 0.92-0.99), presence of major symptoms (abdomen pain/diarrhea/weight loss; OR = 0.2; 95%CI = 0.1-0.4), elevated bilirubin (OR = 0.3; 95%CI = 0.13-0.69), and imaging evidence of arterial invasion (OR = 0.15; 95%CI = 0.03-0.67). Compared with PNETs, PMETs were more common with increase age (OR = 1.05; 95%CI = 1.02-1.08) and increasing lesion size (OR = 1.03; 95%CI = 1.0-1.1), and were less likely in patients with diabetes (OR = 0.34; 95%CI = 0.11-0.99).

CONCLUSION

Among the largest numbers of neoplastic SPLs evaluated at a single center, pre-test features reliably characterize, and EUS-FNA provides a highly specific diagnosis of PMETs.

Differentiation of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from other neoplastic solid pancreatic lesions: a tertiary oncology center experience

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNET), and metastatic lesions (pMET) are the most common neoplastic solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs). Early diagnosis enables prompt treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To identify factors differentiating PDAC from non-PDAC lesions and assess the accuracy of EUS-guided FNA.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Retrospective tertiary center.

PATIENTS AND INTERVENTION

Consecutive patients referred for EUS evaluation of SPLs from 2004 to 2011.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Pretest (preceding EUS-guided FNA [EUS-FNA]) predictors of PDAC among neoplastic SPLs and accuracy of EUS-FNA.

RESULTS

A total of 1333 EUS scans with 1108 EUS-FNAs were performed for pancreatic lesions. Of the 672 patients with neoplastic SPLs, 528 had PDAC and 144 non-PDAC. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and accuracy of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of PDAC were 97.3%, 99.3%, 99.8%, and 97.8%, respectively. Years of EUS experience significantly correlated with fewer needle passes (Rs = -0.18, P < .001). Controlling for all potential confounders, multivariable regression analysis demonstrated that patients with PDAC compared with pNETs and pMETs were older (odds ratio [OR] 4.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1-9.5; P < .001), had weight loss (OR 3.0; 95% CI, 1.6-5.4; P < .001), hyperbilirubinemia (OR 3.7; 95% CI, 1.8-7.5; P < .001), elevated CA19-9 (OR 6.9; 95% CI, 2.4-20.3; P < .01), evidence of arterial invasion (OR 6.5; 95% CI, 2.7-15.4; P < .001), and PD dilation (OR 3.3; 95% CI, 1.8-5.9; P < .001).

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective design, single center.

CONCLUSIONS

When evaluating neoplastic SPLs, demographic, clinical, laboratory, and imaging characteristics can reliably discern and suggest PDAC. In addition, EUS-FNA is exceedingly sensitive and specific for PDAC.

Post-brushing and fine-needle aspiration biopsy follow-up and treatment options for patients with pancreatobiliary lesions: The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology Guidelines

The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology (PSC) has developed a set of guidelines for pancreatobiliary cytology including indications for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) biopsy, techniques of EUS-FNA, terminology and nomenclature for pancreatobiliary cytology, ancillary testing and post-procedure management. All documents are based on the expertise of the authors, a review of the literature and discussions of the draft document at several national and international meetings over an 18 month period and synthesis of online comments of the draft document on the PSC web site (www.papsociety.org). This document selectively presents the results of these discussions and focuses on the follow-up and treatment options for patients after procedures performed for obtaining cytology samples for the evaluation of biliary strictures and solid and cystic masses in the pancreas. These recommendations follow the six-tiered terminology and nomenclature scheme proposed by committee III.

Diagnostic evaluation of solid pancreatic masses

Determining the etiology of a solid pancreatic lesion is a critical first step toward developing an appropriate treatment plan for patients with a benign or malignant pancreatic mass. Technological advances in cross-sectional and endoscopic imaging modalities offer pancreatic imaging options with degrees of resolution that were not available even 15-20 years ago. In most cases, the nature of a solid pancreatic mass can be determined using computerized tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration. Knowledge about the basics of these modalities, as well as their strengths and limitations, plays an important role in understanding how patients with solid pancreatic masses should be evaluated.