Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsy Specimens: Adequate Diagnostic Yield and Accuracy Can Be Achieved without On-Site Evaluation

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition with or without macroscopic on-site evaluation: randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The use of macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) to estimate the adequacy of a specimen for histological diagnosis during endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle tissue acquisition (FNTA) has recently been advocated. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic yield of MOSE compared with conventional EUS-FNTA without rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE).

METHODS

This was an international, multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled study. After providing informed consent, consecutive adult patients referred for EUS-FNTA for solid lesions larger than 2 cm were randomized to a MOSE arm or to a conventional arm without ROSE. A designated cytopathologist from each center performed all cytopathological examinations for that center and was blinded to the randomization results. The primary outcome measure was the diagnostic yield, and the secondary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, diagnostic accuracy, and the rate of procedure-related complications.

RESULTS

244 patients (122 conventional, 122 MOSE) were enrolled during the study period. No significant differences between the two arms were found in procedure time or rate of procedure-related adverse events. The diagnostic yield for the MOSE technique (92.6 %) was similar to that for the conventional technique (89.3 %; P  = 0.37), with significantly fewer passes made (median: conventional 3, MOSE 2; P  < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNTA with the MOSE technique provided a similar diagnostic yield to conventional EUS-FNTA technique in the absence of ROSE but with fewer passes. This technique can be used when ROSE is not available.

Preoperative EUS-guided FNA: effects on peritoneal recurrence and survival in patients with pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) is an accurate and relatively safe tissue confirmation method for pancreatic cancer. However, there is concern that this procedure may spread tumor cells along the needle track or within the peritoneum. We aimed to estimate the effect of preoperative EUS-FNA on the risk of peritoneal recurrence and long-term outcomes in resected pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed records of patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer who had undergone curative resection between 2009 and 2013 to investigate the overall survival, cancer-free survival, and peritoneal recurrence. Peritoneal recurrence was diagnosed based on image findings or cytology-confirmed ascites.

RESULTS

Of 411 patients, 90 underwent preoperative EUS-FNA (EUS-FNA group), whereas 321 did not (non-EUS-FNA group). The median length of follow-up was 16.2 months (range, 2-46). Peritoneal recurrence occurred in 131 patients: 30% (27/90) in the EUS-FNA group versus 32% (104/321) in the non-EUS-FNA group (P = .66). Cancer-free survival or overall survival was not significantly different between the 2 groups: median overall survival of 25.3 months in the EUS-FNA group versus 23.7 months in the non-EUS-FNA group (P = .36) and median cancer-free survival of 12.7 months in the EUS-FNA group versus 11.6 months in the non-EUS-FNA group (P = .38).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative EUS-FNA for pancreatic cancer was not associated with an increased rate of peritoneal recurrence or mortality. Therefore, EUS-FNA is an accurate and safe method to obtain suspicious pancreatic mass tissue.

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.

The efficacy of rapid on-site evaluation during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic masses

Background

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) has become the preferred method to diagnose pancreatic masses due to its minimally invasive approach and diagnostic accuracy. Many studies have shown that rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) improves diagnostic yield by 10–30%; however, more recent studies have demonstrated effective diagnostic accuracy rates without ROSE. Our study aims to examine whether the current standard of performing ROSE after each FNA pass adds diagnostic value during EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic masses.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective case series on patients who underwent EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic masses between February 2011 and October 2014. All cases were performed by one of three endoscopists at Emory University Hospital. Patient demographics, radiologic details of pancreatic masses and pathology reports of the biopsied pancreatic masses were examined.

Results

A total of 184 procedures performed in 171 patients were reviewed. The final pathology reports of the biopsied pancreatic masses showed 128 (70%) with confirmed malignancy. Only 64 (50%) of these 128 cases initially showed malignant cells during ROSE. Among these 64 cases, 23% required 5 or more FNA passes to first detect malignant cells.

Conclusions

The use of ROSE during EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic masses may increase the diagnostic yield, since malignant cells were often detected during later FNA passes that would otherwise be missed if tissue sampling stopped prematurely. In addition, sample preparation for ROSE may be suboptimal, since malignant cells were only detected in 50% of cases.

Slow-pull and different conventional suction techniques in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic solid lesions using 22-gauge needles

AIM

To evaluate the cytological diagnostic capacity and sample quality of the slow-pull technique and compare them with different suction techniques.

METHODS

From July 2010 to December 2015, 102 patients with pancreatic solid lesions who underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) with 22-gauge needles were retrospectively evaluated. EUS-FNA diagnosis was based on a cytological examination, and final diagnosis was based on a comprehensive standard of cytological diagnosis, surgical pathology and clinical or imaging follow-up. Cytological specimens were characterized for cellularity and blood contamination. The cytological diagnostic capacity and sample quality of the slow-pull technique and suction techniques with 5-mL/10-mL/20-mL syringes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of all of the EUS-FNA procedures, the slow-pull technique and suction techniques with 5-mL/10-mL/20-mL syringes were used in 31, 19, 34 and 18 procedures, respectively. There were significant differences between these four suction techniques in terms of cytological diagnostic accuracy (90.3% vs 63.2% vs 58.8% vs 55.6%, P = 0.019), sensitivity (88.2% vs 41.7% vs 40.0% vs 36.4%, P = 0.009) and blood contamination (score ≥ 2 for 29.0% vs 52.6% vs 70.6% vs 72.2%, P = 0.003). The accuracy and sensitivity of the slow-pull technique were significantly higher than those of the suction techniques using 5-mL (P = 0.03, P = 0.014), 10-mL (P = 0.005; P = 0.006) and 20-mL syringes (P = 0.01, P = 0.01). Blood contamination was significantly lower in the slow-pull technique than in the suction techniques with 10-mL (P = 0.001) and 20-mL syringes (P = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

The slow-pull technique may increase the cytological diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity with slight blood contamination during EUS-FNA when using 22-gauge needles for solid pancreatic masses.

Rapid On-Site Evaluation Does Not Improve Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Adequacy in Pancreatic Masses: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Background and Objectives

Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) during endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS–FNA) of pancreatic masses has been reported to be associated with improved adequacy and diagnostic yield. However, recent observational data on the impact of ROSE have reported conflicting results. A meta-analysis and systematic review was therefore conducted to evaluate the contribution of ROSE during EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses.

Method

A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE/Pubmed and EMBASE databases for studies comparing the efficacy of ROSE between patients in two cohorts. Outcomes considered included diagnostic adequate rate, diagnostic yield, number of needle passes, pooled sensitivity and specificity. Findings from a random-effects model were expressed as pooled risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

A total of 7 studies (1299 patients) was finally included and further analyzed in the current meta-analysis. EUS-FNA with ROSE could not improve diagnostic adequacy (RD = 0.05, 95% CI: -0.01–0.11) and diagnostic yield (RD = 0.04 95%CI: -0.05, 0.13). The number of needle passes showed no statistically significant difference with and without ROSE (RD = -0.68 95%CI: -2.35, 0.98). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of ROSE group were 0.91 (95%CI: 0.87, 0.94) and 1 (95%CI: 0.94, 1.00). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of non-ROSE group were 0.85 (95%CI: 0.80, 0.89) and 1 (95%CI: 0.95, 1.00). ROSE group and non-ROSE group showed comparable sensitivity and specificity.

Conclusion

Compared to historical reports of its clinical efficacy in patients with pancreatic lesions, ROSE may be not associated with an improvement of diagnostic yield, adequate rate, pooled sensitivity and specificity.