Endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses: 22-gauge aspiration versus 25-gauge biopsy needles

Comparative Assessment of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biopsies vs. Percutaneous Biopsies of Pancreatic Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance

Introduction: Pancreatic cancer ranks as the fourth deadliest form of cancer. However, it is essential to note that not all pancreatic masses signal primary malignancy. Therefore, it is imperative to establish the correct differential diagnosis, a process further supported by pre-operative biopsy procedures. This meta-analysis aims to compare the diagnostic performance of two minimally invasive biopsy approaches for pancreatic tissue sampling: percutaneous biopsies guided by computed tomography or ultrasound, and transduodenal biopsies guided by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in the MEDLINE and Scopus databases. The included studies analyzed the diagnostic performance of the two biopsy methods, and they were assessed for risk of bias using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Statistical analysis was carried out using the RevMan and MetaDisc software packages. Results: The statistical analysis of the results demonstrated the superiority of the percutaneous approach. Specifically, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, LR+, LR-and DOR for the percutaneous approach were 0.896 [95% CI: 0.878-0.913], 0.949 [95% CI: 0.892-0.981], 9.70 [95% CI: 5.20-18.09], 0.20 [95% CI: 0.12-0.32] and 68.55 [95% CI: 32.63-143.98], respectively. The corresponding values for EUS-guided biopsies were 0.806 [95% CI: 0.775-0.834], 0.955 [95% CI: 0.926-0.974], 12.04 [95% CI: 2.67-54.17], 0.24 [95% CI: 0.15-0.39] and 52.56 [95% CI: 13.81-200.09], respectively. Nevertheless, it appears that this statistical superiority is also linked to the selection bias favoring larger and hence more readily accessible tumors during percutaneous biopsy procedures. Conclusions: Concisely, our meta-analysis indicates the statistical superiority of the percutaneous approach. However, selecting the optimal biopsy method is complex, influenced by factors like patient and tumor characteristics, clinical resources, and other relevant considerations.

Comparison of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for diagnosis of solid pancreatic mass lesions: a meta-analysis of prospective studies

Objective: To quantitatively compare the diagnostic value of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) in solid pancreatic mass lesions using a systematic evaluation method.Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted on public databases to include studies comparing the diagnostic value of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB in solid pancreatic mass lesions. The combined effect size was estimated using mean difference (MD) and risk difference (RD) respectively, and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated.Results: The 12 articles (7 RCTs and 5 cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria of this study. The meta-analysis showed that compared with EUS-FNB, EUS-FNA had lower diagnostic accuracy (RD: -0.08, 95% CI: -0.15, -0.01) and specimen adequacy (RD: -0.08, 95% CI: -0.15, -0.02), while higher required number of needle passes (MD: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.12, 0.73). However, EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA presented similar overall complications (RD: 0.00, 95% CI: -0.01, 0.02) and technical failures (RD: -0.01, 95% CI: -0.02, 0.00), without statistically significant differences.Conclusions: Compared with EUS-FNA, EUS-FNB seems to be a better choice for diagnosing suspected pancreatic lesions.

Somatic Mutational Analysis in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Assessing Yield and Impact

INTRODUCTION

We sought to determine the yield of somatic mutational analysis from endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biopsies of pancreatic adenocarcinoma compared with that of surgical resection and to assess the impact of these results on oncologic treatment.

METHODS

We determined the yield of EUS sampling and surgical resection. We evaluated the potential impact of mutational analysis by identifying actionable mutations and its direct impact by reviewing actual treatment decisions.

RESULTS

Yield of EUS sampling was 89.5%, comparable with the 95.8% yield of surgical resection. More than a quarter in the EUS cohort carried actionable mutations, and of these, more than 1 in 6 had treatment impacted by mutational analysis.

DISCUSSION

EUS sampling is nearly always adequate for somatic testing and may have substantial potential and real impact on treatment decisions.

Evaluation of Fine Needle Biopsy (FNB) for Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-guided Tissue Acquisition of Pancreatic Masses to Negate the Need for Rapid On-site Evaluation: A Randomized Control Trial

Background and Objectives

The benefits of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of solid masses have not been convincingly shown in large, randomized trials. New equipment using EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (FNB) allows for more material to be acquired that may obviate the need for ROSE. This study aimed to evaluate if EUS-FNB without ROSE was non-inferior to EUS-FNA with ROSE in solid pancreatic masses (SPMs).

Methods

Patients with SPMs requiring tissue sampling were randomly assigned to undergo either EUS-FNA with ROSE or EUS-FNB without ROSE. The touch-imprint cytology technique was used to perform ROSE. The primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy and secondary endpoints were specimen quality, complication rates, and procedure time.

Results

Seventy-eight patients were randomized and analyzed (39 EUS-FNA with ROSE and 39 EUS-FNB without ROSE). Non-significantly different diagnostic accuracies were noted in both groups (97% with ROSE and 100% without ROSE, P < 0.371). The bloodiness of histologic samples and complication rates were not significantly different between groups. A significantly shorter mean sampling procedural time was noted for EUS-FNB over EUS-FNA with ROSE (30.4 ± 10.4 vs 35.8 ± 9.8 minutes, P < .02).

Conclusions

EUS-FNB demonstrated equal diagnostic accuracy with shorter procedure times in evaluating SPMs compared to EUS-FNA with ROSE. These new-generation FNB needles may obviate the need for ROSE.

Fine needle biopsy versus fine needle aspiration in the diagnosis of immunohistochemistry-required lesions: A multicenter study with prospective evaluation

Objectives

The superiority of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) over fine-needle aspiration (FNA) remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of FNB and FNA in immunohistochemistry (IHC)-required lesions, including, type 1 autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP), neuroendocrine tumor (NET), mesenchymal tumor, and lymphoma.

Methods

In this multicenter study, specimens from all eligible patients who underwent EUS-FNB/FNA with these specific lesions were prospectively evaluated. Demographics, adequacy of specimens for IHC, diagnostic accuracy, and integrity of tissue were analyzed. Subgroup analysis and multivariate logistic regression were also performed to control confounders.

Results

A total of 439 patients were included for analysis. Most lesion types were type 1 AIP (41.69%), followed by NET, mesenchymal tumor, and lymphoma. FNB yielded specimens with better adequacy for IHC (82.41% vs. 66.67%, P < 0.001) and higher diagnostic accuracy (74.37% vs. 55.42%, P < 0.001). The superiority of FNB over FNA in adequacy for IHC (odds ratio, 2.786 [1.515-5.291]) and diagnostic accuracy (odds ratio, 2.793 [1.645-4.808]) remained significant after control of confounders including needle size, lesion site, lesion size, and endoscopists. In subgroup analysis, FNB showed higher diagnostic accuracy in AIP and mesenchymal tumor, whereas no statistically significant difference was observed in NET and lymphoma.

Conclusions

FNB was superior to FNA needles in obtaining tissues with better adequacy and integrity. These results suggest that FNB should be considered a first-line modality in the diagnosis of IHC-required lesions, especially AIP and mesenchymal tumor. However, a randomized controlled trial with larger sample size is needed to further confirm our findings.

The Wet Suction Technique Enhances the Diagnostic Efficacy and Aspirate Quality of EUS-FNA for Solid Lesions: A Multicenter Retrospective Study in China

GOALS

To comprehensively compare the wet suction technique with the conventional dry suction technique for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in solid lesions.

BACKGROUND

Optimal suction techniques for EUS-FNA remain uncertain when approaching solid lesions.

STUDY

We performed a retrospective study of EUS-FNA at 3 medical centers in China. A total of 203 patients were enrolled who received 2 passes of EUS-FNA with 22-G needles. If the first pass underwent dry suction, the second pass was wet suction. Otherwise, the order of suction technique is opposite. Diagnostic accuracy, sample quality (including cellularity and blood contamination), and sample quantity (including specimen adequacy, the maximum intact specimen length, and the total specimen length) were compared between wet-suction and dry-suction techniques.

RESULTS

The patients included 143 pancreatic lesions and 60 nonpancreatic lesions. Compared with the dry suction technique, the wet suction technique yielded a significantly higher diagnostic accuracy (85.22% vs. 72.41%, P =0.002), better specimen adequacy score and cellularity score ( P <0.0001), and lower blood contamination score ( P <0.0001). In the subgroup analysis, wet suction provided significantly higher diagnostic accuracy in pancreatic cancer without chronic pancreatitis ( P <0.05), and better cellularity score and specimen adequacy score, lower blood contamination score, and longer maximum intact specimen length and total specimen length in various lesions than that in dry suction.

CONCLUSIONS

The wet suction technique resulted in significantly higher diagnostic accuracy in pancreatic cancer without chronic pancreatitis, and better cellularity and histologic specimen in most of solid lesions.

Current Practice Patterns of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Sampling for Pancreatic Solid Mass in Korea: Outcomes of a National Survey

Background/Aims

Although endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) are widely used for tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid mass, the optimal strategy of this procedure has not been established yet. The aim of this nationwide study was to investigate the current practice patterns of EUS-FNA/FNB for pancreatic solid mass in Korea.

Methods

The Policy-Quality Management of the Korean Pancreatobiliary Association (KPBA) developed a questionnaire containing 22 questions. An electronic survey consisting of the questionnaire was distributed by e-mail to members registered to the KPBA.

Results

A total of 101 respondents completed the survey. Eighty respondents (79.2%) performed preoperative EUS-FNA/FNB for operable pancreatic solid mass. Acquire needles (60.4%) were used the most, followed by ProCore needles (47.5%). In terms of need size, most respondents (>80%) preferred 22-gauge needles regardless of the location of the mass. Negative suction with a 10-mL syringe (71.3%) as sampling technique was followed by stylet slow-pull (41.6%). More than three needle passes for EUS-FNA/FNB was performed by most respondents (>80%). The frequency of requiring repeated procedure was significantly higher in respondents with a low individual volume (<5 per month, p=0.001). Prophylactic antibiotics were routinely used in 39 respondents (38.6%); rapid on-site pathologic evaluation was used in 6.1%.

Conclusions

According to this survey, practices of EUS-FNA/FNB for pancreatic solid mass varied substantially, some of which differed considerably from the recommendations present in existing guidelines. These results suggest that the development of evidence-based quality guidelines fitting Korean clinical practice is needed to establish the optimal strategy for this procedure.

Comparison of Adverse Events of Different Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition Methods: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis

The efficacy of new generation endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy needles has been promising in recent years. Yet, comparing these needles’ diagnostic yield and safety to conventional needles is not well-known. Our study aims to compare the adverse events of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) with different types of needles, including FNA needles, FNB needles with a Franseen tip and FNB needles with a reverse bevel. Furthermore, we will analyze the risk factors, including tumor vascularity, different needle types, and the underlying disease, which may impact the safety of the procedures. From May 2014 to December 2021, 192 consecutive EUS-TAs were performed on pancreatic and peripancreatic lesions in our hospital using different types of FNA and FNB needles. We retrospectively reviewed the data and identified the risk factors for EUS-TA-related complications. As a result, the hypervascular tumor is a significant risk factor for adverse events in our multivariate analysis, with an odds ratio of 4.96 (95% CI 1.33–18.47), while liver cirrhosis is one of the risk factors for adverse events during EUS-TA, with an odds ratio of 5.3 (95% CI 1.1–25.6). However, the risk of adverse events did not increase using Franseen-tip needles, compared to conventional FNA or FNB needles with a reverse bevel. In conclusion, we must be more cautious in patients with liver cirrhosis and hypervascular tumors, such as pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, when performing EUS-guided tissue acquisition.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided interventions in the management of pancreatic cancer

There has been a growing interest in developing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided interventions for pancreatic cancer, some of which have become standard of care. There are two main factors that drive these advancements to facilitate treatment of patients with pancreatic cancer, ranging from direct locoregional therapy to palliation of symptoms related to inoperable pancreatic cancer. Firstly, an upper EUS has the capability to access the entire pancreas–lesions in the pancreatic head and uncinate process can be accessed from the duodenum, and lesions in the pancreatic body and tail can be accessed from the stomach. Secondly, there has been a robust development of devices that allow through-the-needle interventions, such as placement of fiducial markers, brachytherapy, intratumoral injection, gastroenterostomy creation, and ablation. While these techniques are rapidly emerging, data from a multicenter randomized controlled trial for some procedures are awaited prior to their adoption in clinical settings.

Effectiveness of EUS-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy versus EUS-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration: A Retrospective Analysis

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for pancreatic tumors and subepithelial lesions (SEL) of the gastrointestinal tract are effective for histological diagnosis. There are also reports that tissue sampling is possible with a smaller number of punctures by EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). In this study, we retrospectively compared the diagnostic abilities of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB. We examined 130 patients who underwent EUS-FNA/EUS-FNB for pancreatic tumors and SEL from July 2018 to January 2021. None of the cases underwent rapid on-site evaluation. There were 94 and 36 cases in the EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB groups, respectively. The median tumor size in the EUS-FNB group was 30 mm, which was significantly larger than the EUS-FNA group (p = 0.02). In addition, transgastric puncture was significantly more common in the EUS-FNB group (p = 0.01). The EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB groups had a sensitivity of 82.9% and 91.7% and an accuracy rate of 85.1% and 91.7%, respectively. However, both procedures had a comparable diagnostic ability.

Comparison of fine-needle aspiration and fine-needle biopsy devices for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid lesions: a systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition is extensively used, but the optimal sampling device is still a matter of debate. We performed meta-analyses on studies comparing fine-needle aspiration (FNA) with fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles, and studies comparing different FNB needles.

METHODS

Online databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 50 cases with a suspected solid pancreatic or nonpancreatic lesion that compared FNA with FNB needles. Outcome measures included diagnostic accuracy, adequacy, number of passes, presence of tissue cores, and adverse events. We also performed meta-regression analysis on the effect of FNB design on diagnostic accuracy. Quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool.

RESULTS

18 RCTs comparing FNA with FNB needles were included. FNB provided a higher pooled diagnostic accuracy (87 % vs. 80 %; P = 0.02) and tissue core rate (80 % vs. 62 %; P = 0.002), and allowed diagnosis with fewer passes (P = 0.03), in both pancreatic and nonpancreatic lesions. A total of 93 studies were included comparing different FNB devices. Pooled diagnostic accuracy was higher for forward-facing bevel needles than for the reverse bevel needle. In this analysis, study quality was low and heterogeneity was high (I2  = 80 %).

CONCLUSION

FNB outperformed FNA when sampling pancreatic and nonpancreatic lesions. Forward-facing bevel FNB needles seemed to outperform the reverse bevel FNB needle, but the low quality of evidence prevents us from making strong recommendations on the optimal FNB design.

Does ProCore Fine-Needle Biopsy Really Improve the Clinical Outcome of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Sampling of Pancreatic Masses?

INTRODUCTION

Fine-needle biopsy (FNB) has been suggested to provide better histological samples as compared to endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). However, studies comparing EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for pancreatic lesions reported contrasting results. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical performance of EUS-FNA versus EUS-FNB with the ProCore needle for the investigation of pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

We reviewed all patients undergoing EUS for the investigation of pancreatic lesions from August 2012 to September 2018. From August 2012 to January 2015, all procedures were performed with standard needles, whereas from February 2015 to September 2018, the use of ProCore needles had been introduced. Data on diagnostic accuracy, number of needle passes, and/or adverse events were collected.

RESULTS

Three hundred twenty-four patients were retrospectively evaluated: 190 (58.6%) underwent EUS-FNA and 134 (41.4%) EUS-FNB. Both EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB showed high diagnostic accuracy for malignancy (94% [95% CI: 89-97%] vs. 94% [95% CI: 89-98%]). Notably, there were no differences between EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio, histological core tissue retrieval, adverse events, or number of needle passes. However, subgroup analysis noted a higher diagnostic accuracy for 25G EUS-FNB as compared to 25G EUS-FNA (85.7 vs. 55.5%; *p = 0.023).

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNB with the ProCore needle is safe and feasible in pancreatic lesions. The ProCore needle did not provide any advantage in terms of diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and/or negative likelihood ratio, or acquisition of the core specimen; therefore, its routine application is not supported.

Architectural aspects of cell-blocks as small biopsies

Cell-block preparations have become an essential part of integrated cytology diagnosis. They are essentially microbiopsies that are formalin fixed and embedded in paraffin. This has become more prevalent with greater sample procurement due to the advent of newer biopsy techniques and needles. Cell-blocks allow retrieval of small tissue fragments from cytology specimens that sometimes cannot be processed by alternate cytologic techniques. They represent concentrated, cell-enriched preparations that provide cytologists with the opportunity to evaluate cellular architecture, as well as to perform ancillary testing. A cell-block compatible sample may thus obviate the need for a more invasive procedure such as a tissue biopsy. Microscopic examination of cell-blocks is quick, avoids obscuring material, permits cells to be evaluated in one focal plane, and allows the histologic architecture such as glandular differentiation, papillary formations, and sometimes invasion to be easily identified. This new era of “cytohistology” accordingly requires practicing cytologists to become more familiar with histopathology. This review article discusses the benefit of various architectural patterns identifiable in cell-blocks employed as an adjunct to Pap tests, exfoliative fluid specimens, and fine-needle aspirations.

The bleeding risk after endoscopic ultrasound-guided puncture of pancreatic masses

BACKGROUND

Although EUS-fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is considered to be safe, there are limited studies on adverse events of fine-needle biopsy (FNB).

AIM

To compare the bleeding rate of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB of solid and cystic pancreatic masses.

METHODS

Our retrospective study included EUS-FNA/FNB of solid and cystic pancreatic masses performed between 02/2017-03/2019 in Klinikum Klagenfurt and 11/2018-03/2019 in University Hospital St. Pölten, Austria. Minor bleeding was defined as an event with a duration of more than 1 min, no need for intervention, large coagulum on the puncture site, or decrease in hemoglobin ≥1.5 g/dL (but <2 g/dL). Major bleeding was defined as a reduction in hemoglobin level ≥2 g/dL, need for red cell transfusions, or interventional hemostasis.

RESULTS

About 202 patients were biopsied in that period (141 solid, 61cystic pancreatic masses). FNA needle was used in 54.6% of cases with solid pancreatic masses and 73.7% of cysts. Bleeding with hemodynamic instability was not observed in our cohort. In pancreatic cysts, minor bleeding was observed in 8.2% of cases and was associated with the use of FNB needles and lower platelet count. In solid tumors, one major bleeding (0.7%) from a duodenal vessel occurred and was immediately treated with hemoclip. In this group, minor bleeding was observed in 15.6% of cases. Overall, the bleeding rate correlates with the use of FNB needles.

CONCLUSION

Use of EUS-FNB needles increases the rate of minor bleeding for both solid and cystic pancreatic tumors, while major bleeding is a rare occurrence, irrespective of the needle type.

Effectiveness of introducing a 20-gauge core biopsy needle with a core trap in EUS-FNA/B for diagnosing pancreatic cancer

Background

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) is a standard method for pathological diagnosis of pancreatic solid lesions. The EchoTip ProCore 20G® (PC20), a 20-gauge biopsy needle with a forward-bevel core trap, has been available in Japan since 2015.

Methods

We compared the efficacy of the PC20 with that of the EchoTip ProCore 22G® (PC22) and Acquire 22G® (AC22) in EUS-FNA/B for diagnosing pancreatic cancer. This retrospective study included 191 patients with pancreatic cancer who underwent EUS-FNA/B using the PC20, PC22, or AC22 at our facility from April 2013 to October 2019. We investigated the patients’ clinical characteristics and the diagnostic accuracy and safety of each needle.

Results

A sufficient stroke length of puncture was secured in all patients. The maximum length under EUS was shorter with the AC22 (22.1 ± 2.2 mm) than PC20 (30.6 ± 0.7 mm, p < 0.01) and PC22 (30.3 ± 0.8 mm, p < 0.01). The histological accuracy was 96.4% with the PC20 but only 58.8% with the PC22 (adjusted p (p-adj) < 0.0001) and 75.0% with the AC22 (p-adj = 0.06). The diagnostic accuracy of the combination of histology and cytology was 96.4% with the PC20, while it was 72.1% with the PC22 (p-adj < 0.0001) and 91.7% with the AC22 (p-adj > 0.99). One patient (0.9%) in the PC20 group developed mild pancreatitis, but no adverse events occurred with the other needles.

Conclusions

The PC20 showed better diagnostic capability than the PC22. The diagnostic efficacy was similar between the PC20 and AC22. The high histological accuracy of the PC20 could be advantageous for lesions in which histological assessment is critical.

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).

Randomized trial comparing fork-tip and side-fenestrated needles for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The aim of this study was to compare the performance of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy using fork-tip or side-fenestrated needles in patients with solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

A randomized controlled study was conducted in a single academic center on patients who underwent sampling with fork-tip or side-fenestrated 22-gauge or 25-gauge needles. Three passes were performed, each independently evaluated by a blinded pathologist and by endosonographers for macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE). The primary outcome was histologic yield; secondary aims were safety, diagnostic yield, sample quality, number of needle passes required to establish a diagnosis, and reliability of MOSE.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-two patients were enrolled. Both 22-gauge and 25-gauge fork-tip needles retrieved significantly higher rates of histologic samples than side-fenestrated needles (P < .013). Safety and diagnostic accuracy were comparable in the 2 arms, whereas sample quality (tissue integrity and blood contamination) was significantly better in the fork-tip group (P < .0001). The median number of diagnostic passes was lower using fork-tip needles (P = .054). The agreement between MOSE and pathologic evaluation was almost perfect in the fork-tip group and fair in the side-fenestrated group.

CONCLUSIONS

Both needles showed equivalent safety and diagnostic accuracy. However, fork-tip needles provided a higher rate of extremely good-quality histologic samples and required fewer needle passes to reach a diagnosis. MOSE is a highly reliable tool when fork-tip needles are used compared with side-fenestrated needles. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03622229.).

Factors associated with diagnostic accuracy, technical success and adverse events of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is used to diagnose lesions within or adjacent to the digestive tract. However, there is no report on the overall diagnostic accuracy, technical success, and adverse events of FNB. The aims of this study were to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to comprehensively assess the diagnostic accuracy, technical success, and adverse events of FNB.

METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant articles published in English from January 1998 to May 2019 (No. CRD42019141647). Primary outcomes were EUS-FNB related diagnostic accuracy rate, technical success rate, and adverse event rate.

RESULTS

A total of 51 articles including 5330 patients met our criteria. The overall EUS-FNB related diagnostic accuracy rate, technical success rate, and adverse event rate was 90.82% [95% confidence interval (CI) 88.69-92.76%], 99.71% [95% CI 99.35-99.93%], and 0.59% [95% CI 0.29-1.0%], respectively. Biopsy with 22G needle could increase the diagnostic accuracy rate and technical success rate to 92.17% [95% CI 89.32-94.61%] and 99.88% [95% CI 99.64-99.99%], respectively, and decrease the adverse event to 0.37% [95% CI 0.08-0.87%]. Moreover, it showed that 22G needle was an independent factor associated with a higher diagnostic accuracy rate and technical success rate and a lower adverse event rate (P = 0.04, P < 0.001, and P = 0.04, respectively) by univariate and multivariate meta-regression analyses.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy is a feasible and safe procedure for lesions within or adjacent to the digestive tract. Biopsy using 22G needle could increase the diagnostic accuracy rate and technical success rate and decrease adverse event rate during the FNB procedure.

Evaluation of Pancreatic Lesions With Endoscopic Ultrasound and Fine Needle Aspiration

Background. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and fine-needle aspiration (FNA) are commonly used for assessing pancreatic lesions. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic yield and accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in a single tertiary institution. Methods. Consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNA of the pancreas at Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong, from January 2015 to March 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Endoscopic findings and FNA results were analysed. For patients who subsequently underwent surgical resection of pancreatic lesion, EUS-FNA diagnoses were compared to histopathological findings of surgical specimens to determine its diagnostic accuracy. Results. One hundred twelve EUS-FNA were performed in 99 patients within the study time period and were included for analysis. Sixty-six (66.7%) pancreatic lesions were solid in nature and 33 (33.3%) were cystic. The overall diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA was 70.5% (n = 79). On multivariate analysis, more passes of needle were associated with a higher diagnostic yield (odds ratio = 2.000, P = .049). 57.1% (n = 64) of EUS-FNA results had an impact on management. Sixteen patients with diagnostic EUS-FNA subsequently underwent surgery for resection of the pancreatic lesion. Upon correlation to the histopathological findings of surgical specimens, there were 12 true-positive, 2 true-negative, 0 false-positive, and 2 false-negative cases. Sensitivity was 85.7%, specificity was 100%, positive predictive value was 100%, and negative predictive value was 50%. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA was 87.5%. Conclusion. EUS-FNA is accurate and reliable for diagnosing pancreatic lesions.

EUS-guided tissue acquisition in chronic pancreatitis: Differential diagnosis between pancreatic cancer and pseudotumoral masses using EUS-FNA or core biopsy

Background and Objective:

EUS-FNA sensitivity for malignancy in parenchymal masses of patients with concurrent chronic pancreatitis (CP) has been reported to be unsatisfactory. The aim of the present study was to directly compare the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA and EUS-fine-needle biopsy (FNB) in differentiating between inflammatory masses and malignancies in the setting of CP.

Methods:

We performed a retrospective analysis of prospective, multicentric databases of all patients with pancreatic masses and clinico-radiological-endosonographic features of CP who underwent EUS-FNA or FNB.

Results:

Among 1124 patients with CP, 210 patients (60% males, mean age: 62.7 years) with CP and pancreatic masses met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled. In the FNA group (110 patients), a correct diagnosis was obtained in all but 18 cases (diagnostic accuracy 83.6%, sensitivity 69.5%, specificity 100%, positive predictive value [PPV] 100%, and negative predictive value [NPV] 73.9%); by contrast, among 100 patients undergoing FNB, a correct diagnosis was obtained in all but seven cases (diagnostic accuracy 93%, sensitivity 86.8%, specificity 100%, PPV 100%, and NPV 87%) (P = 0.03, 0.03, 1, 1, and 0.07, respectively). At binary logistic regression, focal pancreatitis (odds of event occurrence [OR]: 4.9; P < 0.001), higher Ca19-9 (OR: 2.3; P = 0.02), and FNB (OR: 2.5; P < 0.01) were the only independent factors associated with a correct diagnosis.

Conclusion:

EUS-FNB is effective in the differential diagnosis between pseudotumoral masses and solid neoplasms in CP, showing higher diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity than EUS-FNA. EUS-FNB should be considered the preferred diagnostic technique for diagnosing cancer in the setting of CP.

EUS-guided core biopsies of pancreatic solid masses using a new fork-tip needle: A multicenter prospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling (EUS sampling) is a safe and effective technique. The study aim was to evaluate the presence of a histological core from pancreatic lesions using a new 25G fork-tip needle.

METHODS

Observational multicenter prospective and analytical study, including consecutive patients with solid pancreatic masses referred for EUS-guided sampling. At each needle pass, the endoscopist performed macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE). The primary outcome was the histological core procurement rates. Secondary outcomes were the evaluation of interobserver agreement between endoscopists and pathologists, adequacy of EUS samples for the diagnosis and post-procedure adverse events.

RESULTS

100 patients were enrolled in 3 centers. The mean size of the lesions was 28.5 mm (SD 11.7). Final diagnoses were adenocarcinoma (68%), neuroendocrine tumor (21%), inflammatory mass/benign lesions (8.0%), and pancreatic metastasis (3.0%). The pathologists described the presence of a core in 67 samples (67.0% of patients), with poor agreement with MOSE (kappa, 0. 12; 95% CI: 0.03-0.28). The diagnostic accuracy was 93%. We observed 6% of mild adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The new 25-gauge core needle showed good overall adequacy and a good rate of histological specimens during EUS sampling of solid pancreatic masses, with a minimum number of passes and no major complications. Clinicaltrial.gov number, NCT02946840.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses: the fine needle aspiration or fine needle biopsy dilemma. Is the best needle yet to come?

Fine needle aspiration (FNA) is currently the standard of care for sampling pancreatic solid masses by using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). The accuracy of the technique is reported to be high, especially if coupled with the rapid on site evaluation (ROSE), and it has a high safety profile. However, FNA presents some limitations, such as the small amount of tissue that can be collected and the inability of obtaining a core tissue with intact histological architecture, which is relevant to perform immunohistochemical analysis, molecular profiling and, therefore, targeted therapies. Moreover, the presence of the ROSE by an expert cytopathologist is very important to maximize the diagnostic yield of FNA technique; however, it is not widely available, especially in small centers. Hence, the introduction of EUS fine needle biopsy (FNB) with a new generation of needles, which show a high safety profile too and a satisfying diagnostic accuracy even in the absence of ROSE, could be the key to overcome the limitations of FNA. However, FNB has not yet shown diagnostic superiority over FNA. Considering all the technical aspects of FNA and FNB, the different types of needle currently available, comparisons in term of diagnostic yield, and the different techniques of sampling, a tailored approach should be used in order to determine the needle that is most appropriate for the different specific scenarios.

Comparison of tissue and molecular yield between fine-needle biopsy (FNB) and fine-needle aspiration (FNA): a randomized study

Background and study aims  Recently, a new Franseen design endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) needle was developed with the goal of providing more tissue for histology. We compared the tissue adequacy rate and nucleic acid yield of 22G EUS-FNB vs. 22G endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), in solid gastrointestinal and extra-intestinal lesions. Patients and methods  We conducted a randomized crossover study and recruited 36 patients. We performed three passes for pancreatic lesions and two passes for other lesions, using each needle. We blinded the pathologist to needle assignment. We assessed the diagnostic tissue adequacy rate and compared the total tissue area, diagnostic tissue area, and desmoplastic stroma (DS) area in cases of carcinoma. We also examined the nucleic acid yield of the two needles in pancreatic lesions. Results  The lesions included 20 pancreatic masses (55 %), six gastric subepithelial lesions (17 %), five lymph nodes (14 %) and five other abdominal masses (14 %). Mean ± SD lesion size was 3.8 ± 2.0 cm. The final diagnosis was malignant in 27 lesions (75 %) and benign in nine lesions (25 %). We found EUS-FNB procured significantly more median total tissue area (5.2 mm ² vs. 1.9 mm ² , P  < 0.001), diagnostic tissue area (2.2 mm ² vs. 0.9 mm ² , P  = 0.029), and DS area (2 mm ² vs. 0.1 mm ² , P  = 0.001) in lesions diagnosed as carcinoma (n = 23), as compared to EUS-FNA. In pancreatic lesions, EUS-FNB obtained significantly more nucleic acid than EUS-FNA (median; 4,085 ng vs. 2912 ng, P  = 0.02). There was no difference in the cellblock or rapid on-site cytological evaluation (ROSE) diagnostic yield between the needles. Conclusion  The 22G EUS-FNB provides more histological core tissue and adequate nucleic acid yield compared to 22G EUS-FNA. In this study, the diagnostic performance was similar between the needles.

22-Gauge biopsy needles have a better histological diagnostic yield in the discrimination of specific pancreatic solid neoplasms

BACKGROUND

To overcome the limitations of using cytological specimen alone for the diagnosis of challenging pancreatic lesions, biopsy needles have been developed to procure histological specimens during EUS, especially for the discrimination of several specific pancreatic tumors requiring adequate histological samples. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided 22-gauge (G) fine needle aspiration (FNA) needles and 22G fine needle biopsy (FNB) needles for sampling pancreatic masses.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of all EUS-guided sampling performed between November 2012 and April 2016. 422 cases sampled with a 22G FNA needle (N = 254) or a 22G FNB needle (N = 168) were recruited for this study. The specimen quality analyses, technical characteristics, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPVs), and negative predictive values (NPVs) for the pancreatic masses were reviewed and compared.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the procurement of adequate histological specimens (75.0% vs. 79.5%; p = .277) or the presence of diagnostic histological specimens (71.3% vs. 77.4%; p = .155) between FNA and FNB groups, respectively. There were also no significant differences in the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPVs, or NPVs of the cytological, histological, and overall analyses for FNA and FNB groups in the diagnosis of pancreatic malignancy. However, 22G biopsy needles demonstrated a better histological diagnostic yield in the discrimination of pancreatic adenocarcinoma and non-adenocarcinoma pancreatic neoplasms than 22G FNA needles (69.8% vs. 57.9%, p = .033).

CONCLUSIONS

22G FNB needle demonstrated a better histological diagnostic yield in the differentiation between pancreatic adenocarcinoma and non-adenocarcinoma pancreatic neoplasms.

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.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Specimen Collection and Evaluation Techniques Affect Diagnostic Accuracy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) evaluation vary with technique, needles, and methods of specimen evaluation. We performed a direct comparison of diagnostic yields of EUS-FNA samples collected using different gauge needles (22- vs 25-gauge), with or without suction.

METHODS

We performed a randomized controlled study of 352 patients with suspected pancreatic masses, referred for EUS-FNA at a tertiary referral center. Patients were randomly assigned to 22-gauge needles with or without suction or 25-gauge needles with or without suction. Specimens were evaluated offsite by cell block and rapid onsite cytologic evaluation (ROSE). Final diagnoses were made based on histologic analyses or 12-month follow-up evaluations. The primary outcome was diagnostic adequacy of cell blocks. Secondary outcomes were operating characteristics of ROSE and EUS-FNA, number of passes required for accurate onsite diagnosis, and amount of blood in specimens.

RESULTS

The final diagnoses were malignancy (81.5% of patients) and benign disease (17.0% of patients); 1.4% of patients were lost during follow up. Cell block, ROSE, and EUS-FNA led to diagnostic accuracies of 71.9%, 95.5%, and 96.6%, respectively. A 22-gauge needle with suction was associated with more passes for adequate onsite diagnosis (P = .003) and specimens contained more blood (P = .01). Diagnostic accuracy of specimens collected by transduodenal EUS-FNA was lower with 22-gauge needles with suction compared to other techniques (P = .004).

CONCLUSION

In a randomized trial of patients undergoing EUS-FNA for pancreatic masses, samples collected with 22-gauge vs 25-gauge needles performed equally well for offsite specimen evaluation. Use of suction appears to increase number of passes needed and specimen bloodiness. Specimen collection techniques should be individualized based on method of evaluation. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02424838.

Utility of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy for Next-Generation Sequencing of Pancreatic Exocrine Malignancies

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy and aspiration (EUS FNB/A) are the standard diagnostic tests for pancreatic malignancies. Oncologists increasingly use tumor genomic analysis for management. Adequacy of FNB/A tissue for next-generation sequencing (NGS) has not been evaluated. This study examined FNB/A and other biopsy types for features that might predict adequacy for NGS.

METHODS

Seventy-six pancreatic exocrine malignancy biopsies submitted for NGS were assessed for adequacy, which was compared with other tumor/biopsy features.

RESULTS

Twenty-two (29%) of 76 samples were inadequate, including 16 (30%) of 54 FNBs and 4 (57%) of 7 FNAs. Larger-gauge needles were associated with adequacy in all samples (P = 0.0047) and in FNBs (P = 0.05). Metastatic samples were more likely to be adequate for NGS compared with pancreatic samples (P = 0.0357). Percutaneous biopsies were more likely to be adequate than EUS-guided FNB/As, although this trend was not significant (P = 0.0558). Other tumor/biopsy characteristics were not associated with adequacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic US FNA and FNB provided similar NGS adequacy rates. Metastatic lesions accessible by percutaneous biopsy may be preferable to EUS FNB/A of primary lesions for obtaining tissue for NGS. All biopsies, including EUS FNB, were more likely to be successful using larger-gauge needles.

A Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration and Fine-Needle Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is the method of choice for sampling pancreatic lesions. This study compares the diagnostic accuracy and safety of FNB using a novel core needle to FNA in solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients in whom EUS FNA or FNB was performed for solid pancreatic lesions was conducted. Diagnostic performance was calculated based upon a dual classification system: classification 1, only malignant pathology considered a true positive, versus classification 2, atypical, suspicious, and malignant pathology considered a true positive.

RESULTS

43 patients underwent FNB compared with 51 FNA. Using classification 1, sensitivity was 74.0% versus 80.0%, specificity 100% versus 100%, and diagnostic accuracy 77.0% versus 80.0% for FNB versus FNA, respectively (all p > 0.05). Using classification 2, sensitivity was 97% versus 94.0%, specificity 100% versus 100%, and diagnostic accuracy 98.0% versus 94.0% for FNB versus FNA, respectively (all p > 0.05). FNB required significantly fewer needle passes (median = 2) compared to FNA (median = 3; p < 0.001). Adverse events occurred in two (4.5%) FNB patients compared with none in the FNA group (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

FNA and FNB have comparable sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy. FNB required fewer passes.

Reviewing the Utility of EUS FNA to Advance Precision Medicine in Pancreatic Cancer

Advanced pancreatic cancer (PC) is an aggressive malignancy with few effective therapeutic options. While the evolution of precision medicine in recent decades has changed the treatment landscape in many cancers, at present no targeted therapies are used in the routine management of PC. Only a minority of patients with PC present with surgically resectable disease, and in the remainder obtaining high quality biopsy material for both diagnosis and molecular testing can prove challenging. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS FNA) is a widely used diagnostic procedure in PC, and allows tumour sampling in patients with both early and late stage disease. This review will provide an update on the role of EUS FNA as a diagnostic tool, as well as a source of genetic material which can be used both for molecular analysis and for the creation of valuable preclinical disease models. We will also consider relevant clinical applications of EUS FNA in the management of PC, and the path towards bringing precision medicine closer to the clinic in this challenging disease.

A comparison of the efficiency of 22G versus 25G needles in EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic mass assessment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Our aim in this study was to compare the efficiency of 25G versus 22G needles in diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions by EUS-FNA. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. Studies were identified in five databases using an extensive search strategy. Only randomized trials comparing 22G and 25G needles were included. The results were analyzed by fixed and random effects. A total of 504 studies were found in the search, among which 4 randomized studies were selected for inclusion in the analysis. A total of 462 patients were evaluated (233: 25G needle/229: 22G needle). The diagnostic sensitivity was 93% for the 25G needle and 91% for the 22G needle. The specificity of the 25G needle was 87%, and that of the 22G needle was 83%. The positive likelihood ratio was 4.57 for the 25G needle and 4.26 for the 22G needle. The area under the sROC curve for the 25G needle was 0.9705, and it was 0.9795 for the 22G needle, with no statistically significant difference between them (p=0.497). Based on randomized studies, this meta-analysis did not demonstrate a significant difference between the 22G and 25G needles used during EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions.

New Developments in Endoscopic Ultrasound Tissue Acquisition

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition has greatly evolved since the first EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration was reported nearly 25 years ago. EUS-guided tissue acquisition has become the procedure of choice for sampling of the pancreas, subepithelial lesions, and other structures adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract. This review focuses on recent developments in procedural techniques and needle technologies for EUS-guided tissue acquisition.

A meta-analysis of endoscopic ultrasound-fine-needle aspiration compared to endoscopic ultrasound-fine-needle biopsy: diagnostic yield and the value of onsite cytopathological assessment

Background The diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is variable, and partly dependent upon rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE) by a cytopathologist. Second generation fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles are being increasingly used to obtain core histological tissue samples. Aims Studies comparing the diagnostic yield of EUS guided FNA versus FNB have reached conflicting conclusions. We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic yield of FNA with FNB, and specifically evaluating the diagnostic value of ROSE while comparing the two types of needles. Methods We searched several databases from inception to 10 April 2016 to identify studies comparing diagnostic yield of second generation FNB needles with standard FNA needles. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated for categorical outcomes of interest (diagnostic adequacy, diagnostic accuracy, and optimal quality histological cores obtained). Standard mean difference (SMD) was calculated for continuous variables (number of passes required for diagnosis). These were pooled using random effects model of meta-analysis to account for heterogeneity. Meta-regression was conducted to evaluate the effect of ROSE on various outcomes of interest. Results Fifteen studies with a total of 1024 patients were included in the analysis. We found no significant difference in diagnostic adequacy [RR 0.98 (0.91, 1.06), (I² = 51 %)]. Although not statistically significant (P = 0.06), by meta-regression, in the absence of ROSE, FNB showed a relatively better diagnostic adequacy. For solid pancreatic lesions only, there was no difference in diagnostic adequacy [RR 0.96 (0.86, 1.09), (I² = 66 %)]. By meta-regression, in the absence of ROSE, FNB was associated with better diagnostic adequacy (P = 0.02). There was no difference in diagnostic accuracy [RR 0.99 (0.95, 1.03), (I² = 27 %)] or optimal quality core histological sample procurement [RR 0.97 (0.89, 1.05), (I² = 9.6 %)]. However, FNB established diagnosis with fewer passes [SMD 0.93 (0.45, 1.42), (I² = 84 %)]. The absence of ROSE was associated with a higher SMD, i. e., in the presence of an onsite pathologist, FNA required relatively fewer passes to establish the diagnosis than in the absence of an onsite pathologist. Conclusions There is no significant difference in the diagnostic yield between FNA and FNB, when FNA is accompanied by ROSE. However, in the absence of ROSE, FNB is associated with a relatively better diagnostic adequacy in solid pancreatic lesions. Also, FNB requires fewer passes to establish the diagnosis.

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.

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.

An update on the role of advanced diagnostic bronchoscopy in the evaluation and staging of lung cancer

Lung cancer remains a common and deadly disease. Many modalities are available to the bronchoscopist to evaluate and stage lung cancer. We review the role of bronchoscopy in the staging of the mediastinum with convex endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) and discuss emerging role of esophageal ultrasonography as a complementary modality. In addition, we discuss advances in scope technology and elastography.

We review the bronchoscopic methods available for the diagnosis of peripheral lung nodules including radial EBUS and navigational bronchoscopy (NB) with a consideration of the basic methodologies and diagnostic accuracies. We conclude with a discussion of the comparison of the various methodologies.

Endoscopic ultrasonography complements computed tomography in predicting portal or superior mesenteric vein resection in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend computed tomographic (CT) scans for vascular staging of patients with pancreatic carcinoma; however, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in these patients is not required and its utility in combination with CT scan is less well-defined. The purpose of this study is to explore the utility of EUS in addition to CT in identifying patients with borderline resectable pancreatic carcinoma (BRPC).

METHODS

We reviewed our database of patients with BRPC who went to surgery with curative intent. Inclusion criteria were preoperative staging with CT scan and EUS, completion of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and surgical resection.

RESULTS

We identified 62 patients (average age of 65 ± 9 years, 60% male); 97% of patients underwent R0 resections. We found that 29% of patients were classified as BRPC by EUS alone, 23% by CT alone, and 48% by both modalities. Of 34 patients who required vein resection, EUS alone preoperatively identified 88% of these patients while CT alone identified 67%. EUS identified 11 patients who required vein resection that CT did not identify as BRPC, whereas CT identified 4 patients that EUS did not identify as BRPC. On multivariate analysis, EUS was associated with vein resection (P < 0.02), but CT scan findings, tumor size, and CA19-9 values were not associated (each P > 0.1).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS complemented CT in identifying BRPC patients requiring vein resection, with nearly one-third of patients identified with EUS alone, supporting EUS use in addition to CT scan for vascular staging of patients with pancreatic carcinoma.

Impact of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling with a new core needle on the need for onsite cytopathologic assessment: a preliminary study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

FNA is the primary method of EUS tissue acquisition. In an attempt to improve our yield of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, we compared fine-needle biopsy (FNB) sampling without rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE) with FNA with ROSE and assessed the concordance of FNA and FNB sampling.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data from consecutive patients. Patients underwent FNB sampling and FNA of the same single lesion, with the same needle gauge and number of passes. FNA with ROSE was performed with a standard FNA needle. FNB sampling was performed with a new dedicated core needle. FNA samples were assessed with ROSE, and a final interpretation was provided by cytopathology staff; FNB samples were analyzed by surgical pathologists, each not made aware of the other's opinion.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients underwent 312 passes in 42 different lesions. A diagnosis of malignancy was more likely with FNB sampling than with FNA (72.7% vs 66.7%, P = .727), although statistical significance was not reached. FNA and FNB sampling had similar sensitivities, specificities, and accuracies for cancer (81.5% vs 88.9%, 100% vs 100%, and 84.8% vs 90.9%, respectively). FNB sampling provided qualitative information not reported on FNA, such as degree of differentiation in malignancy, metastatic origin, and rate of proliferation in neuroendocrine tumors.

CONCLUSIONS

FNB sampling without ROSE using a dedicated core needle performed as well as FNA with ROSE in this small cohort, suggesting that FNB sampling with this new core needle may eliminate the need for an onsite cytopathologic assessment, without loss of diagnostic accuracy.