Risk factors associated with adverse events during endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs before endoscopic ultrasound guided tissue acquisition to reduce the incidence of post procedural pancreatitis

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with fine needle aspiration or fine needle biopsy is the gold standard for sampling tissue to diagnose pancreatic cancer and autoimmune pancreatitis or to analyze cyst fluid. The most common reported adverse event of fine needle aspiration and/or fine needle biopsy is acute pancreatitis, which is likely induced by the same pathophysiological mechanisms as after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). According to the current European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are administered prior to ERCP as a scientifically proven treatment to reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis incidence rate. A single suppository of diclofenac or indomethacin prior to EUS guided tissue acquisition (TA) is harmless in healthy adults. Since it is associated with low costs and, most important, may prevent a dreadsome complication, we strongly recommend the administration of 100 mg diclofenac rectally prior to EUS-TA. We will explain this recommendation in more detail in this review as well as the risk and pathophysiology of post-EUS TA pancreatitis.

Safety and Diagnostic Yield of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy for Hypervascular Pancreatic Lesions

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is a common technique for diagnosing pancreatic lesions with high accuracy and a low incidence of procedural adverse events. However, occasional adverse events, particularly bleeding, may occur. Procedures for hypervascular lesions are considered important, but their risks are unknown. We aimed to evaluate the safety and diagnostic yield of EUS-FNB for hypervascular pancreatic solid lesions. This study included 301 patients with 308 solid pancreatic lesions who underwent EUS-FNB between May 2011 and December 2018. We performed propensity-score matching to balance clinical differences between hypervascular and hypovascular lesions and analyzed 52 lesions. We compared the safety and diagnostic performance of propensity score-matched cohorts. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy rates of EUS-FNB for hypervascular lesions were 94.7%, 100%, and 96.2%, and those for hypovascular lesions were 80.0%, 100%, and 84.6%, respectively. There was no difference in diagnostic performance between hypervascular and hypovascular lesions. Furthermore, adverse events occurred in only one patient (pancreatitis) in the hypovascular group. There were no significant differences in the occurrence of adverse events between hypervascular and hypovascular lesions (0% vs. 3.8%, p = 1.000). Therefore, EUS-FNB may be safe with a high diagnostic yield, even for hypervascular solid pancreatic lesions.

Randomized trial comparing 15 vs 5 actuations per pass during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy for specimen acquisition of solid pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIM

There is currently no established number of actuations (to-and-fro movements) per pass during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). This study aimed to compare 15 vs 5 actuations in terms of adequate specimen acquisition of solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, crossover, noninferiority, single-center study, eligible patients underwent EUS-FNB using a 22-G Franseen needle with both 15 and 5 actuations per pass, performed in a randomized order, from October 2020 to December 2021. The acquired specimens from each pass were separately evaluated. The primary outcome was the accuracy of the histological diagnosis per pass. The noninferiority margin was set as 15%.

RESULTS

Data from 85 patients were analyzed, revealing pancreatic cancer in 73 patients. The accuracy of the histological diagnosis in the 15 and 5 actuations groups was 83.5% (71/85) and 77.7% (66/85), respectively. The difference was -5.8% (95% confidence interval -15.6-3.4), which does not indicate noninferiority of the five actuations group. Among the secondary outcomes, the 15 actuations group was significantly superior to the five actuations group in terms of the obtained core tissues (1.88 [interquartile range 0.89-3.64] mm2 vs 1.66 [0.83-2.71] mm2 [P = 0.031]) and subjective evaluation of cytology specimens for pancreatic cancer (69.0% vs. 31.0%, P = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

The noninferiority of five actuations in the accuracy of the histological diagnosis was not confirmed, and 15 actuations are preferred during EUS-FNB for solid pancreatic lesions.

Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration with Fine-Needle Biopsy for Solid Gastrointestinal Lesions: A Randomized Crossover Single-Center study

Background/Aims The purpose of this study was to compare the results of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (FNB) performed at the same site in a single session in the same patient.

Methods Consecutive patients with solid gastrointestinal lesions referred for EUS evaluation underwent EUS-FNA and FNB using 22G needles with three and two passes, respectively, in the same session. Patients were randomized to one group having EUS-FNA first followed by EUS-FNB, while other group had EUS-FNB first followed by EUS-FNA.

Results Total 50 patients (31 male) of mean age 56.58 ± 14.2 years and mean lesion size of 2.6 (±2) cm were included. The Kappa agreement for final diagnosis for FNA and FNB was 0.841 and 0.61, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of FNA versus FNB were 85.19 versus 62.96% and 100 versus 100%, respectively, in comparison with final diagnosis.

Conclusion Both EUS-FNA and FNB are equally safe when compared between the two techniques simultaneously in same lesion. EUS-FNA is better than FNB in terms of sensitivity, diagnostic accuracy, and tissue yield for solid GI lesion. However, the specificity and positive predictive value were equally good for both the modalities.

Does same session EUS-guided tissue acquisition and ERCP increase the risk of pancreatitis in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction?

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasonography-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) are increasingly performed in the same session in patients with malignant biliary obstruction. In this retrospective analysis, we investigated adverse events (AE) after same session ERCP and EUS-TA.

METHODS

Patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction who underwent EUS-TA and/or ERCP with self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement from January 2015 to April 2020 were included. Primary outcome was post-procedural pancreatitis (PPP). Secondary outcomes were other procedure-related AE.

RESULTS

We included 494 patients, of which 118 patients (24%) underwent same session EUS-TA+ERCP, 51 patients (10%) underwent separate session EUS-TA & ERCP, 90 patients (18%) ERCP-only and 235 patients (48%) EUS-TA only. PPP occurred in 22 patients (19%) after same session EUS-TA+ERCP and in 6 patients (12%) after separate EUS-TA & ERCP (p = 0.270). When adjusted for other known risk factors (i.e., difficult procedure), the difference in PPP remained non-significant (adjusted odds ratio 1.74 (95%-CI 0.65-4.67, p = 0.268). The incidence of other AE was similar, although the overall AE rate was significantly higher after same session EUS-TA+ERCP (36% vs. 20%, p = 0.030).

CONCLUSION

Same session EUS-TA+ERCP did not significantly increase the incidence of PPP, although overall AE were significantly higher. These data warrant further prospective studies.

Pancreas Involvement of Extranodal Natural Killer/T-Cell Lymphoma, Nasal Type, Presenting as Acute Pancreatitis: A Case Report

BACKGROUND

The main etiology of acute pancreatitis includes biliary origin and alcohol, although various other causes include drugs (i.e., L-asparaginase) or malignant tumors. Since accurate identification of etiologies is crucial for determining therapeutic planning, the assessment of cause should be performed as early as possible.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 57-year-old Korean man was admitted for chemotherapy. The patient did not drink alcohol for religious reason. 26 days prior to admission, a 4 cm-sized testicular mass was observed in ultrasound and he received right radial orchiectomy. Extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma, nasal type, was diagnosed. After confirming no additional abnormal findings, chemotherapy (using the regimens Dexamethasone, methotrexate, ifosfamide, L-asparaginase, and etoposide) was begun. On Day 8 of chemotherapy, L-asparaginase was started and he complained of sudden onset epigastric pain after 2 days. Acute pancreatitis was diagnosed and, in order to determine if the acute pancreatitis occurred due to L-asparaginase or pancreas involvement of extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma, endoscopic ultrasonography guided fine needle biopsy was performed and observed diffusely infiltrated tumor cells. Therefore, he was given a final diagnosis of acute pancreatitis due to pancreas involvement of extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma, nasal type.

DISCUSSION

Acute pancreatitis caused by pancreas involvement of extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma, nasal type, is a very rare disease but can occur during chemotherapy. To identify the cause of acute pancreatitis, endoscopic ultrasonography guided fine needle biopsy can be considered.

Analysis of Decreasing Adverse Events with Endoscopic Ultrasound in a New Advanced Endoscopy Program Over Time

OBJECTIVE

New innovations and increasing utility of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) are associated with rare but serious risks. We investigate the rates and risk factors for post-procedural complications over a four-year period at a new advanced endoscopy program.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of all adult patients who underwent upper EUS at an academic level-1 trauma center between April 2015 and November 2019. The primary outcome was the incidence of adverse events within 1 week of EUS. Secondary outcomes included emergency department visits and mortality within 30 days after EUS. Chi-square test, t test, and multivariable logistic regression were used to assess risk factors for post-procedural complications.

RESULTS

A total of 968 EUS procedures were performed on 864 patients (54% female; 79% Caucasian; mean age 61 years). The overall incidence of post-procedural adverse event with EUS was 5.6%. The probability of an adverse event decreased by an average of 22% per year (p =0.01, OR 0.78). The risk for adverse events were 3.3% acute pancreatitis, 1.9% clinically significant bleeding, 0.3% bacteremia, 0.2% perforation, and 2.4% 30-day mortality. The adverse event rate was highest among low volume proceduralists (p =0.04). The 30-day mortality was more than threefolds among patients who had an adverse event within 7 days after EUS.

CONCLUSION

The overall incidence of post-procedural adverse events at a new EUS program was 5.6%, with an average of 22% relative decrease in adverse events per year in the first 4 years.

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

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

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for the diagnosis of a case of a huge abdominal mass

Testicular mixed germ cell tumor is characterized by high degree of malignancy and prone to metastasis, the common of which is retroperitoneal lymph node metastasis. At present, EUS has a very important diagnostic value for mediastinal, enterocoelia and retroperitoneal lymph node metastasis of malignant tumors. It also has a positive value for the space occupying of parenchyma or cavity organ and can be used for the puncture operation of multiple lesions under real-time ultrasound monitoring with high safety and small complications.

Use of antibiotic prophylaxis is not needed for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic cysts: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence on the use of antibiotic prophylaxis prior to endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic cysts. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis in this setting.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Bibliographic search was performed through January 2020. The primary outcome was infection rate. Additional endpoints were severe infection rate and overall rates of adverse events.

RESULTS

Six studies, of which one was a randomized controlled trial and five were retrospective, with 1706 patients were included. Most patients were female, and body/tail was the most frequent location of cystic lesions. Overall, eight infectious events were observed in the antibiotic group (0.77%), whereas 12 events were registered in the control group (1.7%), with no difference in terms of infection rate (odds ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.24-1.78; p = 0.40). Again, no difference was observed between the two study groups in terms of either severe infection (odds ratio 0.88, 0.13-5.82; p = 0.89) and overall adverse event rate (odds ratio 1.09, 0.73-1.65; p = 0.67).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic antibiotics do not seem to substantially reduce the risk of infections after endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic cystic lesions, and routine use of prophylactic antibiotics should be questioned.

Factors affecting the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for the diagnosis of small (≤20 mm) pancreatic lesions

To explore the diagnostic value of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for small, solid or semi-solid pancreatic lesions (≤20 mm) and the factors affecting its accuracy.

METHODS

Altogether 92 patients with small, solid or semi-solid pancreatic lesions who underwent EUS-FNA at the Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital from November 2009 to January 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to determine the factors affecting the accuracy of EUS-FNA for detecting these lesions.

RESULTS

Among the 92 cases, 56 (60.9%) were diagnosed as having malignant lesions and 36 (39.1%) as benign lesions, respectively. The overall sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of small, solid or semi-solid pancreatic lesions were 71.4%, 100% and 82.6%, respectively. When considering the impact of the presence of a tissue core on the diagnosis, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of EUS-FNA with tissue core compared with those based on cytology alone were 77.3% vs 50.0%; 100% vs 100%; and 86.8% vs 62.5%, respectively. The multivariate analysis showed that larger tumor size (>15-20 mm) (odds ratio [OR] 4.200, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21-14.53, P = 0.023) and histologic diagnosis based on tissue core (OR 4.593, 95% CI 1.03-20.47, P = 0.046) were related to a higher accuracy of EUS-FNA. Adverse events were observed in three patients, all were treated conservatively and recovered within 3 days.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNA is effective and safe for diagnosing small pancreatic lesions. Tumor size and presence of tissue core are related to higher accuracy of the EUS-FNA.

Present and Future of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition in Solid Pancreatic Tumors

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) is a well-established method for pathological diagnosis of solid pancreatic neoplasm. It can be performed either as EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) or EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUSFNB). The incidence of adverse events related to EUS-TA is less than 1%. The factors that affect the diagnostic accuracy and specimen adequacy include the techniques used, type and size of the needle, competency of endosonographers, presence of cytopathologists/ cytotechnologists, and rapid on-site examination. EUS-TA may contribute to precision medicine through obtaining tissue samples for next-generation sequencing. The current status, several clinical issues for diagnostic yield and adverse events, and future perspectives of EUS-FNA/FNB for diagnosing pancreatic neoplasm have been discussed in this review article.

Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of Newly Designed 21-Gauge and Standard 22-Gauge Aspiration Needles in Patients with Solid Pancreatic Masses

BACKGROUND

Although endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has been widely used for the diagnosis of pancreatic tumors, the ability to obtain adequate pancreatic tumor tissue needs to be improved.

AIMS

This study was performed to compare a newly designed 21-gauge needle (EUS Sonopsy CY; Hakko Medical, Nagano, Japan) and a standard 22-gauge needle for tissue sampling of solid pancreatic masses.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with solid pancreatic masses who underwent EUS-FNA with either the EUS Sonopsy CY or the 22-gauge needle from June 2014 to December 2016 were enrolled. The primary outcome was comparison of the diagnostic yield of the FNA samples. The secondary outcomes were comparison of technical success, diagnostic ability for malignancy, and complications.

RESULTS

A total of 93 patients (40.9% female; mean age, 70.1 years) underwent EUS-FNA with the EUS Sonopsy CY (n = 47) or the standard 22-gauge needle (n = 46). The technical success rate was 100% in both groups, and the overall diagnostic accuracy for malignancy was similar between the groups (100% in the EUS Sonopsy CY group vs. 95.7% in the 22-gauge needle group, P = 0.242). Nevertheless, the EUS Sonopsy CY resulted in significantly higher scores for cellularity (P = 0.006) and lower scores for blood contamination (P < 0.001). The procedure-related complication rate was comparable between the groups (P = 0.148).

CONCLUSIONS

The EUS Sonopsy CY provided higher-quality specimens for histological evaluation in terms of both sample cellularity and blood contamination for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered in a clinical trial registry, No. UMIN000032598.

Survey Study on the Practice Patterns of the Evaluation and Management of Incidental Pancreatic Cysts

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Various gastrointestinal societies have released guidelines on the evaluation of asymptomatic pancreatic cysts (PCs). These guidelines differ on several aspects, which create a conundrum for clinicians. The aim of this study was to evaluate preferences and practice patterns in the management of incidental PCs in light of these societal recommendations.

METHODS

An electronic survey distributed to members of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE). Main outcomes included practice setting (academic vs. community), preferences for evaluation, management, and surveillance strategies for PCs.

RESULTS

A total of 172 subjects completed the study (52% academic-based endoscopists). Eighty-six (50%) and 138 (80%) of the participants responded that they would recommend EUS surveillance of incidental PCs measuring less than 2 cm and 3 cm, respectively. Nearly half of the endosonographers (42.5% community and 44% academic; p = 1.0) would routinely perform FNA on PCs without any high-risk features. More academic-based endoscopists (57% academic vs. 32% community; p = 0.001) would continue incidental PC surveillance indefinitely.

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant variability in the approach of incidental PCs among clinicians, with practice patterns often diverging from the various GI societal guideline recommendations. Most survey respondents would routinely recommend EUS-FNA and indefinite surveillance for incidental PCs without high-risk features. The indiscriminate use of EUS-FNA and indefinite surveillance of all incidental PCs is not cost-effective, exposes the patient to unnecessary testing, and can further perpetuate diagnostic uncertainty. Well-designed studies are needed to improve our diagnostic and risk stratification accuracy in order to formulate a consensus on the management of these incidental PCs.

Cancer Screening Markers: A Simple Strategy to Substantially Reduce the Sample Size for Validation

BACKGROUND

Studies to validate a cancer prediction model based on cancer screening markers collected in stored specimens from asymptomatic persons typically require large specimen collection sample sizes. A standard sample size calculation targets a true-positive rate (TPR) of 0.8 with a 2.5% lower bound of 0.7 at a false-positive rate (FPR) of 0.01 with a 5% upper bound of 0.03. If the probability of developing cancer during the study is P = 0.01, the specimen collection sample size based on the standard calculation is 7600.

METHODS

The strategy to reduce the specimen collection sample size is to decrease both the lower bound of TPR and the upper bound of FPR while keeping a positive lower bound on the anticipated clinical utility.

RESULTS

The new sample size calculation targets a TPR of 0.4 with a 2.5% lower bound of 0.10 and an FPR of 0.0 with a 5% upper bound of 0.005. With P = 0.01, the specimen collection sample size based on the new calculation is 1800 instead of 7600.

LIMITATIONS

The new sample size calculation requires a minimum benefit/cost ratio (number of false positives traded for a true positive). With P = 0.01, the minimum cost-benefit ratio is 5, which is plausible in many studies.

CONCLUSION

In validation studies for cancer screening markers, the strategy can substantially reduce the specimen collection sample size, substantially reducing costs and making some otherwise infeasible studies now feasible.