Analysis of the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration in patients with a suspected pancreatic malignancy

Endoscopic ultrasonography‐guided tissue acquisition for small solid pancreatic lesions: Does the size matter?

Endoscopic ultrasonography‐guided tissue acquisition (EUS‐TA) is now an established technique to obtain the pathological diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs), but the diagnosis of small SPLS by EUS‐TA can still be difficult. We conducted a literature review and a meta‐analysis on the diagnostic yield of EUS‐TA according to the tumor size. In a meta‐analysis of 33 studies with 6883 cases, a pooled odds ratio (OR) of sensitivity was significantly higher in SPLs of >20 mm (OR 1.64, p = 0.02) and in SPLs of >10 mm (OR 3.05, p = 0.01), but not in SPLs of >30 mm (OR 1.18, p = 0.46). The meta‐analysis of accuracy also showed a similar trend: OR of 1.59 in SPLs of >20 mm (p < 0.01) and OR of 3.27 in SPLs of >10 mm (p < 0.01) and OR of 1.03 in SPLs of >30 mm (p = 0.87). The use of a 25‐gauge needle tended to improve sensitivity in small SPLs, though not statistically significant: OR of 1.25 and 2.82 in studies with and without a 25‐gauge needle (p = 0.08). The use of fine needle biopsy needles, slow pull method, and rapid on‐site evaluation did not significantly improve sensitivity in small SPLs. EUS‐TA for small SPLs, especially neuroendocrine neoplasms, is reported to have a high risk of adverse events. In summary, the diagnostic yield and safety of EUS‐TA for small (<20 mm) SPLs still needs improvement, and the best needle and technique for small SPLs should be further investigated.

A Meta-analysis of Slow Pull versus Suction for Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition

Background/Aims

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition is widely utilized as a diagnostic modality for intra-abdominal masses, but there remains debate regarding which suction technique, slow pull (SP) or conventional suction (CS), is better. A meta-analysis of reported studies was conducted to compare the diagnostic yields of SP and CS during EUS-guided tissue acquisition.

Methods

We conducted a systematic electronic search using MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify clinical studies comparing SP and CS. We meta-analyzed accuracy, sensitivity, blood contamination and cellularity using the random-effects model.

Results

A total of 17 studies (seven randomized controlled trials, four prospective studies, and six retrospective studies) with 1,616 cases were included in the analysis. Compared to CS, there was a trend toward better accuracy (odds ratio [OR], 1.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 2.27; p=0.07) and sensitivity (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.93; p=0.08) with SP and a significantly lower rate of blood contamination (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.69; p<0.01). However, there was no significant difference in cellularity between SP and CS, with an OR of 1.28 (95% CI, 0.68 to 2.40; p=0.45). When the use of a 25-gauge needle was analyzed, the accuracy and sensitivity of SP were significantly better than those of CS, with ORs of 4.81 (95% CI, 1.99 to 11.62; p<0.01) and 4.69 (95% CI, 1.93 to 11.40; p<0.01), respectively.

Conclusions

Compared to CS, SP appears to provide better accuracy and sensitivity in EUS-guided tissue acquisition, especially when a 25-gauge needle is used.

Efficacy of EUS-guided needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy in the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and Objectives:

Needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (nCLE) is a procedure in which an AQ-Flex nCLE mini-probe is passed through an EUS-FNA needle into a pancreatic lesion to enable subsurface in vivo tissue analysis. In this study, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of nCLE for the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions.

Materials and Methods:

We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases and conference proceedings, including PubMed, EMBASE, Google-Scholar, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases (earliest inception to March 2020). The primary outcomes assessed the pooled rate of diagnostic accuracy for nCLE and the secondary outcomes assessed the pooled rate of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and adverse events (AE) of nCLE to diagnose premalignant/malignant pancreatic lesions.

Results:

Eleven studies on 443 patients were included in our analysis. The pooled rate of diagnostic accuracy of EUS nCLE was 83% (95 confidence interval [CI] = 79–87; I² = 0). The pooled rate of sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of EUS nCLE was 85.29% (95% CI = 76.9–93.68; I² = 85%), 90.49% (95% CI = 82.24–98.74; I² = 64%), 94.15% (95% CI = 88.55–99.76; I² = 68%), and 73.44% (95% CI = 60.16–86.72; I² = 93%), respectively. The total AE rate was 5.41% (±5.92) with postprocedure pancreatitis being the most common AE at 2.28% (±3.73).

Conclusion:

In summary, this study highlights the rate of diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and PPV for distinguishing premalignant/malignant lesions. Pancreatic lesions need to be further defined with more validation studies to characterize CLE diagnosis criteria and to evaluate its use as an adjunct to EUS-FNA.

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.