Diagnostic Fine-Needle Biopsy of Small Solid Pancreatic Lesions Using a Franseen Needle during Endoscopic Ultrasound Examination

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy using a three-prong asymmetry tip needle for pancreatic tumors and peridigestive tract lesions: Retrospective single-center study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition is vital for diagnosing pancreatic and peridigestive tract lesions. A new three-prong asymmetry tip needle has been developed for this procedure. In this study, we retrospectively assessed the diagnostic ability, tissue collection volume, and procedural adverse events of the three-prong asymmetry tip needle for solid pancreatic, subepithelial, and other organ lesions.

METHODS

We analyzed the data of 58 consecutive patients who underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition using a three-prong asymmetry tip needle between August 2022 and April 2023 at a single care center.

RESULTS

The tissue collection rate was 91.4% with 89.7% accuracy, 89.3% sensitivity, 100% specificity, 100% positive predictive value, and 25% negative predictive value. No significant differences in collection rates or diagnostic performance were observed based on the target organ, puncture route, or lesion size. Using our original assessment method, the average histological core tissue score was 3.1 ± 0.8, whereas the blood contamination volume was 2.5 ± 0.8. Only one of 58 patients (1.7%) developed a pancreatic fistula of moderate severity as an adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

The three-prong asymmetry tip needle demonstrated good diagnostic capability and adequate sample volume with safety for pancreatic, subepithelial, and other organ lesions.

Diagnostic performance of EUS-guided tissue acquisition for solid pancreatic lesions ≤10 mm

Background and Objectives

EUS tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) is the standard diagnostic method for solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs); however, there are few reports on EUS-TA results for SPLs ≤10 mm. Furthermore, given the recent advent of fine-needle biopsy, the current diagnostic accuracy of EUS-TA for SPLs ≤10 mm is unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and efficacy of EUS-TA for SPLs ≤10 mm.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the data of 109 patients with SPLs ≤10 mm who underwent EUS-TA. All patients underwent rapid on-site specimen evaluation.

Results

The median tumor diameter was 8 mm (range, 2.5-10 mm), and the technical success rate was 99.1% (108/109). Adverse events were observed in 3 patients (2.8%). The diagnostic performance was as follows: sensitivity, 90.1% (64/71); specificity, 97.3% (36/37); accuracy, 92.6% (100/108); positive predictive value, 98.5% (64/65); and negative predictive value, 83.7% (36/43). Multivariate analysis revealed that the number of punctures (odds ratio, 7.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-37.5; P = 0.023) and tumor type (odds ratio, 11.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.38-102.0; P = 0.024) were independent risk factors for inaccurate EUS-TA results. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-TA for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma was 87.5% (14/16). No EUS-TA-related needle-tract seeding was observed in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma during the observation period.

Conclusions

EUS-TA for SPLs ≤10 mm showed adequate diagnostic accuracy and was safe for use with rapid on-site specimen evaluation in all cases.

True diagnostic ability of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy sampling for small pancreatic lesions ≤10 mm and salvage diagnosis by pancreatic juice cytology: a multicenter study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The diagnostic performance of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy sampling (EUS-FNAB) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) ≤10 mm in diameter is relatively low. Pancreatic juice cytology (PJC) has gained attention because of its high sensitivity for small PDACs. We aimed to clarify the diagnostic ability of EUS-FNAB and the salvage ability of PJC for PDAC ≤10 mm.

METHODS

Data obtained from attempted EUS-FNAB for patients with EUS-confirmed pancreatic tumors ≤10 mm (excluding pancreatic metastases/malignant lymphomas) were retrospectively analyzed. Patients who experienced technical failure or had a negative EUS-FNAB result and had a strong likelihood of PDAC based on imaging characteristics underwent PJC. PDAC was diagnosed using resected histologic specimens, EUS-FNAB-positive tumor growth on the imaging examination, or additional EUS-FNAB-positive results after increase in tumor size. The primary endpoint was the diagnostic ability of EUS-FNAB for PDAC ≤10 mm. The salvage ability of PJC was also assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 86 of 271 patients with pancreatic tumors ≤10 mm who underwent attempted EUS-FNAB were diagnosed with PDAC. The technical success rate, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of EUS-FNAB for PDAC ≤10 mm were 80.8%, 82.3%, 94.9%, and 91.3%, respectively. Among the 35 PDAC patients who experienced technical failure or false-negative results of EUS-FNAB, 26 (74.3%) were correctly diagnosed using salvage PJC.

CONCLUSIONS

The true success rate and sensitivity of EUS-FNAB for PDAC ≤10 mm were relatively low. When EUS-FNAB for a pancreatic lesion ≤10 mm strongly suspected to be PDAC is unsuccessful or yields a negative result, PJC is recommended. (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN000049965.).

Efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition for solid pancreatic lesions 20 mm or less in diameter suspected as neuroendocrine tumors or requiring differentiation

BACKGROUND

For non-functioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) ≤ 20 mm, most guidelines consider follow-up observations as an option; however, the various treatment strategies are defined by size alone, even though the Ki-67 index is important for malignancy grading. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) is the standard for the histopathological diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions; however, recent results for small lesions remain unclear. Therefore, we examined the efficacy of EUS-TA for solid pancreatic lesions ≤ 20 mm suspected as pNETs or requiring differentiation and the non-increase rate in tumor size in follow-up cases.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data of 111 patients (median age = 58 years) with lesions ≤ 20 mm suspected as pNETs or requiring differentiation who underwent EUS-TA. All patients underwent specimen evaluation by rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE).

RESULTS

EUS-TA led to a diagnosis of pNETs in 77 patients (69.4%) and tumors other than pNETs in 22 patients (19.8%). The histopathological diagnostic accuracy of EUS-TA was 89.2% (99/111) overall, 94.3% (50/53) for 10-20 mm lesions, and 84.5% (49/58) for ≤ 10 mm lesions, with no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy (p = 0.13). The Ki-67 index was measurable in all patients with a histopathological diagnosis of pNETs. Among 49 patients with a diagnosis of pNETs who were followed up, one patient (2.0%) showed tumor enlargement.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-TA for solid pancreatic lesions ≤ 20 mm suspected as pNETs or requiring differentiation is safe and has adequate histopathological diagnostic accuracy, suggesting that follow-up observations of pNETs with a histological pathologic diagnosis are acceptable in the short term.

Sensitivity of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology and biopsy for a diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A comparative analysis

The utility of endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration cytology (EUS-FNAC) or endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNAB) for diagnosis of small and large pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDACs) remains in question. We addressed this by analyzing 97 definitively diagnosed cases of PDAC, for which both EUS-FNAC and EUS-FNAB had been performed. We subclassified the 97 solid masses into small (n = 35) or large (n = 62) according to the maximum tumor diameter (<24 mm or ≥24 mm) and compared the diagnostic sensitivity (truly positive rate) of EUS-FNAC and of EUS-FNAB for small and large masses. Diagnostic sensitivity of EUS-FNAC did not differ between large and small masses (79.0% vs. 60.0%; p = 0.0763). However, the diagnostic sensitivity of EUS-FNAB was significantly higher for large masses (85.5% vs. 62.9%; p = 0.0213). Accurate EUS-FNAC-based diagnosis appeared to depend on the degree of cytological atypia of cancer cells, which was not associated with quantity of cancer cells. The accuracy of EUS-FNAB-based diagnosis appeared to depend on cancer cell viability in large masses and cancer volume in small masses. Based on the advantages or disadvantages in each modality, both modalities play an important role in the qualitative diagnosis of PDAC as a complementary procedure.

Diagnostic Management of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: Technique Optimization and Tips and Tricks for Radiologists

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs) comprise a heterogeneous group of neoplasms, which derive from cells of the diffuse neuroendocrine system that specializes in producing hormones and neuropeptides and arise in most cases sporadically and, to a lesser extent, in the context of complex genetic syndromes. Furthermore, they are primarily nonfunctioning, while, in the case of insulinomas, gastrinomas, glucagonomas, vipomas, and somatostatinomas, they produce hormones responsible for clinical syndromes. The GEP-NEN tumor grade and cell differentiation may result in different clinical behaviors and prognoses, with grade one (G1) and grade two (G2) neuroendocrine tumors showing a more favorable outcome than grade three (G3) NET and neuroendocrine carcinoma. Two critical issues should be considered in the NEN diagnostic workup: first, the need to identify the presence of the tumor, and, second, to define the primary site and evaluate regional and distant metastases. Indeed, the primary site, stage, grade, and function are prognostic factors that the radiologist should evaluate to guide prognosis and management. The correct diagnostic management of the patient includes a combination of morphological and functional evaluations. Concerning morphological evaluations, according to the consensus guidelines of the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS), computed tomography (CT) with a contrast medium is recommended. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), is usually indicated for use to evaluate the liver, pancreas, brain, and bones. Ultrasonography (US) is often helpful in the initial diagnosis of liver metastases, and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) can solve problems in characterizing the liver, as this tool can guide the biopsy of liver lesions. In addition, intraoperative ultrasound is an effective tool during surgical procedures. Positron emission tomography (PET-CT) with FDG for nonfunctioning lesions and somatostatin analogs for functional lesions are very useful for identifying and evaluating metabolic receptors. The detection of heterogeneity in somatostatin receptor (SSTR) expression is also crucial for treatment decision making. In this narrative review, we have described the role of morphological and functional imaging tools in the assessment of GEP-NENs according to current major guidelines.

Differential diagnosis between pancreatic solid pseudopapillary tumors and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors based on contrast enhanced ultrasound imaging features

PURPOSES

To evaluate the application of contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in preoperatively differential diagnosis between pancreatic solid pseudopapillary tumors (SPTs) and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective study was approved by Institutional Review Board. Patients with surgical resection and histopathological diagnosis as SPTs and pNETs were included. All patients underwent B mode ultrasound (BMUS) and CEUS examinations within one week before surgical operation. On BMUS, the size, location, echogenicity, calcification, and margin of lesions were observed and recorded. On CEUS imaging, enhancement patterns, and enhancement degrees were recorded and analyzed. An independent t-test or Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparison between continuous variables. Chi-square test was used to compare the CEUS patterns.

RESULTS

From February 2017 to Dec 2022, patients diagnosed as SPTs (n = 39) and pNETs (n = 48) were retrospectively included. On BMUS, anechoic cystic changes (19/39, 48.72%) and hyperechoic calcification (14/39, 35.90%) are more commonly detected in SPTs (P = 0.000). On CEUS imaging, the majority of SPTs (27/39, 69.23%) showed hypo-enhancement in the arterial phase, while most of the pNETs (36/48, 75.00%) showed hyper- or iso-enhancement in the arterial phase (P = 0.000). In the venous phase, most of the SPTs (32/39, 82.05%) showed hypo-enhancement, while over half of pNETs (29/48, 60.42%) showed hyper- or iso-enhancement compared to pancreatic parenchyma (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

CEUS is a valuable and non-invasive imaging method to make preoperatively differential diagnoses between SPTs and pNETs.

Clinical dilemma of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for resectable pancreatic body and tail cancer

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a first-line procedure for definitive tissue diagnosis of pancreatic cancer because of its high accuracy and low complication rate. The overall sensitivity of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer is approximately 90%; however, its diagnostic ability for small lesions (<10 mm) remains limited. Although EUS-FNA is a relatively safe procedure, with an overall morbidity of ≤2%, it should be noted that needle tract seeding (NTS) can occur after EUS-FNA, which may affect the patient prognosis negatively. In patients with resected pancreatic tumors, preoperative EUS-FNA is not associated with an increased risk of postoperative recurrence. However, NTS after EUS-FNA for resectable pancreatic body and tail cancer has been highlighted recently, particularly by Japanese endoscopists. Thus, the use of preoperative EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of resectable pancreatic body and tail cancer has become a clinical dilemma that challenges gastroenterologists and must be carefully considered on a case-by-case basis by weighing the benefits and risks. This review summarizes the pros and cons of performing EUS-FNA in patients with resectable pancreatic body and tail cancer and provides valuable insight for gastroenterologists treating pancreatic cancer.

Comparison of Histological Sample Volumes among Various Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy Needles

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) enables easy and accurate pathological assessment. Here, we compared and assessed the area of samples on glass slides for three needle types: a 19-gauge Franseen needle (Acquire, Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA), a 22-gauge Franseen needle, and a 19-gauge fine-needle aspiration (FNA) needle (EZ Shot 3 Plus; Olympus, Tokyo, Japan). Among patients with suspected pancreatic cancer, with a ≥20 mm tumor located in the pancreatic body and tail, and who underwent EUS-FNA or FNB between June 2018 and March 2020, 10 were randomly selected to test each needle. The areas of histological tissue and blood clot samples were measured using the BZ-X800 imaging software (Keyence Corporation, Osaka, Japan). Baseline patient characteristics and pathological sample data showed no significant differences among the needles. The 19-gauge Franseen needle obtained significantly more histological tissue samples than the 19-gauge conventional needle (p = 0.010) and 22-gauge Franseen needle (p = 0.008). Conversely, there was no significant difference between the 19-gauge conventional needle and 22-gauge Franseen needle (p = 0.838) in this regard. The 19-gauge Franseen needle could collect more samples than the other needles, contributing to giving a more precise pathological diagnosis and more information, including genomic profiling.

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.