Basic techniques in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for solid lesions: Adverse events and avoiding them

The advent of the first electric driven EUS-guided 17 gauge core needle biopsy - A pilot study on subepithelial lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This pilot study aimed to evaluate safety and tissue sampling from subepithelial lesions (SEL) in the upper gastrointestinal tract with a novel electric motor driven endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided 17-gauge (G) size core needle biopsy (CNB) instrument.

METHODS

An investigator-led prospective open label, performance and safety control study, including seven patients (female n = 4, median 71 y, range 28-75) with a determined SEL (median size 30 mm, range 17-150 mm) in the upper digestive tract (stomach n = 6, duodenum n = 1) were eligible and later followed up 14 days after index procedure. All investigations were completed according to protocol with three FNB 22-G passes with four fanning strokes and two EndoDrill® 17-G passes with three fanning strokes.

RESULTS

Quality of samples as 'visible pieces' (>5 mm): FNB (n = 5/7) (fragmented/blood imbibed n = 1, poor tissue quantity n = 1) compared with 17-G CNB (n = 7/7). Histological result which led to final diagnosis (leiomyoma n = 2, adenocarcinoma n = 1, schwannoma n = 1, neuroendocrine tumour n = 1, desmoid tumour n = 1 and gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) n = 1) could be obtained with the 17-G CNB instrument in all seven patients. FNB technique reached correct diagnosis in six patients. No serious adverse event were recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

By using an electric driven 17-G biopsy device, a true cylinder of core tissue can be obtained in one single puncture from the area of interest reducing the need for a second sampling. The absolute benefit of EUS-guided CNB is that the sample can be handled and histologically prepared in the same manner as standard percutaneous core needle sample, e.g., breast and prostate cancer.

The consistencies and inconsistencies between distal cholangiocarcinoma and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To evaluate the consistencies and inconsistencies between distal cholangiocarcinoma (DCCA) and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDCA) regarding their biological features and long-term prognosis.

Methods

PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched to find comparative studies between DCCA and PDCA. RevMan5.3 and Stata 13.0 software were used for the statistical analyses.

Results

Eleven studies with 4,698 patients with DCCA and 100,629 patients with PDCA were identified. Pooled results indicated that patients with DCCA had a significantly higher rate of preoperative jaundice (p = 0.0003). Lymphatic metastasis (p < 0.00001), vascular invasion (p < 0.0001), and peri-neural invasion (p = 0.005) were more frequently detected in patients with PDCA. After curative pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), a significantly higher R0 rate (p < 0.0001) and significantly smaller tumor size (p < 0.00001) were detected in patients with DCCA. Patients with DCCA had a more favorable overall survival (OS) (p < 0.00001) and disease-free survival (DFS) (p = 0.005) than patients with PDCA. However, postoperative morbidities (p = 0.02), especially postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (p < 0.00001), more frequently occurred in DCCA.

Conclusion

Patients with DCCA had more favorable tumor pathological features and long-term prognosis than patients with PDCA. An early diagnosis more frequently occurred in patients with DCCA. However, postoperative complications, especially POPF, were more frequently observed in patients with DCCA.

Isolated Gastric Metastases of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma following Radical Resection—Impact of Endosonography-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Tract Seeding

Background: Endosonography-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNA)-associated metachronous gastric seeding metastases (GSM) of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) represent a serious condition with insufficient evidence. Methods: Retrospective analysis of PDAC resections with a curative-intent, proven pathological diagnosis of PDAC, preoperative EUS-FNA and post-resection follow-up of at least 60 months. The systematic literature search of published data was used for the GSM growth evaluation using Pearson correlation and the linear regression analyses. Results: The inclusion criteria met 59/134 cases, 16 (27%) had retained needle tract (15 following distal pancreatectomy, 1 following pylorus-sparing head resection). In total, 3/16 cases (19%) developed identical solitary GSM (10–26th month following primary surgery) and were radically resected. A total of 30 published cases of PDAC GSM following EUS-FNA were identified. Lesion was resected in 20 distal pancreatectomy cases with complete information in 14 cases. A correlation between the metastasis size and time (r = 0.612) was proven. The regression coefficient b = 0.72 expresses the growth of 0.72 mm per month. Conclusions: The GSM represent a preventable and curable condition. A remarkably high number of GSM following EUS-FNA was identified, leading to follow-up recommendation of EUS-FNA sampled patients. Multimodal management (gastric resection, adjuvant chemotherapy) may prolong survival.

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.

[Clinical and Technical Guideline for Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Tissue Acquisition of Pancreatic Solid Tumor: Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy]

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence- based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.

Clinical and Technical Guideline for Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-Guided Tissue Acquisition of Pancreatic Solid Tumor: Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE)

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a task force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice. (Gut Liver 2021;15:-374)

Clinical and Technical Guideline for Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-Guided Tissue Acquisition of Pancreatic Solid Tumor: Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE)

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in 8 categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.

Standard reporting elements for the performance of EUS: Recommendations from the FOCUS working group

Background and Objectives

Quality indicators for the performance of EUS have been developed to monitor and improve service value and patient outcomes. To support the incorporation of these indicators and standardize EUS documentation, we propose standard EUS reporting elements for endosonographers and endoscopy units.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search and review was performed to identify EUS quality indicators and key components of high-quality standardized EUS reporting. Guidance statements regarding standard EUS reporting elements were developed and reviewed at the Forum for Canadian Endoscopic Ultrasound (FOCUS) 2019 Annual Meeting.

Results

EUS reporting elements can be divided into preprocedural, intraprocedural, and postprocedural items. Preprocedural components include the type, indication, and urgency of the procedure and patient clinical information and consent. Intraprocedural components include the adequacy and extent of examination, relevant landmarks, lesion characteristics, sampling method, specimen quality, and intraprocedural adverse events. Postprocedural components include a summary and synthesis of relevant findings as well as recommended management and follow-up.

Conclusions

Standardizing reporting elements may help improve the care of patients undergoing EUS procedures. Our review provides a practical guide and compilation of recommended reporting elements to ensure ongoing best practices and quality improvement in EUS.

Bile-Based Cell-Free DNA Analysis Is a Reliable Diagnostic Tool in Pancreatobiliary Cancer

Currently available serum biomarkers for pancreatobiliary cancers lack sensitivity and specificity and ultimate diagnosis still requires invasive procedures for histological confirmation. The detection of tumor-specific genetic aberrations with utilization of cell free DNA (cfDNA) is a less invasive approach than traditional tissue biopsies; however, it has not been implemented into clinical routine. In this study, we investigated bile as a liquid biopsy source in pancreatobiliary cancers and compared its potential as cell-free DNA source to plasma. Blood (n = 37) and bile (n = 21) samples were collected from patients affected by pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) or with non-malignant biliary obstructions (blood n = 16; bile n = 21). Panel-based next generation sequencing (NGS) and digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) were applied for tumor mutation profiling. NGS results from matched tumor tissues (n = 29) served as comparison. Sequencing of cfDNA from bile resulted in detection of 96.2% of the pathogenic tumor mutations found in matched tissue samples. On the other hand, only 31.6% of pathogenic tumor mutations found in tissue could be detected in plasma. In a direct comparison, only half of the mutations detected in bile cfDNA were concordantly detected in plasma from the same patients. Panel NGS and ddPCR displayed comparable sensitivity. In conclusion, bile is a suitable source of cfDNA for the diagnosis of pancreatobiliary cancer and performs more reliably than plasma. Although primary diagnosis still requires histologic confirmation, bile-derived cfDNA could offer an alternative if tissue sampling is not feasible and might allow less invasive disease monitoring.

Overlooked risk for needle tract seeding following endoscopic ultrasound-guided minimally invasive tissue acquisition

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided minimally invasive tissue acquisition can be performed by two approaches as follows: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). These have been evolved into leading approaches and widely used for the histological diagnosis of tumors in the gastrointestinal tract and adjacent organs. However, the role of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB in disease diagnosis and evaluation remains controversial. Although the incidence of surgery-associated complications remains low, the consequences of needle tract seeding can be serious or even life-threatening. Recently, increasing case reports of needle tract seeding are emerging, especially caused by EUS-FNA. This complication needs serious consideration. In the present work, we integrated these case reports and the related literature, and summarized the relevant cases and technical characteristics of needle tract seeding caused by EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB. Collectively, our findings provided valuable insights into the prevention and reduction of such serious complication.

Importance of each high-risk stigmata and worrisome features as a predictor of high-grade dysplasia in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas

BACKGROUND

High-risk stigmata (HRS) and 'worrisome features' (WFs) are defined as predictive factors for malignancies of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs). We performed this study to determine the importance and odds ratio (OR) of each HRS and WFs as predictors for high-grade dysplasia (HGD).

METHODS

We analyzed 295 patients who underwent pancreatectomy for branch duct and mixed-type IPMN, and evaluated the association between HRS and WFs (as defined by the '2017 Fukuoka Consensus Guidelines') and HGD.

RESULTS

The proportions of patients with low-grade dysplasia (LGD), HGD, and invasive carcinoma were 47%, 28%, and 25%, respectively. Multivariate analysis comparing patients with LGD and HGD using all HRS and WFs revealed that an enhancing mural nodule ≥5 mm (OR: 4.1), pancreatitis (OR: 2.2), and thickened/enhancing cyst walls (OR: 2.2) were independent predictive factors for HGD. Based on the OR (the former factor is two points and the latter two factors are each one point), the incidence of HGD in patients with none (n = 43), one (n = 82), two (n = 25), three (n = 52), and four (n = 19) of these predictive factors were 9%, 26%, 52%, 62%, and 63%, respectively. Assuming a score of one or higher as a surgical indication, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predict value, and negative predict value of HGD were 95, 38, 44, and 91%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our derived scoring system using more important factors in HRS and WFs may be useful for predicting HGD and determining surgical indications of IPMN.

Plasma circulating tumor DNA in pancreatic adenocarcinoma for screening, diagnosis, prognosis, treatment and follow-up: A systematic review

While no biomarker is currently recommended for the management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA), circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) seems promising but little is known on how it may help to manage our patients in the near future. This systematic review of literature was designed to explore the current knowledge on ctDNA as a screening, diagnostic, prognostic, predictive and theranostic biomarker in the management of PA. We retrieved 62 full-text articles, 3 meta-analyses, 2 clinical trials, 1 abstract and 13 ongoing trials. Results were categorized into sections about screening, diagnosis, prognosis and follow-up of localized and advanced PA together with possible theranostics applications. Although its specificity is excellent, the current sensitivity of ctDNA remains a limitation especially in patients without metastatic disease. Therefore, this biomarker cannot be currently used as a screening or diagnostic tool. Increasing evidence suggests that ctDNA is a relevant candidate biomarker to assess minimal residual disease after radical surgery, but also a strong independent biomarker linked to a poor prognosis in advanced PA. Some recent data also indicates that ctDNA is an attractive biomarker for longitudinal follow-up and possibly early treatment adaptation. Its role in tumor profiling in advanced disease to decide targeted treatments remains to be explored. Altogether, ctDNA appears to be a reliable prognostic tool. Though promising results have been reported, further studies are still needed to define exactly how ctDNA can help physicians in the screening, diagnosis and treatment, as PA is expected to become a major cause of cancer-related deaths in the forthcoming decade.

The Risk Factors for Acute Pancreatitis after Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Biopsy

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The risk of developing pancreatitis induced by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS FNA) is relatively small. However, patients undergoing sampling through the normal pancreatic parenchyma or the pancreatic duct may have a higher rate of pancreatitis. Here, we determine the factors associated with increased risk of acute pancreatitis in patients undergoing FNA through normal pancreatic parenchyma/pancreatic duct.

METHODS

In this prospective study at a tertiary cancer center, patients undergoing sampling through the pancreatic duct or ≥5 mm of the normal parenchyma between December 2013 and September 2017 were included. Post-EUS induced pancreatitis was diagnosed by the presence of abdominal pain with an amylase or lipase level higher than three times normal value.

RESULTS

A total of 712 patients underwent pancreatic EUS FNA. A total of 163 patients were included in the high-risk group. Mean age was 63 years, 82 females, mean number of needle-passes was 3.3 (range, 1-7). Fifteen patients (15/163, 9.2%) developed pancreatitis after EUS FNA through the pancreatic parenchyma compared with only one case among the control group (＜5 mm of normal parenchyma) (0.18%, 1/549, p＜0.0001). Several factors appeared to be associated with pancreatitis, including young age, solid lesion, and a recent history of acute pancreatitis. By logistic regression, a prior history of recent pancreatitis was the only statistically significant factor associated with post-EUS-guided biopsy pancreatitis (p=0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a recent history of acute pancreatitis undergoing EUS FNA through 5 mm or more of the normal pancreatic parenchyma are at a much greater risk of acute pancreatitis.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition: Techniques and Challenges

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS FNA) has made pathological diagnosis of pancreatic neoplasms, diseases involving lymph nodes at various mediastinal and abdominal sites, gastrointestinal submucosal lesions, perirectal lesions, adrenal lesions, and mediastinal masses easy. EUS-guided FNA is a multistep procedure that involves assessment of proper clinical indication, correct selection of FNA needles, and adoption of evidence-based techniques for tissue sampling. EUS FNA is done by needles that are available in different sizes, mainly 25, 22, and 19-gauge needle. The need of onsite cytopathologist, dependence on histology/core biopsy occasionally to get a diagnosis, and inability to reliably assess for molecular markers are important limitations of EUS FNA. EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (FNB) that samples the core of tissue is an exciting new development in the field of diagnostic EUS. FNB needles are expensive than FNA needles, and although the initial results are encouraging, more studies with robust evidence proving their superiority beyond any doubt are needed before they can be widely used.

Endoscopic ultrasound in pediatric population: a comprehensive review of the literature

Background and aim: Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) with or without fine needle aspiration/biopsy (FNA/B) is a well-established diagnostic tool in adults for the evaluation and management of gastrointestinal (GI) tract disorders. Its use in children is still limited as well as literature in pediatric age is limited, although the application of EUS is now increasing. The present article aims to review the current literature about EUS indication, accuracy and safety in pediatric age. Methods: Electronic literature searches were conducted using Pubmed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials using the word pediatric endoscopic ultrasound, pediatric pancreaticobiliary AND/OR EUS, pediatric EUS technique. Main patients and procedures characteristics were analyzed. The primary endpoint was the indication of EUS. Secondary endpoints were the accuracy of the technique and the incidence of complications. Results: Data were extracted from 19 articles. A total of 571 patients were investigated, with a median age of 12,7 years. A total of 634 EUS procedures were performed. The majority of EUS procedures investigated the pancreaticobiliary tract (77,7%). Most studies showed a high positive impact on management with a median value of 81,7%. No major complications were reported. Five studies reported minor complications with a median value of 2%. Conclusions: EUS is safe and has a significant role in the diagnosis of pancreaticobiliary and GI diseases even in children, with a high therapeutic success. An increasing EUS utilization by pediatric gastroenterologists is expected and offering dedicated EUS training to some selected pediatric gastroenterologists might be indicated. (www.actabiomedica.it)

Advanced Endoscopy Trainee Involvement Early in EUS Training May Be Associated with an Increased Risk of Adverse Events

Background

The quality of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) involving advanced endoscopy trainees (AETs) is not well understood. In this study, we aimed to examine adverse events (AE) risk and diagnostic yield of EUS procedures involving AETs.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective single-centre review from September 2009 to August 2015. Clinical, procedural, cytological, and hospital visit data within 30 days of the EUS procedure was collected. Primary outcomes were occurrence of an AE and a diagnostic specimen on cytopathology. Each AE was classified as “definitely related,” “possibly related,” or “not related” to the EUS procedure based on a previously defined consensus approach. Advanced endoscopy trainee involvement was established through the operative report.

Results

Our study included 1657 EUS procedures, of which 27% (451 of 1657) involved AETs. Endoscopic ultrasound was most commonly performed to evaluate pancreatic pathology (46% of cases). Overall AE incidence was 3.4%; it was 4.9% when an AET was involved and 2.8% when the EUS was performed without an AET (P = 0.04). The risk of an AE when AETs were involved was greatest in the first three months of training (7.9% versus 2.7%, P = 0.04). Multivariate analysis limited to the first three months of training demonstrated AET involvement to be associated with an increased AE risk after adjusting for patient and procedural factors (adjusted OR 3.2; 95% CI, 1.1–8.7; P = 0.03). The overall diagnostic yield was 76%. This was not compromised by AET involvement for any quartile of training.

Conclusions

We observed an increased risk of EUS-related AEs when procedures involved AETs during the first three months of training.

Liquid biopsy in pancreatic cancer: the beginning of a new era

With dismal survival rate pancreatic cancer remains one of the most aggressive and devastating malignancy. Predominantly, due to the absence of a dependable methodology for early identification and limited therapeutic options for advanced disease. However, it takes over 17 years to develop pancreatic cancer from initiation of mutation to metastatic cancer; therefore, if diagnosed early; it may increase overall survival dramatically, thus, providing a window of opportunity for early detection. Recently, genomic expression analysis defined 4 subtypes of pancreatic cancer based on mutated genes. Hence, we need simple and standard, minimally invasive test that can monitor those altered genes or their associated pathways in time for the success of precision medicine, and liquid biopsy seems to be one answer to all these questions. Again, liquid biopsy has an ability to pair with genomic tests. Additionally, liquid biopsy based development of circulating tumor cells derived xenografts, 3D organoids system, real-time monitoring of genetic mutations by circulating tumor DNA and exosome as the targeted drug delivery vehicle holds lots of potential for the treatment and cure of pancreatic cancer. At present, diagnosis of pancreatic cancer is frantically done on the premise of CA19-9 and radiological features only, which doesn't give a picture of genetic mutations and epigenetic alteration involved. In this manner, the current diagnostic paradigm for pancreatic cancer diagnosis experiences low diagnostic accuracy. This review article discusses the current state of liquid biopsy in pancreatic cancer as diagnostic and therapeutic tools and future perspectives of research in the light of circulating tumor cells, circulating tumor DNA and exosomes.

Incidents and adverse events of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic cystic lesions

AIM

To evaluate the diagnostic value and safety mainly regarding incidents of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs).

METHODS

A total of 150 consecutive patients with suspected PCLs were prospectively enrolled from April 2015 to November 2016. We finally enrolled 140 patients undergoing EUS-FNA. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA and pathological diagnosis, which is regarded as the gold standard, for PCLs. Patients undergoing EUS-FNA at least 1 wk preoperatively were monitored for incidents and adverse events to evaluate its safety.

RESULTS

There were 88 (62.9%) women and 52 (37.1%) men among 140 patients, with a mean age of 50.1 (± 15.4) years. There were 67 cysts located in the head/uncinate of the pancreas and 67 in the body/tail, and 6 patients had at least 1 cyst in the pancreas. There were 75 patients undergoing surgery and 55 undergoing EUS-FNA with interval at least 1 wk before other operations, with 3 patients undergoing the procedure twice. The accuracy of EUS-FNA in differentiating benign and malignant lesions was 97.3% (73/75), while the accuracy of characterizing PCL subtype was 84.0% (63/75). The incident rate was 37.9% (22/58), whereas only 1 AE was observed in 58 cases.

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNA is effective and safe for diagnosis of PCLs, however procedure-related incidents are common. Caution should be taken in patients undergoing EUS-FNA.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided techniques for diagnosing pancreatic mass lesions: Can we do better?

The diagnostic approach to a possible pancreatic mass lesion relies first upon various non-invasive imaging modalities, including computed tomography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging techniques. Once a suspect lesion has been identified, tissue acquisition for characterization of the lesion is often paramount in developing an individualized therapeutic approach. Given the high prevalence and mortality associated with pancreatic cancer, an ideal approach to diagnosing pancreatic mass lesions would be safe, highly sensitive, and reproducible across various practice settings. Tools, in addition to radiologic imaging, currently employed in the initial evaluation of a patient with a pancreatic mass lesion include serum tumor markers, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). EUS-FNA has grown to become the gold standard in tissue diagnosis of pancreatic lesions.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration of Pancreatic Lesions: A Systematic Review of Technical and Procedural Variables

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition has emerged over the last decade as an invaluable diagnostic tool in approaching the different pancreatic lesions. Given the safety and minimal invasiveness of this approach combined with the high diagnostic yield, it became the standard of care when dealing with different pancreatic pathologies. However, some variables regarding this procedure remain not fully understood. These can influence the diagnostic yield of the procedure and include the presence of the on-site cytopathologist, the type and size of the needle used as well as obtaining aspiration versus core biopsy, the number of passes and the sampling technique, and the role of suction and stylet use among others. We performed a comprehensive literature search using PubMed, Google Scholar, and Embase for studies that assessed these variables. Eligible studies were analyzed using several parameters such as technique and procedure, with the aim of reviewing results from an evidence-based standpoint.

Endoscopic ultrasound in the diagnosis of mediastinal diseases

EUS is a useful tool for diagnosis of mediastinal diseases. EUS-FNA plays an important role in staging of lung cancer and in tissue acquisition in patients with mediastinal masses. In this review, the following issues will be addressed: EUS-FNA and EBUS-TBNA, metastatic mediastinal lymph nodes diagnosed by EUS, EUS in assessment of mediastinal lymph node status for staging of lung cancer, mediastinal lymphoma diagnosed by EUS, sarcoidosis and tuberculosis diagnosed by EUS.

A rare case of mediastinal metastasis of ovarian carcinoma diagnosed by endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA)

Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) has become a minimally invasive tool with excellent diagnostic accuracy and low risk of complications in the diagnosis of thoracic diseases, including lung cancers and primary mediastinal lesions. Occasionally, EBUS-TBNA may be useful in identifying thoracic metastasis from distant tumors. Here we report an interesting and rare case of mediastinal metastasis of ovarian carcinoma diagnosed by EBUS-TBNA.