Histology combined with cytology by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic mass and intra-abdominal lymphadenopathy

Doing more with less: integrating small biopsies in cytology practice

Cytopathologists are at the forefront of specimen acquisition during many different procedures while providing rapid on site evaluation (ROSE). This has added pressure to cytopathologists as more and more ancillary testing is being requested on smaller amounts of tissue. By focusing on the most common organ sites: lung, head and neck, and pancreas, there is a discussion of what the cytopathologist needs to know to triage tissue successfully. Finally, there is a discussion of the logistical aspects of integrating small biopsies into everyday practice.

One procedure-one report: the Re-Imagine Cytopathology Task Force position paper on small tissue biopsy triage in anatomic pathology

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic biopsy procedures increasingly generate multiple tissue samples from multiple sites, and frequently retrieve concurrent cytologic specimens and small core needle biopsies. There is currently lack of consensus in subspecialized practices as to whether cytopathologists or surgical pathologists should review such samples, and whether the pathology findings should be reported together or separately.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In December 2021, the American Society of Cytopathology convened the Re-Imagine Cytopathology Task Force to examine various workflows that would facilitate unified pathology reporting of concurrently obtained biopsies and improve clinical care.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

This position paper summarizes the key points and highlights the advantages, challenges, and resources available to support the implementation of such workflows that result in "one procedure-one report".

Comparison of cytological and histological preparations in the diagnosis of pancreatic malignancies using endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has become a crucial diagnostic technique for pancreatic malignancies. The specimen obtained by EUS-FNA can be prepared for either cytological or histological examinations. This study was to compare diagnostic performance of cytological and histological preparations using EUS-FNA in the same lesions when pancreatic malignancies were suspected.

METHODS

One hundred and eighteen patients who underwent EUS-FNA for suspected pancreatic malignancies were consecutively enrolled. All procedures were conducted by a single echoendoscopist under the same conditions. Four adequate preparations were obtained by 22-gauge needles with 20 to-and-fro movements for each pass. The 4 preparations included 2 cytological and 2 histological specimens. The pathologic reviews of all specimens were conducted independently by a single experienced cytopathologist. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the 2 preparations were compared.

RESULTS

The enrolled patients consisted of 62 males (52.5%), with the mean age of 64.6±10.5 years. Surgery was performed in 23 (19.5%) patients. One hundred and sixteen (98.3%) lesions were classified as malignant, while 2 (1.7%) were benign. Sensitivity of cytology and histology were 87.9% and 81.9%, respectively, with no significant difference (P=0.190). Accuracy was also not significantly different. Cytological preparation was more sensitive when the size of lesion was <3 cm (86.7% vs 68.9%, P=0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggested that the diagnostic performances of cytological and histological preparations are not significantly different for the diagnosis of pancreatic malignancies. However, cytological preparation might be more sensitive for pancreatic lesions <3 cm.

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.

Impact of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and multidisciplinary approach in the management of abdominal or mediastinal mass

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a useful tool for the diagnosis of suspected abdominal or mediastinal neoplastic lesions.

AIM

To evaluate the impact of EUS-FNA and multidisciplinary approach on the diagnostic work-up and therapeutic management of patients with abdominal or mediastinal neoplastic lesions.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred and twenty patients (69 men, median age 65 years) with a suspected abdominal or mediastinal neoplastic mass at computed tomography or MRI underwent EUS-FNA. All EUS-FNA findings and clinical data were evaluated by a multidisciplinary team (oncologists, surgeons, and gastroenterologists). EUS-FNA findings were compared with the final diagnosis made by histological evaluation of the surgical specimen or clinical outcome at follow-up.

RESULTS

A correct diagnosis was obtained by EUS-FNA in 96/120 patients (80%), indicating benignancy of the lesion in 21 (18%) cases and confirming malignancy in 75 (62%). On the basis of EUS-FNA findings, chemotherapy was tailored in 57/75 (76%) patients with malignancy whereas the surgical strategy was changed in 21/120 (18%) of patients. Overall, the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA was 85%. A multidisciplinary team approach enabled a correct diagnosis in patients in whom EUS-FNA was nondiagnostic and to identify five cases with false-negative EUS-FNA findings.

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNA has a relevant impact on the management of suspected abdominal or mediastinal neoplastic lesions. A multidisciplinary team approach enables to overcome the EUS-FNA methodological limitations. The combination of EUS-FNA and multidisciplinary team approach could help to diagnose and tailor therapeutic options in such patients.

Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration cytology of pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration cytology (EUS-FNAC) is currently the most commonly used procedure for obtaining cytologic specimens of the pancreas. It is accurate, minimally invasive, safe and cost-effective. However, there is discrepancy between cytological and surgical diagnoses. This study was aimed at evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNAC of the pancreas.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of 191 cases of pancreatic lesions initially diagnosed by EUS-FNAC with subsequent histological diagnosis between 2010 and 2012 in the Department of Pathology, Seoul National University Hospital. Cytologic and surgical diagnoses were categorized into five groups: negative, benign, atypical, malignant, and insufficient for diagnosis. Subsequently, 167 cases with satisfactory yield in both surgical and cytology specimens were statistically analyzed to determine correlations with diagnosis.

RESULTS

In comparison to surgical diagnoses, cytologic diagnoses were true-positive in 103 cases (61.7%), true-negative in 28 cases (16.8%), false-positive in 9 cases (5.4%), and false-negative in 27 cases (16.1%). The diagnostic accuracy was 78.4%, sensitivity was 79.2%, and specificity was 75.7%. The positive predictive value was 92.0%, and negative predictive value was 50.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNAC has high accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value. Overcoming the limitations of EUS-FNAC will make it a useful and reliable diagnostic tool for accurate evaluation of pancreatic lesions.