Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy of suspected pancreatic cancer

Imaging Techniques and Biochemical Biomarkers: New Insights into Diagnosis of Pancreatic Cancer

Pancreatic cancer (PaC) incidence is increasing, but our current screening and diagnostic strategies are not very effective. However, screening could be helpful in the case of PaC, as recent evidence shows that the disease progresses gradually. Unfortunately, there is no ideal screening method or program for detecting PaC in its early stages. Conventional imaging techniques, such as abdominal ultrasound, CT, MRI, and EUS, have not been successful in detecting early-stage PaC. On the other hand, biomarkers may be a more effective screening tool for PaC and have greater potential for further evaluation compared to imaging. Recent studies on biomarkers and artificial intelligence (AI)-enhanced imaging have shown promising results in the early diagnosis of PaC. In addition to proteins, non-coding RNAs are also being studied as potential biomarkers for PaC. This review consolidates the current literature on PaC screening modalities to provide an organized framework for future studies. While conventional imaging techniques have not been effective in detecting early-stage PaC, biomarkers and AI-enhanced imaging are promising avenues of research. Further studies on the use of biomarkers, particularly non-coding RNAs, in combination with imaging modalities may improve the accuracy of PaC screening and lead to earlier detection of this deadly disease.

Increased accuracy of FNA-based cytological diagnosis of pancreatic lesions by use of an ethanol-based fixative system: A STROBE compliant study

EUS-guided fine needle aspiration cytology (FNA) is the gold standard of evaluation of solid pancreatic lesions. However, accuracy is generally low. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic yield of conventional cytology (CC) with liquid-based cytological analysis using an ethanol based fixative system (LBC) without onsite cytopathological assessment. We performed a retrospective evaluation in patients referred to the Department of Interdisciplinary Endoscopy at Jena University Hospital for FNA of pancreatic masses between 2008 and 2015. LBC preservation of specimen was introduced in April 2011. Gold standard was defined as a surgically obtained histology or a patient follow-up of at least 1 year for diagnosis or exclusion of malignancy. 172 patients were included into the final analysis. Mean age was 64.8 years (SD 12.4 years), 105 patients were male. 107 lesions were malignant, while 65 lesions were benign. 89 specimens were evaluated by CC, whereas 83 specimens were processed by LBC. Liquid-based cytology performed significantly better than conventional cytology in terms of sensitivity (87.8% vs 67.2% (P = .021)), specificity (100% vs 87.1% (P = .047)) negative predictive value (NPV) (85% vs 58.7% (P = .009)) and accuracy (92.8% vs 74.2% (P = .001)). We observed no learning curve after implementation of LBC Liquid based cytology is a simple and inexpensive technique that helps improving sensitivity, specificity, NPV and accuracy over conventional cytology in fine needle aspirates from patients with pancreatic lesions. Therefore, this real-world evidence shows, that EUS-FNA specimen processing should be performed using LBC to achieve best possible results.

A Transparent Ultrasound Array for Real-Time Optical, Ultrasound, and Photoacoustic Imaging

Objective and Impact Statement. Simultaneous imaging of ultrasound and optical contrasts can help map structural, functional, and molecular biomarkers inside living subjects with high spatial resolution. There is a need to develop a platform to facilitate this multimodal imaging capability to improve diagnostic sensitivity and specificity. Introduction. Currently, combining ultrasound, photoacoustic, and optical imaging modalities is challenging because conventional ultrasound transducer arrays are optically opaque. As a result, complex geometries are used to coalign both optical and ultrasound waves in the same field of view. Methods. One elegant solution is to make the ultrasound transducer transparent to light. Here, we demonstrate a novel transparent ultrasound transducer (TUT) linear array fabricated using a transparent lithium niobate piezoelectric material for real-time multimodal imaging. Results. The TUT-array consists of 64 elements and centered at ~6 MHz frequency. We demonstrate a quad-mode ultrasound, Doppler ultrasound, photoacoustic, and fluorescence imaging in real-time using the TUT-array directly coupled to the tissue mimicking phantoms. Conclusion. The TUT-array successfully showed a multimodal imaging capability and has potential applications in diagnosing cancer, neurological, and vascular diseases, including image-guided endoscopy and wearable imaging.

Development of a Customized Endoscopic Dual-Diffusing Optical Fiber Probe for Pancreatic Cancer Therapy: Toward Clinical Use

Objective: We developed a dual-diffusing optical fiber probe (DDOFP), capable of uniformly illuminating the anatomical structure of pancreatic duct for photodynamic therapy (PDT) of pancreatic cancer in clinical settings. Background: Optical fiber presents a unique route for pancreatic PDT by enabling access to the pancreatic duct. For effective pancreatic PDT, the optical fiber should produce a uniform illumination covering of the pancreatic duct, while maintaining its transmission property under thermomechanical stresses in surgical environments. Methods: The transmission profiles of DDOFP were measured using a charge-coupled device (CCD) camera at two directions: front-spherical and side-cylindrical areas of the optical fiber. We simulated the change in transmission property by curved tube structures using optically transparent phantom. DDOFP was integrated with 19-gauge needle catheter that is commercially used as an optical guide to treat pancreatic cancer. The temperature of DDOFP was measured at the end face using a thermistor probe in the bovine tissue, while delivering laser energy of over 200 and 500 J. Results: DDOFP was customized to secure the inner diameter of the 19-gauge needle catheter of 686 μm to be integrated as a clinical device. The round ball lens fiber tip minimized the back-burn effect caused by blood carbonization during surgery and induced front-spherical diffusion. DDOFP produced uniform light illumination with intensity difference of <10%. When DDOFP was bent with a small curvature <15 mm, the transmission intensity was consistent. Under high-power laser transmission, DDOFP was found to be robust to cracking or deformation. Conclusions: DDOFP was customized for pancreatic PDT with superior thermomechanical property and uniform light illumination at both the front-spherical and side-cylindrical areas. This is the smallest clinically available optical fiber per our knowledge and officially approved by the Korea Food and Drug Administration (item approval number: 17-516). DDOFP can contribute immensely toward the efficient delivery of pancreatic PDT and photothermal therapy.

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.

New Advances in Tissue Metabolomics: A Review

Metabolomics offers a hypothesis-generating approach for biomarker discovery in clinical medicine while also providing better understanding of the underlying mechanisms of chronic diseases. Clinical metabolomic studies largely rely on human biofluids (e.g., plasma, urine) as a more convenient specimen type for investigation. However, biofluids are non-organ specific reflecting complex biochemical processes throughout the body, which may complicate biochemical interpretations. For these reasons, tissue metabolomic studies enable deeper insights into aberrant metabolism occurring at the direct site of disease pathogenesis. This review highlights new advances in metabolomics for ex vivo analysis, as well as in situ imaging of tissue specimens, including diverse tissue types from animal models and human participants. Moreover, we discuss key pre-analytical and post-analytical challenges in tissue metabolomics for robust biomarker discovery with a focus on new methodological advances introduced over the past six years, including innovative clinical applications for improved screening, diagnostic testing, and therapeutic interventions for cancer.

Accuracy and other quality indicators of solid pancreatic mass endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration and biopsy in two academic endoscopy centers

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNA/FNB) is highly accurate, but discrepancies between cytological and surgical diagnoses are still observed. We aimed to determine its accuracy and monitor quality indicators in our facilities.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of all cases of pancreatic solid lesions evaluated by EUS-FNA/FNB, between July 2015 and June 2018, in two centers. Cytological and surgical findings were categorized into five groups: benign, malignant, suspect of malignancy, undetermined and insufficient for diagnosis. Final diagnosis was based on surgical diagnosis and, in patients who did not undergo surgery, on clinical outcome after 6 months follow-up.

RESULTS

Altogether, 142 patients were included. FNA was the preferred tissue acquisition method (88%), with a predilection for the FNA 22G needle (57%). Cytology was insufficient for diagnosis in 2 cases, therefore a full diagnostic sample was available in 98.6% of the patients (>90%, ESGE target). Fifty-five (38.7%) patients underwent surgery. In term of cancer diagnosis, comparison with final surgical pathology (n=55) revealed 89% true positives, 5.5% true negatives, 3.6% false positives and 1.8% false negatives. When combining surgical diagnosis and clinical outcomes together, EUS-guided sampling sensitivity was 97.4% (92.5-99.5), specificity was 92.3% (74.9-99.1), positive predictive value was 98.2% (93.6- 99.5), negative predictive value was 88.9% (72.3-96.1) and accuracy was 96.4% (91.9-98.8). Post-procedural acute pancreatitis was reported in 2 patients (1.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

These results reveal a performance for diagnostic tissue sampling well above the ESGE proposed target standard. Also, the uncommon high specificity illustrates the determining role of the pathologist's final interpretation and diagnosis.

Does ProCore Fine-Needle Biopsy Really Improve the Clinical Outcome of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Sampling of Pancreatic Masses?

INTRODUCTION

Fine-needle biopsy (FNB) has been suggested to provide better histological samples as compared to endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). However, studies comparing EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for pancreatic lesions reported contrasting results. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical performance of EUS-FNA versus EUS-FNB with the ProCore needle for the investigation of pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

We reviewed all patients undergoing EUS for the investigation of pancreatic lesions from August 2012 to September 2018. From August 2012 to January 2015, all procedures were performed with standard needles, whereas from February 2015 to September 2018, the use of ProCore needles had been introduced. Data on diagnostic accuracy, number of needle passes, and/or adverse events were collected.

RESULTS

Three hundred twenty-four patients were retrospectively evaluated: 190 (58.6%) underwent EUS-FNA and 134 (41.4%) EUS-FNB. Both EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB showed high diagnostic accuracy for malignancy (94% [95% CI: 89-97%] vs. 94% [95% CI: 89-98%]). Notably, there were no differences between EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio, histological core tissue retrieval, adverse events, or number of needle passes. However, subgroup analysis noted a higher diagnostic accuracy for 25G EUS-FNB as compared to 25G EUS-FNA (85.7 vs. 55.5%; *p = 0.023).

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNB with the ProCore needle is safe and feasible in pancreatic lesions. The ProCore needle did not provide any advantage in terms of diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and/or negative likelihood ratio, or acquisition of the core specimen; therefore, its routine application is not supported.

Development and validation of a clinical prediction model to estimate the probability of malignancy in solid pancreatic lesions and explore its value in the atypical diagnostic category after endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNA)

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions is still a thorny problem for clinicians, even endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNA) still face problems like false negative. The present study aimed to first establish a model to predict the malignancy in solid pancreatic lesions and then explored its validity with atypical diagnostic category diagnosed by cytologists after EUS-FNA.

METHODS

Clinical information of 360 cases diagnosed with solid pancreatic lesions between June 2013 and July 2019, and another 20 cases with atypical diagnostic category were collected retrospectively. These cases were divided into group A and group B according to the order of admission. Using the data of group A, multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to construct a malignancy prediction model which was then verified using group B. Furthermore, the characteristics of the malignancy between the group with atypical diagnostic category and group A were compared in order to evaluate the rationality of the model used in the atypical diagnostic category group, and its predictive ability in these lesions.

RESULTS

Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that age, density, CA19-9 and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) grade, pancreatic duct, swollen lymph nodes, pancreas calcification, and weight loss were independent factors in predicting malignancy (P<0.05). The verification results showed that the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.854±0.042; 95% CI: 0.771-0.936. Univariate analysis showed no significant difference between the malignancy in atypical diagnostic category group and that in group A. For the atypical diagnostic category group, the sensitivity of this model was 83.33%, specificity 100%, positive predictive value (PPV) 100%, negative predictive value (NPV) 40%.

CONCLUSIONS

Advanced age, low density of lesions, high CA19-9 and CEA grade, dilatation of pancreatic duct, swollen lymph nodes and weight loss were risk factors for malignancy, while calcification was a protective factor. The model had a relatively high predictive ability on malignancy in both solid pancreatic lesions and atypical diagnostic category group.

Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic lesions after inconclusive percutaneous ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition

INTRODUCTION

After a failed percutaneous ultrasound (US)-guided sampling, it is recommended that endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition (TA) be performed for non-resectable solid pancreatic lesions according to the European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology. However, the diagnostic performance of EUS-guided TA in this setting is unknown.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the performance and safety of EUS-guided TA in patients with a previous failed percutaneous biopsy. We also evaluated the diagnostic delays between the percutaneous approach and EUS diagnosis.

RESULTS

Over a period of 2 years, 49 patients were identified (29 males, mean age 65 years). The reasons for failure of percutaneous sampling were inadequate samples in 25 (52.1%) cases and lesions that were not visible or targetable in 24 (47.9%) cases. In one case, EUS-guided TA was not performed because of the interposition of a metallic biliary stent. No adverse events were recorded for both the percutaneous and EUS approaches. The median diagnostic delay was 12 days. Overall, the sensitivity and accuracy of EUS-guided TA were 92.7 and 93.7%, respectively. A subgroup analysis examined cases with inadequate samples obtained with the percutaneous approach, and the sensitivity and accuracy of EUS-guided TA were 85.7 and 88%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

EUS-guided TA is safe and accurate for the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions after a previous inconclusive percutaneous approach.

Differentiation of focal autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is an inflammatory process of the pancreas that occurs most commonly in elderly males and clinically can mimic pancreatic adenocarcinoma and present with jaundice, weight loss, and abdominal pain. Mass-forming lesions in the pancreas are seen in the focal form of AIP and both clinical and imaging findings can overlap those of pancreatic cancer. The accurate distinction of AIP from pancreatic cancer is of utmost importance as it means avoiding unnecessary surgery in AIP cases or inaccurate steroid treatment in patients with pancreatic cancer. Imaging concomitantly with serological examinations (IgG4 and Ca 19-9) plays an important role in the distinction between these entities. Characteristic extra-pancreatic manifestations as well as favorable good response to treatment with steroids are characteristic of AIP. This paper will review current diagnostic parameters useful in differentiating between focal AIP and pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Complication incidence of EUS-guided pancreas biopsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 thousand population from 78 cohort studies

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to estimate the incidence of possible complications following EUS-guided pancreas biopsy. Pancreatic cancer has a very poor prognosis with a high fatality rate. Early diagnosis is important to improve the prognosis of pancreatic cancer. We searched Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases for studies published from inception to Augest, 2018. Meta-analysis were conducted with random-effect models and heterogeneity was calculated with the Q, I² and τ² statistics. We enrolled 78 studies from 71 articles in the meta-analysis, comprising 11,652 patients. Pooled data showed that the whole complication incidences were low 0.210 × 10^-4(95%CI -0.648 × 10^-4, 1.068 × 10^-4). And they were in bleeding 0.002 × 10^-4 (95%CI -0.092 × 10^-4, 0.097 × 10^-4), pancreatitis 0.002 (95%CI -0.082 × 10^-4, 0.086 × 10^-4), abdominal pain 0 (95%CI -0.037 × 10^-4, 0.038 × 10^-4), fever 0 (95%CI -0.032 × 10^-4, 0. 032 × 10^-4), infection 0 (95%CI -0.030 × 10^-4, 0.031 × 10^-4), duodenal perforation 0 (95%CI -0.033 × 10^-4, 0.034 × 10^-4), pancreatic fistula 0 (95%CI -0.029 × 10^-4, 0.029 × 10^-4), abscess 0 (95%CI -0.029 × 10^-4, 0.029 × 10^-4) and sepsis 0 (95%CI -0.029 × 10^-4, 0.030 × 10^-4). Subgroup analysis based on the tumor size, site, needle type and tumor style also showed robust results. The pooled data showed EUS-guided pancreas biopsy could be a safe approach for the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions. More large-scale studies will be necessary to confirm the findings across different population.

Comparison of the Diagnostic Performances of Same-session Endoscopic Ultrasound- and Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography-guided Tissue Sampling for Suspected Biliary Strictures at Different Primary Tumor Sites

Background/Aims

Determining the cause of suspected biliary stricture is often challenging in clinical practice. We aimed to compare the diagnostic yields of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling (EUS-TS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-guided tissue sampling (ERCP-TS) in patients with suspected biliary stricture at different primary lesions.

Methods

We enrolled patients who underwent same-session EUS- and ERCP-TS for the evaluation of suspected biliary stricture. Forceps biopsy and/or brush cytology of intraductal lesions and fine-needle aspiration for solid mass lesions were performed during ERCP and EUS, respectively.

Results

One hundred and twenty-five patients treated at our institution between January 2011 and September 2016, were initially considered for the study. However, 32 patients were excluded due to loss of follow-up (n=8) and ERCP-TS on the pancreatic duct (n=20) or periampullary lesions (n=4). Of the 93 patients included, 86 had a malignant tumor including cholangiocarcinoma (n=39), pancreatic cancer (n=37), and other malignancies (n=10). Seven patients had benign lesions. EUS-TS had higher rate of overall diagnostic accuracy than ERCP-TS (82.8% vs. 60.2%, p=0.001), and this was especially true for patients with a pancreatic lesion (84.4% vs. 51.1%, p=0.003).

Conclusions

EUS-TS was found to be superior to ERCP-TS for evaluating suspected biliary strictures, especially those caused by pancreatic lesions.

Endoscopic Ultrasound for Early Diagnosis of Pancreatic Cancer

Detection of small pancreatic cancers, which have a better prognosis than large cancers, is needed to reduce high mortality rates. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is the most sensitive imaging modality for detecting pancreatic lesions. The high resolution of EUS makes it particularly useful for detecting small pancreatic lesions that may be missed by other imaging modalities. Therefore, EUS should be performed in patients with obstructive jaundice in whom computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) does not identify a definite pancreatic lesion. Interest in the use of EUS for screening individuals at high risk of pancreatic cancer, including those with intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) and familial pancreatic cancer is growing. Contrast-enhanced EUS can facilitate differential diagnosis of small solid pancreatic lesions as well as malignant cystic lesions. In addition, EUS-guided fine needle aspiration can provide samples of small pancreatic lesions. Thus, EUS and EUS-related techniques are essential for early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.

Miniaturized High-Resolution Integrated 360° Electronic Radial Ultrasound Endoscope for Digestive Tract Imaging

To improve the accuracy and operating flexibility of digestive diagnostic applications in situ, this paper demonstrates the design, fabrication, and evaluation of a miniaturized high-resolution integrated 360° electronic radial ultrasound endoscope. To improve the uniformity between elements of the radial array transducer, an optimal fabrication procedure based on a flexible matching layer was developed. The radial ultrasound endoscope has a 128.3° 5-million-pixel camera module integrated with an approximately 8-MHz 128-element radial ultrasonic array in a package with an outer diameter of 9.5 mm. The results showed that the array has a center frequency of 8.2 MHz, a -6-dB fractional bandwidth of 83.4%, and a two-way insertion loss of 39.62 dB at the center frequency. Annulus and wire phantoms can be distinctly imaged with the radial array. Printed eight-point font can be distinctly imaged with both a large view and a 3-18-mm depth of field in lumen short-range optical imaging. A porcine esophagus can be distinctly imaged in vitro with the integrated endoscope. The results indicate that the fabrication method based on a flexible matching layer can achieve high uniformity between elements of a radial array transducer. In addition, the proposed ultrasound endoscope demonstrates a good image resolution.

Impact of endoscopic ultrasonography on diagnosis of pancreatic cancer

Accumulated evidence has revealed that endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has had a great impact on the clinical evaluation of pancreatic cancers. EUS can provide high-resolution images of the pancreas with a quality regarded as far surpassing that achieved on transabdominal ultrasound (US), computed tomography (CT), or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). EUS is particularly useful for the detection of small pancreatic lesions, while EUS and its related techniques such as contrast-enhanced EUS (CE-EUS), EUS elastography, and EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) are also useful in the differential diagnosis of solid or cystic pancreatic lesions and the staging (T-staging, N-staging, and M-staging) of pancreatic cancers. In the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions, CE-EUS and EUS elastography play a complementary role to conventional EUS. When sampling is performed using EUS-FNA, CE-EUS and EUS elastography provide information on the target lesions. Thus, conventional EUS, CE-EUS, EUS elastography, and EUS-FNA are essential in the clinical investigation of pancreatic cancer.

Homologous Recombination Deficiency in Patients With Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma and Response to Chemotherapy

Purpose

Mutations or copy number abnormalities of genes involved in homologous recombination (HR) occur in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). DNA-based measures of HR deficiency (HRD) have been developed and may help identify tumors with better response to DNA-damaging agents. This study aimed to describe the HR pathway mutations and HRD status and determine their association with treatment response and outcome in patients with PDAC.

Patients and Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of tumor samples from patients treated at Indiana University for locally advanced or metastatic PDAC. Patients were included if they received gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (control) or fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX) and had adequate follow-up to assess survival and response to therapy. Tumor analysis generated a three-biomarker HRD score and mutation data for 44 genes.

Results

Ninety-one samples met inclusion criteria, and 78 samples (formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded, n = 15; fine-needle aspiration, n = 63) generated mutation data. HRD analysis was successful for 57 samples (HRD score: median, 18; range, 5 to 61); the primary cause of failure was low tumor cellularity. Six BRCA1/ 2 mutations were detected, four with HRD scores in the top decile ( P = .011). There was no statistically significant correlation between HRD score and radiographic response (odds ratio per interquartile range, 1.40; P = .32 adjusted for treatment) in either treatment group. In patients treated with FOLFIRINOX, HRD score dichotomized at the median was not associated with progression-free survival (median, 5.3 v 9.4 months for low v high HRD score, respectively; P = .083) or overall survival (median, 11.9 v 10.7 months for low v high HRD score, respectively; P = .76).

Conclusion

Mutations in DNA repair genes occur in PDAC, and HRD scores can be generated in the majority of patients. The HRD score was not significantly associated with higher response rate or prolonged survival in patients treated with FOLFIRINOX.

Per-Pass Performance Characteristics of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration of Malignant Solid Pancreatic Masses in a Large Multicenter Cohort

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is widely performed for the evaluation of pancreatic masses. We evaluated the performance characteristics of EUS-FNA in obtaining a diagnosis of pancreatic malignancy.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter study of patients who underwent EUS-FNA for a solid pancreatic mass. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNA was standardized using a 25-gauge needle, slow-pull stylet technique for specimen acquisition, and on-site cytopathology. For the primary analysis, only malignant cytology was regarded as positive. A secondary analysis was performed in which malignant and/or suspicious cytology was regarded as positive.

RESULTS

A total of 138 patients underwent EUS-FNA. In the primary analysis, the sensitivity of EUS-FNA for malignancy was 56.7% on first pass, 73.3% on second pass, 83.3% on third pass, 89.2% on fourth pass, and 90.8% on fifth pass, with no increase beyond the fifth pass. In the secondary analysis, the sensitivity was 75.0% on first pass, 89.2% on second pass, 93.3% on third pass, and 95.8% on fourth pass, with no increase beyond the fourth pass. No significant relationship was seen between lesion size and diagnostic yield.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a 25-gauge needle, the maximal diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA for a solid pancreatic mass is reached after 4 needle passes.

EUS-FNA using 22G nitinol or ProCore needles without on-site cytopathology

Objectives

The project is aimed to compare the tissue sampling rate and the diagnostic accuracy rate of EUS-FNA using 22G nitinol and reverse bevel-tipped needles.

Subjects and Methods

This was a prospective, randomized, crossover study in a tertiary academic hospital. All consecutive adult patients undergoing EUS-guided FNA for lesions > 2 cm were recruited. Patients fulfilling the inclusion and exclusion criteria underwent EUS-guided FNA using both needles in sequence. They were randomized on a 1:1 basis to determine whether EUS-FNA would be performed first using the 22G reverse bevel-tipped (ProCore) needle followed by the nitinol needle or vice versa. The patients and the pathologists were blinded to the type of needle used.

Results

Forty patients with suspected malignant neoplasms were recruited to the study. No significant differences were found in the diagnostic yield (76.9% vs. 84.6%, P = 0.389), accuracy (71.8% vs. 84.6%, P = 0.170), sensitivity (77.8% vs. 86.1%, P = 0.358), specificity (100% vs. 100%, P = 1), positive predictive value (100% vs. 100%, P = 1), and negative predictive value (20.0% vs. 28.6%, P = 1). The percentage of obtained tissue for histological assessment was also similar (41.0% vs. 46.2%, P = 0.648). In terms of the quantity of tissue obtained with the needles, a larger proportion of patients in the nitinol group obtained more tissue for assessment (P = 0.003).

Conclusion

The tissue-sampling rate and the diagnostic accuracy of the new 22G ProCore needle were comparable to the conventional 22G FNA needle in the absence of an on-site cytopathologist.

22G versus 25G biopsy needles for EUS-guided tissue sampling of solid pancreatic masses: a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

No comparative study of 22-gauge biopsy needles (PC22) and 25-gauge biopsy needles (PC25) has been conducted. We prospectively compared the diagnostic accuracy of PC22 and PC25 in patients with pancreatic and peripancreatic solid masses.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized noninferiority clinical study from January 2013 to May 2014 at Samsung Medical Center. A cytological and histological specimen of each pass was analyzed separately by an experienced pathologist. The primary outcome was to assess the diagnostic accuracy using the PC22 or PC25. Secondary outcomes included the optimal number of passes for adequate diagnosis, core specimen yield, sample adequacy, and complication rates.

RESULTS

Diagnostic accuracy of combining cytology with histology in three cumulative passes was 97.1% (100/103) for the PC22 and 91.3% (94/103) for the PC25 group. Thus, noninferiority of PC25 to PC22 was not shown with a 10% noninferiority margin (difference, -5.8%; 95% CI, -12.1 to -0.5%). In a pairwise comparison with each needle type, two passes was non-inferior to three passes in the PC22 (96.1% vs. 97.1%; difference, -0.97%; 95% CI -6.63 to 4.69%) but noninferiority of two passes to three passes was not shown in the PC25 group (87.4% vs. 91.3%; difference, -3.88%; 95% CI, -13.5 to 5.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Non-inferiority of PC25 to PC22 diagnostic accuracy was not observed for solid pancreatic or peripancreatic masses without on-site cytology. PC22 may be a more ideal device because only two PC22 needle passes was sufficient to establish an adequate diagnosis, whereas PC25 required three or more needle passes.

Applications of Endoscopic Ultrasonography in Pancreatic Cancer

Background

Accurate staging of pancreatic cancer is essential for surgical planning and for identification of locally advanced and metastatic disease that is incurable by surgery. Advances in endoscopic sonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), and positron emission tomography have improved the accuracy of staging and reduced the number of incomplete surgical resections. Tissue acquisition is necessary in nonsurgical cases when chemoradiotherapy is considered. The complex regional anatomy of the pancreas makes cytologic diagnosis of malignancy at this region difficult without exploratory surgery. Although CT-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is used for this purpose, reports of an increased risk of peritoneal dissemination of cancer cells and a false-negative rate of nearly 20% make this a poor choice. The ability to position the EUS-transducer in direct proximity to the pancreas by means of the stomach and duodenum, combined with the use of FNA, increases the specificity of EUS in detecting pancreatic malignancies.

Methods

The current literature regarding the accuracy of EUS with FNA in the evaluation of pancreatic cancer is reviewed.

Results

EUS accuracy ranges from 78% to 94% for tumor staging and from 64% to 82% for nodal staging. EUS also enables FNA of lesions that are too small to be identified by CT or MRI or too well encased by surrounding vascular structures to safely allow percutaneous biopsy. The accuracy for detecting invasion into the superior mesenteric artery and vein is lower than that for detecting portal or splenic vein invasion, especially for large tumors. EUS permits delivery of localized therapy such as celiac plexus neurolysis for pain control and direct intra-lesional injection of antitumor therapy.

Conclusions

EUS in combination with FNA is a highly accurate method of preoperative staging of pancreatic cancer, especially those too small to be characterized by CT or MRI, and it has the ability to obtain cytological confirmation of pancreatic cancer.

Primary pancreatic lymphoma: what we need to know

Hodgkin's lymphoma is a group of malignant lymphoid which involve various organs including gastrointestinal tract. Stomach and small intestine are commonly involved more; however, pancreas can be primarily involved as well. The secondary involvement of pancreas caused by Hodgkin's lymphoma is more prevalent than the primarily involvement (1 .25-2.2% vs. <1%). Primary pancreatic lymphomas (PPLs) consist of 1-2% of all lymphoma outside nods. The symptoms and findings of PPL imaging can be akin to that of pancreas adenocarcinoma and differentiating them is difficult without examining the tissue sample. The prognosis and treatment of PPL are different from those of adenocarcinoma and due to the superior prognosis of PPL compared to pancreas adenocarcinoma, the proper diagnosis of the disease is important.

Fabrication and Performance of a Miniaturized and Integrated Endoscope Ultrasound Convex Array for Digestive Tract Imaging

OBJECTIVE

this work presents the design, fabrication, and testing of a miniaturized and integrated ultrasound endoscope for use as an in situ digestive diagnostic device to facilitate real-time ultrasound guidance of intervention treatments.

METHODS

we designed an optimal structure to integrate an auto-focus 5-megapixel camera module with an 8-MHz, 64-element curvilinear ultrasonic array in one miniaturized package. A novel three-axis auto-focusing voice coil motor (VCM) was designed and manufactured for the camera module to move the lens position for auto-focusing and to adjust the lens tilt.

RESULTS

the results showed that the array had a center frequency of 8.09 MHz and a -6-dB fractional bandwidth of 83%. At the center frequency, the two-way insertion loss was 40.6 dB. Endoscopic ultrasound imaging demonstrated satisfactory performance for imaging an anthropomorphic phantom of the esophagus. By slightly adjusting the tilt angle of the optical axis of the lens, the optical image captured by the auto-focusing lens obtained improved definition regardless of changes in the view angle of the camera with respect to the objects being captured.

CONCLUSION

the integrated convex ultrasound endoscope, possessing minimal size, improved optical imaging definition, and good ultrasound imaging performance, can become a useful tool in digestive tract imaging.

SIGNIFICANCE

the miniaturized and integrated convex ultrasound endoscope can facilitate real-time ultrasound intervention guidance, reducing risks associated with the operation.

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.

[Assessment of amylase and lipase levels following puncture biopsy and fine needle aspiration guided by endoscopic ultrasound in pancreatic lesions]

BACKGROUND

Puncture biopsy and fine needle aspiration guided by endoscopic ultrasound has been used as an effective technique and is quickly becoming the procedure of choice for diagnosis and staging in patients suspected of having pancreatic cancer. This procedure has replaced retrograde cholangiopancreatography and brush cytology due to its higher sensitivity for diagnosis, and lower risk of complications.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the levels of pancreatic enzymes amylase and lipase, after the puncture biopsy and fine needle aspiration guided by endoscopic ultrasound in pancreatic lesions and the frequency of post-puncture acute pancreatitis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A longitudinal and descriptive study of consecutive cases was performed on outpatients submitted to puncture biopsy and fine needle aspiration guided by endoscopic ultrasound in pancreatic lesions. Levels of pancreatic enzymes such as amylase and lipase were measured before and after the pancreatic puncture. Finally we documented post-puncture pancreatitis cases.

RESULTS

A total of 100 patients who had been diagnosed with solid and cystic lesions were included in the study. Significant elevation was found at twice the reference value for lipase in 5 cases (5%) and for amylase in 2 cases (2%), none had clinical symptoms of acute pancreatitis. Eight (8%) of patients presented with mild nonspecific pain with no enzyme elevation compatible with pancreatitis.

CONCLUSION

Pancreatic biopsy needle aspiration guided by endoscopic ultrasound was associated with a low rate of elevated pancreatic enzymes and there were no cases of post-puncture pancreatitis.

Endoscopic ultrasonography with fine-needle aspiration for histological diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses: a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies

Background

Previous studies have demonstrated that endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a reliable tool for diagnosing pancreatic lesions; however, the reported sensitivity and specificity vary greatly across studies. The aim of this study was to pool the existing literature and assess the overall performance of EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions.

Methods

A systematic search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews, and EMBASE was performed to identify original and review articles published between January 1995 and January 2014 that reported the accuracy of EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of pancreatic masses. Quality of the included studies was assessed using the quality assessment of diagnosis accuracy studies score tool. Meta-DiSc software was used to calculate the pooled sensitivity and specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and to construct the summary receiver operating characteristics curve.

Results

Twenty studies involving a total of 2,761 patients were included in the study. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions were 90.8 % [95 % confidence interval (CI), 89.4–92 %] and 96.5 % (95 % CI, 94.8–97.7 %), respectively. The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 14.8 (95 % CI, 8.0–27.3) and 0.12 (95 % CI, 0.09–0.16), respectively. The overall diagnostic accuracy was 91.0 %.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that EUS-FNA has high sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions.

Comparison of cytologic preparation methods in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

There are few studies about the diagnostic yield of cytologic preparation method of pancreatic samples obtained by Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of ThinPrep(®) and smear method in diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

A total of 125 EUS-FNA procedures were performed between July 2010 and June 2015. Patients in group I (n = 36; July 2010 to June 2014) had cytology slides prepared by consecutive allocation of samples. Patients in group II (n = 12; July 2014 to June 2015) had cytology slides prepared by alternately allocation of samples.

RESULTS

There were 24 men and 24 women (median age: 67 years; range 39-84). The median size of lesions was 3.9 cm (range; 1.4-7.2 cm). The locations of the pancreatic cancer were 10 in head (20.8%), 21 in body (43.8%), and 17 in tail (35.4%). The ThinPrep(®) method confirmed malignancy in 35 of 48 cases (72.9%). On the other hand, the smear method confirmed malignancy in 44 of 48 cases (91.7%). The diagnostic yield of smear method was statistically higher than liquid method (P = 0.012). Also, smear method is superior to liquid method in both consecutive and alternative allocation method. ThinPrep(®) provided a correct diagnosis in one case where the smear method was incorrect.

CONCLUSIONS

Smear method was a superior preparation method to liquid method in diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, even if splitting method was not used and variable allocation method was used.

Randomized Noninferiority Trial Comparing Diagnostic Yield of Cytopathologist-guided versus 7 passes for EUS-FNA of Pancreatic Masses

BACKGROUND AND AIM

To improve diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in solid pancreatic lesions, on-site cytology review has been recommended. Because this is not widely available throughout the world, the aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA performed with rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) versus 7 FNA passes without ROSE in pancreatic masses.

METHODS

In this multicenter randomized noninferiority trial, patients were randomized to ROSE versus 7 passes into a solid pancreatic mass. On the basis of the absolute difference in diagnostic yield with 7 passes versus cytopathologist-guidance, the noninferiority margin for the difference in diagnostic yield was defined as -15%. Definite diagnosis was defined to include positive for malignancy, neoplastic cells present, and negative for malignancy.

RESULTS

A total of 142 patients were randomized with 73 in the cytopathologist arm and 69 in the 7 passes arm. Diagnostic yield for definite diagnosis was 78.3% with 7 passes and 78.1% with cytopathology guidance. With an absolute difference 0.2%, 95% CI -14.4 to 14.6, performing 7 passes was noninferior to cytopathologist-guided EUS-FNA. There was no significant difference in complications or time to perform FNA. A median of 5 passes were performed with ROSE. The median charge with onsite cytopathology was significantly greater than performing 7 passes [$1058 (958, 1445) versus $375 (275, 460), p<0.001].

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnostic yield for performing 7 passes during EUS-FNA into solid pancreatic masses is noninferior with lower charge compared to cytopathologist-guidance. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Effect of the time of day and queue position in the endoscopic schedule on the performance characteristics of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for diagnosing pancreatic malignancies

Background and Objectives:

Recent reports have indicated that the time of day may impact the detection rate of abnormal cytology on gynecologic cytology samples. The aim of this study was to determine if procedure time or queue position affected the performance characteristics of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for diagnosing solid pancreatic malignancies.

Patients and Methods:

We conducted a retrospective study evaluating patients with solid pancreatic lesions in whom EUS-FNA was performed. Three timing variables were evaluated as surrogate markers for endoscopist fatigue: Procedure start times, morning versus afternoon procedures, and endoscopy queue position. Statistical analyses were performed to determine whether the timing variables predicted performance characteristics of EUS-FNA.

Results:

We identified 609 patients (mean age: 65.8 years, 52.1% males) with solid pancreatic lesions who underwent EUS-FNA. The sensitivity of EUS-FNA was 100% for procedures that started at 7 AM while cases that started at 4 PM had a sensitivity of 81%. Using start time on a continuous scale, each elapsed hour was associated with a 1.9% decrease in EUS-FNA sensitivity (P = 0.003). Similarly, a 10% reduction in EUS-FNA sensitivity was detected between morning and afternoon procedures (92% vs. 82% respectively, P = 0.0006). A linear regression comparing the procedure start time and diagnostic accuracy revealed a decrease of approximately 1.7% in procedure accuracy for every hour later a procedure was started. A 16% reduction in EUS-FNA accuracy was detected between morning and afternoon procedures (100% vs. 84% respectively, P = 0.0009). When the queue position was assessed, a 2.4% reduction in accuracy was noted for each increase in the queue position (P = 0.013).

Conclusion:

Sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic lesions decline with progressively later EUS starting times and increasing numbers of procedures before a given EUS, potentially from endoscopist fatigue and cytotechnologist fatigue.

Diagnostic potency of EUS-guided FNA for the evaluation of pancreatic mass lesions

Background and Objectives:

Diagnosis of pancreatic lesions remains a clinical challenge. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in pancreatic mass lesions.

Patients and Methods:

Clinical data, laboratory tests, and cytopathological and imaging reports were collected from 185 pancreatic EUS cases performed from March 2010 to January 2014. The final diagnosis was based on surgical findings, EUS-FNA or computed tomography (CT)-guided biopsy.

Results:

A total of 100 pancreatic FNAs were obtained by EUS. Most positive diagnoses of malignancy were pancreatic adenocarcinomas (n = 61). The site of pancreatic adenocarcinoma was the head in 50 (82.0%), body in seven (11.5%), and tail in four (6.5%). The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of EUS-FNA for diagnosing adenocarcinoma were 80.3%, 92.3%, 94.2%, and 75.0%, respectively.

Discussion:

We concluded that EUS-FNA of pancreatic lesion accurately diagnoses pancreatic adenocarcinoma and should be considered for the standard management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration diagnosis of secondary tumors involving the pancreas: An institution's experience

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic masses may seldom represent a metastasis or secondary involvement by lymphoproliferative disorders. Recognition of this uncommon occurrence may help render an accurate diagnosis and avoid diagnostic pitfalls during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). In this study, we review our experience in diagnosing secondary tumors involving the pancreas.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The electronic database of cytopathology archives was searched for cases of secondary tumors involving the pancreas at our institution and a total of 31 cases were identified. The corresponding clinical presentations, imaging study findings, cytological diagnoses, the results of ancillary studies, and surgical follow-up, if available, were reviewed.

RESULTS

Nineteen of the patients were male and 12 female, with a mean age of 66 years. Twenty-three patients (74%) had a prior history of malignancy, with the latency ranging from 6 months to 19 years. The secondary tumors involving the pancreas included metastatic carcinoma (24 cases), metastatic sarcoma (3 cases), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (2 cases), and plasma cell neoplasm (2 cases). The most common metastatic tumors were renal cell carcinoma (8 cases) and lung carcinoma (7 cases). Correct diagnoses were rendered in 29 cases (94%). The remaining two cases were misclassified as primary pancreatic carcinoma. In both cases, the patients had no known history of malignancy, and no ancillary studies were performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Secondary tumors involving the pancreas can be accurately diagnosed by EUS-FNA. Recognizing uncommon cytomorphologic features, knowing prior history of malignancy, and performing ancillary studies are the keys to improve diagnostic performance and avoid diagnostic pitfalls.

Endoscopic ultrasound in the diagnosis and management of carcinoma pancreas

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become an important component in the diagnosis and treatment of carcinoma pancreas. With the advent of advanced imaging techniques and tissue acquisition methods the role of EUS is becoming increasingly important. Small pancreatic tumors can be reliably diagnosed with EUS. EUS guided fine needle aspiration establishes diagnosis in some cases. EUS plays an important role in staging of carcinoma pancreas and in some important therapeutic methods that include celiac plexus neurolysis, EUS guided biliary drainage and drug delivery. In this review we attempt to review the role of EUS in diagnosis and management of carcinoma pancreas.

Endoscopic ultrasound in the diagnosis and management of carcinoma pancreas

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become an important component in the diagnosis and treatment of carcinoma pancreas. With the advent of advanced imaging techniques and tissue acquisition methods the role of EUS is becoming increasingly important. Small pancreatic tumors can be reliably diagnosed with EUS. EUS guided fine needle aspiration establishes diagnosis in some cases. EUS plays an important role in staging of carcinoma pancreas and in some important therapeutic methods that include celiac plexus neurolysis, EUS guided biliary drainage and drug delivery. In this review we attempt to review the role of EUS in diagnosis and management of carcinoma pancreas.

Circulating HMGB1 and RAGE as Clinical Biomarkers in Malignant and Autoimmune Diseases

High molecular group box 1 (HMGB1) is a highly conserved member of the HMG-box-family; abundantly expressed in almost all human cells and released in apoptosis; necrosis or by activated immune cells. Once in the extracellular space, HMGB1 can act as a danger associated molecular pattern (DAMP), thus stimulating or inhibiting certain functions of the immune system; depending on the “combinatorial cocktail” of the surrounding milieu. HMGB1 exerts its various functions through binding to a multitude of membrane-bound receptors such as TLR-2; -4 and -9; IL-1 and RAGE (receptor for advanced glycation end products); partly complex-bound with intracellular fragments like nucleosomes. Soluble RAGE in the extracellular space, however, acts as a decoy receptor by binding to HMGB1 and inhibiting its effects. This review aims to outline today’s knowledge of structure, intra- and extracellular functions including mechanisms of release and finally the clinical relevance of HMGB1 and RAGE as clinical biomarkers in therapy monitoring, prediction and prognosis of malignant and autoimmune disease.

Implication of suspicious cytology in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic cancer

PURPOSE

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has become a preferred technique to evaluate pancreatic masses. The clinical management of a "suspicious for adenocarcinoma" cytological diagnosis is unclear in unresectable cases. We sought to determine whether a suspicious diagnosis in the setting of a high clinical suspicion of malignancy could be sufficient for initiating non-operative therapy, such as chemotherapy, in unresectable patients.

METHODS

Twenty-nine solid pancreatic mass cytology specimens obtained by EUS-FNA with a diagnosis of suspicious for adenocarcinoma were identified from 2000 to 2012. Pathology, clinical, and radiologic data were analyzed.

RESULTS

Additional procedures were performed in 21 of the 29 patients. Sixteen of the 21 patients had confirmation of malignancy on further tissue sampling and an additional 2 had confirmed unresectable cancers during surgical exploration. Three of the 21 patients had benign diagnoses on subsequent tissue sampling. Of the remaining eight patients who did not undergo additional diagnostic procedures, six were deemed clinically malignant and treated, one died within a year of the EUS-FNA, and one was lost to follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Consideration of a suspicious diagnosis on EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic masses as sufficient for initiating non-operative therapy is reasonable in the setting of a high clinical suspicion of malignancy.

25-gauge histology needle versus 22-gauge cytology needle in endoscopic ultrasonography-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions and lymphadenopathy

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

A new 25-gauge (G) endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) device (EchoTip ProCore; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana, USA) has been developed, which features a hollowed-out reverse bevel to trap core samples. However, data on the differences between the diagnostic yield of the 25G EchoTip ProCore and that of a 22G standard needle are limited.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This pilot study included 27 patients referred during an 11-month period for EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses and enlarged lymph nodes adjacent to the upper gastrointestinal tract. Each lesion was punctured once by both a 25G EchoTip ProCore needle and a 22G standard needle (EchoTip; Cook Medical) with capillary sampling. Blinded histocytologic analyses were conducted. The final diagnosis was based on FNA findings of malignant cells, pathologic analysis of the surgical specimen, and/or radiologic and clinical follow-up of at least 7 months.

RESULTS

A total of 28 EUS-FNA procedures targeting masses of the pancreas (n = 19) and lymph nodes (n = 9) were performed. No complications were encountered. Single-pass sensitivity rates for pancreatic and lymph node malignancy were equal for the needle types: 89.5 % (95 %CI 66.82 - 98.39) and 66 % (95 %CI 24.1 - 94), respectively. There were no significant differences between the needles in terms of EUS visualization (P = 0.125), amount of blood contamination (P = 0.705), macroscopic quantity of the material (P = 0.858), quality of the cytology (P = 0.438), and adequacy and accuracy of the cell block material (P = 0.220).

CONCLUSIONS

Both needles were safe and successful in terms of a high diagnostic yield, with similar histocytologic results. The results of this study were presented at Digestive Disease Week (DDW) 2014, Chicago, Illinois. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (B027201316271).

Resectability of the pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A study from Iran

Background:

Definite treatment of pancreatic adenocarcinoma is surgical resection. Absence of early symptoms in most patients leads to late diagnosis and treatment. This study aims to evaluate resectability of the pancreatic adenocarcinoma at the time of the diagnosis in Iran.

Materials and Methods:

The present study which is of a descriptive, prospective and case series nature, has been studying the resectability of the pancreatic adenocarcinoma by multi-detector computerized tomography, endoscopic ultrasonography, laparoscopy and/or laparotomy in 157 patients for the duration of 2 years since November 2009.

Results:

A total of 157 patients were enrolled in this study. Majority of them (68%) were male. The mean age was 67 years. Final diagnosis obtained 1-12 (2.7 ± 1.6) months after beginning of the symptoms. The lesion situated in the head of the pancreas in 127 cases (81%). Vascular invasion, lymphadenopathy, liver metastasis and peritoneal involvement were seen in 88%, 57%, 43% and 19% of the patients, respectively. According to imaging, tumor was resectable in 10 (6%) patients but laparoscopy and/or laparotomy revealed that only five cases (3%) were actually resectable. After 24 months, only 8 patients were alive; 5 cases of them had been treated by Whipple surgery and other 3 cases were under the chemotherapy. At 1 and 2 year survival rate of the patients was 11% and 5%, respectively.

Conclusion:

Majority (97%) of the pancreatic adenocarcinomas are unresectable at the time of diagnosis. Thus, meticulous preoperative assessment of patients is essential in patients to avoid major surgery in unresectable cases.

Recent advances in diagnosis and treatment of primary duodenal tumors

Compared to tumors from other parts of the gastrointestinal tract, primary tumors of the duodenum are uncommon. Both benign tumors and malignancies are possible, although the majority are malignancies. The treatment of choice is surgical resection, mostly pancreaticoduodenectomy. With the development of endoscopy microsurgery and medical imaging technology, especially the advent of gastroduodenal fiberscopy, capsule endoscopy, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) and laparoscopy, more duodenal neoplasms have been detected in recent years. Some advances have been achieved in the diagnosis and treatment of duodenal tumors. Endoscopic and segmental resections play a more and more important role in the management of duodenal tumors. In this paper, we describe the clinical features, pathological patterns, diagnosis and treatment of primary duodenal tumors.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Treatment beyond Drainage: Hemostasis, Anastomosis, and Others

Since the introduction of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in the 1990s, it has evolved from a primarily diagnostic modality into an instrument that can be used in various therapeutic interventions. EUS-guided fine-needle injection was initially described for celiac plexus neurolysis. By using the fundamentals of this method, drainage techniques emerged for the biliary and pancreatic ducts, fluid collections, and abscesses. More recently, EUS has been used for ablative techniques and injection therapies for patients with for gastrointestinal malignancies. As the search for minimally invasive techniques continued, EUS-guided hemostasis methods have also been described. The technical advances in EUS-guided therapies may appear to be limitless; however, in many instances, these procedures have been described only in small case series. More data are required to determine the efficacy and safety of these techniques, and new accessories will be needed to facilitate their implementation into practice.

Comparison of two techniques for endoscopic ultrasonography fine-needle aspiration in solid pancreatic mass

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is a newly imagine procedure for assessment and therapeutic in option. The aims of this study are comparison two techniques about EUS-fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), including successful tissue sampling, complication, procedure time, and safety.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 100 patients with pancreatic solid masses were in the study, 50 patients underwent EUS-FNA with negative pressure as Group 1 and 50 patients underwent EUS-FNA without negative pressure and stylet as Group 2 over a 36 months period.

RESULTS

The study period was from March 2011 to January 2014. In total case, the male-to-female ratio was 1.27 with a mean age of 61.7 ± 1.3 years. The involvement of different regions of the pancreas, pancreatic head had the most frequent (69%) after that uncinate (12%), body (11%) and tail (8%). In 100 pancreatic EUS-FNA samples, 48% were interpreted as malignant on pathology evaluation, 15% as suspicious for malignancy, 27% as benign processes and 10% inadequate specimen. There were no significant differences between the adequacy of sample cells in two techniques (P < 0.148).

CONCLUSION

The EUS-FNA without negative pressure and stylet technique was related with less contamination by blood and raise the diagnostic yield. We recommend further studies for better evaluation of our study with higher the cases because clinically the low the inadequate samples (6% vs. 14%) and less contamination with blood (20% vs. 50%) in the second group (P < 0.002).

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of the pancreas: a retrospective study of 1000 cases

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) has emerged as a superior method for the diagnosis of pancreatic tumors. Very few large studies have been published. We retrospectively examined 1000 cases to determine the sensitivity and specificity of EUS-guided FNA for solid and cystic lesions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

EUS-guided FNA was performed in 1000 patients. Air-dried aspirates were reviewed immediately to ensure adequacy, and ethanol-fixed aspirates were reviewed the following day. The rendered diagnoses were placed into various categories and compared to subsequent histologic and clinical follow-up data.

RESULTS

Of the 1000 cases, 579 were solid lesions. The FNA diagnoses of the solid lesions were benign (B) 229 (39.5%), atypia (A) 22 (3.8%), suspicious (S) 27 (4.7%), malignant (M) 260 (44.9%), tumor (T) 1 (0.2%), and nondiagnostic (ND) 40 (6.9%). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for solid lesions were 97%, 97%, 99%, and 94%, respectively. There were 421 cystic lesions. The FNAs of the cystic lesions were classified as follows: B 342 (81.2%), A 5 (1.2%), S 4 (1%), M 7 (1.7%), T 46 (10.9%), and ND 17 (4.0%). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value to identify mucinous tumors and malignancy for cystic lesions were 46%, 98%, 94%, and 87%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

At our institution, EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic lesions is both sensitive and specific for the diagnosis of both primary and metastatic tumors. For cystic lesions, FNA is not as sensitive, but its specificity remains high.

Therapeutic options for the management of pancreatic cancer

Since its initial characterization, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma has remained one of the most devastating and difficult cancers to treat. Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of death in the United States, resulting in an estimated 38460 deaths annually. With few screening tools available to detect this disease at an early stage, 94% of patients will die within five years of diagnosis. Despite decades of research that have led to a better understanding of the molecular and cellular signaling pathways in pancreatic cancer cells, few effective therapies have been developed to target these pathways. Other treatment options have included more sophisticated pancreatic cancer surgeries and combination therapies. While outcomes have improved modestly for these patients, more effective treatments are desperately needed. One of the greatest challenges in the future of treating this malignancy will be to develop therapies that target the tumor microenvironment and surrounding pancreatic cancer stem cells in addition to pancreatic cancer cells. Recent advances in targeting pancreatic stellate cells and the stroma have encouraged researchers to shift their focus to the role of desmoplasia in pancreatic cancer pathobiology in the hopes of developing newer-generation therapies. By combining novel agents with current cytotoxic chemotherapies and radiation therapy and personalizing them to each patient based on specific biomarkers, the goal of prolonging a patient’s life could be achieved. Here we review the most effective therapies that have been used for the treatment of pancreatic cancer and discuss the future potential of therapeutic options.

Predictors of malignancy in patients with suspicious or indeterminate cytology on pancreatic endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration: a multivariate model

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate predictors of malignancy in pancreatic lesions with suspicious or indeterminate endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) cytology.

METHODS

Suspicious/indeterminate EUS-FNA cytology was identified from our database. Stable imaging, benign pathology, or survival for 12 months after EUS-FNA was considered benign. Diagnosis of malignancy was based on positive pathology, local invasion/metastasis on imaging, or death within 12 months from cancer-associated causes. Univariate analysis was performed to compare variables between benign and malignant lesions. Multivariate analysis (covariates: age [<70 or ≥70], appearance [solid/cystic], size [<20 or ≥20 mm], and serum CA19-9 [<40 or ≥40]) was performed using binary logistic regression.

RESULTS

There were 81 patients with suspicious or indeterminate cytology. Final diagnosis was cancer in 55 (67.9%) of 81 (adenocarcinoma in 40/81 [49.4%], "other neoplasms" in 15/81 [18.5%]) and benign in 26 (32.1%) of 81. Univariate analysis revealed a difference in age, lesion size, solid/cystic characteristics, and serum CA 19-9 between benign and malignant lesions. Only elevated serum CA 19-9 was independently associated with a diagnosis of malignancy on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Age, lesion size, and solid/cystic characteristics on EUS were not independently associated with cancer. Pancreatic lesions with suspicious/indeterminate cytology and elevated serum CA 19-9 should be considered as concerning for a malignant diagnosis.

Rapid on-site evaluation of endoscopic-ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration diagnosis of pancreatic masses

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become an essential tool for the study of pancreatic diseases. Specifically, EUS plays a pivotal role evaluating patients with a known or suspected pancreatic mass. In this setting, differential diagnosis remains a clinical challenge. EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (FNB) have been proven to be safe and useful tools in this setting. EUS-guided FNA and FNB, by obtaining cytological and/or histological samples, are able to diagnose pancreatic lesions with high sensitivity and specificity. In this context, several methodological features, trying to increase the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided FNA and FNB, have been evaluated. In this review, we focus on the role of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE). From data reported in the literature, ROSE may increase diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA specimens by 10%-30%, and thus, diagnostic accuracy. However, we should point out that many recent studies have reported adequacy rates of > 90% without ROSE, indicating that, perhaps, at high-volume centers, ROSE may not be indispensable to achieve excellent results. The use of ROSE can be considered important during the learning curve of EUS-FNA, and also in hospital with diagnostic accuracy rates < 90%.