Recent advancement in EUS-guided fine needle sampling

Comparative diagnostic efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided percutaneous transhepatic biopsy and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy for gallbladder tumors

The objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder biopsy (PTGB) with endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in the assessment of gallbladder tumors. We conducted a retrospective, single-center study involving 101 patients diagnosed with gallbladder cancer who underwent either PTGB or EUS-FNA between January 2019 and December 2022. The study cohort was divided into two groups: 52 patients underwent PTGB, and 49 underwent EUS-FNA. Clinical data, diagnostic outcomes, patient demographics, and complications were systematically documented. The sensitivity, accuracy, and incidence of complications were evaluated for both groups. The sensitivity and accuracy rates were 94.23% and 94.23% for PTGB compared to 97.82% and 97.96% for EUS-FNA, with no significant difference between the two techniques. However, EUS-FNA was associated with significantly lower rate of adverse reactions (2.04%) compared to PTGB (15.38%). Both PTGB and EUS-FNA exhibited high diagnostic efficacy for gallbladder tumors. However, EUS-FNA demonstrated a significantly lower incidence of complications, making it a compelling alternative to PTGB, especially when percutaneous biopsy is unsuccessful or not feasible. High-quality prospective, multicenter trials are recommended to further validate these findings and to refine biopsy guidelines for gallbladder tumors.

Percutaneous core needle biopsy for para-aortic retroperitoneal lesions: impact of size and location on diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography-guided biopsy and feasibility of ultrasound guidance

AIM

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of computed tomography (CT)-guided core needle biopsy (CNB) for para-aortic retroperitoneal lesions, identify factors affecting false-negative results, and explore the feasibility of alternative CT-guided and ultrasound-guided approaches for challenging anatomical regions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-institution retrospective study included 317 consecutive patients who underwent CNB for para-aortic retroperitoneal lesions. A total of 345 biopsies were performed using 18-gauge cutting needles under CT or ultrasound guidance. Diagnostic accuracy was calculated based on biopsy and follow-up results, and univariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of false-negative CT-guided biopsies.

RESULTS

Of the 332 CT-guided biopsies, 203 targeted lateral aortic lesions. The standard posterior paravertebral approach was commonly used; complex cases requiring alternative CT- or ultrasound-guided approaches involved pre-aortocaval or inter-aortocaval lesions. In CT-guided biopsies, 5 of the 30 lesions in these regions were accessed via trans-caval, trans-pedicle, or trans-disc approaches. All 13 ultrasound-guided biopsies were performed with anterior access except for 2 cases. Malignant lymphoma and nodal metastasis were the most common pathologic findings. Overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 96.7%, 100%, and 97%, respectively. Neither lesion size nor location predicted false-negative CT-guided biopsies with similar accuracy for lesions ≤15 mm (98.4%) and >15 mm (96.9%). Major bleeding occurred in two CT-guided biopsies (0.6%).

CONCLUSION

CT-guided CNB demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy across all lesion locations, particularly with the standard posterior paravertebral approach. For more challenging pre-aortocaval or inter-aortocaval lesions, alternative CT-guided posterior or ultrasound-guided anterior approaches may help overcome anatomical constrains and expand percutaneous options.

Utilizing decellularized bio-membranes to optimize histopathological embedding of small tissues

In recent years, minimally invasive biopsy techniques have been widely used to generate small tissue samples that require processing in clinical pathology. However, small paraffin-embedded tissues are prone to loss due to their small size. To prevent the loss of small tissues, researchers have employed nonbiological embedding materials for preembedding, but this approach can lead to cumbersome experimental procedures and increase the chances of tissue loss. This study aimed to develop a convenient decellularized embedding material derived from biological membrane tissues to effectively protect small tissues from loss during paraffin embedding. This study decellularized three types of fresh animal-derived membrane tissues and selected the small intestine as the most suitable decellularized raw material through attempts at softening, comparing physical properties, and using tissue as the starting material. Subsequently, small tissues from various tissue sources were embedded, followed by H&E staining, Masson staining, immunofluorescence staining, and immunohistochemical staining. The decellularized material derived from biomembrane tissues (DMBT) developed in this study can reduce the loss of small tissues without the need for preembedding, thereby shortening the embedding process. This provides a new pathological embedding tool for future laboratory and clinical research and work.•The fat layer of the pig's small intestine is scraped off, and chemical reagents are used to defat and decellularize it.•Chemical reagents are used to soften and make the pig's small intestine transparent, and the decellularized pig's small intestine is dried.•DMBT is used for embedding and staining the biological tissue.

Minimally Invasive Sampling of Mediastinal Lesions

This narrative review examines the existing literature on minimally invasive image-guided sampling techniques of mediastinal lesions gathered from international databases (Medline, PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar). Original studies, systematic reviews with meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and case reports published between January 2009 and November 2023 were included. Four authors independently conducted the search to minimize bias, removed duplicates, and selected and evaluated the studies. The review focuses on the recent advancements in mediastinal sampling techniques, including EBUS-TBNA, EUS-FNA and FNB, IFB, and nodal cryobiopsy. The review highlights the advantages of an integrated approach using these techniques for diagnosing and staging mediastinal diseases, which, when used competently, significantly increase diagnostic yield and accuracy.

Evaluation of Needles in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition of Pancreatic Cancer for Genetic Yield and Quality

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (FNB) is the gold standard in tissue acquisition of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). There is a paucity of evidence of the impact of needle type or size on the genetic yield and quality.

METHODS

Patients 18 years and older with PDAC who underwent FNB were retrospectively identified from a single database from 2016 to 2021. Genetic quantity is measured in micrograms (µg) and quality defined by RNA or DNA integrity number (RIN and DIN). FNB needles examined were Acquire 22 gauge (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA) and ProCore 22 and 20 gauges (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA).

RESULTS

Two hundred seventy-seven patients were identified. ProCore 20G needle procured higher RNA quantity (4125.8µg, IQR: 2003.8, 5954.8, p = 0.012) compared to ProCore 22G (2050µg IQR: 966.4, 3181.6) and Acquire 22G (2310.6µg, IQR: 1439.3, 4312). Median DNA quantity was 3340.5µg (Acquire 22G), 2610.4µg (ProCore 22G) and 3499.7µg (ProCore 20G) (p = 0.763). Median DIN was 7.3 (Acquire 22G and ProCore 22G) and 7.4 (ProCore 20G) (p = 0.449). Median RIN was 3.0 (Acquire 22G and ProCore 22G) and 2.7 (ProCore 20G) (p = 0.886).

CONCLUSION

ProCore 20G was associated with higher quantity of RNA. There were no differences in the quality acquired by different needles.

Tissue processing of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration specimens from solid pancreatic lesions

Now that tissue cores can be obtained using fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles, the ways tissues are handled for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) are changing. Direct smear, touch smear of core tissues, and centrifugation have been used for cytological examinations, and liquid-based cytology (LBC), which allows immunostaining and genetic tests that use residual samples, is emerging as an alternative. We emphasize that liquid cytology (Cytospin™ cytology and LBC) is still important, because it enables the diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) when cancerous cells are scarce in specimens. Cell blocks are being replaced by core tissues obtained via FNB needles. Recent reports indicate that rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) is not necessary when FNB needles are used, and macroscopic on-site evaluation is used to evaluate specimen adequacy. Macroscopic findings of specimens are helpful in the diagnostic workup and for clarifying specimen-handling methods. In addition to the red strings and white cores observed in PDAC, mixed red and white strings, gray tissues, and gelatinous tissues are observed. Gray (necrotic) tissues and gelatinous (mucus) tissues are more suitable than histology for cell block or cytological processing. Tumor cells in neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are numerous in red strings but cannot be observed macroscopically. ROSE might thus be necessary for lesions that may be NETs. Core tissues can be used for genetic tests, such as those used for KRAS mutations and comprehensive genomic profiling. Cytological materials, including slides and LBC specimens, can also be genetic test materials.

Comparing the diagnostic adequacy of 25-Gauge fork-tip versus franseen versus reverse-bevel-type needles in EUS-guided tissue acquisition: A prospective randomized study with a retrospective control

Background and Objectives

EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB) is an established technique for the acquisition of tissue to diagnose lesions of the gastrointestinal tract and surrounding organs. Recently, newer-generation FNB needles have been introduced, including a second-generation reverse-bevel and the third-generation fork-tip and Franseen needles. We aimed to determine if there was any difference between these needles in terms of cytopathological diagnostic yield, sample cellularity, or sample bloodiness.

Methods

One hundred twenty-seven consecutive patients undergoing EUS-guided FNB of any solid lesion were randomized to use either a Franseen or fork-tip needle in a 1:1 ratio and were compared with 60 consecutive historical cases performed with reverse-bevel needles. Patient and procedure characteristics were recorded. Cases were reviewed by a blinded cytopathologist and graded based on cellularity and bloodiness. Overall diagnostic yield was calculated for each study arm.

Results

One hundred seventy-six cases were eligible for analysis, including 109 pancreatic masses, 24 lymphoid lesions, 17 subepithelial lesions, and 26 other lesions. The final diagnosis was malignancy in 127 cases (72%). EUS-guided FNB was diagnostic in 141 cases (80%) overall and in 89% of cases where malignancy was the final diagnosis. There was no difference in diagnostic yield, sample cellularity, or sample bloodiness between the different needle types. There was no difference in adverse events between groups.

Conclusions

EUS-guided FNB performed using 25-gauge Franseen, fork-tip, and reverse-bevel needles resulted in similar diagnostic yield, sample cellularity, and sample bloodiness. Our results may not be extrapolated to larger-caliber needles of the same design.

Objective evaluation of the resistance forces of 22-gauge EUS-FNA and fine-needle biopsy needles

Background and Objectives

EUS-guided tissue acquisition is routinely performed for the diagnosis of gastrointestinal tract and adjacent organ lesions. Recently, various types of needles have been developed. However, how the shape of the needle tip and echoendoscope tip angle affect puncturability, has not been clarified. The aim of this experimental study was to compare the puncturability of several 22-gauge EUS-FNA and EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) needles, and to evaluate the effects of the needle tip shape and echoendoscope tip angle on tissue puncturability.

Materials and Methods

The following six major FNA and FNB needles were evaluated: SonoTip® ProControl, EZ Shot 3 Plus, Expect™ Standard Handle, SonoTip® TopGain, Acquire™, and SharkCore™. The mean maximum resistance force against needle advancement was evaluated and compared under several conditions using an echoendoscope.

Results

The mean maximum resistance force of the needle alone was higher for the FNB needles than for the FNA needles. The mean maximum resistance force of the needle in the echoendoscope with free angle demonstrated that the resistance forces were between 2.10 and 2.34 Newton (N). The mean maximum resistance force increased upon increases in angle of the tip of echoendoscope, particularly in the FNA needles. Among the FNB needles, SharkCore™ had the lowest resistance force (2.23 N). The mean maximum resistance force of the needle alone, the needle in the echoendoscope with free angle, and the needle in the echoendoscope with full-up angle for SonoTip® TopGain were all similar to that of Acquire™.

Conclusion

SonoTip® TopGain had similar puncturability to Acquire™ in all tested situations. Regarding the puncturability, SharkCore™ is most suitable for insertion into target lesions, when tight echoendoscope tip angle is necessary.

Successful closure of a duodenal perforation caused by endoscopic ultrasound with an over-the-scope clip: a case report and literature review

Duodenal perforation is a rare but severe complication during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and typically requires surgical intervention. With the widespread clinical use of over-the-scope clips (OTSCs), we aimed to evaluate their efficacy and safety for the closure of a duodenal perforation caused by EUS-FNA. A 79-year-old woman underwent EUS-FNA for a suspected low-density nodule in the head of the pancreas. However, duodenal perforation occurred during EUS-FNA. To minimize the patient's pain postoperatively compared with surgical intervention, we used an OTSC to close the perforation immediately and administered drug treatment for 2 weeks. The patient was discharged after complete recovery. OTSC is considered an effective and safe choice for closing a perforation at the upper corner of the duodenal bulb without surgical intervention.

Diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling by macroscopic on-site evaluation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Assessment of EUS-guided fine-needle tissue acquisition by macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) is gathering attention. Studies report good diagnostic parameters with MOSE; however, the overall data are limited. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to report on the pooled diagnostic assessment parameters of EUS-guided tissue acquisition by MOSE using fine-needle biopsy sampling (FNB).

METHODS

Multiple databases were searched (from inception to December 2021), and studies that reported on the diagnostic assessment of EUS-guided tissue acquisition by MOSE were selected. Pooled diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated by standard meta-analysis methods following the random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed by I2 statistics.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included in the analysis, and 1508 lesions were biopsy sampled in 1489 patients undergoing EUS-guided tissue acquisition. MOSE definition included a visible core of tissue with opacity and "wormlike" features of adequate size and length (≥4 mm). The pooled accuracy of FNA and/or FNB specimens in yielding a pathologic diagnosis by MOSE was 91.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 88.6-93.3; I2 = 66%), pooled sensitivity was 91.5% (95% CI, 88.6-93.6; I2 = 66%), pooled specificity was 98.9% (95% CI, 96.6-99.7; I2 = 80%), pooled positive predictive value was 98.8% (95% CI, 97.4-99.5; I2 = 33%), and pooled negative predictive value was 55.5% (95% CI, 46.9-63.9; I2 = 95%). Subgroup analyses by newer-generation FNB needles demonstrated similar pooled rates, with minimal adverse events (2.5%; 95% CI, 1.5-3.9; I2 = 21%).

CONCLUSIONS

Excellent pooled diagnostic accuracy parameters were demonstrated in EUS-guided tissue acquisition by FNB using the MOSE method.

Endoscopic Ultrasound Biopsy Needle

In the past few years, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) has superseded EUS-fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for EUS-guided tissue acquisition. EUS-FNA does not retain the stroma as well as the surrounding tissue architecture and therefore had limitations in achieving a definitive diagnosis. Development of EUS-FNB needles had improved the diagnostic ability of EUS by providing core tissue sample that not only preserves surrounding tissue architecture but also provides adequate material for molecular typing and gene profiling of sampled lesions. At present, there are three commercially available third-generation EUS-FNB needles with unique needle tip designs. In this review, we aim to elucidate the technical aspects of the available EUS-FNB needles.

Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Fine Needle Aspiration versus Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Fine Needle Biopsy for Pancreatic Cancer Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

One of the most effective diagnostic tools for pancreatic cancer is endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) or biopsy (EUS-FNB). Several randomized clinical trials have compared different EUS tissue sampling needles for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided FNA as EUS-FNB needles for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer using a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHOD

A literature review with a meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA guide. The databases of PubMed, Cochrane and Google Scholar were used, including studies published between 2011-2021 comparing the diagnostic yield (diagnostic accuracy or probability of positivity, sensitivity, specificity, predictive value) of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Random effect models allowed estimation of the pooled odds ratio with a confidence interval (CI) of 95%.

RESULTS

Nine randomized control trials were selected out of 5802 articles identified. Among these, five studies found no statistically significant difference between the EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB, whereas the other four did. The meta-analysis found EUS-FNB accuracy superior to EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer with a pooled odds ratio of 1.87 (IC 95%: 1.33-2.63).

CONCLUSION

As compared to EUS-FNA, EUS-FNB seems to improve diagnostic accuracy when applied to suspicious pancreatic lesions.

[Alternatives of histological material collection - When and how is histological confirmation by ultrasound (US), computer tomography (CT) or endosonography (EUS) useful?]

Histological classifications of tumorous lesions together with adequate staging are necessary for stage-appropriate and personalized therapies. The indications, technical possibilities, and limitations as well as potential complications of image-guided needle biopsy by ultrasound, computed tomography, and endosonography are described. Which procedure for which organ and which lesion?

Biopsy diagnosis of type 1 autoimmune pancreatitis: Does it bring a conclusion or confusion?

A biopsy-based diagnosis of type 1 autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is now feasible via an endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy, but there are potential issues to address. The benefits of acquiring large tissue samples include more successful immunostaining for Immunoglobulin G4 and more identifications of storiform fibrosis, obliterative phlebitis, and the ductal lesions of type 1 AIP. However, storiform fibrosis may not be present in all the type 1 AIP lesions. An interobserver agreement study revealed only slight-to-moderate agreement among pathologists diagnosing the histological findings of type 1 AIP. Potential reasons for disagreement are the different time phases of the inflammation (which result in heterogeneous histological pictures), a focal appearance of the typical histological findings, and the different definitions used by pathologists. We have thus devised guidance for diagnosing type 1 AIP based on biopsy tissues. In this guidance, we define each histological finding of type 1 AIP, for example, storiform fibrosis as a swirling arrangement of inflammatory cells, spindle-shaped cells, and delicate collagens as a unit. The necessity of elastic stains for identifying obliterative phlebitis is explained, with examples of mimickers. Another important purpose of a biopsy in type 1 AIP cases is differentiation from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). In this situation, acinar-ductal metaplasia observed in type 1 AIP is a mimicker of PDAC and should not be confused. For the resolution of potential disagreements among pathologists, a multi-disciplinary approach with the collaboration of clinicians, radiologists, and pathologists is necessary to avoid confusion.

Standardization of EUS imaging and reporting in high-risk individuals of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: consensus statement of the Pancreatic Cancer Early Detection Consortium

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is an aggressive disease most often diagnosed after local progression or metastatic dissemination, precluding resection and resulting in a high mortality rate. For individuals with elevated personal risk of the development of pancreatic cancer, EUS is a frequently used advanced imaging and diagnostic modality. However, variability in the expertise and definition of EUS findings exists among gastroenterologists, as well as a lack of standardized reporting of relevant findings at the time of examination. Adoption of standardized EUS reporting, using a universally accepted and agreed on terminology, is needed.

METHODS

A consensus statement designed to create a standardized reporting template was authored by a multidisciplinary group of experts in pancreatic diseases that includes gastroenterologists, radiologists, surgeons, oncologists, and geneticists. This statement was developed using a modified Delphi process as part of the Pancreatic Cancer Early Detection Consortium, and >75% agreement was required to reach consensus.

RESULTS

We identified reporting elements and present standardized reporting templates for EUS indications, procedural data, EUS image capture, and descriptors of findings, tissue sampling, and postprocedural assessment of adequacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Adoption of this standardized EUS reporting template should improve consistency in clinical decision-making for individuals with elevated risk of pancreatic cancer by providing complete and accurate reporting of pancreatic abnormalities. Standardization will also help to facilitate research and clinical trial design by using clearly defined and consistent imaging descriptions, thus allowing for comparison of results across different centers.

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

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

Efficacy of Contrast-Enhanced Harmonic Endoscopic Ultrasound for Pancreatic Solid Tumors with a Combination of Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses: A Prospective Pilot Study

INTRODUCTION

Image evaluation of contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasound (CEH-EUS) and additional time-intensity curve (TIC) analysis enable qualitative and quantitative analyses of pancreatic tumor based on real-time perfusion imaging.

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy of CEH-EUS with a combination of qualitative and quantitative analyses of pancreatic solid tumors.

METHODS

Patients were scheduled to undergo EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) for pancreatic solid tumors were prospectively enrolled between 11/2016 and 12/2018 and underwent CEH-EUS. The vascular and enhancement patterns were qualitatively evaluated and heterogeneous enhancement was defined to be indicative of malignancy. The echo intensity change during 60 s in the tumor was quantitatively evaluated by time intensity curve analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 100 patients were enrolled in this study. The final diagnoses were malignant lesions in 87 patients and benign legions in 13 patients. There were four categories of enhancement and patterns: hypovascular with heterogeneous, hypovascular with homogeneous, hypervascular heterogeneous, and hypervascular homogeneous enhancement. The diagnostic capability of qualitative analysis was the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 89%, 62%, and 85%, respectively. With respect to time intensity curve analysis, the time to peak of malignant lesions was significantly shorter than those of benign lesions (P = 0.0009) with an optimal cutoff value of 12.81 s on the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. With the combination of qualitative and quantitative analyses, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were improved to 100%, 54%, and 94%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

CEH-EUS with combined qualitative and quantitative analyses for pancreatic tumors might be useful as a complement for EUS-FNA. The UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000025192).

Tissue harmonic versus contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography for the diagnosis of pancreatic tumors: Prospective multicenter study

OBJECTIVES

This prospective multicenter study aimed to assess and compare the accuracy of tissue harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography (TH-EUS) and contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography (CH-EUS) for differentiating pancreatic carcinoma from other pancreatic tumors.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with solid pancreatic tumors were prospectively enrolled between August 2013 and December 2014. To assess the accuracy of TH-EUS and CH-EUS, we compared four parameters of TH-EUS (fuzzy edge, irregular periphery, hypoechogenicity, and heterogeneous internal echogenicity) and four parameters of CH-EUS (hypoenhancement and heterogeneous enhancement in the early and late phases, respectively) to investigate which parameter of each method was most suitable to diagnose pancreatic carcinomas. Interobserver agreement and the diagnostic ability of pancreatic carcinoma using TH-EUS and CH-EUS were assessed and compared.

RESULTS

A total of 204 patients were enrolled. For the diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma, interobserver agreement by experts and nonexperts was 0.33-0.50 and 0.35-0.50 for TH-EUS, respectively, and 0.72-0.74 and 0.20-0.54 for CH-EUS, respectively. Irregular periphery was the most accurate diagnostic parameter among TH-EUS findings for differentiating pancreatic carcinomas, with sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 95.0%, 42.9%, and 78.9%, respectively. Late phase hypoenhancement was the most accurate diagnostic parameter among CH-EUS findings for differentiating pancreatic carcinomas, with sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 90.8%, 74.6%, and 85.8%, respectively. The accuracy of CH-EUS (late phase hypoenhancement) for diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma was significantly higher than that of TH-EUS (irregular periphery) (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In comparison with TH-EUS, CH-EUS increased the diagnostic ability and reproducibility for the diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma. UMIN (000011124).

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.

Speckle reduction in ultrasound endoscopy using refraction based elevational angular compounding

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is a safe, real-time diagnostic and therapeutic tool. Speckle noise, inherent to ultrasonography, degrades the diagnostic precision of EUS. Elevational angular compounding (EAC) can provide real-time speckle noise reduction; however, EAC has never been applied to EUS because current implementations require costly and bulky arrays and are incompatible with the tight spatial constraints of hollow organs. Here we develop a radial implementation of a refraction-based elevational angular compounding technique (REACT) for EUS and demonstrate for the first time spatial compounding in a radial endoscopy. The proposed implementation was investigated in cylindrical phantoms and demonstrated superior suppression of ultrasound speckle noise and up to a two-fold improvement in signal- and contrast- ratios, compared to standard image processing techniques and averaging. The effect of elevational angular deflection on image fidelity was further investigated in a phantom with lymph node-like structures to determine the optimum elevational angular width for high speckle reduction efficiency while maintaining image fidelity. This study introduces REACT as a potential compact and low-cost solution to impart current radial echo-endoscopes with spatial compounding, which could enable accurate identification and precise sizing of lymph nodes in staging of gastrointestinal tract cancers.

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

Background/Aims

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

The Impact of Recent Advances in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition on the Management of Pancreatic Cancer

Over the last few decades, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition has become the method of choice for the pathological diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions. Due to its high diagnostic yield and low complication rate, EUS-guided tissue acquisition has surpassed percutaneous sampling techniques. For many years, EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) was traditionally used to obtain cytological aspirates of solid pancreatic lesions, with sensitivity values ranging from 80 to 90% for the diagnosis of malignancy. Nevertheless, despite numerous technical advances, EUS-FNA still presents some limitations. Therefore, EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) has been introduced to provide tissue core biopsies, allowing histological assessment. A newly developed generation of FNB needles has demonstrated an outstanding diagnostic accuracy of over 95% for solid pancreatic lesions and provides samples appropriate for ancillary testing, such as immunohistochemistry and tumour molecular profiling. As a result, EUS-FNB is rapidly replacing EUS-FNA and is now the recommended technique for EUS-guided tissue acquisition in pancreatic cancer. Furthermore, with the recent expansion of neoadjuvant treatment criteria and with the advent of novel and personalised anti-cancer therapies, EUS-FNB is gaining a pivotal role in pancreatic cancer management and might soon be generalised to all patients, independent of disease stage. In this article, the authors present an updated review of the role of EUS-guided tissue acquisition in pancreatic cancer. Current indications, several technical aspects and new applications of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB are discussed.

Image-guided lymph node fine-needle aspiration: the Johns Hopkins Hospital experience

INTRODUCTION

Although the diagnostic utility of lymph node fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is well established in the evaluation of metastatic malignancy, its value in the diagnosis of lymphoma is more controversial; yet, there is a growing trend among practitioners towards less-invasive procedures such as FNA and core needle biopsy (CNB). The guidelines recently published by the American Society for Clinical Pathology/College of American Pathology (CAP) regarding the workup of lymphoma include recommendations on the value and limitations of FNA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed 1237 image-guided lymph node aspirates from 695 procedures (410 nodes from 360 ultrasound [US]-guided cases, 799 from 309 endobronchial ultrasound [EBUS], 25 from 23 endoscopic ultrasound [EUS], and 3 from 3 computed tomography [CT]).

RESULTS

The majority (40 of 46, 87%) of lymph nodes suspected of lymphomatous involvement were aspirated under ultrasound. Core needle biopsy [CNB] was obtained for 41 (89%) lymph nodes, including all 40 US specimens. Flow cytometry (FC) was performed on 37 (80%) aspirates; aspirates without FC were from patients who had a history of Hodgkin lymphoma, or showed granulomata or non-hematologic malignancy onsite. Thirty-one (67%) lymph nodes were sent for review by hematopathology. Forty-two (91%) lymph node FNA/CNB yielded actionable diagnoses. Seventeen of 241(7%) cases aspirated for other indications (14 US, 3 EBUS) were involved by a lymphoproliferative process. All were reviewed by hematopathology. All 14 US cases had FC and CNB.

CONCLUSION

Our institutional approach towards lymph node cytopathology for lymphoma workup appears to be in accordance with the new CAP guidelines, and demonstrates a potential triage and workflow model for lymph node FNA specimens that allows for accurate diagnosis in cases where lymphoma is a consideration.

Diagnostic value of digital droplet polymerase chain reaction and digital multiplexed detection of single-nucleotide variants in pancreatic cytology specimens collected by EUS-guided FNA

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EUS-guided FNA is recommended as a first-line procedure for the histopathologic diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Molecular analysis of EUS-FNA samples might be used as an auxiliary tool to strengthen the diagnosis. The current study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performances of K-ras testing using droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) and a novel single-nucleotide variant (SNV) assay performed on pancreatic EUS-FNA samples.

METHODS

EUS-FNA specimens from 31 patients with pancreatic masses (22 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas, 7 chronic pancreatitis, and 2 pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors) were included in the study. K-ras testing was initially performed by ddPCR. In addition, mutational status was evaluated using an SNV assay by NanoString technology, using digital enumeration of unique barcoded probes to detect 97 SNVs from 24 genes of clinical significance.

RESULTS

The overall specificity and sensitivity of cytologic examination were 100% and 63%, respectively. K-ras mutation testing was performed using ddPCR, and the sensitivity increased to 87% with specificity 90%. The SNV assay detected at least 1 variant in 90% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma samples; the test was able to detect 2 K-ras codon 61 mutations in 2 cases of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, which were missed by ddPCR. The overall diagnostic accuracy of the cytologic examination alone was 74%, and it increased to 91% when the results of both molecular tests were considered for the cases with negative and inconclusive results.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study illustrated that integration of K-ras analysis with cytologic evaluation, especially in inconclusive cases, can enhance the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA for pancreatic lesions.

Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy versus fine-needle aspiration for genomic profiling and DNA yield in pancreatic cancer: a randomized crossover trial

BACKGROUND

 National guidelines recommend genomic profiling of tumor tissue to guide precision therapy. We compared the specimen adequacy for genomic profiling and yield of DNA between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB) and EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA).

METHODS

 In our tandem, randomized controlled trial, consecutive patients undergoing EUS for evaluation of pancreatic masses underwent both conventional EUS-FNA with a 25-gauge needle and paired EUS-FNB (19 or 22-gauge needle), with the order randomized (EUS-FNA first followed by EUS-FNB, or vice versa). A minimum of one pass with each needle was obtained for histology. Second and third passes were performed to collect DNA. Specimens were evaluated by a cytopathologist blinded to the needle type. Specimen adequacy for genomic profiling was calculated based on FoundationOne clinical diagnostic (CDx) adequacy requirements. We compared the adequacy for genomic profiling DNA (quantity) and histology yields with both needles.

RESULTS

 Analysis included 50 patients (25 men; mean age 68 [standard deviation (SD) 13] years), with a mean lesion size of 38 (SD 17) mm; 37 lesions (74 %) were pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The mean DNA concentrations in PDAC by FNB and FNA needles were 5.930 (SD 0.881) µg/mL vs. 3.365 (SD 0.788) µg/mL, respectively (P = 0.01). The median standardized histology score per pass with EUS-FNB was 5 (sufficient for histology) and for EUS-FNA was 2 (enough for cytology). Specimen adequacy for genomic profiling and yield of DNA was significantly higher with FNB than with FNA needles.

CONCLUSIONS

 In this study, adequacy for genomic profiling, DNA, and histology yield were considerably superior using an EUS-FNB needle compared with an EUS-FNA needle.

The bleeding risk after endoscopic ultrasound-guided puncture of pancreatic masses

BACKGROUND

Although EUS-fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is considered to be safe, there are limited studies on adverse events of fine-needle biopsy (FNB).

AIM

To compare the bleeding rate of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB of solid and cystic pancreatic masses.

METHODS

Our retrospective study included EUS-FNA/FNB of solid and cystic pancreatic masses performed between 02/2017-03/2019 in Klinikum Klagenfurt and 11/2018-03/2019 in University Hospital St. Pölten, Austria. Minor bleeding was defined as an event with a duration of more than 1 min, no need for intervention, large coagulum on the puncture site, or decrease in hemoglobin ≥1.5 g/dL (but <2 g/dL). Major bleeding was defined as a reduction in hemoglobin level ≥2 g/dL, need for red cell transfusions, or interventional hemostasis.

RESULTS

About 202 patients were biopsied in that period (141 solid, 61cystic pancreatic masses). FNA needle was used in 54.6% of cases with solid pancreatic masses and 73.7% of cysts. Bleeding with hemodynamic instability was not observed in our cohort. In pancreatic cysts, minor bleeding was observed in 8.2% of cases and was associated with the use of FNB needles and lower platelet count. In solid tumors, one major bleeding (0.7%) from a duodenal vessel occurred and was immediately treated with hemoclip. In this group, minor bleeding was observed in 15.6% of cases. Overall, the bleeding rate correlates with the use of FNB needles.

CONCLUSION

Use of EUS-FNB needles increases the rate of minor bleeding for both solid and cystic pancreatic tumors, while major bleeding is a rare occurrence, irrespective of the needle type.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Metastatic Disease to the Pancreas

Introduction: Metastatic disease to the pancreas is a rare entity from all malignant pancreatic masses. Its diagnosis is very challenging, but with the introduction of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-fine needle aspiration (FNA), now there is a feasible way to make an accurate histopathological and definitive diagnosis. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective review of 11 patients with metastasis to the pancreas diagnosed with EUS-FNA in a tertiary referral center over a period of 3 years. We describe our institutional experience in diagnosing metastatic disease to the pancreas through EUS-FNA. Results: Between January 2015 and June 2018, 115 patients were diagnosed with pancreatic malignancy by EUS-FNA and only 11 (10%) with metastatic disease to the pancreas. Most common primary malignancy was renal cell carcinoma, followed by colon carcinoma, squamous/small cell carcinoma of the lung, and urothelial carcinoma. Five of 11 patients presented as a solitary pancreatic mass on initial imaging without any evidence of primary or metastatic disease elsewhere. Conclusions: In our experience, metastatic disease to the pancreas can represent up to 10% of solid pancreatic masses, which is lower compared to the reported incidence in previous literature. Our findings reveal that early identification and diagnosis help patient management and limit surgical morbidity and mortality.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling of pancreatic lesions

Important advancements in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling techniques and development of new needle designs have improved the diagnostic yield of pancreatic lesions. This innovation in endoscopic ultrasound has also opened the door for early diagnosis and precision therapy in the management of cancer patients. Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle biopsy is an invaluable tool and newer biopsy designs will probably play a pivotal role in the management of pancreatic lesions in the next future. Aim of the current review was to provide an overview on the available techniques and devices for the endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of pancreatic solid and cystic lesions.

Comparison between fine-needle biopsy and fine-needle aspiration for EUS-guided sampling of subepithelial lesions: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is limited evidence on the diagnostic performance of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB) sampling in patients with subepithelial lesions. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare EUS-guided FNB sampling performance with FNA in patients with GI subepithelial lesions.

METHODS

A computerized bibliographic search on the main databases was performed through May 2019. The primary endpoint was sample adequacy. Secondary outcomes were diagnostic accuracy, histologic core procurement rate, and mean number of needle passes. Summary estimates were expressed in terms of odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Ten studies (including 6 randomized trials) with 669 patients were included. Pooled rates of adequate samples for FNB sampling were 94.9% (range, 92.3%-97.5%) and for FNA 80.6% (range, 71.4%-89.7%; OR, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.29-5.01; P = .007). When rapid on-site evaluation was available, no significant difference between the 2 techniques was observed. Optimal histologic core procurement rate was 89.7% (range, 84.5%-94.9%) with FNB sampling and 65% (range, 55.5%-74.6%) with FNA (OR, 3.27; 95% CI, 2.03-5.27; P < .0001). Diagnostic accuracy was significantly superior in patients undergoing FNB sampling (OR, 4.10; 95% CI, 2.48-6.79; P < .0001) with the need of a lower number of passes (mean difference, -.75; 95% CI, -1.20 to -.30; P = .001). Sensitivity analysis confirmed these findings in all subgroups tested. Very few adverse events were observed and did not impact on patient outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results speak clearly in favor of FNB sampling, which was found to outperform FNA in all diagnostic outcomes evaluated.

Comparative accuracy of needle sizes and designs for EUS tissue sampling of solid pancreatic masses: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Variable diagnostic performance of sampling techniques during EUS-guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic masses based on needle type (FNA versus fine-needle biopsy [FNB]) and gauge (19-gauge vs 22-gauge vs 25-gauge) has been reported. We performed a systematic review with network meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided techniques for sampling solid pancreatic masses.

METHODS

Through a systematic literature review to November 2018, we identified 27 randomized controlled trials (2711 patients) involving adults undergoing EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses that evaluated the diagnostic performance of FNA and FNB needles based on needle gauge. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were sample adequacy, histologic core procurement rate, and number of needle passes. We performed pairwise and network meta-analyses and appraised the quality of evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology.

RESULTS

In the network meta-analysis, no specific EUS-guided tissue sampling technique was superior, based on needle type (FNA vs FNB) or gauge (19-gauge vs 22-gauge vs 25-gauge) (low-quality evidence). Specifically, there was no difference between 25-gauge FNA versus 22-gauge FNA (relative risk [RR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.17) and 22-gauge FNB versus 22-gauge FNA (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.89-1.18) needles for diagnostic accuracy, sample adequacy, and histologic core procurement. Findings were confirmed in sensitivity analysis restricted to studies with no rapid on-site cytologic evaluation and no use of the fanning technique.

CONCLUSION

In a network meta-analysis, no specific EUS-guided tissue sampling technique was superior with regard to diagnostic accuracy, sample adequacy, or histologic procurement rate for solid pancreatic masses, with low confidence in estimates.

Diagnosis of gastric duplication cyst by positron emission tomography/computed tomography: A case report

BACKGROUND

Gastric duplication cysts (GDCs) are extremely uncommon lesions and the definitive diagnosis of GDCs is challenging for gastrointestinal specialists. It is important that a differential diagnosis is performed to rule out the possibility of other diseases, mainly malignancies with a cystic component. Despite the use of multiple diagnostic modalities including endoscopy, the preoperative diagnosis of GDCs is challenging.

CASE SUMMARY

A 53-year-old female patient with a GDC was confirmed by positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) instead of more conventional procedures such as endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). We propose that ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT has higher accuracy than EUS-FNA and may be an effective technique for the characterization of duplication cysts.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative diagnosis of GDCs in adults is difficult largely due to their rarity and the absence of characteristic findings. In addition, few endoscopists include GDCs in the differential diagnosis when they encounter a lesion with cystic characteristics. ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT with additional imaging data, may complement EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of GDCs.