Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration as a diagnostic and staging tool for rectal and perirectal lesions-an institutional experience

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration of Suspected Locoregional Rectal Cancer Localizations: A Valuable Tool

Introduction

Organ-preserving treatment for rectal cancer using local excision (LE) and/or chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is increasingly used. Locoregional metastasis precludes LE and locoregional regrowth, recurrence, or persistence after LE or chemoradiation (CRT) may prompt total mesorectal excision (TME). We believe that the time has passed to make such life-changing treatment decisions without pathological confirmation and investigated the use of linear endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA).

Case Presentations

We report 8 cases of suspected locoregional tumor growth (LRTG) on MRI: adjacent or in the rectal wall, within the mesorectal fascia, high presacral region, and obturator foramen. MRI images were studied thoroughly before and during EUS to identify the target lesion using rectal EUS-FNA. Patients were prepared using an enema. The procedure was performed on an outpatient basis without conscious sedation. FNA was performed using a 25G needle. The patient received a 3-day course of ciprofloxacin after the procedure to prevent infection of the perirectal space. Identification of the target was the most difficult part of EUS but was successful in all cases. FNA revealed adenocarcinoma in 7 cases. Five cases were confirmed by TME results: 1 patient died before the operation, and 1 patient was treated with CRT. One patient with a suspected node in the obturator foramen was free of tumors on FNA. The TME resection specimen contained 31 lymph nodes without metastasis. All procedures were well tolerated, and no complications were observed.

Conclusion

Suspected LRTG on MRI can be confirmed using EUS-FNA. In the era of organ-preserving treatment for rectal cancer, EUS-FNA may play a supportive role when considering TME or CRT.

The Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Aspiration of Pelvic Lesions: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a potentially valuable tool for the diagnosis of pelvic lesions. The aim of this meta‑analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of pelvic lesions.

METHODS

We performed a computerized search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Science Citation Index, through March 2023. The main outcome measures examined in the meta-analysis were sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy.

RESULTS

We evaluated 22 trials that used surgical pathology or imaging follow-up results as the reference standard. The studies comprised 844 patients. The cumulative sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy were 94%, 100%, 100%, 89%, and 96%, respectively. In the subgroup analysis, the prospective studies revealed the cumulative sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy were 91%, 100%, 100%, 85%, and 93%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, we provide evidence that EUS-FNA is a qualitative diagnostic technique with high sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and accuracy. However, its NPV is slightly low, which does not exclude the risk of a missed diagnosis, and more randomized controlled trials or prospective studies are still needed in the future. EUS-FNA is effective and feasible for pelvic space-occupying lesions. This technique has high clinical application value for pelvic lesions.

The role of rectal endoscopic ultrasonography plus fine needle aspirartion and fine needle biopsy in pelvic masses

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The diagnostic role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) of pelvic masses has not been well established. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of EUS plus FNA/FNB in suspected local recurrence of pelvic masses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All consecutive patients with a history of lower gastrointestinal and pelvic mass undergone EUS-FNA/FNB were included in the study.

RESULTS

In total 34 patients who underwent EUS-guided FNA or FNB of a perirectal mass were enrolled. The sampled lesion was a mass in 22 patients (64.7%) and a lymph node in 10 patients (29.4%). The univariate logistic regression analysis for diagnostic accuracy showed lesion size as a significant predictor of diagnostic accuracy [odds ratio (OR), 1.61; 1.08-2.27; P  = 0.02]. Diagnostic sensitivity was 100% (71.5-100%) with EUS-FNB and 75% (34.9-96.8%) with EUS-FNA ( P  = 0.12); specificity was 100% in both groups ( P  = 1.0). Sample adequacy was 94.1% in the whole cohort, with 20/20 adequacy rate (100%) in the EUS-FNB group and 12/14 (85.7%) in the EUS-FNA group ( P  = 0.28).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study demonstrating the diagnostic yield of EUS plus FNA/FNB in patients with pelvic masses comparing the two needles. Our results highlight the relevance of this technique, especially in undefined masses during oncological follow-up.

Utility of Forward-View Echoendoscopy for Transcolonic Fine-Needle Aspiration of Extracolonic Lesions: An Institutional Experience

Background/Aims

Non-invasive tissue sampling from the lower intra-abdominal and pelvic cavity is challenging. The role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in this situation is not well-established because of the limitations of the curved linear-array echoendoscopy-EUS for colonic insertion. The aim of this study was to report our institutional experience of transcolonic EUS-FNA using forward-viewing therapeutic linear echoendoscopy-EUS (FV-EUS) in combination with fluoroscopic guidance.

Methods

Medical records of 13 patients who underwent transcolonic EUS-FNA of extracolonic lesions using FV-EUS in combination with fluoroscopic guidance at Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, Nagoya, Japan from June 2015 to November 2018 were retrospectively reviewed.

Results

Using FV-EUS under fluoroscopic guidance, the FNA procedure could be performed successfully in all patients (100% technical success), with a median procedure time of 31 minutes. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of EUS-FNA for detecting malignant lesions in this study were 91%, 100%, and 92%, respectively. There were no adverse events associated with the EUS-FNA procedure.

Conclusions

FV-EUS in combination with fluoroscopic guidance is an easy, safe, and effective technique for FNA of extracolonic lesions in the lower abdomen.

Has the role of EUS in rectal cancer staging changed in the last decade?

The need for effective diagnosis, staging, and treatment of rectal cancer cannot be overstated. Accurate staging of rectal cancer has wide-ranging implications, including therapeutic strategy and prognosis. A change in stage may lead to the need for preoperative neoadjuvant therapy to decrease the risk of recurrence. The modalities commonly used for the primary staging of rectal cancer include EUS, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging. EUS may be accompanied by the use of EUS-fine-needle aspiration to provide cytological confirmation. In this review, we take a deeper look into the role of EUS in the accurate staging of rectal cancer, how it compares to other modalities for the same, and how its role has changed in the last decade.

Is it time to rethink the rule of total mesorectal excision? A prospective radiological and pathological study in 49 consecutive patients with mid-rectal cancer

AIM

Total mesorectal excision (TME) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is the standard treatment for T3-T4 and/or N+ mid-rectal tumours, regardless of the exact tumour level. This leads to optimal oncological results but possible impaired functional results. Reducing rectal excision could reduce the functional drawbacks. This study prospectively assessed the risk of N+ or other mesorectal tumour deposit (OTD) below the tumour level by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) performed after chemoradiotherapy and pathological examination of the TME specimen.

METHOD

Consecutive patients with mid-rectal cancer who underwent TME after chemoradiotherapy were included. A prospective evaluation by postchemoradiotherapy MRI and pathological examination was performed to assess the location of N+ nodes and/or OTDs.

RESULTS

Of 49 consecutive patients, 27 (55%) presented with nodes on postchemoradiotherapy MRI. However, only 12 nodes (size 2-4 mm) in 9 patients (18%) were under the tumour level. On pathological examination, 717 total lymph nodes were found, with 37 N+ and 22 OTD. According to the tumour level: (i) above tumour level, 21/453 nodes were N+ and 6 OTD; (ii) at tumour level, 16/166 nodes were N+ and 15 OTD; (iii) below tumour level, 0/98 nodes (0%) was N+ and only 1 OTD (2%) was noted at 2 cm below tumour level.

CONCLUSION

After chemoradiotherapy, N+ and/or OTD located under the level of the rectal cancer seems to be a very rare event. A postchemoradiotherapy MRI could help detect such patients. For others patients, conservation of the lower rectum with only a subtotal mesorectal excision could possibly improve function.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNA of pelvic lesions: A large single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Pelvic endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (PEUS-FNA) of rectal or perirectal lesions is safe, minimally invasive, and well tolerated. It provides valuable information, which can greatly influence patient management. Herein, the authors present what to their knowledge is the largest series to date of PEUS-FNA.

METHODS

PEUS-FNA specimens were retrieved from the archives of the study institution from January 2001 to March 2015. Only patients with solid pelvic lesions were examined. The cytopathology findings, immunohistochemistry, corresponding histology, and clinical data were collected. For analysis of accuracy, atypical or suspicious results were classified as "negative." The sensitivity and specificity of PEUS-FNA were calculated in a subset of patients with available surgical pathology.

RESULTS

A total of 127 cases meeting the current study criteria were obtained from patients who underwent PEUS-FNA at the study institution between January 2001 and March 2015. The mean age of the patients was 60 years, and 53% were female. Pelvic lesions were comprised of 72% masses and 28% lymph nodes, with a mean mass diameter of 27.38 mm (range, 5-100 mm). PEUS-FNA was positive for malignancy in 45% of cases, atypical/suspicious in 4.7% of cases, and negative for malignancy in 50.3% of cases. Surgical pathology was available for 44 patients. PEUS-FNA demonstrated 89.3% sensitivity, 100% specificity, a diagnostic accuracy of 93.2%, a positive predictive value of 100%, and a negative predictive value of 84.2%. No complications were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

PEUS-FNA is safe and effective for the investigation of pelvic lesions. Cancer Cytopathol 2016;124:836-41. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Biopsy for Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Pelvic Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Preoperative diagnosis of pelvic lesions remains challenging despite advances in imaging technologies. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided biopsy is an effective diagnostic modality for sampling the digestive tract and surrounding areas. However, a meta-analysis summarizing the diagnostic efficacy of EUS-guided biopsy for pelvic lesions has not been published.

AIMS

We aimed to evaluate the utility of EUS-guided biopsy in the diagnosis of pelvic lesions.

METHODS

Articles were identified via structured database search; only studies where pelvic lesions were confirmed by surgery or clinical follow-up were included. Data extracted were selected with strict criteria. A fixed-effects model was used to estimate the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). A summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) was also constructed.

RESULTS

Ten studies containing a total of 246 patients were included. The pooled sensitivity of EUS-guided biopsy for differential diagnosis of pelvic masses was 0.89 (95% CI 0.83-0.94), and the specificity was 0.93 (95% CI 0.86-0.97). The area under the SROC was 0.9631. The combined PLR, NLR, and DOR were 11.75 (95% CI 5.90-23.43), 0.12 (95% CI 0.07-0.20), and 100.06 (95% CI 37.48-267.10) respectively. There is potential presence of publication bias in this meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis shows that EUS-guided biopsy is a powerful tool for differentiating pelvic masses with a high sensitivity and specificity. Furthermore, it is a safe procedure with low rate of complication, although more high-quality prospective studies are required to be done.