Suboptimal Agreement Among Cytopathologists in Diagnosis of Malignancy Based on Endoscopic Ultrasound Needle Aspirates of Solid Pancreatic Lesions: A Validation Study

Comparison of risk of malignancy and predictive value of diagnostic categories defined by Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology system and WHO reporting system for pancreaticobiliary cytopathology in solid pancreatic lesions

Background

The standardized diagnostic categories defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) reporting system support the interdisciplinary interpretation of cytological findings in the management of pancreatic cancer.

Objective

To compare this classification to the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology (PSC) system in terms of predictive value and risk of malignancy (ROM) in solid pancreatic lesions.

Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Methods

All consecutive patients with solid pancreatic lesions who underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) sampling at the University of Szeged from 2014 to 2021 were retrospectively enrolled. The predictive value and ROM of cytological findings were determined with comparison to histologic outcome and/or clinical follow-up.

Results

A total of 521 EUS-FNAs were performed with a malignancy rate of 81.76%. In both classification systems, the absolute ROM of "non-diagnostic," "negative for malignancy," "atypical," "suspicious for malignancy," and "malignant" categories were 48.2%, 2.3%, 78.1%, 100.0%, and 99.4%, respectively. Despite the heterogeneous nature of the "neoplastic: other" category of the PSC system, the absolute ROM for solid lesions was 100%. Pancreatic neoplasm: high-risk/grade category including only two endosonographically solid cases of high-grade intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms showed 100% ROM. There were no differences between PSC and WHO systems in sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values: excluding the "atypical" category, these were 99.7%, 95.6%, 97.7%, and 99.5%, respectively. The "atypical" category considered benign resulted in a higher decrease in validity and negative predictive value, compared to "atypical" considered true malignant (93.6% vs 97.7% and 65.8% vs 97.7%).

Conclusion

For solid pancreatic lesions, the WHO system was identical to the PSC system in terms of ROM and predictive values.

Comparison of FNA-based conventional cytology specimens and digital image analysis in assessment of pancreatic lesions

Objectives

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is one of the most important diagnostic tools for investigation of suspected pancreatic masses, although the interpretation of the results is controversial. In recent decades, digital image analysis (DIA) has been considered in pathology. The aim of this study was to assess the DIA in the evaluation of EUS-FNA based cytopathological specimens of pancreatic masses and comparing it with conventional cytology analysis by pathologist.

Material and Methods

This study was performed using cytological slides related to EUS-FNA samples of pancreatic lesions. The digital images were prepared and then analyzed by ImageJ software. Factors such as perimeter, circularity, area, minimum, maximum, mean, median of gray value, and integrated chromatin density of cell nucleus were extracted by software ImageJ and sensitivity, specificity, and cutoff point were evaluated in the diagnosis of malignant and benign lesions.

Results

In this retrospective study, 115 cytology samples were examined. Each specimen was reviewed by a pathologist and 150 images were prepared from the benign and malignant lesions and then analyzed by ImageJ software and a cut point was established by SPSS 26. The cutoff points for perimeter, integrated density, and the sum of three factors of perimeter, integrated density, and circularity to differentiate between malignant and benign lesions were reported to be 204.56, 131953, and 24643077, respectively. At this cutting point, the accuracy of estimation is based on the factors of perimeter, integrated density, and the sum of the three factors of perimeter, integrated density, and circularity were 92%, 92%, and 94%, respectively.

Conclusion

The results of this study showed that digital analysis of images has a high accuracy in diagnosing malignant and benign lesions in the cytology of EUS-FNA in patients with suspected pancreatic malignancy and by obtaining cutoff points by software output factors; digital imaging can be used to differentiate between benign and malignant pancreatic tumors.

Improved diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle biopsy with histology specimen processing

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) has emerged as a safe, efficacious alternative to fine needle aspiration (FNA) for tissue acquisition. EUS-FNB is reported to have higher diagnostic yield while preserving specimen tissue architecture. However, data on the optimal method of EUS-FNB specimen processing is limited.

AIM

To evaluate EUS-FNB with specimen processing as histology vs EUS-FNA cytology with regards to diagnostic yield and specimen adequacy.

METHODS

All EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB performed at our institution from July 1, 2016, to January 31, 2018, were retrospectively analyzed. We collected data on demographics, EUS findings, pathology, clinical outcomes, and procedural complications in two periods, July 2016 through March 2017, and April 2017 through January 2018, with predominant use of FNB in the second data collection time period. FNA specimens were processed as cytology with cell block technique and reviewed by a cytopathologist; FNB specimens were fixed in formalin, processed for histopathologic analysis and immunohistochemical staining, and reviewed by an anatomic pathologist. Final diagnosis was based on surgical pathology when available, repeat biopsy or imaging, and length of clinical follow up.

RESULTS

One hundred six EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB procedures were performed. FNA alone was performed in 17 patients; in 56 patients, FNB alone was done; and in 33 patients, both FNA and FNB were performed. For all indications, diagnostic yield was 47.1% (8/17) in FNA alone cases, 85.7% (48/56) in FNB alone cases, and 84.8% (28/33) in cases where both FNA and FNB were performed (P = 0.0039). Specimens were adequate for pathologic evaluation in 52.9% (9/17) of FNA alone cases, in 89.3% (50/56) of FNB alone cases, and 84.8% (28/33) in cases where FNA with FNB were performed (P = 0.0049). Tissue could not be aspirated for cytology in 10.0% (5/50) of cases where FNA was done, while in 3.4% (3/89) of FNB cases, tissue could not be obtained for histology. In patients who underwent FNA with FNB, there was a statistically significant difference in both specimen adequacy (P = 0.0455) and diagnostic yield (P = 0.0455) between the FNA and FNB specimens (processed correspondingly as cytology or histology).

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNB has a higher diagnostic yield and specimen adequacy than EUS-FNA. In our experience, specimen processing as histology may have contributed to the overall increased diagnostic yield of EUS-FNB.

Agreement on endoscopic ultrasonography-guided tissue specimens: Comparing a 20-G fine-needle biopsy to a 25-G fine-needle aspiration needle among academic and non-academic pathologists

BACKGROUND AND AIM

A recently carried out randomized controlled trial showed the benefit of a novel 20-G fine-needle biopsy (FNB) over a 25-G fine-needle aspiration (FNA) needle. The current study evaluated the reproducibility of these findings among expert academic and non-academic pathologists.

METHODS

This study was a side-study of the ASPRO (ASpiration versus PROcore) study. Five centers retrieved 74 (59%) consecutive FNB and 51 (41%) FNA samples from the ASPRO study according to randomization; 64 (51%) pancreatic and 61 (49%) lymph node specimens. Samples were re-reviewed by five expert academic and five non-academic pathologists and rated in terms of sample quality and diagnosis. Ratings were compared between needles, expert academic and non-academic pathologists, target lesions, and cytology versus histological specimens.

RESULTS

Besides a higher diagnostic accuracy, FNB also provided for a better agreement on diagnosing malignancy (ĸ = 0.59 vs ĸ = 0.76, P < 0.001) and classification according to Bethesda (ĸ = 0.45 vs ĸ = 0.61, P < 0.001). This equally applied for expert academic and non-academic pathologists and for pancreatic and lymph node specimens. Sample quality was also rated higher for FNB, but agreement ranged from poor (ĸ = 0.04) to fair (ĸ = 0.55). Histology provided better agreement than cytology, but only when a core specimen was obtained with FNB (P = 0.004 vs P = 0.432).

CONCLUSION

This study shows that the 20-G FNB outperforms the 25-G FNA needle in terms of diagnostic agreement, independent of the background and experience of the pathologist. This endorses use of the 20-G FNB needle in both expert and lower volume EUS centers.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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