Multicentre retrospective study on endoscopic ultrasound complications

Factors influencing diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in pancreatic and biliary tumors

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is influenced by several factors, primarily operator expertise. Formal training in EUS-FNA, as suggested by the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines, is not always available and is often expensive and time-consuming. In this study we evaluate factors influencing the diagnostic accuracy of pancreatic EUS-FNA.

METHODS

In a retrospective study, 557 consecutive EUS-FNAs were evaluated. Several variables relating to the procedures were considered to calculate the EUS-FNA performance over eight years.

RESULTS

A total of 308 out of 557 EUS-FNAs were selected. Overall sensitivity of EUS-FNA was 66% (95% CI: 60.8-71.8), specificity 100%, and diagnostic accuracy 69% (95% CI: 64.0-74.4). An increase in diagnostic accuracy was observed to >90% using a new fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needle and in the case of simultaneous sampling of primary and metastatic lesions. Diagnostic accuracy >80% was observed after 250 procedures, in the absence of rapid on-site cytopathological examination (ROSE). Multivariate logistic regression analysis confirmed that the FNB needle, operator skill, and double EUS-FNA sampling are associated with high diagnostic accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

The learning curve for EUS-FNA may be longer and a considerable number of procedures are needed to achieve high diagnostic accuracy in the absence of ROSE. However, the use of FNB needles and the simultaneous sampling of primary and metastatic lesions can rapidly improve the diagnostic accuracy of the procedure.

Endoscopic ultrasound of pancreatic tumors

Computed tomography (CT) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) are the two most effective techniques for the assessment of pancreatic cancers. CT has revolutionized the field of tumor imaging in pancreatic cancer and is now a well-established imaging technique for diagnosis and staging. However, EUS still plays an important role in several situations, especially when the diagnosis is uncertain or when histopathological confirmation of the lesion is needed. Similarly, regarding cystic lesions, magnetic resonance imaging and CT have very good performances but are often inadequate because the diagnosis can be difficult to establish, while the consequences for the patient are major. New biopsy needles, the use of elastography and ultrasonographic contrast agents, and confocal laser endomicroscopy can also provide additional and essential information to improve diagnosis confidence of pancreatic lesions with EUS.

Italian consensus guidelines for the diagnostic work-up and follow-up of cystic pancreatic neoplasms

This report contains clinically oriented guidelines for the diagnostic work-up and follow-up of cystic pancreatic neoplasms in patients fit for treatment. The statements were elaborated by working groups of experts by searching and analysing the literature, and then underwent a consensus process using a modified Delphi procedure. The statements report recommendations regarding the most appropriate use and timing of various imaging techniques and of endoscopic ultrasound, the role of circulating and intracystic markers and the pathologic evaluation for the diagnosis and follow-up of cystic pancreatic neoplasms.

Is diagnostic accuracy of fine needle aspiration on solid pancreatic lesions aspiration-related? A multicentre randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration has a central role in the diagnostic algorithm of solid pancreatic masses. Data comparing the fine needle aspiration performed with different aspiration volume and without aspiration are lacking. We compared endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration performed with the 22 gauge needle with different aspiration volumes (10, 20 and 0 ml), for adequacy, diagnostic accuracy and complications.

METHODS

Prospective clinical study at four referral centres. Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration was performed with a 22G needle with both volume aspiration (10 and 20 cc) and without syringe, in randomly assigned sequence. The cyto-pathologist was blinded as to which aspiration was used for each specimen.

RESULTS

100 patients met the inclusion criteria, 88 completed the study. The masses had a mean size of 32.21±11.24 mm. Sample adequacy evaluated on site was 87.5% with 20 ml aspiration vs. 76.1% with 10 ml (p=0.051), and 45.4% without aspiration (20 ml vs. 0 ml p<0.001; 10 ml vs. 0 ml p<0.001). The diagnostic accuracy was significantly better with 20 ml than with 10 ml and 0 ml (86.2% vs. 69.0% vs. 49.4% p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A significantly higher adequacy and accuracy were observed with the 20 ml aspiration puncture, therefore performing all passes with this volume aspiration may improve the diagnostic power of fine needle aspiration.

Ultrasound-guided percutaneous biopsy for diagnosis of gastrointestinal lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopical examination is not always sufficient for the diagnosis of gastrointestinal masses. This study assessed the diagnostic accuracy and safety of ultrasound-guided percutaneous biopsy of gastrointestinal lesions.

METHODS

This retrospective study evaluated 114 patients who underwent ultrasound-guided biopsy of gastrointestinal masses with a 18G needle. Thirty-two of these patients underwent a 22G fine-needle biopsy for cytology. Histology was compared with a composite standard of reference for diagnosis (i.e. post-surgery histological evaluation in 73 cases and computed tomography or magnetic resonance scan findings, together with a compatible clinical follow-up for at least 24 months, in the remaining 41 cases). Safety was assessed by recording side effects for up to 4h after the procedure.

RESULTS

Of the 114 lesions evaluated, 112 were malignant (98.2%) and 2 benign (1.8%). Specimens were adequate for histology in all but one case. Specimens were obtained from the stomach (n=38; 33.3%), small bowel (n=36; 31.6%) and colon (n=40; 35.1%). Diagnosis was correct in 113/114 cases (99.1%). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and diagnostic accuracy were 99.1%, 100%, 100%, 66%, and 99%, respectively. One of the 114 patients (0.9%) bled from a gastric GIST.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasound-guided percutaneous biopsy of gastrointestinal lesions is a valid alternative when diagnosis of a gastrointestinal mass cannot be obtained with an endoscopical procedure.

Endoscopic ultrasonography for pancreatic cancer: current and future perspectives

A suspected pancreatic lesion can be a difficult challenge for the clinician. In the last years we have witnessed tumultuous technological improvements of the radiological and nuclear medicine imaging. Taking this into account, we will try to delineate the new role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in pancreatic imaging and to place it in a shareable diagnostic and staging algorithm of pancreatic cancer (PC). To date the most accurate imaging techniques for the PC remain contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) and EUS. The latter has the highest accuracy in detecting small lesions, in assessing tumor size and lymph nodes involvement, but helical CT or an up-to-date magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) must be the first choice in patients with a suspected pancreatic lesion. After this first step there is place for EUS as a second diagnostic level in several cases: negative results on CT/MRI scans and persistent strong clinical suspicion of PC, doubtful results on CT/MRI scans or need for cyto-histological confirmation. In the near future there will be great opportunities for the development of diagnostic and therapeutic EUS and pancreatic pathology could be the best testing bench.

Diagnostic endoscopic ultrasonography: Assessment of safety and prevention of complications

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has gained wide acceptance as an important, minimally invasive diagnostic tool in gastroenterology, pulmonology, visceral surgery and oncology. This review focuses on data regarding risks and complications of non-interventional diagnostic EUS and EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). Measures to improve the safety of EUS und EUS-FNB will be discussed. Due to the specific mechanical properties of echoendoscopes in EUS, there is a low but noteworthy risk of perforation. To minimize this risk, endoscopists should be familiar with the specific features of their equipment and their patients’ specific anatomical situations (e.g., tumor stenosis, diverticula). Most diagnostic EUS complications occur during EUS-FNB. Pain, acute pancreatitis, infection and bleeding are the primary adverse effects, occurring in 1% to 2% of patients. Only a few cases of needle tract seeding and peritoneal dissemination have been reported. The mortality associated with EUS and EUS-FNB is 0.02%. The risks associated with EUS-FNB are affected by endoscopist experience and target lesion. EUS-FNB of cystic lesions is associated with an increased risk of infection and hemorrhage. Peri-interventional antibiotics are recommended to prevent cyst infection. Adequate education and training, as well consideration of contraindications, are essential to minimize the risks of EUS and EUS-FNB. Restricting EUS-FNB only to patients in whom the cytopathological results may be expected to change the course of management is the best way of reducing the number of complications.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration with 22- and 25-gauge needles in solid pancreatic masses: a prospective comparative study with randomisation of needle sequence

BACKGROUND

The difference in the diagnostic accuracy of 22- versus 25-gauge needles in EUS-FNA is not clear.

AIMS

To compare the rates of technical success, diagnostic accuracy and complications of EUS-FNA performed with 22-gauge and 25-gauge needles on the same solid pancreatic mass.

METHODS

All patients with solid pancreatic masses evaluated from September 2007 to December 2008 were enrolled and underwent EUS-FNA with both 22- and 25-gauge needles with randomisation of needle sequence. The accuracy of the EUS-FNA was determined by comparing the cytological results with the final surgical pathological diagnoses or with the results of a clinical follow-up. A cytological score with different qualitative parameters was created, and a comparison between these parameters was carried out for each needle.

RESULTS

Fifty patients with 50 pancreatic masses were recruited. Technical success was 100% and no complications occurred. Diagnostic accuracy was 94% and 86% for the 25- and 22-gauge needles, respectively. Analysis of the cytological score showed a tendency towards the 25-gauge needle, although the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNA performed with 22- or 25-gauge needles had the same diagnostic accuracy. Our study results confirm a significant trend towards a better cytological diagnosis for the 25-gauge needle.

The Size of the Papilla of Vater and Its Relation to Its Height in Comparison with the Visibility of the Sphincter of Oddi before and after Cholecystectomy

This study investigated the changes in the surface area and height of the papilla of Vater (PV) and the visibility of the sphincter of Oddi complex (SOK) using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) examinations of 80 patients with symptomatic gallstones before and at 3 and 6 months after cholecystectomy. Following surgery, 50 patients experienced early atypical symptoms characteristic of postcholecystectomy syndrome (PCS) and 30 patients were asymptomatic. The PV measurements were greater in all patients compared with normal reference values and increased significantly from before surgery to 3 months postsurgery. At 6 months postsurgery, both the surface area and height of the PV had significantly decreased to preoperative values but remained higher than normal. The proportion of patients with a visible SOK had increased by 3 months postsurgery but had reduced again by 6 months. There were no significant differences between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, suggesting that the changes observed in the PV and SOK do not explain the presence of the atypical symptoms of PCS.

[Clinical characteristics of autoimmune pancreatitis]

Korean autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) criteria 2007 was aimed to diagnose the wide spectrum of AIP with high sensitivity. The most crucial issue when caring for patients with suspected AIP is to differentiate AIP from pancreatic cancer. Pancreatic cancer can be distinguished from AIP by pancreatic imaging, measurement of serum IgG4 levels, endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration and trucut biopsy, and steroid trial. Autoimmune pancreatitis is a rare systemic fibroinflammatory disease which can affect not only the pancreas, but also a variety of organs such as the bile ducts, salivary glands, retroperitoneum, and lymph nodes. Organs affected by AIP have a lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate rich in IgG4-positive cells. This inflammatory process responds dramatically to oral steroid therapy. Granulocytic epithelial lesion (GEL) positive AIP patients differ from GEL negative AIP patients in clinical features such as equal gender ratio, younger mean age, no increase in serum IgG4, no association with extrapancreatic involvement, no relapse, and frequent association with inflammatory bowel disease. Further investigation is needed to clarify the pathogenic mechanisms including more definite serological markers for theses two entities.

Autoimmune pancreatitis: a challenging diagnostic puzzle for clinicians

Autoimmune pancreatitis is a form of pancreatitis with autoimmune stigmata that may present as either focal or diffuse gland involvement. In focal forms, autoimmune pancreatitis shares demographic, clinical, biochemical and imaging features with pancreatic cancer. Since autoimmune pancreatitis is a benign disease and steroid therapy can rapidly resolve symptoms, improve radiological findings and avoid unnecessary surgery, the current clinical challenge is how to differentiate autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic neoplasia. Even though definitive diagnosis of the disease is difficult, several diagnostic criteria have been proposed and progress has been made in imaging studies. The management of this unique form of pancreatitis should, therefore, be handled in centres with knowledge of all aspects of the disease. This article briefly reviews clinical aspects of autoimmune pancreatitis with a focus on its diagnostic imaging and management.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy and trucut biopsy in gastroenterology - An overview

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biopsies are reliable, safe and effective techniques in obtaining samples for cytological or histological examinations either as a primary procedure or in cases where other biopsy techniques have failed. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNA), as well as endoscopic ultrasound-guided trucut biopsy (EUS-TCB), has proven to be of significant value in the diagnostic evaluation of benign and malignant diseases, as well as in staging of the malignant tumours of the gastrointestinal tract and of adjacent organs. The diagnostic yield of EUS-guided biopsies depends on site, size and characteristics of target tissues as well as technical and procedural factors (type of needle, biopsy technique and material processing). Other weighting factors include expertise, training and interaction between the endosonographer and cytopathologist. Rapid on-site cytological evaluation has proven to be successful in optimising the diagnostic efficiency of EUS-FNA. A sensible alternative is to collect specimens for histological and immunohistochemical investigations in addition to the cytological smears. EUS-FNA using a 22-gauge needle is successful in harvesting core biopsies in approximately three out of four cases. Therefore, the use of 19-gauge needles for EUS-FNA or EUS-TCB may only be necessary in selected cases. The reproducibility of cytopathological diagnosis among pathologists with special experience in assessing material obtained by EUS-guided biopsies is very high. False-positive diagnosis of malignancy in EUS-guided biopsy is rare. False-negative diagnosis appears with variable frequency depending on the target tissue, technical factors and expertise of the endosonographer and cytopathologist. There are numerous challenges and pitfalls in the differential diagnostic classification of benign and malignant lesions. These problems are related to the characteristics of samples obtained by EUS-guided biopsy, as well as to the multiple diagnoses with similar or overlapping cytological or histological characteristics. The high prognostic and therapeutic relevance of the cytopathological diagnoses resulting from EUS-guided biopsy calls for a shared responsibility of an endosonographer and a cytopathologist.

Midazolam and pethidine versus propofol and fentanyl patient controlled sedation/analgesia for upper gastrointestinal tract ultrasound endoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this prospective, randomized study was to compare the standard regimen of midazolam and pethidine administered by the gastroenterologist versus patient controlled sedation with a propofol-fentanyl mixture during upper gastrointestinal tract endoscopic ultrasonography. Our primary end-points were patient satisfaction and patient cooperation assessed by endoscopist.

METHODS

Fifty-four consecutive patients, undergoing endoscopic ultrasonography, received sedation with midazolam and pethidine (Group M: n=27) or propofol and fentanyl (Group P: n=27). Group M: pethidine 0.7mg/kg midazolam 0.04mg/kg before examination; boluses of same drugs if the sedation was insufficient plus a sham patient controlled sedation analgesia; Group P: propofol 17mg plus fentanyl 15microg before examination and a patient controlled sedation analgesia pump containing 170mg propofol plus 150microg fentanyl injecting 0.5ml every time the patient pressed the button (no "lock out"). Boluses of 1ml of the same mixture if the sedation was insufficient.

RESULTS

Group M: mean dosage of pethidine and midazolam 88.6 and 5mg, respectively. Group P: mean dosage of propofol and fentanyl 119.7mg and 106microg, respectively. Both groups were similar for duration and difficulty of the procedure, the grade of sedation (Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Score) and judgement by endoscopist and patient about cooperation and satisfaction. The only difference between groups was about the extra boluses administered during the procedure.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that a patient controlled sedation analgesia with propofol and fentanyl is an effective and safe technique for upper gastrointestinal tract endoscopic ultrasonography procedures and results in a high level of satisfaction both for patients and operator.

Endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for pancreatic lesions: effectiveness in clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis of pancreatic masses is often difficult. Endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle aspiration has been proposed as the best single-step strategy.

AIMS

To prospectively evaluate feasibility, effectiveness and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle aspiration of pancreatic masses in a consecutive study of unselected patients.

METHODS

Two hundred ninety-three patients were enrolled in two referral Hospitals in Northern Italy. All patients were referred either due to the presence of imaging test abnormalities (suspected or evident masses, or features indirectly suggesting the presence of a mass) or due to clinical or biochemical findings suggesting pancreatic cancer in the absence of positive imaging. All patients underwent linear array endoscopic ultrasound and, when indicated, fine needle aspiration. All procedures were recorded prospectively. The final diagnosis was established at the end of follow-up or when the patients underwent surgery or died.

RESULTS

Fine needle aspiration was indicated in 246 of 293 cases (84%), considered technically feasible in 232 of 246 cases (94%) and gave adequate samples for histopathological diagnosis in 204 of 232 cases (88%). Endoscopic ultrasound sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 79, 60 and 72%, respectively; the corresponding figures for endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle aspiration were 80, 86 and 82%. There was good agreement with final diagnosis for endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle aspiration (kappa 0.673, 95%CI 0.592-0.753), greater than that for endoscopic ultrasound alone (kappa 0.515, 95%CI 0.425-0.605). There was one case of intracystic haemorrhage and one case of transient hyperthermia (0.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle aspiration of pancreatic masses seems to be feasible, effective and safe in this consecutive study of patients.