Can endosonographers evaluate on-site cytologic adequacy? A comparison with cytotechnologists

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical and Technology Review

This Technical and Technology Review from the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) represents an update of the previous document on the technical aspects of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology, including the available types of needle, technical aspects of tissue sampling, new devices, and specimen handling and processing. Among the most important new recommendations are:ESGE recommends end-cutting fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles over reverse-bevel FNB or fine-needle aspiration (FNA) needles for tissue sampling of solid pancreatic lesions; FNA may still have a role when rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) is available.ESGE recommends EUS-FNB or mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) equally for tissue sampling of subepithelial lesions ≥20 mm in size. MIAB could represent the first choice for smaller lesions (<20 mm) if proper expertise is available.ESGE does not recommend the use of antibiotic prophylaxis before EUS-guided tissue sampling of solid masses and EUS-FNA of pancreatic cystic lesions.

Diagnostic efficacy of cytologic smear and pathologic histology in the differential diagnosis of distal biliary stricture via EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration

Background and Objectives

Distal biliary strictures (DBSs) can be caused by various malignancies, making accurate and early diagnosis crucial. Histopathology is the gold standard for diagnosis, with several methods available for tissue sampling. This study evaluates the performance of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) cytologic smears and histopathology in diagnosing suspected malignant DBSs.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent EUS-FNA between January 2017 and January 2023 for DBSs. Demographic, imaging, procedural, and clinical data were collected. The diagnostic performance of EUS-FNA cytology, histology, and their combination was assessed in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on imaging and endoscopy characteristics.

Results

EUS-FNA for cytology had a sensitivity of 69.1% and specificity of 97.5%. EUS-FNA histology had a sensitivity of 76.4% and specificity of 99.1%. There was no difference in diagnostic efficacy between the two above (P > 0.05). Combining cytology and histology improved sensitivity to 82%. When 20 cases (6.8%) with histological slide failures were considered as negative, histologic sensitivity was 69.1%, completely consistent with cytology alone (P = 1). The presence of a mass shadow on computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging was associated with higher cytologic diagnostic sensitivity compared with simple stenosis without a mass shadow (57.4% vs. 75.9%, P = 0.011). The larger the mass, the higher the cytologic diagnostic sensitivity. The radiologist's diagnostic imaging tendencies, that is, malignant, benign, and indeterminate, also affected cytologic diagnostic sensitivity (78.2% vs. 63.9% vs. 51.9%, P = 0.002). Furthermore, among our cohort of 118 patients diagnosed with benign DBSs, a notable subset of 33 individuals (28%) received a diagnosis of IgG4-related disease.

Conclusion

EUS-FNA histology combined with cytology was a reliable diagnostic method. There is no difference in diagnostic efficacy between EUS-FNA cytology and histology, irrespective of considering instances of histological slide failure. The presence of a mass shadow on computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging and the size of the mass influenced the diagnostic efficacy of cytology. Additionally, IgG4-related diseases, accounting for a significant proportion of cases, were important in the differential diagnosis of these strictures.

Diagnostic value of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration with rapid on-site evaluation performed by endoscopists in solid pancreatic lesions: A prospective, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the most established diagnostic method for pancreatic tissue. Rapid on-site evaluation by a trained endoscopist (self-ROSE) can improve the diagnostic accuracy. This research is aimed to analyze the application value of self-ROSE for EUS-FNA in solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

A total of 194 consecutive patients with solid pancreatic lesions in Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to EUS-FNA with or without self-ROSE in this single-center randomized controlled trial. Before initiating self-ROSE, the endoscopist underwent training for pancreatic cytologic sample adequacy assessment and cytopathological diagnosis of EUS-FNA in pathology department for 1 month. Some parts of the slides of EUS-FNA were air dried, stained on-site with BASO Liu's reagent, and on-site evaluated in self-ROSE group. Between the two groups, the diagnostic performance of EUS-FNA was analyzed, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy, with a comparison of the number of needle passes and the complication rates.

RESULTS

The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 94.8%, 94.4%, 100%, 100%, and 58.3% in the self-ROSE group, respectively, and 70.1%, 65.1%, 100%, 100%, and 32.6% in the non-self-ROSE group. The diagnostic accuracy (P < 0.001) and sensitivity (P < 0.001) were both significantly increased during EUS-FNA in the self-ROSE group compared to the non-self-ROSE group. The rate of cytologic sample adequacy was 100% in self-ROSE group and 80.4% in non-self-ROSE group. The number of passes were 3.38 ± 1.00 in self-ROSE group and 3.22 ± 0.89 in non-self-ROSE group (P = 0.228). No complications were found in both. There was acceptable consistency between endoscopist and pathologist in the cytopathological diagnosis (kappa = 0.666, P < 0.05) and in the sample adequacy rate (kappa = 1.000, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrated that self-ROSE is valuable for EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions and is an important choice to routinely increase the accuracy of EUS-FNA in centers without ROSE assessment.

A deep learning-based segmentation system for rapid onsite cytologic pathology evaluation of pancreatic masses: A retrospective, multicenter, diagnostic study

Background

We aimed to develop a deep learning-based segmentation system for rapid on-site cytopathology evaluation (ROSE) to improve the diagnostic efficiency of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) biopsy.

Methods

A retrospective, multicenter, diagnostic study was conducted using 5345 cytopathological slide images from 194 patients who underwent EUS-FNA. These patients were from Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital (109 patients), Wuxi People's Hospital (30 patients), Wuxi Second People's Hospital (25 patients), and The Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University (30 patients). A deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) system was developed to segment cell clusters and identify cancer cell clusters with cytopathological slide images. Internal testing, external testing, subgroup analysis, and human–machine competition were used to evaluate the performance of the system.

Findings

The DCNN system segmented stained cells from the background in cytopathological slides with an F1-score of 0·929 and 0·899–0·938 in internal and external testing, respectively. For cancer identification, the DCNN system identified images containing cancer clusters with AUCs of 0·958 and 0·948–0·976 in internal and external testing, respectively. The generalizable and robust performance of the DCNN system was validated in sensitivity analysis (AUC > 0·900) and was superior to that of trained endoscopists and comparable to cytopathologists on our testing datasets.

Interpretation

The DCNN system is feasible and robust for identifying sample adequacy and pancreatic cancer cell clusters. Prospective studies are warranted to evaluate the clinical significance of the system.

Funding

Jiangsu Natural Science Foundation; Nanjing Medical Science and Technology Development Funding; National Natural Science Foundation of China.

Endosonographers performing on-site evaluation of solid pancreatic specimens for EUS-guided biopsy: A formal training method and learning curves

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to examine the effects of a training program combining formal cytological curriculum and practical assessments on endosonographers and to determine how many operations were needed for training through learning curves.

METHODS

A formal cytological curriculum was implemented in November 2019 for four endosonographers. The competency of endosonographers before and after the curriculum was judged by quantitative scores. From December 2019 to October 2020, trainees independently examined the adequacy and atypia grade of pancreatic specimens acquired by EUS-guided-fine-needle biopsy based on specific atypical grading criteria. The accuracy of the adequacy and atypia assessment of each trainee was calculated, and learning curves were drawn to evaluate the improvement.

RESULTS

The median posttraining score improved by 87% from 49 to 91.5 out of 100. Ninety patients were enrolled in the practical assessments. The accuracy for specimen adequacy and atypia assessment of each trainee was 91.7%, 92.8%, 91.0%, and 89.3% and 80.0%, 82.1%, 81.0%, and 78.9%. The learning curves of each trainee showed a steady and significant improvement, and ninety cases were sufficient for satisfactory adequacy assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

Basic knowledge of on-site cytopathologic evaluation can be gained through standardized and systematic training. Practical assessments showed that, at the completion of ninety cases, trained endosonographers reached a satisfactory level of recognizing specimen adequacy, but continue practice was needed for atypia assessment.

Rapid On-Site Evaluation by Endosonographer of Endoscopic Ultrasound Fine-Needle Aspiration of Solid Pancreatic Lesions: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) by cytopathologists during endoscopic ultrasound-fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs) improves adequacy and diagnostic accuracy while reducing the number of needle passes. We evaluated the usefulness of ROSE performed by the endosonographer.

METHODS

Patients with an SPL were randomly assigned to EUS-FNA with ROSE or non-ROSE. Procedure duration, number of needle passes, specimen adequacy, and adverse event rates were compared.

RESULTS

Sixty-five patients were enrolled (33 in the ROSE vs 32 in the non-ROSE group). Both groups were similar in terms of age, sex, size, and location of the lesion. Specimen adequacy rates were high and similar between groups. Mean (standard deviation) procedure duration was shorter in the ROSE versus non-ROSE group (30.0 [11.3] vs 37.0 [7.2] minutes, P < 0.005), as well as the mean (standard deviation) number of needle passes (2.6 [0.8] vs 3.5 [0.8], P < 0.005). Accuracy parameters as sensitivity and accuracy of ROSE by the endosonographer for malignancy were 93% and 88%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

After specific training, the endosonographer can accurately evaluate samples during EUS-FNA of SPL, allowing for a shorter procedure duration and a lower number of needle passes.

Optimizing cytological specimens of EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions: A pilot study to the effect of a smear preparation training for endoscopy personnel on sample quality and accuracy

BACKGROUND

In the absence of rapid on-side pathological evaluation, endoscopy staff generally "smears" endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) specimens on a glass slide. As this technique is vulnerable to preparation artifacts, we assessed if its quality could be improved through a smear-preparation-training for endoscopy staff.

METHODS

In this prospective pilot study, 10 endosonographers and 12 endoscopy nurses from seven regional EUS-centers in the Netherlands were invited to participate in a EUS-FNA smear-preparation-training. Subsequently, post training slides derived from solid pancreatic lesions were compared to pre-training "control" slides. Primary outcome was to assess if the training positively affects smear quality and, consequently, diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions.

RESULTS

Participants collected and prepared 71 cases, mostly pancreatic head lesions (48%). Sixty-eight controls were selected from the pretraining period. The presence of artifacts was comparable for smears performed before and after training (76% vs 82%, P = .36). Likewise, smear cellularity (≥50% target cells) before and after training did not differ (44% (30/68) vs 49% (35/71), P = .48). Similar, no difference in diagnostic accuracy for malignancy was detected (P = .10).

CONCLUSION

In this pilot EUS-FNA smear-preparation-training for endoscopy personnel, smear quality and diagnostic accuracy were not improved after the training. Based on these results, we plan to further study other training programs and possibilities.

Usefulness of rapid on-site evaluation specimens from endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for cancer gene panel testing: A retrospective study

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a highly lethal malignancy, with a 5-year survival rate of 6%. Cancer gene panel testing is expected to allow selection of suitable therapeutic drugs in individual patients with PC and improve their prognosis. Although somatic mutations can be identified in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded samples derived from surgical specimen, the rate of surgical indication among patients with PC is only 20%. To acquire genome information with a less invasive method, we used rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) specimens from endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration. The present study aimed to retrospectively evaluate the utility of comprehensive cancer gene panel testing with ROSE specimens. DNA was extracted from preserved ROSE specimens of 26 patients diagnosed with PC between 2011 and 2017. DNA sequences of oncogenes and cancer-related genes were determined using the Ion AmpliSeq Comprehensive Caner Panel. We compared KRAS mutations between cancer gene panel testing by next-generation sequencing (NGS) and KRAS mutation analysis by polymerase chain reaction. The mean yield of DNA per extraction from ROSE specimens was 171 ng (range, 34-478 ng). On cancer gene panel testing, we noted KRAS mutations (92%), TP53 mutations (50%), CDKN2A mutations (15%), and SMAD4 mutations (31%). The concordance rate of KRAS mutations between cancer gene panel testing by NGS using ROSE specimens and KRAS mutation analysis by the companion diagnostics using residual materials was 81%. Among five cases of KRAS discordance, three showed KRAS mutations in cancer gene panel testing but not in KRAS mutation analysis. Cancer gene panel testing with ROSE specimens can help stratify unresectable PC patients without additional invasive approaches, and it can be used for therapeutic drug selection.

On-site stereomicroscope quality evaluations to estimate white core cutoff lengths using EUS-FNA biopsy sampling with 22-gauge needles

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although rapid on-site cytologic evaluation (ROSE) during EUS-guided FNA biopsy (EUS-FNAB) sampling may improve accuracy of pathologic analyses, cytopathologists are not widely available. We calculated the cutoff lengths required for accurate pathologic diagnoses from stereomicroscopically visible white cores (SVWCs) sampled using 22-gauge needles.

METHODS

Overall, 118 patients with mediastinal or upper abdominal solid masses requiring pathologic diagnoses were included. EUS-FNAB sampling was performed using 22-gauge needles. SVWCs were isolated and measured using stereomicroscopy, and the utility of calculated cutoff lengths in diagnosis was investigated.

RESULTS

The procedure success and SVWC sampling rates were both 100%, and the median SVWC length was 10 mm. Pathologic examination identified 75, 31, and 12 patients with pancreatic neoplasms (PNs), subepithelial lesions (SELs), and other lesions, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy for diagnosing malignancy using EUS-FNAB sampling were 93.1%, 100%, 100%, 69.6%, and 94%, respectively. The final diagnostic accuracy in the entire cohort, PNs, and SELs was 92.4%, 90.7%, and 93.5%, respectively. Receiver operating characteristic curves demonstrated the overall SVWC cutoff length to be 11 mm (11 mm for PNs, 3.5 mm for SELs). The overall sensitivity according to SVWC cutoff length was 91.4% (87.6% for PNs, 98.8% for SELs). Compared with cutoff length, multivariate analysis confirmed SVWC length to be a stronger independent factor for tissue diagnosis in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnosis improved significantly with SVWC cutoff lengths ≥11 mm. This may be a useful index for endoscopists, particularly where ROSE is unavailable. (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN000023013.).

A Trained Pulmonologist Can Reliably Assess Endosonography-Derived Lymph Node Samples during Rapid On-Site Evaluation

BACKGROUND

The widespread use of rapid on-site evaluation is hampered by constraints related to time and resources, inadequate reimbursement, and evidence from randomized trials that show a lack of increase in diagnostic yield and specimen adequacy associated with its usage.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to verify whether a pulmonologist can assess endosonography-derived lymph node samples after a comprehensive and reproducible training provided by a specialist pathologist.

METHODS

Prospective, observational trial structured in three phases. In the first (training) phase, a pathologist critically evaluated the smears from 150 archival endosonography cases with a pulmonologist. In the second (test) phase, the pulmonologist was asked to assess 50 archival endosonography-derived samples. In the last (real-life) phase, the pulmonologist classified the samples from 200 patients during the endosonography. The overall agreement between pulmonologist and pathologist (gold standard), assessed through κ-statistics, was the primary outcome. The agreement for the identification of specific cytological categories was the secondary outcome.

RESULTS

The overallagreement between pulmonologist and pathologist was 84% (κ0.765, 95% CI 0.732-0.826) in the test phase and 89.7% (κ 0.844, 95% CI 0.799-0.881) in the real-life phase. The agreement for specific cytological categories was 92.7% (95% CI 0.824-0.980) for inadequate samples, 90.3% (95% CI 84.5-94.5%) for reactive lymphadenopathies, 90.5% (95% CI 0.845-0.946) for malignancy, and 73% (95% CI 0.515-0.897) for granulomatous samples.

CONCLUSIONS

A trained pulmonologist can reliably assess adequacy and malignancy for endosonography-derived samples, which could be useful in institutions where a cytopathologist/cytotechnician is not available regularly.

Cost-effectiveness of rapid on-site evaluation of the adequacy of FNA cytology samples performed by nonpathologists

BACKGROUND

Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) can increase adequacy and reduce needle passes in fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) procedures. However, ROSE increases the cost of FNAC. Costs may be reduced if ROSE is performed by an alternate evaluator (AE), such as a cytotechnologist (CT), endoscopist, or pulmonologist, rather than a cytopathologist (CP). Studies have shown that AEs can perform ROSE with high accuracy but are generally not as accurate as CPs. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of AEs on the cost-effectiveness of ROSE.

METHODS

A cost model, based on a mathematical sampling model, was developed. The cost model was used to compare the impact of the evaluator type on overall costs.

RESULTS

CTs were likely to be cost-effective for simple procedures and were unlikely to be cost-effective for only the most complex procedures. The model demonstrated the tradeoff in cost savings from using AEs and the potential costs associated with repeated procedures due to the lower accuracy of AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effectiveness of AEs is context-dependent. AEs can be cost-effective even if they are less accurate than CPs. AEs are likely to be cost-effective in most contexts.

Hepatic fine-needle aspiration cytology: The role of rapid on-site evaluation in the assessment of hepatic lesions

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Radiologically guided fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) of internal organs is not cost-effective. Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) of smears by a cytopathologist can improve the diagnostic yield of FNACs and save time and money by reducing the need for repeat procedure/biopsy. To determine the role of ROSE in the diagnostic outcome of hepatic lesions by comparative analysis of FNAC with and without ROSE by a cytopathologist.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Hepatic FNACs were retrospectively analyzed over two separate time periods from January 2011 to June 2013 and from January 2015 to July 2016. Smears from 2015-2016 were subjected to ROSE by a cytopathologist after staining with toluidine blue for 1 min to assess adequacy of the material. Final report was given after hematoxylin and eosin, May Grünwald Giemsa, and Papanicolaou staining were performed. Chi-square test (non-parametric) was used to determine if there was a statistically significant increase in the diagnostic yield with ROSE.

RESULTS

During 2011-2013, of the 160 radiologically guided FNACs for hepatic lesions, 22 were non-diagnostic, whereas during 2015-2016, of 142 radiologically guided hepatic FNACs, only six were non-diagnostic. With the application of ROSE, there was a statistically significant increase in the diagnostic yield of hepatic FNACs from 86.25% to 95.8% (p=0.015).

CONCLUSION

ROSE performed by a cytopathologist using toluidine blue can increase the diagnostic yield of hepatic FNACs and reduce the cost of healthcare by eliminating the need for a repeat procedure.

Rapid On-Site Evaluation of Fine-Needle Aspiration by Non-Cytopathologists: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies for Adequacy Assessment

OBJECTIVE

Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) has been shown to improve adequacy rates and reduce needle passes. ROSE is often performed by cytopathologists who have limited availability and may be costlier than alternatives. Several recent studies examined the use of alternative evaluators (AEs) for ROSE. A summary of this information could help inform guidelines regarding the use of AEs. The objective was to assess the accuracy of AEs compared to cytopathologists in assessing the adequacy of specimens during ROSE.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reporting and study quality were assessed using the STARD guidelines and QUADAS-2. All steps were performed independently by two evaluators. Summary estimates were obtained using the hierarchal method in Stata v14. Heterogeneity was evaluated using Higgins' I2 statistic.

RESULTS

The systematic review identified 13 studies that were included in the meta-analysis. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity for AEs were 97% (95% CI: 92-99%) and 83% (95% CI: 68-92%). There was wide variation in accuracy statistics between studies (I2 = 0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

AEs sometimes have accuracy that is close to cytopathologists. However, there is wide variability between studies, so it is not possible to provide a broad guideline regarding the use of AEs.

Pathological and Molecular Aspects to Improve Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration From Solid Pancreatic Lesions

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has been applied to pancreatic lesions since the 1990s, and its use is now widespread. Improvements in endoscopic devices and sampling techniques have resulted in excellent diagnostic ability for solid pancreatic lesions. However, clinical improvements alone are not responsible for it; pathological aspects have also played important roles. Rapid on-site evaluation minimizes endoscopic procedures, although its value at improving the diagnostic ratio is still debated. Diagnostic efficacy differs by sample preparations (direct smear, cytospin, liquid-based cytology, cell block, and biopsy) and by staining methods (Papanicoloau, Diff-Quik, hematoxylin-eosin, and Giemsa). Several immunocytochemistry protocols aid in diagnosing epithelial components with cytological atypia and in differentiating various tumor types. One cytopathology diagnostic system is telecytology, which uses transmitted digital images and enables real-time diagnosis of EUS-FNA samples by expert cytologists at remote locations. However, EUS-FNA samples are useful for more than just diagnoses, as molecular analysis of these samples allows the identification of prognostic markers, such as genetic alterations in K-ras and EGFR. Expression of drug-metabolizing enzymes, human equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1, correlates with the response to gemcitabine-based chemotherapy. These pathology efforts have enhanced the diagnostic efficacy of EUS-FNA, thereby leading to better outcomes for patients with pancreatic diseases.

Onsite evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration: the endosonographer, the cytotechnologist and the cytopathologist

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has become an essential tool in the management of multiple diseases. Its accuracy is related to different aspects of the technique, one of the most important being the experience and interaction of the endosonographer and pathologist. Certain studies over the past years have highlighted the importance of having rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) of samples obtained at the time of EUS-FNA. We have reviewed the role of ROSE, performed by the same endosonographer, a cytotechnologist and an expert cytopathologist. The available data suggest that ROSE (either by the endosonographer, the cytotechnologist, or the cytopathologist) improves sample adequacy and diagnostic yield, with the best option to have ROSE performed by an expert cytopathologist. However, if non-ROSE accuracy is already very high, any improvement is harder to achieve.

Imaging modalities for characterising focal pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND

Increasing numbers of incidental pancreatic lesions are being detected each year. Accurate characterisation of pancreatic lesions into benign, precancerous, and cancer masses is crucial in deciding whether to use treatment or surveillance. Distinguishing benign lesions from precancerous and cancerous lesions can prevent patients from undergoing unnecessary major surgery. Despite the importance of accurately classifying pancreatic lesions, there is no clear algorithm for management of focal pancreatic lesions.

OBJECTIVES

To determine and compare the diagnostic accuracy of various imaging modalities in detecting cancerous and precancerous lesions in people with focal pancreatic lesions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index until 19 July 2016. We searched the references of included studies to identify further studies. We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include studies reporting cross-sectional information on the index test (CT (computed tomography), MRI (magnetic resonance imaging), PET (positron emission tomography), EUS (endoscopic ultrasound), EUS elastography, and EUS-guided biopsy or FNA (fine-needle aspiration)) and reference standard (confirmation of the nature of the lesion was obtained by histopathological examination of the entire lesion by surgical excision, or histopathological examination for confirmation of precancer or cancer by biopsy and clinical follow-up of at least six months in people with negative index tests) in people with pancreatic lesions irrespective of language or publication status or whether the data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched the references to identify relevant studies and extracted the data. We planned to use the bivariate analysis to calculate the summary sensitivity and specificity with their 95% confidence intervals and the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) to compare the tests and assess heterogeneity, but used simpler models (such as univariate random-effects model and univariate fixed-effect model) for combining studies when appropriate because of the sparse data. We were unable to compare the diagnostic performance of the tests using formal statistical methods because of sparse data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 54 studies involving a total of 3,196 participants evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of various index tests. In these 54 studies, eight different target conditions were identified with different final diagnoses constituting benign, precancerous, and cancerous lesions. None of the studies was of high methodological quality. None of the comparisons in which single studies were included was of sufficiently high methodological quality to warrant highlighting of the results. For differentiation of cancerous lesions from benign or precancerous lesions, we identified only one study per index test. The second analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous versus benign lesions, provided three tests in which meta-analysis could be performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing cancer were: EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.79 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 1.00), specificity 1.00 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.00); EUS: sensitivity 0.95 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.99), specificity 0.53 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.74); PET: sensitivity 0.92 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.97), specificity 0.65 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.84). The third analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous lesions from benign lesions, only provided one test (EUS-FNA) in which meta-analysis was performed. EUS-FNA had moderate sensitivity for diagnosing precancerous or cancerous lesions (sensitivity 0.73 (95% CI 0.01 to 1.00) and high specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.15 to 1.00), the extremely wide confidence intervals reflecting the heterogeneity between the studies). The fourth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (dysplasia) provided three tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing invasive carcinoma were: CT: sensitivity 0.72 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.87), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.97); EUS: sensitivity 0.78 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.94), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.98); EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.66 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.99), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.98). The fifth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) versus precancerous (low- or intermediate-grade dysplasia) provided six tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing cancer (high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) were: CT: sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.00 to 1.00), specificity 0.96 (95% CI 0.00 to 1.00); EUS: sensitivity 0.86 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.92), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.96); EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.47 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.70), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.00); EUS-FNA carcinoembryonic antigen 200 ng/mL: sensitivity 0.58 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.83), specificity 0.51 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.81); MRI: sensitivity 0.69 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.86), specificity 0.93 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.00); PET: sensitivity 0.90 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.96), specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.99). The sixth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) provided no tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The seventh analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous (intermediate- or high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) provided two tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing cancer were: CT: sensitivity 0.83 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.92), specificity 0.83 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.93) and MRI: sensitivity 0.80 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.92), specificity 0.81 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.95), respectively. The eighth analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous (intermediate- or high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) or benign lesions provided no test in which meta-analysis was performed.There were no major alterations in the subgroup analysis of cystic pancreatic focal lesions (42 studies; 2086 participants). None of the included studies evaluated EUS elastography or sequential testing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We were unable to arrive at any firm conclusions because of the differences in the way that study authors classified focal pancreatic lesions into cancerous, precancerous, and benign lesions; the inclusion of few studies with wide confidence intervals for each comparison; poor methodological quality in the studies; and heterogeneity in the estimates within comparisons.

"Clinical" cytology for endoscopists: A practical guide

Clinical cytology was originally used by clinicians to provide rapid diagnosis. However, with advancing medical subspecialization, few clinicians interpret cytology themselves these days, for example, gynecologists, hematologists, urologists, and occasional gastroenterologist (mainly in Asian countries). Cytological assessment enjoyed a renaissance with the development of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA). Subsequently, pathologists, most of them more experienced in histology, had to take over. Recently, it has been shown that in-room cytology can be easily performed by the endoscopist themselves for initial evaluation of the quality of the EUS-FNA specimen and an initial diagnosis distinguishing benign or malignant cells. Bringing cytology back to the clinician has some advantages but does not substitute the professional cytopathologist. This report has written to lower the threshold for the clinician to find his way back to the microscope, which may improve both their diagnostic yield and assessment of EUS-FNA sample quality.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration of Pancreatic Lesions: A Systematic Review of Technical and Procedural Variables

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition has emerged over the last decade as an invaluable diagnostic tool in approaching the different pancreatic lesions. Given the safety and minimal invasiveness of this approach combined with the high diagnostic yield, it became the standard of care when dealing with different pancreatic pathologies. However, some variables regarding this procedure remain not fully understood. These can influence the diagnostic yield of the procedure and include the presence of the on-site cytopathologist, the type and size of the needle used as well as obtaining aspiration versus core biopsy, the number of passes and the sampling technique, and the role of suction and stylet use among others. We performed a comprehensive literature search using PubMed, Google Scholar, and Embase for studies that assessed these variables. Eligible studies were analyzed using several parameters such as technique and procedure, with the aim of reviewing results from an evidence-based standpoint.

Rapid on-site cytopathological examination (ROSE) performed by endosonagraphers and its improvement in the diagnosis of pancreatic solid lesions

PURPOSE

To evaluate the diagnosis improvement of EUS-FNA when using ROSE performed by the endosonographer.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted. A total of 48 pancreatic solid masses EUS-FNA were divided into two groups according to the availability of on-site cytology (ROSE) - the first 24 patients (group A-without ROSE) and the latter 24 cases (group B-with ROSE). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, accuracy, complications and inadequacy rate of EUS-FNA were determined and compared.

RESULTS

Among the 48 EUS-FNA, the overall performance was: sensitivity 82%; specificity 100%; positive predictive value (PPV) 100%; negative predictive value (NPV) 70% and accuracy 87%. The sensitivity of the Group A was 71%, versus 94% in-group B (p=0.61). Moreover, the negative predictive value was 58% versus 87% (p=0.72). The accuracy rate increased from 79% to 96% (p=0.67) in the ROSE group. The number of punctures was similar between the groups. No major complications were reported.

CONCLUSION

Rapid on-site cytopathological examination, even when performed by the endosonographer, may improve the diagnostic performance in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions, regardless of the slight increase in the number of punctures.

When Is Rapid On-Site Evaluation Cost-Effective for Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsy?

Background

Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) can improve adequacy rates of fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) but increases operational costs. The performance of ROSE relative to fixed sampling depends on many factors. It is not clear when ROSE is less costly than sampling with a fixed number of needle passes. The objective of this study was to determine the conditions under which ROSE is less costly than fixed sampling.

Methods

Cost comparison of sampling with and without ROSE using mathematical modeling. Models were based on a societal perspective and used a mechanistic, micro-costing approach. Sampling policies (ROSE, fixed) were compared using the difference in total expected costs per case. Scenarios were based on procedure complexity (palpation-guided or image-guided), adequacy rates (low, high) and sampling protocols (stopping criteria for ROSE and fixed sampling). One-way, probabilistic, and scenario-based sensitivity analysis was performed to determine which variables had the greatest influence on the cost difference.

Results

ROSE is favored relative to fixed sampling under the following conditions: (1) the cytologist is accurate, (2) the total variable cost ($/hr) is low, (3) fixed costs ($/procedure) are high, (4) the setup time is long, (5) the time between needle passes for ROSE is low, (6) when the per-pass adequacy rate is low, and (7) ROSE stops after observing one adequate sample. The model is most sensitive to variation in the fixed cost, the per-pass adequacy rate, and the time per needle pass with ROSE.

Conclusions

Mathematical modeling can be used to predict the difference in cost between sampling with and without ROSE.

Optimal number of needle passes in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for pancreatic lesions

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is accurate in cytological diagnosis of pancreatic lesions. Our aim was to determine optimal number of needle passes in EUS-FNA for pancreatic lesions without onsite cytopathologist, who is not routinely available to participate in the procedure.

METHODS

Results of all needle passes in EUS-FNAs for 117 pancreatic neoplasms in 115 patients were reviewed retrospectively. Factors that required 2 or more needle passes for correct diagnosis were identified by multivariate logistic regression analysis. In each lesion group defined by the factors that required 2 or more passes and were known at the time of EUS-FNA, number of needle passes was regarded as optimal when an increase in diagnostic sensitivity by an additional needle pass did not reach 10%.

RESULTS

Size of 15 mm or less (OR 4.58, 95% CI 1.70-12.3, P < 0.01), location of head (OR 5.02, 95% CI 1.82-13.9, P < 0.01), and neuroendocrine tumor (NET) (OR 5.04, 95% CI 1.38-18.4, P = 0.01) independently required 2 or more needle passes. Optimal numbers of needle passes for lesions of 15 mm or less in the head, those of more than 15 mm in the head, those of 15 mm or less in the body or tail, and those of more than 15 mm in the body or tail were 3, 2, 2, and 1, respectively. When these numbers of needle passes were performed, 93% of pancreatic lesions were correctly diagnosed.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimal numbers of needle passes in EUS-FNA for pancreatic lesions without onsite cytopathologist were between 1 and 3.

Endoscopic ultrasound in the evaluation of pancreatic neoplasms-solid and cystic: A review

Pancreatic neoplasms have a wide range of pathology, from pancreatic adenocarcinoma to cystic mucinous neoplasms. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with or without fine needle aspiration (FNA) is a helpful diagnostic tool in the work-up of pancreatic neoplasms. Its utility in pancreatic malignancy is well known. Over the last two decades EUS-FNA has become a procedure of choice for diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. EUS-FNA is highly sensitive and specific for solid lesions, with sensitivities as high as 80%-95% for pancreatic masses and specificity as high as 75%-100%. Multiple aspects of the procedure have been studied to optimize the rate of diagnosis with EUS-FNA including cytopathologist involvement, needle size, suctioning and experience of endoscopist. Onsite pathology is one of the most important elements in increasing diagnostic yield rate in EUS-FNA. EUS-FNA is valuable in diagnosing rare and atypical pancreatic neoplasms including neuroendocrine, lymphoma and metastatic disease. As more and more patients undergo cross sectional imaging, cystic lesions of the pancreas are becoming a more common occurrence and EUS-FNA of these lesions can be helpful for differentiation. This review covers the technical aspects of optimizing pancreatic neoplasm diagnosis rate, highlight rare pancreatic neoplasms and role of EUS-FNA, and also outline the important factors in diagnosis of cystic lesions by EUS-FNA.

Training endosonographers in cytopathology: improving the results of EUS-guided FNA

BACKGROUND

Although on-site cytopathology services have a significant impact on efficiency and accuracy of EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA), the availability of this service is variable.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of an intensive 2-day training program to educate endosonographers in EUS-related cytopathology.

DESIGN

Pilot study.

SETTING

Tertiary care medical center.

SUBJECTS

Six endosonographers (5 male, median age, 35 years) with minimal previous cytopathology exposure comprised the study cohort.

METHODS

Pre- and posttraining testing was administered. Training commenced with a cytopathology tutorial focusing on 4 performance measures: specimen adequacy, sample interpretation, specimen processing, and preliminary diagnosis. Eight live EUS-FNA cases were then performed, and study participants independently completed 4 questions based on performance measures for each case. The ability to independently smear and stain slides and operate a microscope was additionally assessed after a hands-on tutorial.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Comparison of pretraining and posttraining scores, improvement in performance measures for live cases, and ability to independently handle specimens and operate a microscope.

RESULTS

Compared with pretraining, mean posttraining test scores improved by 63% from 48 to 78 out of 100. Mean live case performance score was 95%. Performances improved from 89% on day 1 to 100% on day 2. After training, all endosonographers could independently smear/stain slides and operate a microscope.

LIMITATIONS

Long-term impact is unclear.

CONCLUSIONS

An intensive 2-day program was effective in training endosonographers in the basics of EUS-related cytopathology. Incorporating basic cytopathology in EUS fellowship curriculum will likely improve diagnostic performance of tissue acquisition procedures.

Macroscopic on-site quality evaluation of biopsy specimens to improve the diagnostic accuracy during EUS-guided FNA using a 19-gauge needle for solid lesions: a single-center prospective pilot study (MOSE study)

BACKGROUND

Although rapid on-site cytologic evaluation provides high efficacy of EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA), its availability is limited. Alternatively, macroscopic on-site quality evaluation (MOSE) may increase the efficacy of EUS-FNA.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of MOSE in estimating the adequacy of histologic core specimens obtained by EUS-FNA using a standard 19-gauge needle (19GN) for solid lesions.

DESIGN

A prospective pilot study.

SETTING

Tertiary-care referral center.

PATIENTS

One hundred patients with solid lesions (n = 111 lesions).

INTERVENTIONS

EUS-FNA using 19GN MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The relation of a macroscopic visible core (MVC) in the FNA specimens on MOSE with histologic core and the diagnostic yields were studied.

RESULTS

The feasibility of EUS-FNA using a 19GN was 99%. The final diagnoses were malignancy in 83 lesions and benign in 28. MOSE revealed MVC in 91.1% with the median length of 8 mm. Histologic core was confirmed in 78.9%. The receiver-operating characteristic curve of the length of MVC for the presence of histologic core showed the cut-off MVC length of 4 mm with area under the curve of .893. Comparisons of per-pass diagnostic yields showed significantly superior histologic, cytologic, and overall diagnostic yields in MVC ≥ 4 mm as compared with <4 mm. The multivariate analysis for false-negative pass identified lesion in the pancreas and MVC < 4 mm as significant risk factors. No adverse events were seen.

LIMITATIONS

Single center, limited operators

CONCLUSION

MVC of ≥4 mm on MOSE can be an indicator of specimen adequacy and can improve diagnostic yield; however, additional FNA may be recommended for pancreatic lesions. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000010417.).

An expanded training program for endosonographers improved self-diagnosed accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology of the pancreas

OBJECTIVE

Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) of cytologic adequacy improves the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). However, on-site advice from a cytotechnologist or cytopathologist is not always available during EUS-FNA. To enhance endosonographers' ability to assess the adequacy of EUS-FNA specimens, we designed an intensive, 2-h interactive training program. The aim of this study was to determine the usefulness of the program.

METHODS

Four cytological pictures were selected by a trained cytotechnologist and board-certified cytopathologist from each of the seven patients who underwent EUS-FNA for pancreatic mass in Okayama University Hospital. In total, 28 pictures were used in this study. Twenty endosonographers and 14 cytologists with different levels of EUS-FNA experience evaluated cytological pictures independently before and after the training program.

RESULTS

Endosonographers' skill in evaluating the adequacy of EUS-FNA specimens was significantly improved after the completion of the training program (p < 0.001). In contrast, almost all cytologists correctly judged the adequacy of the specimens before taking the training program.

CONCLUSIONS

This intensive, 2-h interactive training program is useful for endosonographers and capable of improving ROSE of EUS-FNA specimens.

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

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

Rapid on-site evaluation of fine needle aspiration specimens by cytology scientists: a review of 3032 specimens

OBJECTIVES

To determine: (1) the accuracy of cytology scientists at assessing specimen adequacy by rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) at fine needle aspiration (FNA) cytology collections; and (2) whether thyroid FNA with ROSE has lower inadequacy rates than non-attended FNAs.

METHODS

The ROSE of adequacy for 3032 specimens from 17 anatomical sites collected over a 20-month period was compared with the final report assessment of adequacy. ROSE was performed by 19 cytology scientists. The report profile for 1545 thyroid nodules with ROSE was compared with that for 1536 consecutive non-ROSE thyroid FNAs reported by the same cytopathologists during the study period.

RESULTS

ROSE was adequate in 75% (2276/3032), inadequate in 12% (366/3032) and in 13% (390/3032) no opinion was rendered. Of the 2276 cases assessed as adequate by ROSE, 2268 (99.6%) were finally reported as adequate for assessment; eight specimens had adequacy downgraded on the final report. Fifty eight per cent of cases with a ROSE assessment of inadequate were reported as adequate (212/366), whereas 93% (363/390) with no opinion rendered were reported as adequate. The overall final report adequacy rate for the 3032 specimens was 94% (2843/3032). Confirmation of a ROSE of adequacy at reporting was uniformly high amongst the 19 scientists, ranging from 98% to 100%. The inadequacy rate for thyroid FNAs with ROSE (6%) was significantly (P < 0.0001) lower than for non-ROSE thyroid FNAs (17%). A significantly (P = 0.02) higher proportion of adequate ROSE thyroid specimens was reported with abnormalities, compared with non-ROSE thyroid collections.

CONCLUSIONS

Cytology scientists are highly accurate at determining specimen adequacy at ROSE for a wide range of body sites. ROSE of thyroid FNAs can significantly reduce inadequate reports.

Endoscopic ultrasonography: Challenges and opportunities in the developing world

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has become a vital diagnostic modality for the evaluation of mediastinal lymphadenopathy, pancreatic cysts and masses, anorectal pathology, subepithelial gastrointestinal lesions, and for the staging of many gastrointestinal and pulmonary malignancies. Establishing a EUS program in a developing country presents many challenges. Doing so in Pakistan has led to the identification of the following challenges: initial investment, ongoing costs (particularly fine needle aspiration needle costs), awareness and cytopathology. Endoscopic ultrasonography has revolutionized aspects of the practice of gastroenterology and oncology in the West. This technique is becoming increasingly available in the developing world, where it poses unique challenges to its practice. These challenges include those relating to service initiation and maintenance costs, physician awareness, and on-site cytopathology access. If these issues are anticipated and addressed in ways appropriate to local circumstances, obstacles to the institution of EUS programs can be overcome.

Clinical factors associated with accuracy of EUS-FNA for pancreatic or peripancreatic solid mass without on-site cytopathologists

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUSFNA) is a safe and effective technique for tissue diagnosis in patients with pancreatic or peripancreatic solid masses. However, the procedure is difficult to accomplish without an on-site cytopathologist. The aims of this study were to examine the outcomes of EUS-FNA for pancreatic or peripancreatic solid masses without an on-site cytopathologist and to determine the factors associated with diagnostic accuracy.

METHODS

From December 2005 to November 2011, 230 patients with pancreatic or peripancreatic solid masses had 240 EUS-FNAs performed without an on-site cytopathologist. The medical records of the 230 patients from a single tertiary center were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

Among the 230 patients who underwent EUS-FNA, 201 patients (88%) had malignancy, which included 171 adenocarcinomas (74%). Assuming that the cytopathological malignancy was positive or suspicious for malignant cells with cytology, the accuracy without an on-site cytopathologist was 67.9%. However, the accuracy increased from 40.0% for the first 30 cases (from 2006 to 2008) to 83.3% for the last 30 cases (in 2011) and was constantly over 80.0% starting from the sixth octile onwards for every 30 cases (in 2011). From the analysis of factors associated with the accuracy of the diagnosis using logistic regression analysis, the number of needle passes and the experience of endosonographer were statistically associated with the diagnostic accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

In the case of performing EUS-FNA for pancreatic or peripancreatic solid masses without an on-site cytopathologist, the experience of the endosonographer, and the number of needle passes were associated with the diagnostic accuracy.

Cytotechnologist-attended on-site evaluation of adequacy for fine-needle aspiration of bone and soft tissue neoplasms

INTRODUCTION

On-site evaluation of adequacy (OSEA) is commonly used to increase the adequacy rate of fine-needle aspiration (FNA) procedures. OSEA is increasingly necessary with the widespread use of image-guided procedures, which are expensive to perform and repeat. The increased demand for OSEA has prompted an increasing reliance on cytotechnologists for OSEA in many practices, including ours. However, the performance of cytotechnologists has not been compared with that of cytopathologists for OSEA in FNA of bone and soft tissue tumors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 10 years of data in which both cytotechnologists and cytopathologists performed OSEA for 632 bone and soft tissue tumor FNA. We calculated adequacy and accuracy statistics in conjunction with other variables including imaging modality, biopsy site, accompanying core biopsy, tissue type, final diagnosis, and number of smears.

RESULTS

Of the 632 bone and soft tissue tumor FNA procedures, OSEA was performed in 223 (35.3%) by cytotechnologists and in 409 (64.7%) by cytopathologists. There was no difference in the adequacy downgrade rate for cytotechnologists versus cytopathologists during this study period (4.5 versus 2.4%, P = 0.23). The adequacy rates for procedures in which OSEA was performed by cytotechnologists and cytopathologists did not differ significantly (78.9 versus 84.1%, P = 0.13).

CONCLUSIONS

Cytotechnologists and cytopathologists are comparably accurate in OSEA of bone and soft tissue neoplasms.

How can an endosonographer assess for diagnostic sufficiency and options for handling the endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration specimen and ancillary studies

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has become well established as a minimally invasive technique in diagnosing and staging various gastrointestinal, pancreaticobiliary, and retroperitoneal malignancies. The diagnostic accuracy of this procedure is significantly enhanced by the presence of on-site cytopathology. However, in many EUS centers, cytopathology is not readily available for on-site evaluation. This article is intended to assist the independent endosonographer in the assessment of diagnostic sufficiency and in specimen handling.

Tips to overcome technical challenges in EUS-guided tissue acquisition

The diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA depends on several factors, such as the experience of the endosonographer, the characteristics of the lesion, the clinical status of the patient, the size and type of needles, the methods of specimen preparation, as well as cytopathologist expertise. The endosonographic technique can be improved when several tips and tricks useful to overcome challenges of FNA are known. Technical challenges of FNA are related to the characteristics of the lesion and its surroundings, sonographic imaging, and limitations related to the needle. Several tips and tricks necessary to overcome them are presented in this review.

Basic technique in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for solid lesions: How many passes?

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has evolved to become an indispensable tool for tissue acquisition in patients with luminal and extra luminal gastrointestinal cancers. Despite the extensive use of EUS-FNA, there still exists a wide variation in the number of samples required to ensure acquisition of diagnostic material from different kind of lesions. There are several factors that may influence the number of fine needle passes made during EUS-FNA, but the main factor seems to be the presence of a Cytopathologist during the EUS procedure. The diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA with rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) in most studies exceeds 90%. Nevertheless, ROSE is not available in many centers. Various studies have investigated the adequate number of needle passes that should be performed if ROSE is not used. Differences exist based on the nature of the target lesion: Five to seven passes for pancreatic masses, three passes for lymphnodes, only one pass for pancreatic cystic lesions. Consider using a core biopsy needle or a 19-G FNA needle for histology could improve the diagnostic yield. Even though EUS-FNA is widely available, some patients still do not receive conclusive diagnoses upon initial EUS-FNA. One way to maximize the benefits for patients might be to centralize cases to several well-equipped, high-volume centers with experienced endosonographers that have universal availability of ROSE.

Cytotechnologists and on-site evaluation of adequacy

While fine needle aspiration (FNA) is certainly not a new biopsy technique, recent developments in advanced imaging techniques, molecular testing, and targeted therapies have coincided with a rapid increase in the number of FNA procedures being performed. Concurrently, the demand for on-site evaluation of adequacy (OSEA) has also increased, outstripping the capacity of available cytopathologists at some institutions. Among the several alternatives to cytopathologist-performed OSEA, cytotechnologist-attended OSEA stands out because it preserves the representation of the pathology service at the time of the procedure. Herein, we review the current literature about OSEA and the necessity of cytotechnologists to expand access of this useful pathology service to a broader patient population. We also examine how cytotechnologists are likely to fit into the emerging practice of telecytology.

Cytotechnologist-attended on-site evaluation of adequacy for metastatic disease involving bone and soft tissue

INTRODUCTION

Image-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) of the musculoskeletal system is expensive to perform and repeat, so on-site evaluation of adequacy (OSEA) is increasingly used to ensure an optimal sample. Metastatic disease to the musculoskeletal system is not uncommon and often requires OSEA when sampled. At large academic centers, cytotechnologists have filled the increased demand for OSEA. However, the performance of cytotechnologists has not been compared with that of cytopathologists for OSEA in FNA of metastatic disease involving bone and soft tissue.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 10 years of data in which both cytotechnologists and cytopathologists performed OSEA for 1,995 FNAs of bone and soft tissue sites in which metastatic malignancy was suspected or found. We calculated adequacy and accuracy statistics in conjunction with other variables including imaging modality, biopsy site, accompanying core biopsy, tissue type, final diagnosis, and number of smears.

RESULTS

A total of 1,995 aspirates of metastatic disease carcinoma, melanoma or lymphoma to bone or soft tissue had OSEA performed by cytotechnologists (681, 33.7%) or cytopathologists (1,314, 66.3%). The adequacy downgrade rate was statistically equivalent (4.1 vs. 3.6%; p = 0.64).

CONCLUSION

Cytotechnologists and cytopathologists perform with reasonable equivalence at OSEA of aspirates from metastatic carcinoma, melanoma or lymphoma involving bone or soft tissue.

Ultrasound-guided vs endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic cancer diagnosis

AIM: To clarify the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer (PC).

METHODS: Patients who were diagnosed with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic PC between February 2006 and September 2011 were selected for this retrospective study. FNA biopsy for pancreatic tumors had been performed percutaneously under extracorporeal ultrasound guidance until October 2009; then, beginning in November 2009, EUS-FNA has been performed. We reviewed the complete medical records of all patients who met the selection criteria for the following data: sex, age, location and size of the targeted tumor, histological and/or cytological findings, details of puncture procedures, time from day of puncture until day of definitive diagnosis, and details of severe adverse events.

RESULTS: Of the 121 patients who met the selection criteria, 46 had a percutaneous biopsy (Group A) and 75 had an EUS-FNA biopsy (Group B). Adequate cytological specimens were obtained in 42 Group A patients (91.3%) and all 75 Group B patients (P = 0.0192), and histological specimens were obtained in 41 Group A patients (89.1%) and 65 Group B patients (86.7%). Diagnosis of malignancy by cytology was positive in 33 Group A patients (78.6%) and 72 Group B patients (94.6%) (P = 0.0079). Malignancy by both cytology and pathology was found in 43 Group A (93.5%) and 73 Group B (97.3%) patients. The mean period from the puncture until the cytological diagnosis in Group B was 1.7 d, which was significantly shorter than that in Group A (4.1 d) (P < 0.0001). Severe adverse events were experienced in two Group A patients (4.3%) and in one Group B patient (1.3%).

CONCLUSION: EUS-FNA, as well as percutaneous needle aspiration, is an effective modality to obtain cytopathological confirmation in patients with advanced PC.

Rapid on-site evaluation by endosonographer during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for pancreatic solid masses

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is an established diagnostic method for patients with suspected pancreatic ductal carcinoma. Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) has been reported to improve the accuracy. However, an on-site cytopathologist is not routinely available in many institutions. One of the solutions may be ROSE by endosonographer. The aim was to examine whether diagnostic accuracy increases through ROSE by endosonographer using our cytological criteria.

METHODS

Patients who underwent EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic masses from January 2006 to August 2009 (n = 53, period 1) and September 2009 to April 2011 (n = 85, period 2) were retrospectively identified. Before initiating ROSE at the start of period 2, two endosonographers underwent training for cytological interpretation, which was focused on four cytological features of pancreatic ductal carcinoma: anisonucleosis, nuclear membrane irregularity, overlapping, and enlargement. During EUS-FNA in period 2, endosonographers classified the Diff-Quik smears under three atypical grades and evaluated the adequacy. All diagnoses were made by one pathologist without knowledge of clinical information.

RESULTS

The rate of "inconclusive" diagnoses, interpreted as "suspicious," "atypical," and "inadequate for diagnosis" was reduced from 26.4% in period 1 to 8.2% in period 2 (P = 0.004). Moreover, diagnostic accuracy was increased from 69.2% in period 1 to 91.8% in period 2 (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This cytological grading system used in ROSE by endosonographers is invaluable for the diagnosis of pancreatic solid masses.

Dynamic telecytology compares favorably to rapid onsite evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspirates

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE) has been demonstrated to correlate with final cytologic interpretations and improves the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-fine needle aspiration (FNA); however, its availability is variable across centers. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate whether remote telecytology can substitute for ROSE.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNA for diverse indications at a high volume referral center were enrolled and all samples were prospectively evaluated by three methods. ROSE was performed by a cytopathologist in the procedure room; simultaneously dynamic telecytology was done by a different cytopathologist in a remote location at our institution. The third method, final cytologic interpretation in the laboratory, was the gold standard. Telecytology was performed using an Olympus microscope system (BX) which broadcasts live images over the Internet. Accuracy of telecytology and agreement with other methods were the principle outcome measurements.

RESULTS

Twenty-five consecutive samples were obtained from participants 40-87 years old (median age 63, 48 % male). There was 88 % agreement between telecytology and final cytology (p < 0.001) and 92 % agreement between ROSE and final cytology (p < 0.001). There was consistency between telecytology and ROSE (p value for McNemar's χ(2) = 1.0). Cohen's kappa for agreement for telecytology and ROSE was 0.80 (SE = 0.11), confirming favorable correlation.

CONCLUSION

Dynamic telecytology compares favorably to ROSE in the assessment of EUS acquired fine needle aspirates. If confirmed by larger trials, this system might obviate the need for onsite interpretation of EUS-FNA specimens.

Prospective evaluation of the optimal number of 25-gauge needle passes for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions in the absence of an onsite cytopathologist

INTRODUCTION

A prior study with 22-gauge needles recommended more than seven needle passes for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNA) of solid pancreatic lesions (SPL) without onsite cytopathology for optimal acquisition of cytopathological diagnosis. The feasibility of this recommendation should be re-evaluated considering the later development and popularity of 25-gauge EUS-FNA needles. We aimed to determine the optimal number of needle passes for cytopathological specimen acquisition with 25-gauge needles for EUS-FNA of SPL.

METHODS

A preliminary prospective study of 22 patients with an onsite cytopathology technician showed a sensitivity of 93.3% and a specificity of 100% with four needle passes that was not statistically different from five needle passes. Based on our preliminary study, we fixed the number of needle passes to four (Group A). As a control group, we carried out sampling in consecutive patients using 25-gauge needles with an onsite cytopathologist (Group B). Sampling rate, diagnostic value and complications were evaluated.

RESULTS

We enrolled 20 patients in each group. Sampling rate was higher in Group B (20/20, 100%) than in Group A (19/20, 95%), but there was no statistical difference between them (P-value = 0.31). In Group A, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 100% among 19. In Group B, sensitivity was 94.1%, specificity 100%, accuracy 95%. There were also no statistical differences between the groups. No complications were seen.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that four needle passes using a 25-gauge needle may be sufficient for EUS-FNA of SPL where onsite cytology is not available.