A multicenter randomized trial comparing a 25-gauge EUS fine-needle aspiration device with a 20-gauge EUS fine-needle biopsy device

Basic Principles and Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Diagnosis and Differentiation of Pancreatic Cancer from Other Pancreatic Lesions: A Comprehensive Review of Endoscopic Ultrasound for Pancreatic Cancer

Pancreatic cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Pancreatic lesions consist of both neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions and often pose a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge due to similar clinical and radiological features. In recent years, pancreatic lesions have been discovered more frequently as incidental findings due to the increased utilization and widespread availability of abdominal cross-sectional imaging. Therefore, it becomes imperative to establish an early and appropriate diagnosis with meticulous differentiation in an attempt to balance unnecessary treatment of benign pancreatic lesions and missing the opportunity for early intervention in malignant lesions. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become an important diagnostic modality for the identification and risk stratification of pancreatic lesions due to its ability to provide detailed imaging and acquisition of tissue samples for analysis with the help of fine-needle aspiration/biopsy. The recent development of EUS-based technology, including contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound, real-time elastography-endoscopic ultrasound, miniature probe ultrasound, confocal laser endomicroscopy, and the application of artificial intelligence has significantly augmented the diagnostic accuracy of EUS as it enables better evaluation of the number, location, dimension, wall thickness, and contents of these lesions. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the role of the different types of EUS available for the diagnosis and differentiation of pancreatic cancer from other pancreatic lesions while discussing their key strengths and important limitations.

Endoscopic Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound and Fine-Needle Aspiration or Biopsy for the Diagnosis of Pancreatic Solid Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) are currently recommended for the pathologic diagnosis of pancreatic solid lesions (PSLs). The application of contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound (ECEUS) could aid the endoscopist during an FNA and/or FNB procedure. CEUS is indeed able to better differentiate the pathologic tissue from the surrounding healthy pancreatic parenchyma and to detect necrotic areas and vessels.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to evaluate if ECEUS could reduce the number of needle passes and side effects and increase the diagnostic efficacy of FNA and/or FNB.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search of clinical studies was performed to explore if ECEUS-FNA or FNB could increase diagnostic accuracy and reduce the number of needle passes and adverse effects compared to standard EUS-FNA or FNB. In accordance with the study protocol, a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the evidence was planned.

RESULTS

The proportion of established diagnoses of ECEUS was 90.9% compared to 88.3% of EUS, with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.14). The diagnosis was made through a single step in 70.9% of ECEUS patients and in 65.3% of EUS patients, without statistical significance (p = 0.24). The incidence of adverse reactions was substantially comparable across both groups (p = 0.89).

CONCLUSION

ECEUS-FNA and FNB do not appear superior to standard EUS-FNA and FNB for the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions.

Clinical value of endoscopic ultrasound sound speed in differential diagnosis of pancreatic solid lesion and prognosis of pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Differential diagnosis of pancreatic solid lesion (PSL) and prognosis of pancreatic cancer (PC) is a clinical challenge. We aimed to explore the differential diagnostic value of sound speed (SS) obtained from endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in PSL and the prognostic value of SS in PC.

METHODS

Patients with PSL in The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University from March 2019 to October 2019 were prospectively enrolled, who obtained SS from PSL. Patients were divided into the PC group and the pancreatic benign lesion (PBL) group. SS1 is the SS of lesions and SS2 is the SS of normal tissues adjacent to lesions. Ratio1 is equal to SS1 divided by SS2 of PSL (ratio1 = SS1/SS2).

RESULTS

Eighty patients were enrolled (24 PBL patients, 56 PC patients). SS1 and ratio1 in PC group were higher compared with PBL group (SS1:1568.00 vs. 1550.00, Z = -2.066, p = 0.039; ratio1: 1.0110 vs. 1.0051, Z = -3.391, p = 0.001). The SS1 in PC (Z = -6.503, p < 0.001) was higher compared to SS2. In the nonsurgical group of PC, low ratio1 predicted high overall survival (OS) (7.000 months vs. 4.000 months; p = 0.039). In the surgical group of PC, low SS1 was associated with low median OS (4.000 months vs. 12.000 months; p = 0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

SS plays a vital role in distinguishing between PBL and PC. Higher SS1 and ratio1 obtained by EUS are more related to PC than PBL. In PC patients, high SS1 may predict pancreatic lesions. In the nonsurgical group of PC, low ratio1 may predict high OS. However, in the surgical group of PC, low SS1 may predict low OS.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs before endoscopic ultrasound guided tissue acquisition to reduce the incidence of post procedural pancreatitis

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with fine needle aspiration or fine needle biopsy is the gold standard for sampling tissue to diagnose pancreatic cancer and autoimmune pancreatitis or to analyze cyst fluid. The most common reported adverse event of fine needle aspiration and/or fine needle biopsy is acute pancreatitis, which is likely induced by the same pathophysiological mechanisms as after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). According to the current European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are administered prior to ERCP as a scientifically proven treatment to reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis incidence rate. A single suppository of diclofenac or indomethacin prior to EUS guided tissue acquisition (TA) is harmless in healthy adults. Since it is associated with low costs and, most important, may prevent a dreadsome complication, we strongly recommend the administration of 100 mg diclofenac rectally prior to EUS-TA. We will explain this recommendation in more detail in this review as well as the risk and pathophysiology of post-EUS TA pancreatitis.

Diagnostic adequacy and accuracy of surgeon-performed ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration in lateral neck masses

BACKGROUND

Surgeon-performed ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration (SUS-FNA) reduces the time to diagnosis and treatment of head and neck pathology. Although it has been validated in the investigation of thyroid pathology, there is a paucity of evidence to support its use in lateral neck masses. This study aims to determine the accuracy and adequacy of SUS-FNA in the investigation of lateral neck masses.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis was performed of patients who underwent a SUS-FNA for lateral neck mass between June 2018 and October 2022 at a single institution. Pathologist reports were reviewed to determine the rate of FNA sample adequacy. A comparison was made between FNA cytology results and final histopathological diagnosis following surgical excision in a subset of patients to determine FNA accuracy.

RESULTS

A total of 110 SUS-FNAs were performed on lateral neck masses. Diagnostic adequacy of SUS-FNA was determined to be 91% (100/110). When analysing the subset of patients who proceeded to surgical excision, the diagnostic accuracy of SUS-FNA was determined to be 88% (38/43).

CONCLUSION

SUS-FNA results in high adequacy rates with good diagnostic accuracy in the investigation of lateral neck masses. This tool has great potential in reducing treatment delay in the management of head and neck cancer.

True diagnostic ability of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy sampling for small pancreatic lesions ≤10 mm and salvage diagnosis by pancreatic juice cytology: a multicenter study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The diagnostic performance of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy sampling (EUS-FNAB) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) ≤10 mm in diameter is relatively low. Pancreatic juice cytology (PJC) has gained attention because of its high sensitivity for small PDACs. We aimed to clarify the diagnostic ability of EUS-FNAB and the salvage ability of PJC for PDAC ≤10 mm.

METHODS

Data obtained from attempted EUS-FNAB for patients with EUS-confirmed pancreatic tumors ≤10 mm (excluding pancreatic metastases/malignant lymphomas) were retrospectively analyzed. Patients who experienced technical failure or had a negative EUS-FNAB result and had a strong likelihood of PDAC based on imaging characteristics underwent PJC. PDAC was diagnosed using resected histologic specimens, EUS-FNAB-positive tumor growth on the imaging examination, or additional EUS-FNAB-positive results after increase in tumor size. The primary endpoint was the diagnostic ability of EUS-FNAB for PDAC ≤10 mm. The salvage ability of PJC was also assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 86 of 271 patients with pancreatic tumors ≤10 mm who underwent attempted EUS-FNAB were diagnosed with PDAC. The technical success rate, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of EUS-FNAB for PDAC ≤10 mm were 80.8%, 82.3%, 94.9%, and 91.3%, respectively. Among the 35 PDAC patients who experienced technical failure or false-negative results of EUS-FNAB, 26 (74.3%) were correctly diagnosed using salvage PJC.

CONCLUSIONS

The true success rate and sensitivity of EUS-FNAB for PDAC ≤10 mm were relatively low. When EUS-FNAB for a pancreatic lesion ≤10 mm strongly suspected to be PDAC is unsuccessful or yields a negative result, PJC is recommended. (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN000049965.).

Safety and Diagnostic Yield of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy for Hypervascular Pancreatic Lesions

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is a common technique for diagnosing pancreatic lesions with high accuracy and a low incidence of procedural adverse events. However, occasional adverse events, particularly bleeding, may occur. Procedures for hypervascular lesions are considered important, but their risks are unknown. We aimed to evaluate the safety and diagnostic yield of EUS-FNB for hypervascular pancreatic solid lesions. This study included 301 patients with 308 solid pancreatic lesions who underwent EUS-FNB between May 2011 and December 2018. We performed propensity-score matching to balance clinical differences between hypervascular and hypovascular lesions and analyzed 52 lesions. We compared the safety and diagnostic performance of propensity score-matched cohorts. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy rates of EUS-FNB for hypervascular lesions were 94.7%, 100%, and 96.2%, and those for hypovascular lesions were 80.0%, 100%, and 84.6%, respectively. There was no difference in diagnostic performance between hypervascular and hypovascular lesions. Furthermore, adverse events occurred in only one patient (pancreatitis) in the hypovascular group. There were no significant differences in the occurrence of adverse events between hypervascular and hypovascular lesions (0% vs. 3.8%, p = 1.000). Therefore, EUS-FNB may be safe with a high diagnostic yield, even for hypervascular solid pancreatic lesions.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy in the Diagnostic Work-Up of Deep-Seated Lymphadenopathies and Spleen Lesions: A Monocentric Experience

EUS-FNB has been introduced in clinical practice as a less invasive diagnostic approach with respect to surgery. We performed a single-center retrospective study on the diagnostic efficacy of EUS-guided FNB, including 171 patients with lymph nodes, splenic, and extranodal lesions that underwent EUS for FNB at our institution. Excluding 12 patients who did not undergo FNB and 25 patients with a previous diagnosis of a solid tumor, we included 134 patients with clinical/radiological suspect of a lymphoproliferative disease, including 20 patients with a previous history of lymphoma. Out of the 134 biopsies, material of diagnostic quality was obtained in 111 procedures (84.3%). Histological examination of the EUS-FNB samples produced an actionable diagnosis in 100 cases (74.6%). Among the patients without an actionable diagnosis, a second, different diagnostic procedure produced a further eight diagnoses of lymphoma. Therefore, the sensitivity of EUS-FNB for diagnosing lymphomas was calculated to be 86.4% (51/59). Assignment of lymphomas to WHO classification subtypes was possible in 47/51 (92%) of the cases. In conclusion, EUS-FNB is an effective procedure for the histological characterization of lesions that are suspected to be lymphoproliferative disease, allowing for an actionable diagnosis in 75% of cases.

Comparison of Fine-Needle Biopsy (FNB) versus Fine-Needle Aspiration (FNA) Combined with Flow Cytometry in the Diagnosis of Deep-Seated Lymphoma

Evidence comparing ultrasound endoscopy-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) with EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in deep-seated lymphoma tissue sampling is insufficient. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of immunohistochemistry (IHC) or flow cytometry (FCM) on specimens obtained from EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA in the diagnosis and staging of deep-seated lymphomas. This real-world, dual-center study prospectively evaluated all eligible specimens from patients who underwent EUS-FNB/FNA over an 8-year period. 53 patients were enrolled, with 23 patients in the EUS-FNB group and 30 patients in the EUS-FNA group. FNB yielded specimens with longer core tissues (0.80 mm [0.55, 1.00] vs. 0.45 mm [0.30, 0.50], p = 0.009) and higher scores of specimen adequacy [4 (3.75, 4.00) vs. 3 (1.00, 4.00), p = 0.025]. Overall analysis revealed that the diagnostic accuracy of IHC based on specimens acquired from EUS-FNB was significantly higher than that of EUS-FNA (91.30% vs. 60.00%, p = 0.013). After controlling confounding factors including lesion size and endoscopists, EUS-FNB with IHC maintained a higher-level diagnostic accuracy compared to EUS-FNA (OR = 1.292 [1.037-1.609], p = 0.023). When FCM was additionally used to analyze the specimen acquired from EUS-FNA, the diagnostic yield was significantly improved (ROC AUC: 0.733 vs. 0.550, p = 0.015), and the AUC of FNB alone or combined with FCM was 0.739 and 0.761. Conclusions: FNB needles generate higher histopathological diagnostic accuracy and specimen quality than FNA for the deep-seated lymphoma. Though the application of FCM significantly improves the diagnostic efficacy of EUS-FNA, FNB was still the preferred diagnostic modality with a shorter procedure time, comparable diagnostic accuracy, and better cost-effectiveness.

The reproducibility of interventional radiology randomized controlled trials and external validation of a classification system

PURPOSE

The fragility index (FI) measures the robustness of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). It complements the P value by taking into account the number of outcome events. In this study, the authors measured the FI for major interventional radiology RCTs.

METHODS

Interventional radiology RCTs published between January 2010 and December 2022 relating to trans-jugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt, trans-arterial chemoembolization, needle biopsy, angiography, angioplasty, thrombolysis, and nephrostomy tube insertion were analyzed to measure the FI and robustness of the studies.

RESULTS

A total of 34 RCTs were included. The median FI of those studies was 4.5 (range 1-68). Seven trials (20.6%) had a number of patients lost to follow-up that was higher than their FI, and 15 (44.1%) had a FI of 1-3.

CONCLUSION

The median FI, and hence the reproducibility of interventional radiology RCTs, is low compared to other medical fields, with some having a FI of 1, which should be interrupted cautiously.

Advances in pre-treatment evaluation of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a narrative review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Despite advances in the multidisciplinary management of pancreatic cancer, overall prognosis remains poor, due to early progression of the disease. There is a need to also take action in staging, to make it increasingly accurate and complete, to define the setting of the therapeutic strategy. This review was planned to update the current status of pre-treatment evaluation for pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

We conducted an extensive review, including relevant articles dealing with traditional imaging, functional imaging and minimally invasive surgical procedures before treatment for pancreatic cancer. We searched articles written in English only. Data in the PubMed database, published in the period between January 2000 and January 2022, were retrieved. Prospective observational studies, retrospective analyses and meta-analyses were reviewed and analysed.

KEY CONTENT AND FINDINGS

Each imaging modality (endoscopic ultrasonography, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, computed tomography, positron emission tomography/computed tomography, staging laparoscopy) has its own diagnostic advantages and limitations. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for each image set are reported. Data that support the increasing role of neoadjuvant therapy (radiotherapy and chemotherapy) and the meaning of a patient-tailored treatment selection, based on tumour staging, are also discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

A multimodal pre-treatment workup should be searched as it improves staging accuracy, orienting patients with resectable tumors towards surgery, optimizing patient selection with locally advanced tumors to neoadjuvant or definite therapy and avoiding surgical resection or curative radiotherapy in those with metastatic disease.

Comprehensive review on endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition techniques for solid pancreatic tumor

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is speculated to become the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality by 2030, a high mortality rate considering the number of cases. Surgery and chemotherapy are the main treatment options, but they are burdensome for patients. A clear histological diagnosis is needed to determine a treatment plan, and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition (TA) is a suitable technique that does not worsen the cancer-specific prognosis even for lesions at risk of needle tract seeding. With the development of personalized medicine and precision treatment, there has been an increasing demand to increase cell counts and collect specimens while preserving tissue structure, leading to the development of the fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needle. EUS-FNB is rapidly replacing EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) as the procedure of choice for EUS-TA of pancreatic cancer. However, EUS-FNA is sometimes necessary where the FNB needle cannot penetrate small hard lesions, so it is important clinicians are familiar with both. Given these recent dev-elopments, we present an up-to-date review of the role of EUS-TA in pancreatic cancer. Particularly, technical aspects, such as needle caliber, negative pressure, and puncture methods, for obtaining an adequate specimen in EUS-TA are discussed.

ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Biliary Strictures

A biliary stricture is an abnormal narrowing in the ductal drainage system of the liver that can result in clinically and physiologically relevant obstruction to the flow of bile. The most common and ominous etiology is malignancy, underscoring the importance of a high index of suspicion in the evaluation of this condition. The goals of care in patients with a biliary stricture are confirming or excluding malignancy (diagnosis) and reestablishing flow of bile to the duodenum (drainage); the approach to diagnosis and drainage varies according to anatomic location (extrahepatic vs perihilar). For extrahepatic strictures, endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition is highly accurate and has become the diagnostic mainstay. In contrast, the diagnosis of perihilar strictures remains a challenge. Similarly, the drainage of extrahepatic strictures tends to be more straightforward and safer and less controversial than that of perihilar strictures. Recent evidence has provided some clarity in multiple important areas pertaining to biliary strictures, whereas several remaining controversies require additional research. The goal of this guideline is to provide practicing clinicians with the most evidence-based guidance on the approach to patients with extrahepatic and perihilar strictures, focusing on diagnosis and drainage.

Diagnostic Ability of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition Using 19-Gauge Fine-Needle Biopsy Needle for Abdominal Lesions

Attempts at performing endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) with a 19G needle are increasing because histological diagnosis and comprehensive genomic profiling are a necessity. However, the diagnostic ability of the 19G fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needle, especially the third-generation FNB needle, is unclear and has been retrospectively reviewed. The 19G TopGain needle was used in 147 patients and 160 lesions between September 2020 and December 2021. The technical success rate of the biopsies was 99.4% (159/160). The early adverse event rate was 4.1% (6/147), and moderate or severe adverse event rate occurrence was 2.0% (3/147). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the 19G TopGain needle for 157 lesions with a confirmed diagnosis were 96.7%, 100%, and 96.8%, respectively. Rescue EUS-TA using the 19G TopGain needle was performed for nine lesions, and a successful diagnosis was made in six of these lesions (66.7%). The diagnostic ability of EUS-TA using the third-generation 19G TopGain needle was favorable. However, the use of 19G FNB needles may increase adverse events. Therefore, EUS-TA with a 19G FNB needle is mainly indicated in lesions where comprehensive genomic profiling may be necessary or the diagnosis could not be determined via EUS-TA using the 22G needle.

Pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: a 2022 update for radiologists

Pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PaNENs) are a unique group of pancreatic neoplasms with a wide range of clinical presentations and behaviors. Given their heterogeneous appearance and increasing detection on cross-sectional imaging, it is essential that radiologists understand the variable presentation and distinctions PaNENs display compared to other pancreatic neoplasms. Additionally, some of these neoplasms may be hormonally functional, and it is imperative that radiologists be aware of the common clinical presentations of hormonally active PaNENs. Knowledge of PaNEN pathology and treatments may influence which imaging modality is optimal for each patient. Each imaging modality used for PaNENs has distinct advantages and disadvantages, particularly in different treatment settings. Thus, the focus of this manuscript is to provide an update for the radiologist on PaNEN pathology, imaging, and treatments.

Historical perspective on needle development: From the past to the future

With the introduction of EUS, endoscopy was no longer limited to luminal indications. However, the method was unable to distinguish malignant from benign lesions. Consequently, needles designed for tissue acquisition under EUS-guidance was designed. Initially, the needles were designed for fine needle aspiration (FNA); nevertheless, with increased requirement for the precured tissue in terms of quality and quantity, newly design needles aimed at obtaining tissue cores for histological assessment were developed. Recent studies demonstrate superiority of these fine needle biopsy needles (FNB) compared to FNA needles.

Quantitative CT perfusion imaging in patients with pancreatic cancer: a systematic review

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the third leading cause of cancer-related death with a 5-year survival rate of 10%. Quantitative CT perfusion (CTP) can provide additional diagnostic information compared to the limited accuracy of the current standard, contrast-enhanced CT (CECT). This systematic review evaluates CTP for diagnosis, grading, and treatment assessment of PDAC. The secondary goal is to provide an overview of scan protocols and perfusion models used for CTP in PDAC. The search strategy combined synonyms for 'CTP' and 'PDAC.' Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science were systematically searched from January 2000 to December 2020 for studies using CTP to evaluate PDAC. The risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2. 607 abstracts were screened, of which 29 were selected for full-text eligibility. 21 studies were included in the final analysis with a total of 760 patients. All studies comparing PDAC with non-tumorous parenchyma found significant CTP-based differences in blood flow (BF) and blood volume (BV). Two studies found significant differences between pathological grades. Two other studies showed that BF could predict neoadjuvant treatment response. A wide variety in kinetic models and acquisition protocol was found among included studies. Quantitative CTP shows a potential benefit in PDAC diagnosis and can serve as a tool for pathological grading and treatment assessment; however, clinical evidence is still limited. To improve clinical use, standardized acquisition and reconstruction parameters are necessary for interchangeability of the perfusion parameters.

A Meta-Analysis Comparing Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Aspiration With Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Biopsy

BACKGROUND

The superiority between endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is still a debate. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the diagnostic value and safety of these 2 needles in sampling of all solid lesions and separately pancreatic lesions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library were searched for randomized controlled studies that reported the comparison of FNA and FNB in solid mass. Outcome measures included diagnostic accuracy, number of needle passes, diagnostic adequacy, presence of tissue cores, and adverse events. Standard error, upper and lower confidence intervals at 95% confidence interval for the risk were obtained using Review Manager Version 5.3 which was also used to generate forest plots for pooled analysis. The random or fixed effect model was applied depending on the heterogeneity ( I2 ).

RESULTS

Eighteen randomized control trial studies with a total of 2718 patients (1141 patients with EUS-FNA, 1108 with EUS-FNB, and remaining 469 patients were sampled with both needles alternatively) were included in the meta-analysis.FNB group has relatively good diagnostic accuracy relative risk (RR): 0.94, 0.92-0.97; P =0.0002), diagnostic adequacy (RR: 0.95, 0.9-1.0; P =0.04) and high quality histologic yield compared (RR: 0.77, 0.64-0.93; P =0.007) with the FNA group in solid gastrointestinal lesions, and the number of needle passes to obtain sufficient tissue (mean difference: 0.54, 0.45-0.64; P <0.00001) was lower in the FNB group. For solid pancreatic disease only, there was no difference in diagnostic accuracy (RR: 0.97, 0.93-1.01, P =0.13) or quality histologic yield (RR: 0.60, 0.29-1.23; P =0.16). The rate of adverse events (RR: 1.04, 0.48-2.29; P =0.92) did not significantly differ between FNA and FNB groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In solid gastrointestinal lesions, FNB is associated with a relatively better diagnostic adequacy, diagnostic adequacy and tissue cores rates, and less number of needle passes. For solid pancreatic disease only, there is no difference in diagnostic accuracy or tissue cores rates.

Comparison of 22-gauge standard and Franseen needles in EUS-guided tissue acquisition for diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This large multicenter randomized controlled trial compared the diagnostic yields of 22-gauge standard and 22-gauge Franseen needles for EUS-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) of solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with solid pancreatic lesions were prospectively randomized to EUS-TA using standard or Franseen needles. Samples obtained with the first needle pass and with second and subsequent passes were evaluated separately. The primary endpoint was the rate of accuracy for diagnosis of malignancy. Other endpoints were technical success rate, sample cellularity, adverse events, diagnostic accuracy in patient subgroups, and the diagnostic accuracy and numbers of second and subsequent needle passes.

RESULTS

Of 523 patients undergoing EUS-TA, 260 were randomized to using standard 22-gauge needles and 263 to 22-gauge Franseen needles. The technical success rate in each group was 99.6%, with similar adverse event rates in the standard (1.5%) and Franseen (.8%) needle groups. First-pass EUS-TA using the Franseen needle resulted in significantly greater diagnostic accuracy (84.0% vs 71.2%, P < .001) and sensitivity (82.4% vs 66.7%, P < .001) than first-pass EUS-TA using a standard needle and also resulted in superior diagnostic accuracy in patients requiring immunostaining. Second and subsequent EUS-TA using Franseen needles showed significantly greater accuracy (94.7% vs 90.0%, P = .049) and sensitivity (94.0% vs 88.6%, P = .047) and required fewer needle passes (1.81 vs 2.03, P = .008) than using standard needles.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-TA with the Franseen needle is superior to EUS-TA with a standard needle with respect to diagnostic accuracy per pass, particularly in patients who require immunostaining, and number of passes when using macroscopic on-site evaluation. (Clinical trial registration numbers: UMIN000030634 and jRCTs052180062.).

The Role of Cholangioscopy and EUS in the Evaluation of Indeterminate Biliary Strictures

Bile duct stenosis continues to present a diagnostic dilemma for clinicians. It is important to establish the benign or malignant nature of the stricture early in order to avoid any unnecessary delay in medical treatment or surgery. Tissue acquisition for histological diagnosis is particularly crucial when the initial diagnostic work up is inconclusive. The diagnostic yield from the conventional endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with brushing and biopsy is suboptimal. Patients with indeterminate biliary strictures (IDBSs) often require a multi-disciplinary diagnostic approach and additional endoscopic evaluation, including cholangioscopy and endoscopic ultrasound, before a final diagnosis can be reached. In this article, we discuss the recent endoscopic advancements in the diagnosis of biliary stricture with a focus on the roles of cholangioscopy and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS).

Comparative diagnostic performance of end-cutting fine-needle biopsy needles for EUS tissue sampling of solid pancreatic masses: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Evidence is limited on the comparative diagnostic performance of newer end-cutting fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles for tissue sampling of pancreatic masses. We performed a systematic review with network meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic accuracy of available FNB needles for sampling of solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (Medline and Cochrane Database) was conducted for studies evaluating the accuracy of newer FNB needles in adults undergoing EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were sample adequacy, diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and adverse event rate. We performed pairwise and network meta-analyses and appraised the quality of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology.

RESULTS

Overall, 16 RCTs (1934 patients) were identified. On network meta-analysis, Franseen needles (Acquire; Boston Scientific, Marlborough, Mass, USA) significantly outperformed reverse-bevel needles (risk ratio [RR], 1.21 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.05-1.40] for accuracy and 1.31 [95% CI, 1.05-1.22] for adequacy) and FNA needles (RR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.01-1.25] for accuracy and 1.07 [95% CI, 1.02-1.13] for adequacy). Likewise, the Fork-tip needle (SharkCore; Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland) was significantly superior to the reverse-bevel needle (RR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.03-1.33] for accuracy and 1.09 [95% CI, 1.02-1.16] for adequacy) and to the FNA needle (RR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.01-1.19] for accuracy and 1.03 [95% CI, 1.01-1.07] for adequacy). Other comparisons did not achieve statistical significance. As a consequence, Franseen (surface under the cumulative ranking score, .89 for accuracy and .94 for adequacy) and Fork-tip needles (surface under the cumulative ranking score, .76 for accuracy and .73 for adequacy) ranked as the 2 highest-performing FNB needles. When considering different needle sizes, 25-gauge Franseen and 25-gauge Fork-tip needles were not superior to 22-gauge reverse-bevel needles (RR, 1.18 [95% CI, .96-1.46] and 1.04 [95% CI, .62-1.52]). None of the tested needles was significantly superior to the other FNB devices or to FNA needles when rapid onsite cytologic evaluation was available.

CONCLUSIONS

Franseen and Fork-tip needles, particularly 22-gauge size, showed the highest performance for tissue sampling of pancreatic masses, with low confidence in estimates.

Needle tract seeding after endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic tumors: A nationwide survey in Japan

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) plays a crucial role in the diagnosis of pancreatic tumors. The present study aimed to investigate the current status of needle tract seeding (NTS) after EUS-TA of pancreatic tumors based on a nationwide survey in Japan.

METHODS

Patients who underwent surgical resection of primary pancreatic tumors after EUS-TA performed between April 2010 and March 2018 were surveyed. The incidence rates of NTS were determined, and compared in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDACs) and other tumors, and in patients who underwent transgastric and transduodenal EUS-TA of PDACs. The detailed features and prognosis of patients with NTS were also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 12,109 patients underwent surgical resection of primary pancreatic tumors after EUS-TA. The overall incidence rate of NTS was 0.330%, and the NTS rate was significantly higher in patients with PDAC than in those with other tumors (0.409% vs. 0.071%, P=0.004). NTS was observed in 0.857% of patients who underwent transgastric EUS-TA, but in none of those who underwent transduodenal EUS-TA. Of the patients with NTS of PDACs, the median time from EUS-TA to occurrence of NTS and median patient survival were 19.3 and 44.7 months, respectively, with 97.4% of NTS located in the gastric wall and 65.8% of NTS resected. The patient survival was significantly longer in patients who underwent NTS resection than in those without NTS resection (P=0.037).

CONCLUSIONS

NTS appeared only after transgastric not after transduodenal EUS-TA. Careful follow-up provides an opportunity to remove localized NTS lesions by gastrectomy.

The impact of preoperative EUS-FNA for distal resectable pancreatic cancer: Is it really effective enough to take risks?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is frequently used for the preoperative histologic diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. However, debate continues regarding the clinical merits of preoperative EUS-FNA for the management of resectable pancreatic cancer. We aimed to evaluate the benefits and safety of preoperative EUS-FNA for resectable distal pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

The medical records of 304 consecutive patients with suspected distal pancreatic cancer who underwent EUS-FNA were retrospectively reviewed to evaluate the clinical benefits of preoperative EUS-FNA. We also reviewed the medical records of 528 patients diagnosed with distal pancreatic cancer who underwent distal pancreatectomy with or without EUS-FNA. The recurrence rates and cancer-free survival periods of patients who did or did not undergo preoperative EUS-FNA were compared.

RESULTS

The diagnostic accuracy of preoperative EUS-FNA was high (sensitivity, 87.5%; specificity, 100%; positive predictive value 100%; accuracy, 90.7%; negative predictive value, 73.8%). Among patients, 26.7% (79/304) avoided surgery based on the preoperative EUS-FNA findings. Of the 528 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy, 193 patients received EUS-FNA and 335 did not. During follow-up (median 21.7 months), the recurrence rate was similar in the two groups (EUS-FNA, 72.7%; non-EUS-FNA, 75%; P = 0.58). The median cancer-free survival was also similar (P = 0.58); however, gastric wall recurrence was only encountered in the patients with EUS-FNA (n = 2).

CONCLUSION

Preoperative EUS-FNA is not associated with increased risks of cancer-specific or overall survival. However, clinicians must consider the potential risks of needle tract seeding, and care should be taken when selecting patients.

Multicenter prospective study of the efficacy of stereomicroscopic on-site evaluation in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition in patients with pancreatic cancer

OBJECTIVE

In sample isolation processing by stereomicroscopy (SIPS), a technique used to assess the quality of specimens collected during endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA), the cutoff value of stereomicroscopically visible white core (SVWC) (≥11 mm) indicates high diagnostic sensitivity. However, the procedure of SIPS is complicated and time-consuming. Therefore, we devised the stereomicroscopic on-site evaluation (SOSE), a new rapid assessment method that is simpler than SIPS and only determines if the SVWC cutoff value is attained. We aimed to examine the usefulness of SOSE in a multicenter, prospective setting.

METHODS

Seventy patients from multiple institutions with solid pancreatic masses suspected to be pancreatic cancer were included. EUS-TA was performed using a 22-gauge Franseen needle. SVWCs were measured on-site using stereomicroscopy. The primary outcome was the sensitivity of SVWC cutoff value in EUS-TA with SOSE.

RESULTS

The total number of punctures was 214 and SOSE was performed on 150 punctures. The SVWC cutoff value collection rate was 100% per lesion, with 80% in the first pass, 79% in the second pass, and 78% per puncture in all passes. The median time taken to determine the SVWC cutoff value for SOSE was 47 s. The sensitivity of the SVWC cutoff value was 93.2% for histology and 96.6% for cytology + histology. The per-lesion accuracy of pathological diagnosis reached the highest level (98.6%) at the second puncture.

CONCLUSIONS

SOSE showed high diagnostic sensitivity and may be a new rapid assessment method for the diagnosis of malignant pancreatic cancer using EUS-TA.

Clinical dilemma of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for resectable pancreatic body and tail cancer

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a first-line procedure for definitive tissue diagnosis of pancreatic cancer because of its high accuracy and low complication rate. The overall sensitivity of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer is approximately 90%; however, its diagnostic ability for small lesions (<10 mm) remains limited. Although EUS-FNA is a relatively safe procedure, with an overall morbidity of ≤2%, it should be noted that needle tract seeding (NTS) can occur after EUS-FNA, which may affect the patient prognosis negatively. In patients with resected pancreatic tumors, preoperative EUS-FNA is not associated with an increased risk of postoperative recurrence. However, NTS after EUS-FNA for resectable pancreatic body and tail cancer has been highlighted recently, particularly by Japanese endoscopists. Thus, the use of preoperative EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of resectable pancreatic body and tail cancer has become a clinical dilemma that challenges gastroenterologists and must be carefully considered on a case-by-case basis by weighing the benefits and risks. This review summarizes the pros and cons of performing EUS-FNA in patients with resectable pancreatic body and tail cancer and provides valuable insight for gastroenterologists treating pancreatic cancer.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle biopsy alone vs. EUS-guided fine needle aspiration with rapid onsite evaluation in pancreatic lesions: a multicenter randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the standard in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions, in particular when combined with rapid onsite evaluation of cytopathology (ROSE). More recently, a fork-tip needle for core biopsy (FNB) has been shown to be associated with excellent diagnostic yield. EUS-FNB alone has however not been compared with EUS-FNA + ROSE in a large clinical trial. Our aim was to compare EUS-FNB alone to EUS-FNA + ROSE in solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

A multicenter, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial involving seven centers was performed. Solid pancreatic lesions referred for EUS were considered for inclusion. The primary end point was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary end points included sensitivity/specificity, mean number of needle passes, and cost.

RESULTS

235 patients were randomized: 115 EUS-FNB alone and 120 EUS-FNA + ROSE. Overall, 217 patients had malignant histology. The diagnostic accuracy for malignancy of EUS-FNB alone was non-inferior to EUS-FNA + ROSE at 92.2 % (95 %CI 86.6 %-96.9 %) and 93.3 % (95 %CI 88.8 %-97.9 %), respectively (P = 0.72). Diagnostic sensitivity for malignancy was 92.5 % (95 %CI 85.7 %-96.7 %) for EUS-FNB alone vs. 96.5 % (93.0 %-98.6 %) for EUS-FNA + ROSE (P = 0.46), while specificity was 100 % in both. Adequate histological yield was obtained in 87.5 % of the EUS-FNB samples. The mean (SD) number of needle passes and procedure time favored EUS-FNB alone (2.3 [0.6] passes vs. 3.0 [1.1] passes [P < 0.001]; and 19.3 [8.0] vs. 22.7 [10.8] minutes [P = 0.008]). EUS-FNB alone cost on average 45 US dollars more than EUS-FNA + ROSE.

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNB alone is non-inferior to EUS-FNA + ROSE and is associated with fewer needle passes, shorter procedure time, and excellent histological yield at comparable cost.

Endoscopic tissue sampling - Part 1: Upper gastrointestinal and hepatopancreatobiliary tracts. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

1: ESGE recommends that, where there is a suspicion of eosinophilic esophagitis, at least six biopsies should be taken, two to four biopsies from the distal esophagus and two to four biopsies from the proximal esophagus, targeting areas with endoscopic mucosal abnormalities. Distal and proximal biopsies should be placed in separate containers.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 2: ESGE recommends obtaining six biopsies, including from the base and edge of the esophageal ulcers, for histologic analysis in patients with suspected viral esophagitis.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 3: ESGE recommends at least six biopsies are taken in cases of suspected advanced esophageal cancer and suspected advanced gastric cancer.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 4: ESGE recommends taking only one to two targeted biopsies for lesions in the esophagus or stomach that are potentially amenable to endoscopic resection (Paris classification 0-I, 0-II) in order to confirm the diagnosis and not compromise subsequent endoscopic resection.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 5: ESGE recommends obtaining two biopsies from the antrum and two from the corpus in patients with suspected Helicobacter pylori infection and for gastritis staging.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 6: ESGE recommends biopsies from or, if endoscopically resectable, resection of gastric adenomas.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 7: ESGE recommends fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles equally for sampling of solid pancreatic masses.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 8: ESGE suggests performing peroral cholangioscopy (POC) and/or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition in indeterminate biliary strictures. For proximal and intrinsic strictures, POC is preferred. For distal and extrinsic strictures, EUS-guided sampling is preferred, with POC where this is not diagnostic.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 9: ESGE suggests obtaining possible non-neoplastic biopsies before sampling suspected malignant lesions to prevent intraluminal spread of malignant disease.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. 10: ESGE suggests dividing EUS-FNA material into smears (two per pass) and liquid-based cytology (LBC), or the whole of the EUS-FNA material can be processed as LBC, depending on local experience.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

Endoscopic ultrasound assessment and tissue acquisition of mediastinal and abdominal lymph nodes

The differential diagnosis between benign and malignant lymph nodes (LNs) has a fundamental role in the characterization and staging of malignant conditions, as well as in subsequent patients’ management. All imaging modalities (i.e. computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging) rely mainly on size; endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) criteria based on B-mode evaluation and Doppler features fail to adequately characterize with high specificity LNs nature. The introduction of EUS-elastography and contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS are useful techniques to increase the diagnostic yield in identifying metastatic LNs, to identify which suspicious LN should require pathological characterization and, finally, to target tissue acquisition. EUS-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) is increasingly being used for diagnosing lymphadenopathy whenever the characterization modifies patients’ subsequent management and when no superficial LN is accessible. Since target therapy are currently available (i.e. lung cancer, breast cancer), EUS-TA of malignant LNs could be required to identify tumor biology. In this field, both fine needle aspiration and biopsy needles are able to guarantee accurate results with almost perfect specificity and sub-optimal sensitivity. We finally propose a diagnostic algorithm based on most recent, high-level evidence for the diagnostic approach to suspected LNs assessment.

Advanced Endoscopic Techniques for the Diagnosis of Pancreatic Cancer and Management of Biliary and GastricOutlet Obstruction

Following high-quality imaging studies for staging, endoscopic ultrasound examination fine needle aspiration/biopsy is the preferred modality for tissue diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with metal stent placement is used for palliation of malignant biliary obstruction. Metal stents can be placed in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer in whom surgery is going to be delayed. For palliation of gastric outlet obstruction, endoscopic enteral stenting is often selected because of its less invasiveness. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage for malignant biliary obstruction or gastrojejunostomy for gastric outlet obstruction are emerging less invasive techniques as compared with palliative surgery.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Biopsy With or Without Rapid On-site Evaluation for Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions: A Randomized Controlled Non-Inferiority Trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The benefit of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) on the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) has never been evaluated in a randomized study. This trial aimed to test the hypothesis that in solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs), diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB without ROSE was not inferior to that of EUS-FNB with ROSE.

METHODS

A noninferiority study (noninferiority margin, 5%) was conducted at 14 centers in 8 countries. Patients with SPLs requiring tissue sampling were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo EUS-FNB with or without ROSE using new-generation FNB needles. The touch-imprint cytology technique was used to perform ROSE. The primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy, and secondary endpoints were safety, tissue core procurement, specimen quality, and sampling procedural time.

RESULTS

Eight hundred patients were randomized over an 18-month period, and 771 were analyzed (385 with ROSE and 386 without). Comparable diagnostic accuracies were obtained in both arms (96.4% with ROSE and 97.4% without ROSE, P = .396). Noninferiority of EUS-FNB without ROSE was confirmed with an absolute risk difference of 1.0% (1-sided 90% confidence interval, -1.1% to 3.1%; noninferiority P < .001). Safety and sample quality of histologic specimens were similar in both groups. A significantly higher tissue core rate was obtained by EUS-FNB without ROSE (70.7% vs. 78.0%, P = .021), with a significantly shorter mean sampling procedural time (17.9 ± 8.8 vs 11.7 ± 6.0 minutes, P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNB demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy in evaluating SPLs independently on execution of ROSE. When new-generation FNB needles are used, ROSE should not be routinely recommended. (ClinicalTrial.gov number NCT03322592.).

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and the management of pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related mortality in western countries. Early diagnosis of pancreatic cancers plays a key role in the management by identification of patients who are surgical candidates. The advancement in the radiological imaging and interventional endoscopy (including endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic enteral stenting techniques) has a significant impact in the diagnostic evaluation, staging and treatment of pancreatic cancer. The multidisciplinary involvement of radiology, gastroenterology, medical oncology and surgical oncology is central to the management of patients with pancreatic cancers. This review aims to highlight the diagnostic and therapeutic role of EUS in the management of patients with pancreatic malignancy, especially pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration vs fine needle biopsy for pancreatic masses, subepithelial lesions, and lymph nodes

Endoscopic ultrasound tissue acquisition, in the form of both fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB), is utilized for pancreatic mass lesions, subepithelial lesions, and lymph node biopsy. Both procedures are safe and yield high diagnostic value. Despite its high diagnostic yield, EUS-FNA has potential limitations associated with cytological aspirations, including inability to determine histologic architecture, and a small quantitative sample for further immunohistochemical staining. EUS-FNB, with its larger core biopsy needle, was designed to overcome these potential limitations. However, it remains unclear which technique should be used and for which lesions. Comparative trials are plagued by heterogeneity at every stage of comparison; including variable needles used, and different definitions of endpoints, which therefore limit generalizability. Thus, we present a review of prospective trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses on studies examining EUS-FNA vs EUS-FNB. Prospective comparative trials of EUS-FNA vs EUS-FNB primarily focus on pancreatic mass lesions, and yield conflicting results in terms of demonstrating the superiority of one method. However, consistent among trials is the potential for diagnosis with fewer passes, and a larger quantity of sample achieved for next generation sequencing. With regard to subepithelial lesions and lymph node biopsy, fewer prospective trials exist, and larger prospective studies are necessary. Based on the available literature, we would recommend EUS-FNB for peri-hepatic lymph nodes.

Impact of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition on Decision-Making in Precision Medicine for Pancreatic Cancer: Beyond Diagnosis

Precision medicine in cancer treatment refers to targeted therapy based on the evaluation of biomarkers. Although precision medicine for pancreatic cancer (PC) remains challenging, novel biomarker-based therapies, such as pembrolizumab, olaparib, and entrectinib, have been emerging. Most commonly, endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) had been used for the diagnosis of PC until now. However, advances in EUS-TA devices and biomarker testing, especially next-generation sequencing, have opened up the possibility of sequencing of various genes even in limited amounts of tissue samples obtained by EUS-TA, and identifying potential genetic alterations as therapeutic targets. Precision medicine benefits only a small population of patients with PC, but biomarker-based therapy has shown promising results in patients who once had no treatment options. Now, the role of EUS-TA has extended beyond diagnosis into decision-making regarding the treatment of PC. In this review, we mainly discuss tissue sampling by EUS-TA for biomarker testing and the current status of precision medicine for PC.

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

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

Histopathological comparison of aspiration and biopsy needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition in patients with subepithelial lesions

BACKGROUND

Information on whether a fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needle can improve histopathological specimen quality or the amount of core tissue collected in the diagnosis of subepithelial lesions (SELs) remains insufficient. In this study, we aimed to compare the procedure outcomes and adequacy of histopathological specimens of fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and FNB needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) using sample isolation processing by stereomicroscopy (SIPS) in patients with SELs.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective comparison of SEL cases registered in two previously conducted prospective studies. Of 61 cases, we identified 56 cases of SELs that involved the muscularis propria layer. Of these, 27 patients who underwent EUS-TA using a 22-gauge FNA needle between July 2016 and December 2017, and 29 patients who underwent the procedure using a 22-gauge FNB needle between March 2018 and January 2019 were included in the FNA and FNB group, respectively.

RESULTS

Patient background characteristics did not differ between the groups. The technical success rate was 100% in both groups. The median adequacy score was significantly higher in the FNB group than in the FNA group (P < .01). The histological diagnosis showed no significant difference in the accuracy rate between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In EUS-TA using the SIPS procedure to target SELs derived from the muscularis propria layer, FNB needles collect more core tissues and significantly improve histopathological specimen quality compared with FNA needles. When combined with SIPS, a high tissue diagnosis rate may be obtained regardless of the type of puncture needle used.

Comparison of fine-needle aspiration and fine-needle biopsy devices for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid lesions: a systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition is extensively used, but the optimal sampling device is still a matter of debate. We performed meta-analyses on studies comparing fine-needle aspiration (FNA) with fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles, and studies comparing different FNB needles.

METHODS

Online databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 50 cases with a suspected solid pancreatic or nonpancreatic lesion that compared FNA with FNB needles. Outcome measures included diagnostic accuracy, adequacy, number of passes, presence of tissue cores, and adverse events. We also performed meta-regression analysis on the effect of FNB design on diagnostic accuracy. Quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool.

RESULTS

18 RCTs comparing FNA with FNB needles were included. FNB provided a higher pooled diagnostic accuracy (87 % vs. 80 %; P = 0.02) and tissue core rate (80 % vs. 62 %; P = 0.002), and allowed diagnosis with fewer passes (P = 0.03), in both pancreatic and nonpancreatic lesions. A total of 93 studies were included comparing different FNB devices. Pooled diagnostic accuracy was higher for forward-facing bevel needles than for the reverse bevel needle. In this analysis, study quality was low and heterogeneity was high (I2  = 80 %).

CONCLUSION

FNB outperformed FNA when sampling pancreatic and nonpancreatic lesions. Forward-facing bevel FNB needles seemed to outperform the reverse bevel FNB needle, but the low quality of evidence prevents us from making strong recommendations on the optimal FNB design.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition Using a 20-Gauge Menghini Needle with a Lateral Forward Bevel and a 22-Gauge Franseen Needle: A Single-Center Large Cohort Study

Background/Aims

Several fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles are available for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition. However, there is disagreement on which type of needle has the best diagnostic yield. The aim of this study was to compare the performance and safety of two commonly used EUS-FNB needles.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNB between June 2016 and March 2020 in our hospital. Two types of needles were evaluated: a 20-gauge Menghini needle with a lateral forward bevel and a 22-gauge Franseen needle. Rapid on-site evaluation was performed in all the cases. A multivariate analysis was performed to clarify the negative predictive factors for obtaining a histological diagnosis. Propensity score matching was performed to compare the diagnostic yields of these two needles.

Results

We analyzed 666 patients and 690 lesions. The overall diagnostic rate of histology alone was 88.8%, and the overall adverse event rate was 1.5%. Transduodenal access and small lesions (≤2 cm) were identified as negative predictive factors for obtaining a histological diagnosis. After propensity score matching, 482 lesions were analyzed. The diagnostic accuracy rates of histology in the M and F needle groups were 89.2% and 88.8%, respectively (p=1.00).

Conclusions

Both the needles showed high diagnostic yield, and no significant difference in performance was observed between the two.

High Sensitivity of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB in Lymphadenopathy Caused by Metastatic Disease: A Prospective Comparative Study

Background/Aims

The diagnostic work-up of lymphadenopathy is challenging but important to determine the correct therapy. Nevertheless, few studies have addressed the topic of endosonography (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition in lymphadenopathy. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the accuracy and safety of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling (EUS-FNB) in intrathoracic and intraabdominal lymphadenopathy.

Methods

In a tertiary care center, patients with lymphadenopathy referred for EUS-guided sampling were included prospectively from 2014 to 2019 (NCT02360839). In all cases, EUS-FNB (22 gauge) and EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) (25 gauge) were performed. The patients were randomized to the first needle pass with FNB or FNA. Study outcomes were the diagnostic accuracy and adverse event rate.

Results

Forty-eight patients were included (median age: 69 years [interquartile range, 59–76]; 24/48 females [50%]). The final diagnoses were metastasis (n=17), lymphoma (n=11), sarcoidosis (n=6), and inflammatory disease (n=14). The diagnostic performance of the two modalities was comparable, including a high sensitivity for metastatic nodes (EUS-FNB: 87% vs. EUS-FNA: 100%, p=0.5). The sensitivity for lymphoma was borderline superior in favor of EUS-FNB (EUS-FNB: 55% vs. EUS-FNA: 9%, p=0.06). No adverse events were recorded.

Conclusions

In lymphadenopathy, both EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA are safe and highly sensitive for metastatic lymph node detection. Lymphoma diagnosis is challenging regardless of the needle used.

Mediastinal granular cell tumor diagnosed with endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration via a modified technique based on wet suction: A case report and literature review

Granular cell tumor (GCT) represents a less frequently seen tumor originating from Schwann cells. Although GCT develops in various locations in the human body, GCT of the mediastinum is extremely uncommon. A case of mediastinal GCT diagnosed by aspiration using a fine needle assisted by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS-FNA) via a modified technique based on wet suction was reported. An asymptomatic 28-year-old man was referred for assessment of a mass in the mediastinum that was found incidentally via chest computed tomography (CT) at health screening. EUS demonstrated a hypoechoic lesion with a distinct boundary, which was derived from the upper posterior mediastinum and partly located close to the posterior wall of the esophagus. Therefore, EUS-FNA with a modified wet suction technique was performed to harvest adequate specimens for the diagnosis of GCT. Minimally invasive tumor removal was performed, and histological examination of the specimen harvested surgically verified GCT, consistent with histological findings of the specimen obtained by EUS-FNA. The case highlights that a good accuracy of histological diagnosis and specimen quality are achieved for the modified wet-suction technique in EUS-FNA, and a preoperative diagnosis of mediastinal GCT can be made with certainty.

IS THE NEW PROCORE 20G DOUBLE FORWARD-BEVEL NEEDLE CAPABLE TO OBTAIN BETTER HISTOLOGICAL SAMPLES BY ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND FOR DIAGNOSING SOLID PANCREATIC LESIONS?

BACKGROUND

Fine needle biopsy (FNB) histological samples by endoscopic ultrasound. It is important to obtain representative histological samples of solid biliopancreatic lesions without a clear indication for resection. The role of new needles in such task is yet to be determined.

AIM

To compare performance assessment between 20G double fine needle biopsy (FNB) and conventional 22G fine needle aspiration (FNA) needles for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biopsy.

METHODS

This prospective study examined 20 patients who underwent the random puncture of solid pancreatic lesions with both needles and the analysis of tissue samples by a single pathologist.

RESULTS

The ProCore 20G FNB needle provided more adequate tissue samples (16 vs. 9, p=0.039) with better cellularity quantitative scores (11 vs. 5, p=0.002) and larger diameter of the histological sample (1.51±1.3 mm vs. 0.94±0.55 mm, p=0.032) than the 22G needle. The technical success, puncture difficulty, and sample bleeding were similar between groups. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy were 88.9%, 100%, and 90% and 77.8%, 100%, and 78.9% for the 20G and 22G needles, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The samples obtained with the ProCore 20G FNB showed better histological parameters; although there was no difference in the diagnostic performance between the two needles, these findings may improve pathologist performance.

Prospective study of EUS-guided tissue acquisition with a 20G core biopsy needle with a forward bevel for solid pancreatic mass

There is a growing need for tissue collection for immunostaining and genetic testing. Recently, several fine-needle biopsy needles are commercially available for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition.This prospective historical controlled study evaluates a 20G core biopsy needle with a forward bevel for solid pancreatic masses larger than 15 mm in diameter. The primary endpoint was the accuracy of histological diagnosis. The secondary endpoints included technical success rate, sample adequacy for histology, cytological diagnostic accuracy, and adverse events.Seventy consecutive patients were enrolled between January and October 2017. We achieved technical success in all cases regardless of the puncture sites or the endosonographer's experience. The final diagnoses were neoplasms in 67 patients (95.7%; pancreatic cancer in 65 patients, neuroendocrine neoplasm in 1, and malignant lymphoma in 1) and benign lesions in 3 patients (4.3%; autoimmune pancreatitis in 2 patients and mass-forming pancreatitis in 1). The obtained specimens were adequate for histological evaluation in all cases and the histological accuracy was 91.4% (95% confidence interval, 82.3-96.8%, P < .05) with the sensitivity and specificity of 91.0% and 100%, respectively. The cytological diagnostic accuracy was 95.7% and all patients were accurately diagnosed by combining cytological and histological examinations. As for adverse events, an asymptomatic needle fracture occurred in 1 case (1.4%).This 20G core biopsy needle with a forward bevel showed a high accuracy of histological diagnosis for solid pancreatic masses.

Utility of a 20G needle with a core trap in EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy for gastric submucosal tumors: A multicentric prospective trial

Background and Objectives

Differential diagnosis to estimate the malignant potential of gastric submucosal tumor (g-SMT) is important for decision-making. This study evaluated the use of a 20G needle with a core trap for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for g-SMT.

Methods

This multicentric prospective trial was registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN000021410). Consecutive patients with g-SMT who presented at one of the nine Japanese Referral Centers between June 2017 and November 2018 were enrolled. All patients underwent EUS-FNB using a 20G needle with a core trap. Samples obtained with the first-needle pass were used for central pathological review. EUS-FNB was evaluated in terms of (i) technical success rate, (ii) adequacy for histological evaluation, (iii) rate of complications, (iv) accuracy for histological diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST), and (v) concordance between GIST mitotic index determined by EUS-FNB and after tumor resection.

Results

The study included 52 patients. The technical success rate of EUS-FNB was 100%. The adequacy rate for histological evaluation was 90.4% (P < 0.001). There were no complications related to EUS-FNB. Of the 38/52 patients who underwent surgical resection, 36 were finally diagnosed with GIST. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of EUS-FNB for the histological diagnosis of g-SMT were 80.6%, 100%, and 81.6%, respectively. The concordance rate between the mitotic index on EUS-FNB and that after analysis of the resected tumor was 89.7%.

Conclusions

EUS-FNB using a 20G needle with a core trap is feasible, providing histological samples of sufficient quality for diagnosing g-SMT.

Randomized controlled trial comparing the Franseen needle with the Fork-tip needle for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EUS-guided FNA primarily provides cytologic samples. EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB) with needles that provide histologic specimens may enhance diagnostic yield and facilitate accessory tissue staining. Several different needle designs are currently available and design superiority is unknown. We designed a randomized controlled trial to compare 2 commonly used EUS-FNB needles in their ability to provide histologic tissue samples (primary endpoint) and to reach an accurate diagnosis (secondary endpoint).

METHODS

A total of 150 lesions from 134 patients (November 2018 to June 2019) were randomized 1:1 between biopsy with a Franseen needle and a Fork-tip needle. The groups were compared regarding the quality of the tissue samples and diagnostic accuracy.

RESULTS

Of 150 lesions, 75 were pancreatic and 75 were other solid lesions in and around the GI tract. There was no statistically significant difference between the Franseen needle and the Fork-tip needle in the yield of adequate histologic samples, 71 of 75 (94.7%) versus 72 of 75 (96%), (P = 1.00), an absolute difference of -1.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], -8.1% to 5.4%). The 2 groups were similar in the diagnostic accuracy of histologic analysis, 64 of 75 (85.3%) versus 68 of 75 (90.7%) (P = .45), absolute difference -5.4% (95% CI, -15.7% to 5%); and in the diagnostic accuracy of combined cytologic and histologic analysis, 65 of 75 (86.7%) versus 69 of 75 (92%) (P = .43), absolute difference -5.3% (95% CI, -15.2% to 4.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in the performance of the Franseen needle versus the Fork-tip needle. Both needles achieved a high yield of histologic tissue samples and high diagnostic accuracy. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03672032.).

Role of Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration/Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Autoimmune Pancreatitis

Type 1 autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is histologically characterized by lymphoplasmacytic sclerosing pancreatitis (LPSP). Recently, the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) for AIP has been reported. However, its role in the diagnostic flow of AIP is not fully elucidated. We retrospectively reviewed 53 consecutive patients who were suspected with AIP and underwent EUS-FNA/B. We evaluated the contribution of EUS-FNA/B to the diagnosis of AIP before considering response to steroid therapy among patients with diffuse enlargement of the pancreas and those with focal enlargement, respectively. Twenty-two patients showed diffuse pancreatic enlargement and 31 showed focal enlargement. The final diagnosis was definitive AIP in 32 patients, probable AIP in 2, possible AIP in 1, and mass-forming focal pancreatitis in 18. There was no change in diagnosis after EUS-FNA/B among patients with diffuse pancreatic enlargement, while diagnosis changed in 38.7% (12/31) among those with focal enlargement—there was a probable to definitive diagnosis in 4 patients, unspecified to definitive in 3, and unspecified to probable in 5. EUS-FNB provided a significantly higher sensitivity for typical pathological findings of LPSP than EUS-FNA, and 10 patients were diagnosed as pathologically definitive AIP by EUS-FNB, though none were by EUS-FNA (p = 0.002). EUS-FNA/B was useful in the diagnosis of focal type AIP, and steroid therapy could be introduced after the diagnosis was confirmed. Meanwhile, EUS-FNA/B provided no contribution to diagnosis of diffuse type AIP. EUS-FNB showed a higher diagnostic yield than FNA.