Optimal number of EUS-guided fine needle passes needed to obtain a correct diagnosis

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and fine-needle biopsy in the diagnosis of gastrointestinal lymphomas

INTRODUCTION

The role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) in the clinical management of gastrointestinal lymphoma has not been extensively studied. This study investigates the use of EUS-FNA/B in the diagnosis of first-time and recurrent gastrointestinal lymphomas at a large academic institution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 40 patients who had final diagnosis of lymphoma according to the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of tumors of hematopoietic lymphoid tissues who underwent EUS-FNA/B were included in the study. Cases with concurrent forceps mucosal biopsies or lost to clinical follow-up were excluded. The diagnostic accuracy and clinical use of EUS-FNA/B was investigated by comparing EUS-FNA/B diagnosis with the final diagnosis.

RESULTS

EUS-FNA/B diagnoses were concordant with the final WHO diagnosis for as high as 72.5% of the cases. Of the remaining 27.5%, 17.5% had enough cytologic features for lymphoma diagnosis with incomplete phenotyping, while the remaining 10.0% showed features suspicious for lymphoma. Cell block and flow cytometry quality significantly affected diagnostic accuracy. Number of passes between 1 and 5 yielded better diagnostic accuracy than 6 or more passes during FNA; however, no difference was identified during procedures that used FNB alone or combined with FNA. There is no significant difference in onsite adequacy diagnostic performance of EUS-FNA performed by cytopathologists or cytotechnologists.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNA/B with concurrent ancillary studies such as immunocytochemistry in cell block and flow cytometry can be helpful in efficient first and recurrent diagnoses of gastrointestinal lymphomas.

Diagnostic Assessment of Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology in the Pancreas: A Comparison between Liquid-Based Preparation and Conventional Smear

Background and Objectives: This study aimed to elucidate the cytologic characteristics and diagnostic usefulness of endoscopic ultrasonography-fine needle aspiration cytology (EUS-FNAC) by comparing it with liquid-based preparation (LBP) and conventional smear (CS) in pancreas. Methods: The diagnostic categories (I through VII) were classified according to the World Health Organization Reporting System for Pancreaticobiliary Cytopathology. Ten cytologic features, including nuclear and additional features, were evaluated in 53 cases subjected to EUS-FNAC. Nuclear features comprised irregular nuclear contours, nuclear enlargement, hypochromatic nuclei with parachromatin clearing, and nucleoli. Additional cellular features included isolated atypical cells, mucinous cytoplasm, drunken honeycomb architecture, mitosis, necrotic background, and cellularity. A decision tree analysis was conducted to assess diagnostic efficacy. Results: The diagnostic concordance rate between LBP and CS was 49.1% (26 out of 53 cases). No significant differences in nuclear features were observed between categories III (atypical), VI (suspicious for malignancy), and VII (malignant). The decision tree analysis of LBP indicated that cases with moderate or high cellularity and mitosis could be considered diagnostic for those exhibiting nuclear atypia. Furthermore, in CS, mitosis, isolated atypical cells, and necrotic background exerted a more significant impact on the diagnosis of EUS-FNAC. Conclusions: Significant parameters for interpreting EUS-FNAC may differ between LBP and CS. While nuclear atypia did not influence the diagnosis of categories III, VI, and VII, other cytopathologic features, such as cellularity, mitosis, and necrotic background, may present challenges in diagnosing EUS-FNAC.

Initial investigation on ultrasound-guided percutaneous biopsy of lesions in the first hepatic hilum with fusion of ultrasound and multimodal imaging cognitive guidance

Purpose

This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided percutaneous biopsy of the first hepatic hilum lesion, and examine its clinical value of diagnosis and treatment.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study on patients diagnosed with the first hepatic hilum lesions at Fujian Provincial Hospital between February 2015 and October 2022. We selected patients who had lesions in the first hepatic hilum(including a 2cm surrounding area of the left/right hepatic ducts and upper-middle segment of the common bile duct) and the liver periphery(in the peripheral area of the liver, outside of the above-mentioned first hepatic porta region). These patients underwent percutaneous ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy (PUS-CNB) with cognitive fusion guidance using CT, MRI, or PET-CT. We compared the safety and efficacy of PUS-CNB in the first hepatic hilum and the liver periphery to explore the value of PUS-CNB in optimizing the clinical treatment of the first hepatic hilum lesions.

Results

The studied includes 38 cases of the first hepatic hilum cases (18 females; 20 males), 23 presented with mass-forming tumors while the remaining 15 exhibited diffuse infiltrative tumors, with an average diameter of 4.65± 2.51 cm. The percutaneous biopsy procedure, conducted under ultrasound guidance, had an average operation time of 14.55 ± 2.73 minutes, and resulted in a postoperative bleeding volume of approximately 10.79 ± 2.79 ml. The diagnostic success rate was noted to be as high as 92.11% among the participants who underwent percutaneous biopsy of the first hepatic hilum. Procedural complications, such as bleeding, bile leakage, intestinal perforation, infection or needle tract seeding, did not occur during or after the biopsy procedure. Affected by biopsy results, 5 altered their clinical treatment plans accordingly, 24patients received non-surgical treatment, 9 underwent surgical treatment, 5 underwent radiofrequency ablation for the lesions. The study comprised a total of 112 cases for percutaneous biopsy of the liver periphery. The safety and effectiveness of the two biopsy techniques were comparable, with diagnostic success rates of 92.11% VS. 94.34%, respectively (p = 0.61).

Conclusion

Cognitive fusion of ultrasound and multi-modal imaging for the first hepatic hilum lesion puncture biopsy is a safe and effective diagnostic procedure, with better diagnostic rate, may improve clinical value of diagnosis and treatment of various diseases.

Advances and efficacy in specimen handling for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration and biopsy: A comprehensive review

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration and biopsy have significantly evolved since they offer a minimally invasive approach for obtaining pathological specimens from lesions adjacent to or within the intestine. This paper reviews advancements in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration and biopsy techniques and devices, emphasizing the importance of handling specimens for diagnostic accuracy. Innovations of fine needle biopsy needles with features like side holes and Franseen shapes have enhanced histological sampling capabilities. Techniques for specimen handling, including rapid on-site evaluation and macroscopic on-site evaluation, play pivotal roles in assessing sample adequacy, thereby influencing diagnostic outcomes. The utility of artificial intelligence in augmenting rapid on-site evaluation and macroscopic on-site evaluation, although still in experimental stages, presents a promising avenue for improving procedural efficiency and diagnostic precision. The choice of specimen handling technique is dependent on various factors including endoscopist preference, procedure objectives, and available resources, underscoring the need for a comprehensive understanding of each method's characteristics to optimize diagnostic efficacy and procedural safety.

Twenty versus 40 back-and-forth needle movements for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic masses: a prospective, crossover, randomized study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-fine-needle biopsy (FNB) of solid pancreatic mass lesions, the number of times the needle moves back and forth within the lesion might affect the collection of the sample and the subsequent diagnostic accuracy. Thus, this study was designed to compare the diagnostic adequacy between different numbers of back-and-forth movements in EUS-FNB.

METHODS

Fifty-five patients with solid pancreatic masses underwent EUS-FNB sampling with the needle (22-gauge) moved 20 times (MTT) and 40 times (MFT) randomly and sequentially for a total of four alternating passes. We compared the acquisition rate of appropriate and adequate specimens for histologic assessment and diagnostic accuracy.

RESULTS

Finally, 55 patients (35 men and 20 women) were included in the study. We found that 56.4% (31/55) and 60% (33/55) of the specimens obtained using MTT and MFT, respectively, could be adequately diagnosed histologically (P = 0.815, McNemar test). The diagnostic accuracy of MTT and MFT was 72.7% (40/55) and 80% (44/55), respectively (P = 0.289, McNemar test). The overall diagnostic accuracy was 89.1%.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant statistical difference between the histopathological diagnostic samples obtained in MTT and those obtained in MFT. Therefore, a large number of back-and-forth movements of the needle should be avoided during EUS-FNB, which can help reduce the operation time and may reduce the risk of intraoperative and postoperative complications (Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR2000031106).

Rapid on-site evaluation improves the sensitivity of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for solid pancreatic lesions irrespective of technique: A single-centre experience

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the first-line technique for the sampling of pancreatic lesions. Many factors can influence the diagnostic performance of this procedure, including the use of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE). The primary aim of this study was to compare the adequacy, diagnostic yield, accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic lesions before and after the introduction of ROSE.

METHODS

This retrospective single-centre study evaluated all consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNA for suspicious, solid pancreatic masses from April 2012 to March 2015. We compared the findings of EUS-FNA procedures performed during the first and second years following the adoption of ROSE ("ROSE1" and "ROSE2", respectively) to those performed the year before ROSE introduction (the "pre-ROSE" group).

RESULTS

Ninety-one consecutive patients with a total of 93 pancreatic lesions were enrolled. For the pre-ROSE, ROSE1 and ROSE2 groups, the adequacy rates were 96.2%, 96.6% and 100%, the diagnostic yield values were 76.9%, 89.7% and 92.1% and accuracy values were 69.2%, 86.2% and 89.5% (p = NS). Sensitivity for malignancy improved from 63.7% in the pre-ROSE group to 91.7% and 91.2% in the post-ROSE groups (p < 0.05). Specificity for malignancy was 100% in all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

ROSE can improve the diagnostic performance of EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic lesions, although only sensitivity reached statistical significance.

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.

Impact of biliary stents on the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic head lesions: A multicenter study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There is no clear evidence of a negative impact of biliary stents on the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for diagnosing pancreatic head lesions. We aimed to evaluate the association between the presence of biliary stents and the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multicenter retrospective study including all jaundiced patients secondary to pancreatic head masses was performed. Patients were divided into two groups according to the presence of a biliary stent placed before EUS-FNB. Pathological results were classified according to the Papanicolaou classification and compared against the final diagnosis. Diagnostic measures in the two groups were compared. Multivariate logistic regression analyses including potential factors affecting EUS-FNB accuracy were performed.

RESULTS

Overall, 842 patients were included, 495 (58.8%) without and 347 (41.2%) with biliary stent. A plastic or a metal stent was placed in 217 (62.5%) and 130 (37.5%) cases, respectively. Diagnostic sensitivity and accuracy were significantly higher in patients without biliary stent than in those with stent (91.9% and 92.1% vs. 85.9% and 86.4%, P = 0.010 At multivariate analyses, lesion size (odds ratio [OR]: 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-1.09, P = 0.01) and presence of biliary stent (OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.32-0.89, P = 0.01) were independently associated with diagnostic accuracy. In the subgroup of patients with biliary stent, the type of stent (plastic vs. metal) did not impact EUS-FNB yield, whereas the use of larger bore needles enhanced diagnostic accuracy (OR: 2.29, 95% CI: 1.28-4.12, P = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large retrospective study, an indwelling biliary stent negatively impacted the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB. Preferably, EUS-FNB should precede endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, especially in the case of small tumors.

[Clinical and Technical Guideline for Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Tissue Acquisition of Pancreatic Solid Tumor: Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy]

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence- based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition by 22-Gauge Franseen and Standard Needles for Solid Pancreatic Lesions

Background/Aims

Recently, a three-plane symmetric needle with Franseen geometry was developed for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). In this retrospective study, tissue acquisition per pass was compared between 22-gauge Franseen FNB and standard fine needle aspiration (FNA) needles in patients with solid pancreatic lesions.

Methods

Consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB for solid pancreatic lesions between October 2014 and March 2018 were retrospectively studied. The tissue acquisition rate and the diagnostic performance per session, per pass, and at first pass were compared.

Results

A total of 663 passes (300 by the FNB needle and 363 by the standard FNA needle) were performed in 154 patients (71 FNB and 83 FNA). The tissue acquisition rate per session and at first pass in the FNB and FNA groups was 100% and 95% (p=0.13) and 87% and 69% (p=0.007), respectively. The multivariate analysis revealed that among the patients, EUS-FNB (odds ratio, 3.07; p=0.01) was associated with a higher first-pass tissue acquisition rate. While the tissue acquisition rate reached a plateau after the 4th pass with FNA, it reached a plateau after the 2nd pass with FNB. Among the 129 malignant cases, the histological tissue acquisition rate per session was similar (100% and 94%), but the sensitivity by histology alone per session was higher for FNB than for FNA (93% and 73%, p<0.01).

Conclusions

The results of our retrospective analysis indicated that compared with a standard FNA needle, a 22-gauge Franseen FNB needle was associated with a higher first-pass tissue acquisition rate.

High Diagnostic Accuracy and Safety of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration in Malignant Lymph Nodes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is increasingly being used for diagnosing lymphadenopathy. We aim to systematically review the accuracy of EUS-FNA in differentiating benign and malignant mediastinal and abdominal lymph nodes (LNs).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed on multiple electronic databases through February 2020. A random or fixed effect model generated the pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio (LR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of EUS-FNA. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were used to explore sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies involving 2753 patients with 2833 LNs were included. In the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant LNs, EUS-FNA had a pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive LR, and negative LR of 87% (95% confidence interval [CI] 86-90%), 100% (95% CI 99-100%), 68.98 (95% CI 42.10-113.02), and 0.14 (95% CI 0.11-0.17), respectively. The pooled rate of adverse events associated with EUS-FNA was 1.57% (95% CI 1.06-2.24%). The summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) yielded an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.9912. EUS-FNA performed in mediastinal LNs gained a sensitivity of 85% (95% CI 81-88%), while in abdominal LNs, it reached 87% (95% CI 82-91%). The sensitivity of the subgroup with rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) was 91% (95% CI 89-93%), while non-ROSE was 85% (95% CI 82-87%).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNA is a sensitive, highly specific, and safe method for distinguishing benign and malignant mediastinal or abdominal LNs. However, the sensitivity of EUS-FNA still varies significantly among different centers.

Comparison of contrast-enhanced versus conventional EUS-guided FNA/fine-needle biopsy in diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS (CEH-EUS) is useful in the differential diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs). However, there is lack of verification about the usefulness of CEH-EUS-guided FNA/fine-needle biopsy (FNB) sampling. This study aimed to investigate the usefulness of CEH-EUS-guided FNA/FNB sampling without on-site cytopathology.

METHODS

Patients with SPLs were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned (1:1) to 2 parallel groups, the interventional group (CEH-EUS) or the control group (conventional EUS). The diagnostic sensitivity and optimal number of needle passes for pathologic diagnosis were investigated and compared between groups.

RESULTS

Two hundred forty patients were enrolled from March 2016 to September 2019, with 120 patients assigned to each group. Pancreatic malignancies and neuroendocrine tumors were found in 202 (90.83%) and 9 (3.75%) patients, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of age, sex, lesion size (30.96 ± 12.09 mm in the CEH-EUS group vs 33.09 ± 16.39 mm in the conventional EUS group; P = .252), lesion location, adverse event rate, and disease distribution. The diagnostic sensitivity values in the CEH-EUS and conventional EUS groups were 85.8% and 88.3%, respectively (P = .564). All patients in the conventional EUS group and most in the CEH-EUS group received a pathologic diagnosis within 3 needle passes.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic sensitivity for SPLs was not different between the CEH-EUS and conventional EUS groups, and no independent factors were found that could improve diagnostic sensitivity. CEH-EUS-guided FNA/FNB sampling does not need to be used routinely and may be selectively considered for small, indeterminate lesions. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT 0001840.).

Clinical and Technical Guideline for Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-Guided Tissue Acquisition of Pancreatic Solid Tumor: Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE)

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a task force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.

Clinical and Technical Guideline for Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-Guided Tissue Acquisition of Pancreatic Solid Tumor: Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE)

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a task force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.

The evolving role of EUS-guided tissue acquisition

The introduction of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration into clinical practice was a pivotal moment for diagnostic gastrointestinal endoscopy. It facilitates the ease of tissue acquisition from previously inaccessible sites. The performance characteristics of cytological diagnosis are excellent. However, there remain areas of inadequacies. These include procedural inefficiencies such as the need for rapid on-site cytological evaluation or macroscopic on-site evaluation, the crucial role of histology for diagnosis in specific conditions, the issue of sampling errors and the need for repeat procedures, and the shift towards personalized medicine, which requires histology, immunohistochemical studies, and molecular analysis. The original Trucut biopsy needle had been cumbersome to use, but the recent introduction of newer-generation biopsy needles has transformed the landscape, such that there is now a greater focus on tissue acquisition for histological assessment. Concomitant technological advances of endoscopic ultrasound processors enabled higher-resolution imaging, and facilitated image enhancement using contrast harmonic endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic ultrasound elastography. These techniques can be used as an adjunct to guide tissue acquisition in challenging situations. There is ongoing research on the use of artificial intelligence to complement diagnostic endoscopic ultrasound and the early data are promising. Artificial intelligence may be especially important to guide clinical decision-making if biopsy results are nondiagnostic.

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.

Endoscopic ultrasonography-fine needle aspiration of solid pancreatic masses: Do we need the fourth pass? A prospective study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is important for the differential diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions. Sample adequacy is related to the number of needle passes, and European guidelines recommend three to four needle passes with a standard EUS-FNA needle. We aimed to evaluate the optimal number of passes with standard EUS-FNA needles in solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

Patients with solid pancreatic masses without cystic component >20% on computed tomography scan, and without biliary metallic stents, or coagulation problems were included prospectively. Standard 22G needles were used (maximum four passes); each sample was paraffin-embedded and analyzed separately. Final diagnosis was established by EUS-FNA, repeat EUS-FNA, surgery, or follow-up.

RESULTS

Sixty-one of 65 patients were included. The final diagnoses were adenocarcinoma (n = 44, 72%), neuroendocrine tumor (NET) (n = 10, 16%), metastasis (n = 1, 4%) and nonmalignant lesion (n = 6, 10%). Immunohistochemical staining was possible in 17 cases. The diagnosis was established by the first pass in 62% of cases (n = 38), by the second in 15% (n = 9), by the third in 15% (n = 9), and by the fourth in 3% (n = 2). The diagnostic accuracy for all four passes compared to the first three passes was 95% vs 92% (P = .5). The contribution of the fourth pass was not different between adenocarcinoma and NET (2% vs 10%, respectively; P = .667).

CONCLUSION

Three passes with standard EUS-FNA was optimal for a specific diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses, regardless of the histological type of the lesion.

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.).

High expression levels of polymeric immunoglobulin receptor are correlated with chemoresistance and poor prognosis in pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic cancer has extremely poor prognosis, warranting the discovery of novel therapeutic and prognostic markers. The expression of polymeric immunoglobulin receptor (pIgR), a key component of the mucosal immune system, is increased in several cancers. However, its clinical relevance in pancreatic cancer remains unclear. In the present study, the prognostic value of pIgR in pancreatic cancer patients after surgical resection was assessed and it was determined that the expression of pIgR was correlated with poor prognosis. Ten pancreatic cancer patient‑derived xenograft (PDX) lines were established, followed by next‑generation sequencing of tumor tissues from these lines after standard chemotherapy. Immunohistochemical analysis of chemoresistance‑related molecules using 77 pancreatic cancer tissues was also performed. The expression of pIgR mRNA in the PDX group treated with anticancer drugs was higher than in the untreated group. High pIgR expression in tissue specimens from 77 pancreatic cancer patients was significantly associated with poor prognosis and was revealed to be an independent prognostic factor, predicting poor outcomes. High pIgR mRNA and protein levels were independent prognostic factors, indicating that pIgR could be a novel predictor for poor prognosis of pancreatic cancer patients.

Finding a needle in a haystack: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for solid pancreatic masses in the setting of chronic pancreatitis

Background:

The mainstay for the definitive diagnosis of pancreatic lesions is endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). However, there is evidence that EUS-FNA has low sensitivity in the setting of chronic pancreatitis (CP). This single-center retrospective study aimed to compare and analyze the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic lesions in the presence and absence of CP, and to further investigate strategies for overcoming the low diagnostic yield in the setting of CP.

Methods:

This study identified patients who underwent EUS-FNA at Sanford USD Medical Center (SD, USA) for a solid pancreatic lesion between July 15, 2011, and November 30, 2017. Data on demographics, clinical features, cross-sectional imaging findings, EUS findings, cytology/pathology, and clinical follow up were collected.

Results:

The final diagnosis was adenocarcinoma in 156 patients (67%), neuroendocrine tumor in 27 (12%), lymphoma in 6 (3%), metastatic malignancy in 8 (4%), and benign etiologies in 35 (15%). CP was identified in 44/234 (19%) patients. The overall diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy for EUS-FNA were 92.9%, 97.1%, 99.5%, 70.8%, and 93.5%, respectively. The sensitivity (80% vs. 95%, P=0.020) and accuracy (86% vs. 95%, P=0.043) were significantly lower in patients with CP compared to those without CP.

Conclusion:

CP can significantly affect the EUS-FNA diagnostic yield of solid pancreatic neoplasms. A high index of clinical suspicion is required in these cases to make a definitive diagnosis.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy Using 22-Gauge Franseen Needle for the Histological Diagnosis of Solid Lesions: A Multicenter Prospective Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Recently, a novel 22-gauge needle with three symmetric needle points and crown-shaped cutting heels, known as a Franseen needle, has been developed for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB).

AIM

To assess the histological material acquisition rate and histological diagnostic capability of the 22-gauge Franseen needle (AC22) during EUS-FNB for solid lesions.

METHODS

This study was designed as an open-label, multicenter, prospective, single-arm pilot study of EUS-FNB using AC22 for the diagnosis of solid lesions. Three passes of FNB using AC22 were performed for all lesions. The primary endpoints were the histological material acquisition rate and histological diagnostic capability. The secondary endpoints were the technical success rate, quality of histological samples, number of passes for diagnosis, and safety.

RESULTS

Between September 2017 and May 2018, 75 patients were enrolled. The final diagnoses were malignancy in 65 and benign in 10. Three passes of FNB were technically successful in all patients. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for the malignancy of histological analyses were 92.3% (60/65), 100% (10/10), and 93.3% (70/75), respectively, for the first pass and 95.4% (62/65), 100% (10/10), and 96% (72/75), respectively, for combined three passes. The diagnostic yield plateaued after the second pass. Sufficient tissue samples for histological interpretation were obtained in 96% (72/75) and 100% (75/75) patients for the single pass and combined three passes, respectively. Two patients (2.7%) developed mild pancreatitis as an adverse event.

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNB using AC22 showed high histological diagnostic capability with the high first pass yield.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY

UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN ID: UMIN000036641).

Comparison of smear cytology and liquid-based cytology in EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic lesions: experience from a large tertiary center

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Studies comparing the diagnostic efficacy of liquid-based cytology (LBC) and smear cytology (SC) of pancreatic tissue sampling obtained via EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) are still insufficient, mainly because results were controversial. We compared the diagnostic efficiency of LBC and SC of EUS-FNA of pancreatic lesions in one of the largest tertiary hospitals in China.

METHODS

A retrospective database search (January 2015 to January 2019) was performed for patients who underwent EUS-FNA with both LBC and SC. Demographic, cytologic, and endosonographic data were collected from 819 patients; 514 cases met the inclusion criteria. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were compared. Rapid on-site evaluation was not available in all cases.

RESULTS

Three hundred eighty-five cases (74.90%) had confirmed malignancy, and 40 cases (7.78%) confirmed benign neoplasm. Adequate tissue sampling rates showed no significant difference between the 2 groups. The sensitivity, accuracy, and negative predictive value (NPV) of LBC were higher than those of SC with statistical significance (71.4% vs 55.1%, 76.1% vs 61.6%, and 40.6% vs 27.7%, respectively). The sensitivity, accuracy, and NPV of combined SC and LBC were higher than those of LBC alone with statistical significance (83.9% vs 71.4%, 86.5% vs 76.1%, and 56.8% vs 40.6%, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed that pancreatic neck/body/tail lesions (P = .003), solid lesions (P < .001), 22-gauge needle size (P < .001), and number of needle passage >3 (P = .041) were associated with higher diagnostic sensitivity in all participants using LBC, whereas number of needle passage >3 (P = .017) was associated with higher diagnostic sensitivity using SC.

CONCLUSIONS

LBC was more accurate and sensitive than SC in EUS-FNA of pancreatic lesions with higher NPV when rapid on-site evaluation is unavailable. Pancreatic neck/body/tail lesions, solid lesions, 22-gauge needle, and more than 3 passes were associated with higher sensitivity when using LBC. Performing more than 3 passes is associated with higher sensitivity when using SC.

Pitfalls in the MDCT of pancreatic cancer: strategies for minimizing errors

Multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) is a widely used cross-sectional imaging modality for initial evaluation of patients with suspected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). However, diagnosis of PDAC can be challenging due to numerous pitfalls associated with image acquisition and interpretation, including technical factors, imaging features, and cognitive errors. Accurate diagnosis requires familiarity with these pitfalls, as these can be minimized using systematic strategies. Suboptimal acquisition protocols and other technical errors such as motion artifacts and incomplete anatomical coverage increase the risk of misdiagnosis. Interpretation of images can be challenging due to intrinsic tumor features (including small and isoenhancing masses, exophytic masses, subtle pancreatic duct irregularities, and diffuse tumor infiltration), presence of coexisting pathology (including chronic pancreatitis and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm), mimickers of PDAC (including focal fatty infiltration and focal pancreatitis), distracting findings, and satisfaction of search. Awareness of pitfalls associated with the diagnosis of PDAC along with the strategies to avoid them will help radiologists to minimize technical and interpretation errors. Cognizance and mitigation of these errors can lead to earlier PDAC diagnosis and ultimately improve patient prognosis.

Macroscopic on-site evaluation of biopsy specimens for accurate pathological diagnosis during EUS-guided fine needle biopsy using 22-G Franseen needle

Background and Objectives:

Measuring a visible core length during macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) can be useful for accurate diagnoses during an EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). We aimed to estimate visible core cutoff lengths predictive of a correct diagnosis when using 22-gauge Franseen needles for biopsies from pancreatic masses.

Materials and Methods:

We assessed 77 consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNB using 22-gauge Franseen needles for pancreatic masses between March 2018 and October 2018. At least two needle passes were performed in all patients, irrespective of the findings on MOSE. The endoscopists measured the visible cores using a ruler during MOSE. The first two passes were analyzed on a per pass basis, and the correlation between visible core lengths and diagnostic accuracy was evaluated.

Results:

We evaluated 150 needle passes of 75 patients. The accuracy per pass was 92% (138/150). The median length of the visible cores was 15 (range: 0–60) mm and they were significantly longer in the correct diagnosis group than in the incorrect diagnosis group. The accuracy correlated positively with the visible core length. Receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis of the visible core length for accuracy demonstrated an optimal cutoff value of 10 mm. On multivariate logistic regression, visible core lengths >10 mm independently affected the correct diagnosis (odds ratio: 5.1, P = 0.02).

Conclusions:

Visible cores exceeding 10 mm may be useful for correct diagnosis while using a 22-gauge Franseen needle for EUS-FNB from pancreatic masses.

Assessment of preoperative pancreatic biopsy, cytological/histological review of cell-block-specimens obtained by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration: Laboratory-based study

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer is among the most lethal cancers worldwide due to the limited availability of techniques for early detection of signs and symptoms. Reportedly, it is the fourth-leading cause of cancer-related mortality among Japanese adults. With the advent of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for diagnosing pancreatic cancer, the rate of the cytological and histological diagnoses of cell-block-specimens has significantly increased in Japan.

METHODS

The cytological specimens of 165 patients with pancreatic lesions obtained using EUS-FNA between January 2010 and July 2016 at the Kyorin University Hospital were investigated. The clinical course of 153 patients was assessed from their clinical records, which included information on their imaging diagnosis, laboratory data, final clinical diagnosis and treatment; moreover, the accuracy of the cytological/histological examination and clinical diagnosis at our hospital were analysed.

RESULTS

The number of cells in cell-block-specimens was too small to estimate data. However, cytological specimens were sufficient to observe the findings of suspected malignancy such as necrosis. Biopsy was deemed necessary for diagnosis using both histological and cytological specimens.

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNA can be used not only to diagnose benign or malignant types of pancreatic cancers but also to assess the sensitivity of molecular target drugs and chemotherapy methods. Therefore, both histological and cytological diagnoses are required to enhance diagnostic precision both in our hospital and at other institutions.

Analysis of microRNA expression in brush cytology specimens improves the diagnosis of pancreatobiliary cancer

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Malignant pancreatobiliary strictures are in many cases clinically indistinguishable and present a major problem to endoscopy specialists. Intraductal sampling procedures such as brush cytology are commonly used for diagnosis with a sensitivity that is low for a diagnostic test used in daily clinical practice. MicroRNA (miR) alterations detected in many cancers are disease-specific, which can be utilized in clinical applications. The aim of the present study was to analyze whether determination of miR expression levels in intraductal brush cytology specimens is a feasible approach to improve the diagnosis of pancreatobiliary cancer.

METHODS

Brush cytology specimens have been collected during endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) and analyzed by routine cytology and ancillary miR assays. Total RNA was extracted using the miRNeasy Mini Kit and the expression of miRs frequently dysregulated in pancreatobiliary cancer (miR-16, miR-21, miR-196a, miR-221) were analyzed by quantitative real-time PCR using RNU6B as internal control.

RESULTS

Routine cytology resulted in no false positive diagnoses, however, the combined sensitivity remained at 53.8%. Expression (ΔCt values) of miR-16 (p = 0.0039), miR-196a (p = 0.0003) and miR-221 (p = 0.0049) showed a clear statistical significance between malignant and benign pancreatobiliary specimens (n = 35). Malignancy could be detected combining routine cytology and the miR-196a single marker expression levels with a sensitivity of 84.6% (92.9% in biliary strictures) with no false positives.

CONCLUSIONS

The results offer the first direct demonstration that microRNAs are readily detectable in brush cytology specimens obtained during ERCP, and have the potential to help the cytological diagnosis of pancreatobiliary malignancy.

An update on the management of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) are a rare and heterogeneous group of neoplasia and differ in their clinical presentation, behavior, and prognosis based on both histological features and cancer stage at the time of diagnosis. Although small-sized tumors can be surgically resected, locally advanced and metastatic tumors confer a poor prognosis. In addition, only limited treatment options are available to the latter group of patients with PNETs, such as hormonal analogs, cytotoxic agents, and targeted therapy. In selected patients, liver-directed therapies are also used. As expected, clinicians taking care of these patients are challenged to develop an effective and comprehensive treatment strategy for their patients amid a wide variety of treatment modalities. Targeted therapy for PNETs is limited to sunitinib and everolimus. Presently, a number of clinical studies are ongoing to assess the efficacy of newer targeted agents alone and in combination with previous agents for the treatment of advanced PNETs. The authors reviewed the current treatment and also discussed the emerging agents and emphasized the need to identify biomarkers.

Endoscopic ultrasonography in pancreatic diseases: advances in tissue acquisition

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) improved the diagnostic performance and upgraded the role of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) into an interventional modality, able to guide patient management and treatment.This review aimed to highlight the advances, emerging practices, procedural techniques and technological innovations in EUS tissue acquisition in pancreatic diseases. Methods  A thorough review of the literature was performed using PubMed to identify articles that describe techniques, advances, and practices in EUS tissue acquisition in gastrointestinal diseases. Conclusion  Since the first EUS-FNA procedure, EUS guided-tissue acquisition has been evolving continuously. Development of needles with innovative tip design enabled procurement of larger samples with preserved histological architecture. Moreover, sampling techniques and complementary methods, such as contrast harmonic imaging and EUS-elastography, have been introduced in an effort to improve diagnostic performance and sample adequacy.

Diagnostic Endoscopic Ultrasound: Technique, Current Status and Future Directions

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is now well established as an important tool in clinical practice. From purely diagnostic imaging, it has progressed to include tissue acquisition, which provided the basis for therapeutic procedures. Even as interventional EUS developed, there has been ongoing progress in EUS diagnostic capabilities due to improved imaging systems, better needles for tissue acquisition and development of enhanced imaging functions such as contrast harmonic EUS (CHEUS) and EUS elastography. EUS is well established for differentiation of subepithelial lesions, for T-staging of luminal gastrointestinal and pancreaticobiliary malignancies, for differentiation of benign pancreaticobiliary disorders and for diagnostic tissue acquisition, which can be achieved by EUS-guided fine needle aspiration or by EUS-guided fine needle biopsy using dedicated biopsy needles. This review briefly describes the technique of performing EUS and then discusses its clinical utility in terms of gastrointestinal cancer staging, the evaluation of pancreaticobiliary disorders and tissue acquisition. Enhanced imaging techniques such as CHEUS and EUS elastography are briefly reviewed.

Analysis of the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration in patients with a suspected pancreatic malignancy

OBJECTIVES

to determine the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for suspected pancreatic malignancy. As well as to identify factors that affect the incidence of false-negative cases and evaluate the value of repeated EUS-FNA in patients with inconclusive results.

METHODS

we retrospectively evaluated the data of patients who underwent EUS-FNA due to a suspected pancreatic malignancy in our hospital from January 2015 to December 2016.

RESULTS

a total of 194 EUS-FNA procedures performed and 175 cases were analyzed. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy were 83.4% (151/181), 100% (13/13), 100% (151/151), 30.2% (13/43), and 84.5% (164/194), respectively. The combination of cytological and histological examination significantly increased the diagnostic performance compared to either method alone. The diagnostic sensitivity in metastatic tumors was significantly lower than that for adenocarcinoma. EUS-FNA performed using standard needles combined with the "slow-pull" technique had a lower sensitivity than other methods. According to the multivariate analysis, neither the combination of needle type and suction technique nor final diagnosis were independent factors that affected the diagnostic sensitivity. The sensitivity of repeated EUS-FNA was 50.0% (8/16). Definitive results after a repeated puncture were more likely for pancreatic body and tail masses, heterogeneous lesions and poorly demarcated lesions. However, the difference was not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNA was accurate for the evaluation of a suspected pancreatic malignancy. Metastatic tumors and the use of a standard needle in combination with the slow-pull technique may increase the incidence of false-negative results. Repeated EUS-FNA has limited value but should be considered for selected cases where the suspicion of malignancy persists.

Predictive Factors for Inaccurate Diagnosis of Swollen Lymph Nodes in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration

Background/Aims

This study aimed to identify the predictive factors for inaccurate endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) diagnosis of swollen lymph nodes without rapid on-site cytopathological evaluation.

Methods

Eighty-three consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNA for abdominal or mediastinal lymph nodes from January 2008 to June 2017 were included from a prospectively maintained EUS-FNA database and retrospectively reviewed. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of EUS-FNA for the detection of neoplastic diseases were calculated. Candidate factors for inaccurate diagnosis (lymph node size and location, needle type, puncture route, number of passes, and causative disease) were evaluated by comparison between accurately diagnosed cases and others.

Results

The final diagnosis of the punctured lymph node was classified as neoplastic (65 cases: a metastatic lymph node, malignant lymphoma, or Crow-Fukase syndrome) or non-neoplastic (18 cases: a reactive node or amyloidosis). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 83%, 94%, and 86%, respectively. On multivariate analyses, small size of the lymph node was the sole predictive factor for inaccurate EUS-FNA diagnosis with a significant difference (odds ratios, 19.8; 95% confidence intervals, 3.15–124; p=0.0015).

Conclusions

The lymph node size of <16 mm was the only independent factor associated with inaccurate EUS-FNA diagnosis of swollen lymph nodes.

22-Gauge biopsy needles have a better histological diagnostic yield in the discrimination of specific pancreatic solid neoplasms

BACKGROUND

To overcome the limitations of using cytological specimen alone for the diagnosis of challenging pancreatic lesions, biopsy needles have been developed to procure histological specimens during EUS, especially for the discrimination of several specific pancreatic tumors requiring adequate histological samples. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided 22-gauge (G) fine needle aspiration (FNA) needles and 22G fine needle biopsy (FNB) needles for sampling pancreatic masses.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of all EUS-guided sampling performed between November 2012 and April 2016. 422 cases sampled with a 22G FNA needle (N = 254) or a 22G FNB needle (N = 168) were recruited for this study. The specimen quality analyses, technical characteristics, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPVs), and negative predictive values (NPVs) for the pancreatic masses were reviewed and compared.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the procurement of adequate histological specimens (75.0% vs. 79.5%; p = .277) or the presence of diagnostic histological specimens (71.3% vs. 77.4%; p = .155) between FNA and FNB groups, respectively. There were also no significant differences in the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPVs, or NPVs of the cytological, histological, and overall analyses for FNA and FNB groups in the diagnosis of pancreatic malignancy. However, 22G biopsy needles demonstrated a better histological diagnostic yield in the discrimination of pancreatic adenocarcinoma and non-adenocarcinoma pancreatic neoplasms than 22G FNA needles (69.8% vs. 57.9%, p = .033).

CONCLUSIONS

22G FNB needle demonstrated a better histological diagnostic yield in the differentiation between pancreatic adenocarcinoma and non-adenocarcinoma pancreatic neoplasms.

It is necessary to exam bottom and top slide smears of EUS-FNA for pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite many reports on the diagnostic yield of cytology from endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), inter-slide differences are unknown. This prospective study aimed to compare diagnostic yield and cellular characteristics of bottom slides (BS) and top slides (TS) from EUS-FNA cytology performed without an on-site cytopathologist.

METHODS

In patients with suspected pancreatic cancer on previous imaging explorations, a single endoscopist performed EUS-FNA and obtained 2 sets of cytology slide (8 BS and 8 TS), 1 cellblock slide, and 1 biopsy slide. Both slide sets were randomly assigned. A cytopathologist with more than 10 years of expertise in pancreatic cytopathology blindly inspected and compared two slide sets.

RESULTS

In total, 73 specimens [42 head (57.5%), 16 body (21.9%), and 15 tail (20.5%)] were acquired for final analysis. Seventy-one cases were finally diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. The sensitivity and specificity of BS were 80.3% and 100.0%; and of TS 78.9% and 100.0%, respectively. In analyzing inter-slide difference, 66 cases (90.4%) showed consistent results between BS and TS. However, seven (9.6%) were positive only in one slide sets (4 BS and 3 TS). The proportions of specimens more than moderate and high cellularity were 75.3% and 60.3% in both slide sets (P> 0.99), and the proportion of artifact-free sets were 50.7%, and 52.1% for the BS and TS, respectively (P= 0.869).

CONCLUSIONS

Although BS and TS exhibited highly consistent diagnostic yields in cytologic smears from EUS-FNA, the proportion of inter-slide discordance is clinically considerable. Both slide sets need to be examined if there is no on-site cytopathologist.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition Using Fork-Tip Needle Improves Histological Yield, Reduces Needle Passes, Without On-Site Cytopathological Evaluation

Background and Aim: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle biopsy (FNB) and fine needle aspiration (FNA) are established methods in tissue acquisition. A new fork-tip FNB needle has been used to obtain core tissue samples. We compared the performance of the FNB using fork-tip needles with that of the FNA using conventional needles in patients who had solid neoplastic lesions within and around the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract.

Methods: In this retrospective single-center study, patients who underwent EUS examinations for solid neoplastic lesions between October 2013 and February 2017 were included. The procedures were performed in the absence of an on-site cytologist. The main objectives were to compare the diagnostic yield and average number of passes of FNB using fork-tip needles versus those of FNA using conventional needles.

Results: EUS/FNA and EUS/FNB were performed on 181 solid neoplastic lesions primarily in the pancreas and GI tract walls. There was no significant difference in patient's age, gender, tumor location, or tumor size. The mean number of needle passes was significantly lower in the fork-tip needle group than in the conventional needle group (3.8 vs. 5.9; p < 0.0001). There was a trend toward higher sensitivity (89.9% vs. 81%) using the fork-tip needles than when using the conventional needles (p = 0.119). No significant difference in rates of adverse events between two groups was found.

Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that, compared with FNA using conventional needles, FNB using fork-tip needles required significantly fewer needle passes while achieving a relatively higher diagnostic yield due to its superior capacity in tissue acquisition from solid neoplastic lesions in and around GI tract walls without on-site cytological assessment.

How to measure quality in endoscopic ultrasound

Quality is a key focus for gastrointestinal endoscopy and main international gastroenterology societies instituted specific task forces focused on this issue. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) represents one of the most fascinating fields to explore in gastrointestinal endoscopy due to its relatively limited availability out of high-volume centers. This leads to a particular need to define widely accepted quality indicators (QIs) and the ways to measure them. The current manuscript reviews these indicators in light of their impact on common clinical practice.

Rapid on-site evaluation during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of lymph nodes does not increase diagnostic yield: A randomized, multicenter trial

OBJECTIVES

Studies on the impact of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of lymph nodes are retrospective and have shown conflicting results. We aimed to compare the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA of lymph nodes with ROSE (ROSE+) and without ROSE (ROSE-).

METHODS

This was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Consecutive patients who were scheduled to undergo EUS-FNA of mediastinal or abdominal lymph nodes were randomized to ROSE+ or ROSE-. In the ROSE+ group, the number of passes was dictated by the on-site cytotechnician. In the ROSE- group, five passes were performed without interference from the cytotechnician. All samples were reviewed by a single-expert cytopathologist, blinded to group allocation. Primary endpoint was diagnostic yield with and without ROSE.

RESULTS

After inclusion of 90 patients, interim analysis showed futility of study continuation since diagnostic yield of ROSE+ and ROSE- were comparable. A total of 91 patients were randomized to ROSE+ (N = 45) or ROSE- (N = 46). Diagnostic yield of ROSE+ and ROSE- and diagnostic accuracy were comparable: 93.3% vs. 95.7% (P = 0.68) and 97.6% vs. 93.2% (P = 0.62), respectively. Two major complications (one per group) occurred (p = 0.99). ROSE- patients more often reported self-limiting post-procedural pain (p < 0.001). Median procedure time for ROSE+ (20 min) and ROSE- (23 min) was comparable (P = 0.06). Median time to review slides in the ROSE- group (12:47 min) was longer than with ROSE+ (7:52 min) (P < 0.001). Mean costs of ROSE- and ROSE+ were comparable: €938.29 (±172.70) vs. €945.98 (±223.38) (P = 0.91), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic yield and accuracy of EUS-FNA of mediastinal and abdominal lymph nodes with and without ROSE are comparable. Time needed to review slides was shorter and post-procedural pain was less often reported in the ROSE+ group. Based on the primary outcome, the implementation of ROSE during EUS-FNA of mediastinal and abdominal lymph nodes cannot be advised. (Dutch Trial Register: NTR4876).

A quarter century of EUS-FNA: Progress, milestones, and future directions

Tissue acquisition using EUS has considerably evolved since the first EUS-FNA was reported 25 years ago. Its introduction was an important breakthrough in the endoscopic field. EUS-FNA has now become a part of the diagnostic and staging algorithm for the evaluation of benign and malignant diseases of the gastrointestinal tract and of the organs in its proximity, including lung diseases. This review aims to present the history of EUS-FNA development and to provide a perspective on the recent developments in procedural techniques and needle technologies that have significantly extended the role of EUS and its clinical applications. There is a bright future ahead for EUS-FNA in the years to come as extensive research is conducted in this field and various technologies are continuously implemented into clinical practice.

Per-Pass Performance Characteristics of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration of Malignant Solid Pancreatic Masses in a Large Multicenter Cohort

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is widely performed for the evaluation of pancreatic masses. We evaluated the performance characteristics of EUS-FNA in obtaining a diagnosis of pancreatic malignancy.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter study of patients who underwent EUS-FNA for a solid pancreatic mass. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNA was standardized using a 25-gauge needle, slow-pull stylet technique for specimen acquisition, and on-site cytopathology. For the primary analysis, only malignant cytology was regarded as positive. A secondary analysis was performed in which malignant and/or suspicious cytology was regarded as positive.

RESULTS

A total of 138 patients underwent EUS-FNA. In the primary analysis, the sensitivity of EUS-FNA for malignancy was 56.7% on first pass, 73.3% on second pass, 83.3% on third pass, 89.2% on fourth pass, and 90.8% on fifth pass, with no increase beyond the fifth pass. In the secondary analysis, the sensitivity was 75.0% on first pass, 89.2% on second pass, 93.3% on third pass, and 95.8% on fourth pass, with no increase beyond the fourth pass. No significant relationship was seen between lesion size and diagnostic yield.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a 25-gauge needle, the maximal diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA for a solid pancreatic mass is reached after 4 needle passes.

A Multicenter comparative trial of a novel EUS-guided core biopsy needle (SharkCore™) with the 22-gauge needle in patients with solid pancreatic mass lesions

Background and Objectives:

The ability to obtain adequate tissue of solid pancreatic lesions by EUS-guided remains a challenge. The aim of this study was to compare the performance characteristics and safety of EUS-FNA for evaluating solid pancreatic lesions using the standard 22-gauge needle versus a novel EUS biopsy needle.

Methods:

This was a multicenter retrospective study of EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions between 2009 and 2015. Patients underwent EUS-guided sampling with a 22-gauge SharkCore (SC) needle or a standard 22-gauge FNA needle. Technical success, performance characteristics of EUS-FNA, the number of needle passes required to obtain a diagnosis, diagnostic accuracy, and complications were compared.

Results:

A total of 1088 patients (mean age = 66 years; 49% female) with pancreatic masses underwent EUS-guided sampling with a 22-gauge SC needle (n = 115) or a standard 22-gauge FNA needle (n = 973). Technical success was 100%. The frequency of obtaining an adequate cytology by EUS-FNA was similar when using the SC and the standard needle (94.1% vs. 92.7%, respectively). The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA for tissue diagnosis were not significantly different between two needles. Adequate sample collection leading to a definite diagnosis was achieved by the 1^st, 2^nd, and 3^rd pass in 73%, 92%, and 98% of procedures using the SC needle and 20%, 37%, and 94% procedures using the standard needle (P < 0.001), respectively. The median number of passes to obtain a tissue diagnosis using the SC needle was significantly less as compared to the standard needle (1 and 3, respectively; P < 0.001).

Conclusions:

The EUS SC biopsy needle is safe and technically feasible for EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic mass lesions. Preliminary results suggest that the SC needle has a diagnostic yield similar to the standard EUS needle and significantly reduces the number of needle passes required to obtain a tissue diagnosis.

22G versus 25G biopsy needles for EUS-guided tissue sampling of solid pancreatic masses: a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

No comparative study of 22-gauge biopsy needles (PC22) and 25-gauge biopsy needles (PC25) has been conducted. We prospectively compared the diagnostic accuracy of PC22 and PC25 in patients with pancreatic and peripancreatic solid masses.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized noninferiority clinical study from January 2013 to May 2014 at Samsung Medical Center. A cytological and histological specimen of each pass was analyzed separately by an experienced pathologist. The primary outcome was to assess the diagnostic accuracy using the PC22 or PC25. Secondary outcomes included the optimal number of passes for adequate diagnosis, core specimen yield, sample adequacy, and complication rates.

RESULTS

Diagnostic accuracy of combining cytology with histology in three cumulative passes was 97.1% (100/103) for the PC22 and 91.3% (94/103) for the PC25 group. Thus, noninferiority of PC25 to PC22 was not shown with a 10% noninferiority margin (difference, -5.8%; 95% CI, -12.1 to -0.5%). In a pairwise comparison with each needle type, two passes was non-inferior to three passes in the PC22 (96.1% vs. 97.1%; difference, -0.97%; 95% CI -6.63 to 4.69%) but noninferiority of two passes to three passes was not shown in the PC25 group (87.4% vs. 91.3%; difference, -3.88%; 95% CI, -13.5 to 5.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Non-inferiority of PC25 to PC22 diagnostic accuracy was not observed for solid pancreatic or peripancreatic masses without on-site cytology. PC22 may be a more ideal device because only two PC22 needle passes was sufficient to establish an adequate diagnosis, whereas PC25 required three or more needle passes.

II Brazilian consensus statement on endoscopic ultrasonography

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

At the time of its introduction in the early 80s, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) was indicated for diagnostic purposes. Recently, EUS has been employed to assist or to be the main platform of complex therapeutic interventions.

METHODS

From a series of relevant new topics in the literature and based on the need to complement the I Brazilian consensus on EUS, twenty experienced endosonographers identified and reviewed the pertinent literature in databases. The quality of evidence, strength of recommendations, and level of consensus were graded and voted on.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached for eight relevant topics: treatment of gastric varices, staging of nonsmall cell lung cancer, biliary drainage, tissue sampling of subepithelial lesions (SELs), treatment of pancreatic fluid collections, tissue sampling of pancreatic solid lesions, celiac neurolysis, and evaluation of the incidental pancreatic cysts.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a high level of evidence for staging of nonsmall cell lung cancer; biopsy of SELs as the safest method; unilateral and bilateral injection techniques are equivalent for EUS-guided celiac neurolysis, and in patients with visible ganglia, celiac ganglia neurolysis appears to lead to better results. There is a moderate level of evidence for: yield of tissue sampling of pancreatic solid lesions is not influenced by the needle shape, gauge, or employed aspiration technique; EUS-guided and percutaneous biliary drainage present similar clinical success and adverse event rates; plastic and metallic stents are equivalent in the EUS-guided treatment of pancreatic pseudocyst. There is a low level of evidence in the routine use of EUS-guided treatment of gastric varices.

Diagnostic value of CA19.9, circulating tumour DNA and circulating tumour cells in patients with solid pancreatic tumours

Background:

The direct comparison of CA19.9, circulating tumour cells (CTCs) and circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) using endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has never been performed for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic tumours (SPTs).

Methods:

We included 68 patients with a SPT referred for EUS-FNA. CTCs were analysed using size-based platform and ctDNA using digital PCR. The sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values were evaluated for each marker and their combination.

Results:

SPTs corresponded to 58 malignant tumours (52 pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA) and 6 others) and 10 benign lesions. The sensitivity and specificity for PA diagnosis were 73% and 88% for EUS-FNA, 67% and 80% for CTC, 65% and 75% for ctDNA and 79% and 93% for CA19.9, respectively. The positivity of at least 2 markers was associated with a sensitivity and specificity of 78% and 91%, respectively. CtDNA was the only marker associated with overall survival (median 5.2 months for ctDNA+ vs 11.0 months for ctDNA−, P=0.01).

Conclusions:

CA19.9 alone and in combination with ctDNA and/or CTC analysis may represent an efficient method for diagnosing PA in patients with SPTs. Further studies including a larger cohort of patients with both malignant and benign lesions will be necessary to confirm these promising results.

Increasing Number of Passes Beyond 4 Does Not Increase Sensitivity of Detection of Pancreatic Malignancy by Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration

BACKGROUND & AIMS

It is not clear exactly how many passes are required to determine whether pancreatic masses are malignant using endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). We aimed to define the per-pass diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA for establishing the malignancy of a pancreatic mass, and identify factors associated with detection of malignancies.

METHODS

In a prospective study, 239 patients with solid pancreatic masses were randomly assigned to groups that underwent EUS-FNA, with the number of passes determined by an on-site cytopathology evaluation or set at 7 passes, at 3 tertiary referral centers. A final diagnosis of pancreatic malignancy was made based on findings from cytology, surgery, or a follow-up evaluation at least 1 year after EUS-FNA. The cumulative sensitivity of detection of malignancy by EUS-FNA was calculated after each pass; in the primary analysis, lesions categorized as malignant or suspicious were considered as positive findings.

RESULTS

Pancreatic malignancies were found in 202 patients (84.5% of the study population). EUS-FNA detected malignancies with 96% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI], 92%-98%); 4 passes of EUS-FNA detected malignancies with 92% sensitivity (95% CI, 87%-95%). Tumor size greater than 2 cm was the only variable associated with positive results from cytology analysis (odds ratio, 7.8; 95% CI, 1.9-31.6). In masses larger than 2 cm, 4 passes of EUS-FNA detected malignancies with 93% sensitivity (95% CI, 89%-96%) and in masses ≤2 cm, 6 passes was associated with 82% sensitivity (95% CI, 61%-93%). Sensitivity of detection did not increase with increasing number of passes.

CONCLUSIONS

In a prospective study, we found 4 passes of EUS-FNA to be sufficient to detect malignant pancreatic masses; increasing the number of passes did not increase the sensitivity of detection. Tumor size greater than 2 cm was associated with malignancy, and a greater number of passes may be required to evaluate masses 2 cm or less. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01386931.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration versus endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle biopsy in sampling pancreatic masses: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The comparison between endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for the diagnosis of pancreatic masses is still controversial. Many factors can affect the final results.

METHODS

Databases, such as PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Science Citation Index updated from 2000 to 2016 were searched to include eligible articles. In the meta-analysis, the main outcome measurements were the diagnostic accuracy, number of needle passes, specimen adequacy, the rate of complications, and technical success.

RESULTS

Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified, and a total of 921 cases were included in the meta-analysis. The diagnostic accuracy was not significantly different between the FNA and FNB groups. The specimen adequacy was higher in the FNB group compared with the FNA group. The number of needle passes to obtain sufficient tissue was lower in the FNB group. The rate of adverse events and technical success did not significantly differ between the 2 groups. But, the forest plot showed a trend toward lower technical success rate and a trend toward higher diagnostic accuracy in the FNB group, compared with FNA.

CONCLUSION

We provide the evidence that FNB is comparable to FNA in terms of diagnostic accuracy, adverse events, and technical success. FNB gives higher specimen adequacy than that of FNA, despite performance of fewer needle passes.

Circulating tumour cells as a biomarker for diagnosis and staging in pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Current diagnosis and staging of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has important limitations and better biomarkers are needed to guide initial therapy. We investigated the performance of circulating tumour cells (CTCs) as an adjunctive biomarker at the time of disease presentation.

METHODS

Venous blood (VB) was collected prospectively from 100 consecutive, pre-treatment patients with PDAC. Utilising the microfluidic NanoVelcro CTC chip, samples were evaluated for the presence and number of CTCs. KRAS mutation analysis was used to compare the CTCs with primary tumour tissue. CTC enumeration data was then evaluated as a diagnostic and staging biomarker in the setting of PDAC.

RESULTS

We found 100% concordance for KRAS mutation subtype between primary tumour and CTCs in all five patients tested. Evaluation of CTCs as a diagnostic revealed the presence of CTCs in 54/72 patients with confirmed PDAC (sensitivity=75.0%, specificity=96.4%, area under the curve (AUROC)=0.867, 95% CI=0.798-0.935, and P<0.001). Furthermore, a cut-off of ⩾3 CTCs in 4 ml VB was able to discriminate between local/regional and metastatic disease (AUROC=0.885; 95% CI=0.800-0.969; and P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

CTCs appear to function well as a biomarker for diagnosis and staging in PDAC.