The clinical impact of immediate on-site cytopathology evaluation during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic masses: a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial

Diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity of the rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) versus macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling: a systematic review

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is one of the safest minimally invasive modalities for tissue acquisition from submucosal lesions in and near the gastrointestinal tract. Rapid on-site cytologic evaluation (ROSE) is an attempt to improve the efficacy of EUS-FNA. It is a laboratory service that evaluates the cytomorphological features of FNA smears and biopsy touch imprints to offer real-time feedback and guidance during biopsy. The current systematic review compares the effectiveness of ROSE to macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE), focusing on cost, diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity, likelihood of adverse effects and procedure duration. The present systematic review is written following the regulations recommended by the Cochrane and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The databases searched were Cochrane CENTRAL, PubMed and Google Scholar. 16 studies met the inclusion criteria and were selected for this review. The findings established that ROSE aids in the improvement of diagnostic yield during FNA or biopsy procedures. However, it is time consuming, putting pressure on an institution’s resources. The systematic review also established that the ROSE significantly enhances the EUS-FNA procedure. The findings indicated that MOSE reduced procedure time, required fewer needle passes and could be easily accessed. MOSE+fine-needle biopsy demonstrated a shorter procedure time. MOSE is more effective than ROSE due to its accessibility, and fewer needle passes are needed to establish a diagnosis. However, the findings show that MOSE and ROSE display similar diagnostic yield, accuracy, sensitivity and specificity.

Efficacy of Biliary Brush Cytology With Rapid On-Site Cytological Evaluation for the Detection of Malignant Biliary Strictures

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Brush cytology is a widely used diagnostic method in conjunction with intraductal biopsies during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, but its diagnostic yield remains a limitation. This study evaluated the efficacy of biliary cytology using a newly developed brush device with rapid on-site cytological evaluation (ROSE) for detecting malignant biliary strictures (MBSs).

METHODS

In total, 58 patients with suspected intrinsic MBS identified by intraductal ultrasound were enrolled. After achieving tissue sampling with ROSE through a maximum of two brushing passes, a transpapillary forceps biopsy (TPB) was performed. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy, and the secondary outcomes were technical success, sampling adequacy, and procedure-related adverse events.

RESULTS

Biliary cytology with ROSE was technically successful in all patients (58/58), with a sampling adequacy of 96.6% (56/58). The technical success and sampling adequacy of TPB were 94.8% (55/58) and 91.4% (53/58), respectively. Brush cytology with ROSE and TPB yielded sensitivity rates of 91.8% and 85.7%, specificity rates of 88.9% for both, and accuracy rates of 88.9% for both. The receiver operating characteristic curve comparing the diagnostic accuracies of brush cytology with ROSE and TPB combined versus TPB alone showed a significantly higher value for the combined approach (0.93) than TPB alone (0.87) (p = 0.010).

CONCLUSION

Biliary brush cytology using a novel brush device with ROSE is effective and can be used complementarily to TPB in patients with suspected MBS.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Pancreatic Tissue Sampling: Lesion Assessment, Needles, and Techniques

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue sampling includes the techniques of fine needle aspiration (FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB), and both procedures have revolutionized specimen collection from the gastrointestinal tract, especially from remote/inaccessible organs. EUS-FNB has replaced FNA as the procedure of choice for tissue acquisition in solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs) across various society guidelines. FNB specimens provide a larger histological tissue core (preserving tissue architecture) with fewer needle passes, and this is extremely relevant in today's era of precision and personalized molecular medicine. Innovations in needle tip design are constantly under development to maximize diagnostic accuracy by enhancing histological sampling capabilities. But, apart from the basic framework of the needle, various other factors play a role that influence diagnostic outcomes, namely, sampling techniques (fanning, aspiration or suction, and number of passes), collection methods, on-site evaluation (rapid, macroscopic, or visual), and specimen processing. The choice taken depends strongly on the endoscopist's preference, available resources at the disposal, and procedure objectives. Hence, in this review, we explicate in detail the concepts and available literature at our disposal on the topic of EUS-guided pancreatic tissue sampling to best guide any practicing gastroenterologist/endoscopist in a not-to-ideal set-up, which EUS-guided tissue acquisition technique is the "best" for their case to augment their diagnostic outcomes.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of endoscopy in the diagnosis and management of solid pancreatic masses: summary and recommendations

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based approach for the role of endoscopy in the diagnosis and management of pancreatic masses. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and addresses needle selection (fine-needle biopsy [FNB] needle vs FNA needle), needle caliber (22-gauge vs 25-gauge needles), FNB needle type (novel or contemporary [fork-tip and Franseen] vs alternative FNB needle designs), and sample processing (rapid on-site evaluation [ROSE] vs no ROSE). In addition, this guideline addresses stent selection (self-expandable metal stents [SEMS] vs plastic stents), SEMS type (covered [cSEMS] vs uncovered [uSEMS]), and pain management (celiac plexus neurolysis [CPN] vs medical analgesic therapy). In patients with solid pancreatic masses undergoing EUS-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA), the ASGE recommends FNB needles over FNA needles. With regard to needle caliber, the ASGE suggests 22-gauge over 25-gauge needles. When an FNB needle is used, the ASGE recommends using either a fork-tip or a Franseen needle over alternative FNB needle designs. After a sample has been obtained, the ASGE suggests against the routine use of ROSE in patients undergoing an initial EUS-TA of a solid pancreatic mass. In patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction undergoing drainage with ERCP, the ASGE suggests using SEMS over plastic stents. In patients with proven malignancy undergoing SEMS placement, the ASGE suggests using cSEMS over uSEMS. If malignancy has not been histopathologically confirmed, the ASGE recommends against the use of uSEMS. Finally, in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer and abdominal pain, the ASGE suggests the use of CPN as an adjunct for the treatment of abdominal pain. This document outlines the process, analyses, and decision approaches used to reach the final recommendations and represents the official ASGE recommendations on the above topics.

Impact of Slim Linear Echoendoscope on the Practice of EUS

BACKGROUND

Standard linear echoendoscopes have a large distal tip and bending radius, which can preclude adequate examination in some patients.

OBJECTIVE

We examined the impact of having available slim linear echoendoscopes (SLE) on our endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

As a quality improvement measure, data on the need for the use of SLE were documented in 2000 consecutive procedures performed over a 10-month period from February to November 2022. When examination using a standard size echoendoscope failed due to technical limitations, the procedure was reattempted in the same session using a SLE. The main outcome was the impact of SLE, which was defined as the establishment of a new diagnosis or if findings altered treatment plan.

RESULTS

A complete EUS examination failed in 23 of 2000 procedures (1.15%, 95% CI, 0.73-1.72%) performed using standard size echoendoscope (14 male, median age 73 y [IQR 66 to 79]). The examination was technically successful when using SLE in 22 of 23 (95.6%) patients. SLE impacted clinical management in all 22 patients (100%) by establishing tissue diagnosis in 19 and/or altering subsequent treatment plan in 5. Adverse event of transient hypoxia was observed in one patient (4.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

A very experienced EUS team required SLE in 1.1% of consecutive examinations. Our findings suggest that when used, 95% of patients benefitted as it had a significant impact on their clinical management.

Utility of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration in a Paediatric Population: A Single-Centre Experience

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a modern and minimally invasive technique to acquire diagnostic material from within the gastrointestinal tract, as well as from adjacent organs and structures, which can help in the diagnosis and staging of a variety of gastrointestinal malignancies, as well as for non-malignant conditions. Though well described in adults, there is limited literature on the diagnostic utility of EUS-FNA in paediatric patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of EUS-FNA in paediatric patients performed at our centre over the last 17 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After obtaining Institutional Review Board approval, 63 cases of paediatric EUS-FNA performed at SKMCH&RC from 2005 to 2022 were retrieved. A 22-gauge EUS-FNA needle was used for obtaining samples with the use of suction (when required). The sample was then smeared onto glass slides, with half being stained with RAPI stain while the rest with the Papanicolaou stain. Demographic details, indication for the procedure, results of rapid on-site adequacy status (ROSE), site of lesion, and cytological diagnosis were reviewed and analysed.

RESULTS

Of the 63 patients, 55 (87.3%) had an adequate sample (confirmed on ROSE). Forty-two (66.7%) were male and the mean age was 12.4 years. The most frequent indication of EUS-FNA was a sampling of enlarged lymph nodes (74.6%). The most common sites of nodal aspiration were sub-carinal (33.3%) and celiac lymph nodes (14.3%). EUS-FNA of a pancreatic lesion accounted for an additional 17.5% of cases. Involvement by Hodgkin's lymphoma was the most common diagnosis (25.4%) followed by granulomatous inflammation (19.1%). Cases of solid pseudo-papillary tumour (4.8%) and recurrent Wilm's tumour (3.2%) were also diagnosed. No patient suffered complications, and none required hospital admission, post-procedure. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of EUS-FNA were 98.1, 83.3, 96.4, and 90.9%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNA is a safe, well-tolerated, minimally invasive outpatient setting procedure with high sensitivity and significant utility in the diagnosis and staging of disease.

Consensus statements on endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition. Guidelines from the Asian Endoscopic Ultrasound Group

OBJECTIVES

This consensus was developed by the Asian EUS Group (AEG), who aimed to formulate a set of practice guidelines addressing various aspects of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA).

METHODS

The AEG initiated the development of consensus statements and formed an expert panel comprising surgeons, gastroenterologists, and pathologists. Three online consensus meetings were conducted to consolidate the statements and votes. The statements were presented and discussed in the first two consensus meetings and revised according to comments. Final voting was conducted at a third consensus meeting. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system was adopted to define the strength of the recommendations and quality of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 20 clinical questions and statements regarding EUS-TA were formulated. The committee recommended that fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles be preferred over conventional fine-needle aspiration (FNA) needles for EUS-TA of subepithelial lesions. For solid pancreatic masses, rapid on-site evaluation is not routinely recommended when FNB needles are used. For dedicated FNB needles, fork-tip and Franseen-tip needles have essentially equivalent performance.

CONCLUSION

This consensus provides guidance for EUS-TA, thereby enhancing the quality of EUS-TA.

The factors that influence the diagnostic accuracy and sample adequacy of EUS-guided tissue acquisition for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

EUS-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) is the preferred method to acquire pancreatic cancer (PC) tissues. The factors associated with false-negative outcomes and inadequate samples should be explored to gain an understanding of EUS-TA.

METHODS

The patients who underwent EUS-TA for suspected solid PC but whose results were false-negative were analyzed. The PC patients who underwent EUS-TA with true-positive results on the first day of every month during the study period were selected as the control group. The factors influencing diagnostic accuracy and sample adequacy were explored.

RESULTS

From November 2017 to January 2022, 184 patients were included in the false-negative group, and 175 patients were included in the control group. Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated that the recent acute pancreatitis [odds ratio (OR): 0.478, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.250-0.914, P = 0.026] and high echo component within the tumor (OR: 0.103, 95% CI: 0.027-0.400, P = 0.001) were independently associated with false-negative EUS-TA results. Meanwhile, using fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles (OR: 2.270, 95% CI: 1.277-4.035, P = 0.005), more needle passes (OR: 1.651,95% CI: 1.239-2.199, P = 0.005), large tumor size (OR: 1.053, 95% CI: 1.029-1.077, P < 0.001), and high CA-19-9 level (OR: 1.001, 95% CI: 1.000-1.001, P = 0.019) were independently associated with true-positive EUS-TA outcomes. Three needle passes are needed to achieve optimal EUS-TA outcomes. Tumor location in the body/tail (OR: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.01-1.72; P = 0.04), needle passes ≥3 (OR: 1.90; 95% CI: 1.22-2.56; P < 0.001), and using the FNB needle (OR: 2.10; 95%: 1.48-2.85; P < 0.001) were independently related to sample adequacy.

CONCLUSION

Numerous factors were identified to be associated with the diagnostic accuracy and sample adequacy of EUS-TA.

Tissue processing of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration specimens from solid pancreatic lesions

Now that tissue cores can be obtained using fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles, the ways tissues are handled for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) are changing. Direct smear, touch smear of core tissues, and centrifugation have been used for cytological examinations, and liquid-based cytology (LBC), which allows immunostaining and genetic tests that use residual samples, is emerging as an alternative. We emphasize that liquid cytology (Cytospin™ cytology and LBC) is still important, because it enables the diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) when cancerous cells are scarce in specimens. Cell blocks are being replaced by core tissues obtained via FNB needles. Recent reports indicate that rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) is not necessary when FNB needles are used, and macroscopic on-site evaluation is used to evaluate specimen adequacy. Macroscopic findings of specimens are helpful in the diagnostic workup and for clarifying specimen-handling methods. In addition to the red strings and white cores observed in PDAC, mixed red and white strings, gray tissues, and gelatinous tissues are observed. Gray (necrotic) tissues and gelatinous (mucus) tissues are more suitable than histology for cell block or cytological processing. Tumor cells in neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are numerous in red strings but cannot be observed macroscopically. ROSE might thus be necessary for lesions that may be NETs. Core tissues can be used for genetic tests, such as those used for KRAS mutations and comprehensive genomic profiling. Cytological materials, including slides and LBC specimens, can also be genetic test materials.

Methods to increase the diagnostic efficiency of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for solid pancreatic lesions: An updated review

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a means to procure adequate specimens for histological and cytologic analysis. The ideal EUS-FNA should be safe, accurate, and have a high sample adequacy rate and low adverse events rate. In recent years, many guidelines and trials on EUS-FNA have been published. The purpose of this article is to provide an update on the influence of some of the main factors on the diagnostic efficiency of EUS-FNA as well as a rare but serious complication known as needle tract seeding.

Small biopsies for pancreatic lesions: Is there still room for fine needle aspiration?

Pancreatic carcinoma is an aggressive tumour with increasing incidence in both sexes worldwide. Early detection is, therefore, essential for patient management. A recent advancement involves the utilization of larger, thicker gauge needles, which enable the collection of core-type biopsies (FNB). Here, we investigated the role of fine needle aspiration and cytopathology in the diagnostic workflow of pancreatic lesions. A search query was designed to search for articles in the PubMed database comparing FNA and FNB for biopsy of pancreatic lesions, and detailed data were extracted from selected studies. Statistical analyses were performed using the R package meta version 6.2. Twenty-one studies made the final cut for data extraction. Overall, median age was 64.3 years (±6.1; 47.6-71.5), male: female proportion 53.9 (±11.3; 27.6-67.4), lesion size 3.1 cm (±0.5; 1.9-4.2 cm) and percentage of malignant cases 78.3% (±26.8; 2.1-100). FNA and FNB diagnostic yield was 85.8% (±10.3; 70.0-100.0) and 89.2% (±7.7; 70.0-98.6), respectively. Average accuracy was 89.5% (±11.7; 63.0-100.0) for FNA and 90.8% (±7.1; 77.0-100.0) for FNB. Adverse effects rate was 1.0% (±1.3; 0-4.3) for FNA and 2.2% (±4.4; 0-16.1) for FNB. None of the selected variables had a significant statistical difference between both methods. FNA and FNB perform similarly for diagnostic material acquisition in pancreatic lesions. The best outcome comes from the association of both techniques, emphasizing the value of combining cytological and histological morphology for the most accurate analysis.

Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Diagnosis of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the most common (90%) type of solid pancreatic neoplasm. Due to its late presentation and poor survival rate, early diagnosis and timely treatment is of utmost importance for better clinical outcomes. Endoscopic ultrasound provides high-resolution images of the pancreas and has excellent sensitivity in the diagnosis of even small (<2 cm) pancreatic lesions. Apart from imaging, it also has an advantage of tissue acquisition (EUS fine-needle aspiration, FNA; or fine-needle biopsy, FNB) for definitive diagnoses. EUS-guided tissue acquisition plays a crucial role in genomic and molecular studies, which in today's era of personalized medicine, are likely to become important components of PDAC management. With the use of better needle designs and technical advancements, EUS has now become an indispensable tool in the management of PDAC. Lastly, artificial intelligence for the detection of pancreatic lesions and newer automated needles for tissue acquisition will obviate observer dependency in the near future, resulting in the wider dissemination and adoption of this technology for improved outcomes in patients with PDAC.

Risk Factors and Interpretation of Inconclusive Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology in the Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions

BACKGROUND

The inconclusive cytological findings of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) remain a major clinical challenge and often lead to treatment delays.

METHODS

Patients who had undergone EUS-FNA sampling for solid pancreas lesions between 2014 and 2021 were retrospectively enrolled. The "atypical" and "non-diagnostic" categories of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology System were considered inconclusive and the "negative for malignancy" category of malignancy was suspected clinically. We determined the frequency and predictors of inconclusive cytological finding.

RESULTS

A total of 473 first EUS-FNA samples were included, of which 108 cases (22.83%) were inconclusive. Significant increases in the odds of inconclusive cytological findings were observed for lesions with a benign final diagnosis (OR 11.20; 95% CI 6.56-19.54, p < 0.001) as well as with the use of 25 G FNA needles (OR 2.12; 95% CI 1.09-4.01, p = 0.023) compared to 22 G needles. Furthermore, the use of a single EUS-FNA technique compared to the combined use of slow-pull and standard suction techniques (OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.06-2.70, p = 0.027) and less than three punctures per procedure led to an elevation in the risk of inconclusive cytology (OR 2.49; 95% CI 1.49-4.14, p < 0.001). Risk reduction in inconclusive cytology findings was observed in lesions between 2-4 cm (OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.23-0.68, p = 0.001) and >4 cm (OR 0.16; 95% CI 0.08-0.31, p < 0.001) compared to lesions ≤2 cm.

CONCLUSIONS

The more than two punctures per EUS-FNA sampling with larger-diameter needle (19 G or 22 G) using the slow-pull and standard suction techniques in combination may decrease the probability of inconclusive cytological findings.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition Versus Fine Needle Aspiration for Diagnosis of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVES

Compare the 22G needle versus EchoTip ProCore® 20 (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA) on their handling, specimen suitability, amount of tissue obtained, diagnostic performance, the possibility of immunohistochemistry, and rate of adverse events.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective, comparative study of consecutively examined patients with pancreatic masses who underwent endosonography-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) via the 22G needle, and endosonography-guided tissue acquisition (TA) via ProCore 20 (PC20). The operator evaluated needle insertion and subjectively classified the specimen. The pathologist measured the samples, classified the amount of tissue, and determined the influence of bleeding on the interpretation.

RESULTS

A total of 129 patients participated in the study, out of whom 52 underwent endosonography-guided FNA with 22G and 77 underwent endosonography-guided TA with a PC20 needle. Malignant lesions were found in 106, and 23 had benign lesions. The duodenal route was used in 62% of patients. The 22G needle was easier to introduce (p=0.0495). However, PC20 obtained a larger amount (p<0.01) with fewer punctures (p<0.001). The PC20 also yielded a larger average microcore diameter (p=0.0032). Microhistology was adequate for 22G and PC20 in 22 (42.2%) and 50 (78.1%) specimens, respectively (p<0.001). Bleeding was not significantly different (p>0.999). Immunohistochemistry was possible in 36 (69.2%) and 40 (51.9%) specimens obtained by 22G and PC20, respectively (p=0.075). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of 22G were 93.5%, 100%, 100%, 66.7%, and 94.2%, respectively; and for PC20, it was 95%, 100%, 100%, 85%, and 96.1%, respectively. Mild bleeding was the most common early adverse event, occurring in 2/52 (3.8%) 22G and 4/77 (5.2%) PC20 cases (p>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The PC20 required fewer punctures and reduced the need for immunohistochemistry as it yielded better and larger microcores. Its ease of insertion into the target lesion makes it a good option to obtain satisfactory microcore specimens in difficult positions, such as the transduodenal route.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition with or without rapid on-site evaluation for solid pancreatic lesions: five years of experience from a single center

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition (TA) by EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) or fine needle biopsy (FNB) is a standard diagnostic procedure for solid pancreatic lesions. Whether rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) should be used to support EUS-TA remains controversial. Here we assessed the diagnostic performance of EUS-TA with or without self-ROSE for solid pancreatic masses.

METHODS

Three hundred and seventy EUS-TA cases with self-ROSE and 244 cases without ROSE were retrospectively enrolled between August 2018 and June 2022. All procedures including ROSE were performed by the attending endoscopist. Clinical data, EUS characteristics, and diagnostic performance for distinguishing benign from malignant solid pancreatic masses including accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Self-ROSE improved the diagnostic accuracy of solid pancreatic lesions by 16.7% in the EUS-TA group (p < 0.001) and by 18.9% in the EUS-FNA alone group (p < 0.001). Self-ROSE also improved the diagnostic sensitivity by 18.6% in the EUS-TA group (p < 0.001) and by 21.2% in the EUS-FNA alone group (p < 0.001). Improvements in the diagnostic accuracy by self-ROSE in the EUS-FNB group were not significant. 2.2 ± 0.7, 2.4 ± 0.9, 2.3 ± 0.7, 2.5 ± 0.9, 2.1 ± 0.6, and 2.1 ± 0.7 needle passes were required in the EUS-TA, EUS-FNA, and EUS-FNB with or without self-ROSE groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-ROSE significantly improved the accuracy and sensitivity of EUS-FNA alone and EUS-TA diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions and helped to reduce needle passes during the procedure. Whether self-ROSE benefits EUS-FNB and whether EUS-FNB alone is comparable to EUS-FNA with self-ROSE require further clarification.

Macroscopic on‑site quality evaluation of biopsy specimens to improve the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound‑guided fine needle aspiration using a 22‑gauge needle for solid lesions: A single‑center retrospective study

The present study aimed to evaluate the clinical value of macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) of solid masses by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) using a standard 22-gauge needle and to explore the cut-off length of macroscopic visible core (MVC) required to obtain an accurate histopathological diagnosis. In total, 119 patients who satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria and underwent EUS-FNA were divided into conventional FNA and FNA combined with MOSE groups. In the MOSE group, the presence of MVC was examined and its total length measured, after which the pathological results of FNA were compared with the final diagnosis. The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of FNA in the two groups were calculated and the effect of MOSE on the FNA result was analyzed. The MOSE group had a higher diagnostic sensitivity (75.0% vs. 89.8%; P=0.038) and accuracy (74.5% vs. 90.6%; P=0.026). MVC was observed in 98.4% (63/64) of patients in the MOSE group. The median length of MVC was 15 mm. The optimal cut-off length of MVC for obtaining an accurate histological diagnosis was 13 mm, with a sensitivity of 90.2%. No statistically significant significance was observed in the specificity, PPV and NPV between the groups. Thus, MOSE helps to improve the diagnostic ability of FNA for solid masses and may be a useful alternative to assess the adequacy of puncture specimens in units where rapid on-site evaluation cannot be performed.

Application of artificial intelligence to digital-rapid on-site cytopathology evaluation during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration: A proof-of-concept study

BACKGROUND

During endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), cytopathology with rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) can improve diagnostic yield and accuracy. However, ROSE is unavailable in most Asian and European institutions because of the shortage of cytopathologists. Therefore, developing computer-assisted diagnostic tools to replace manual ROSE is crucial. Herein, we reported the validation of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based model (ROSE-AI model) to substitute manual ROSE during EUS-FNA.

METHODS

A total of 467 digitized images from Diff-Quik (D&F)-stained EUS-FNA slides were divided into training (3642 tiles from 367 images) and internal validation (916 tiles from 100 images) datasets. The ROSE-AI model was trained and validated using training and internal validation datasets, respectively. The specificity was emphasized while developing the model. Then, we evaluated the AI model on a 693-image external dataset. We assessed the performance of the AI model to detect cancer cells (CCs) regarding the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV).

RESULTS

The ROSE-AI model achieved an accuracy of 83.4% in the internal validation dataset and 88.7% in the external test dataset. The sensitivity and PPV were 79.1% and 71.7% in internal validation dataset and 78.0% and 60.7% in external test dataset, respectively.

CONCLUSION

We provided a proof of concept that AI can be used to replace manual ROSE during EUS-FNA. The ROSE-AI model can address the shortage of cytopathologists and make ROSE available in more institutes.

Sensitivity of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology and biopsy for a diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A comparative analysis

The utility of endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration cytology (EUS-FNAC) or endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNAB) for diagnosis of small and large pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDACs) remains in question. We addressed this by analyzing 97 definitively diagnosed cases of PDAC, for which both EUS-FNAC and EUS-FNAB had been performed. We subclassified the 97 solid masses into small (n = 35) or large (n = 62) according to the maximum tumor diameter (<24 mm or ≥24 mm) and compared the diagnostic sensitivity (truly positive rate) of EUS-FNAC and of EUS-FNAB for small and large masses. Diagnostic sensitivity of EUS-FNAC did not differ between large and small masses (79.0% vs. 60.0%; p = 0.0763). However, the diagnostic sensitivity of EUS-FNAB was significantly higher for large masses (85.5% vs. 62.9%; p = 0.0213). Accurate EUS-FNAC-based diagnosis appeared to depend on the degree of cytological atypia of cancer cells, which was not associated with quantity of cancer cells. The accuracy of EUS-FNAB-based diagnosis appeared to depend on cancer cell viability in large masses and cancer volume in small masses. Based on the advantages or disadvantages in each modality, both modalities play an important role in the qualitative diagnosis of PDAC as a complementary procedure.

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.

Do Biliary Stents Affect EUS-Guided Tissue Acquisition (EUS-TA) in Solid Pancreatic Lesions Determining Biliary Obstruction? A Literature Review with Meta-Analysis

There is a paucity of evidence regarding whether biliary stents influence endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition using either fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) or fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), among patients with head of pancreas (HOP) lesions. We aimed at assessing the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling in patients with or without bile duct stents. A total of seven studies with 2458 patients were included. The main aim was to assess overall pooled diagnostic accuracy. A pairwise meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model. Outcomes were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We found that pooled accuracy was 85.4% (CI 78.8-91.9) and 88.1% (CI 83.3-92.9) in patients with and without stents, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the two (OR 0.74; p = 0.07). Furthermore, patients with metal stents demonstrated a significant difference (OR 0.54, 0.17-0.97; p = 0.05), which was not seen with plastic stents. EUS-FNB showed poorer diagnostic accuracy with concurrent biliary stenting (OR 0.64, 0.43-0.95; p = 0.03); however, the same was not observed with EUS-FNA. Compared to plastic stents, metal biliary stenting further impacted the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided tissue acquisition for pancreatic head lesions. There was no difference in the rate of procedure-related adverse events between the stent and no-stent groups.

Factors Affecting the Learning Curve in the Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Sampling of Solid Pancreatic Lesions: A Prospective Study

Background/Aims

Endosonography is associated with a long learning curve. We aimed to assess variables that may influence the diagnostic outcomes in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) of solid pancreatic tumors regarding the level of endoscopists' experience.

Methods

Consecutive patients undergoing EUS-guided puncture of solid pancreatic tumors (eight endosonographers, including six trainees) were prospectively enrolled. An experienced endosonographer was defined as having performed at least 250 EUS examinations, including 75 FNA/Bs. The final diagnosis was determined by cytopathology, histopathology, or clinical follow-up.

Results

In total, 283 EUS-FNA/Bs of solid pancreatic tumors (75.6% malignant) in 239 patients (median age 69 years, 57.6% males) were enrolled. Trainees performed 149/283 (52.7%) of the interventions. Accuracy and sensitivity for detecting malignancy were significantly higher in the expert group than in the trainee group (85.8% vs 73.2%, p=0.01 and 82.5% vs 68.4%, p=0.02). Solid lesions evaluated by an expert using FNB needles showed the best odds for a correct diagnosis (odds ratio, 3.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.15 to 8.23; p=0.02). More experienced endoscopists achieved better accuracy in sampling via the transduodenal approach (86.7% vs 68.5%, p<0.001), in the sampling of malignant lesions (82.5 vs 68.4, p=0.02), and in the sampling of lesions located in the pancreatic head (86.1 vs 69.1, p=0.02). In cases involving these factors, we observed a moderate improvement in the diagnostic accuracy after 40 attempts.

Conclusions

Transduodenal approach, pancreatic head lesions, and malignancy were recognized as the most important clinical factors affecting the learning curve in EUS-FNA/B of solid pancreatic lesions.

KRAS Mutation Testing on Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration Samples Improves the Diagnostic Accuracy of Pancreatic Cancer

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) cytology was one of the investigations for pancreatic masses. While the specificity approached 100%, its sensitivity remained low because of high rate of indeterminate and false-negative results. Meanwhile, KRAS gene was frequently mutated in up to 90% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and its precursor lesions. This study aimed to determine whether KRAS mutation analysis could improve the diagnostic sensitivity in EUS-FNA samples for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

The EUS-FNA samples from patients with a pancreatic mass obtained between January 2016 and December 2017 were reviewed retrospectively. The cytology results were classified as malignant, suspicious for malignancy, atypical, negative for malignancy, and nondiagnostic. KRAS mutation testing was performed using polymerase chain reaction followed by Sanger sequencing.

RESULTS

A total of 126 EUS-FNA specimens were reviewed. The overall sensitivity and specificity by cytology alone were 29% and 100%, respectively. When KRAS mutation testing was performed in cases with indeterminate and negative cytology, the sensitivity increased to 74.2%, and the specificity remained at 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

KRAS mutation analysis, especially when performed in cytologically indeterminate cases, improves the diagnostic accuracy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. This may reduce the need to repeat invasive EUS-FNA for diagnosis.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the era of precision medicine

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) currently plays a central role in the diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Although fine-needle aspiration has been the gold standard, novel biopsy needles for fine-needle biopsy (FNB) were developed to overcome its limitations, which include low tumor cellularity and the inability to retain cellular architecture. Following recent improvements in FNB needles, the pathological diagnosis has shifted from cytology to histology and now to genetic diagnosis. Genetic analysis using EUS-TA samples began with a search for the presence of K-ras mutations. However, the introduction of next-generation sequencers has dramatically changed genetic analysis and led to the gradual elucidation of the mechanism of PDAC, enabling personalized medicine by performing multiple gene analyses simultaneously. Comprehensive genomic profiling is currently applied in the clinical setting and there is an increasing need for gene analysis using EUS-TA samples. Although target genome sequencing is feasible even with cytological specimens, it can be difficult to proceed with full genetic analysis including whole-exome sequence or whole-genome sequence if the samples are too small. Genetic analysis will become highly important in determining indications for personalized medicine such as poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors or immune checkpoint inhibitors. Therefore, the endosonographer must always take gene analysis into consideration when collecting samples for diagnosis and further improvement of the puncture technique and needle development are anticipated in the future.

Franseen Needles May Be Promising for Improving the Sampling Adequacy of EUS-FNA for Subepithelial Lesions

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is useful in diagnosing subepithelial lesions (SELs), and adequate tissue sampling is necessary to differentiate between benign and malignant diseases to determine therapeutic strategies. This study aimed to evaluate sampling adequacy and diagnostic performance of EUS-FNA for SELs with Franseen needles. This retrospective study enrolled 130 patients who underwent EUS-FNA with a 22-gauge needle for SELs from January 2010 to March 2021. We compared sampling adequacy and predictive factors influencing the sampling adequacy of EUS-FNA for SELs between Franseen and conventional needles. The sampling adequacy rates were 95.0% (38/40) with Franseen needles and 76.7% (69/90) with conventional needles (p = 0.011). The mean number of punctures with Franseen needles (2.80) was significantly less than that with conventional needles (3.42) (p < 0.001). In the multivariate analysis, the use of Franseen needles (p = 0.029; odds ratio [OR], 5.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18−23.36) was an independent factor influencing the sampling adequacy. Compared to conventional needles, the Franseen needle could play a vital role in accurately diagnosing SELs by yielding better sampling adequacy and reducing the number of passes.

Technical Performance, Overall Accuracy and Complications of EUS-Guided Interventional Procedures: A Dynamic Landscape

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) gained wide acceptance as the diagnostic and minimally invasive therapeutic approach for intra-luminal and extraluminal gastrointestinal, as well as various non-gastrointestinal lesions. Since its introduction, EUS has undergone substantial technological advances. This multi-centric study is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent EUS for the evaluation of lesions located within the gastrointestinal tract and the proximal organs. It aimed to extensively assess in dynamic the dual-center EUS experience over the course of the past 20 years. Hence, we performed a population study and an overall assessment of the EUS procedures. The performance of EUS-FNA/FNB in diagnosing pancreatic neoplasms was evaluated. We also investigated the contribution of associating contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging (CE-EUS) with EUS-FNA/FNB for differentiating solid pancreatic lesions or cystic pancreatic lesions. A total of 2935 patients undergoing EUS between 2002–2021 were included, out of which 1880 were diagnostic EUS and 1052 EUS-FNA/FNB (80% FNA and 20% FNB). Therapeutic procedures performed included endoscopic transmural drainage of pancreatic fluid collections, celiac plexus block and neurolysis, while diagnostic EUS-like CE-EUS (20%) and real-time elastography (12%) were also conducted. Most complications occurred during the first 7 days after EUS-FNA/FNB or pseudocyst drainage. EUS and the additional tools have high technical success rates and low rates of complications. The EUS methods are safe, cost effective and indispensable for the diagnostic or therapeutic management in gastroenterological everyday practice.

Impact of rapid on-site evaluation on diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions: experience from a single center

BACKGROUND

The use of ROSE in EUS-FNA pancreatic lesions is still controversial in many centers. In this study, we aimed to demonstrate the contribution of ROSE to the diagnostic accuracy, as well as its assistance to the pathologist/cytopathologist.

METHODS

162 EUS-FNA biopsies were included in the study. EUS-FNA cytology results were reported according to the six-tiered system of Papanicolaou Cytopathology Society and compared to their final diagnosis with histopathology and/or clinical follow-ups regarding malignancy. The diagnostic yield, the difference in diagnostic accuracy, and the contribution of ROSE to providing the pathologist with adequate tissue uptake (number of slides and cell blocks) for further examination were compared in the ROSE and non-ROSE patient groups.

RESULTS

In the non-ROSE group, the diagnostic accuracy according to the final diagnoses was 96% and the sensitivity was 94.44%, specificity 100%, PPV 100%, NPV 87.50%; while diagnostic accuracy was 97.09%, sensitivity 97.47%, specificity 95.83%, PPV 98.77%, NPV 92% in patients with ROSE. There was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between those with and without ROSE (p: 0.078). In diagnostic cases, the number of passes, slides and cell blocks were significantly higher in patients with ROSE than those without ROSE (p: 0.003, p: 0.007, p: 0.012, respectively). ROSE was independently associated with diagnostic yield when evaluated by number of passes, slides, cell blocks in regression analysis (p: 0.001, OR: 5.07, confidence interval: 1.89-13.5).

CONCLUSION

ROSE may increase the acquisition of sufficient tissue, but it does not have an advantage in diagnostic accuracy. ROSE may raise the number of slides, which may assist the pathologist for the diagnosis. If the lesion is solid and/or contains a solid component, diagnostic yield is higher in patients where ROSE is available. Therefore, ROSE still maintains its applicability in terms of increasing the diagnostic efficiency and making the final diagnosis.

New image‐processing technology for endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle aspiration biopsy specimen evaluation in patients with pancreatic cancer

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Macroscopic visible core length can predict the histological sample quantity in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition: Multicenter prospective study

OBJECTIVES

Measurement of the macroscopic visible core (MVC) length during macroscopic on-site quality evaluation (MOSE) may allow estimation of sample adequacy for next-generation sequencing (NGS), and prediction of correct diagnosis in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) of pancreatic masses.

METHODS

This multicenter prospective study included consecutive patients who underwent EUS-TA for pancreatic masses using a 22-G Franseen needle. MVC length and pathological samples obtained from two needle passes were analyzed on a per-pass basis. Outcome measures included respective correlations of MVC length with histological sample quantity and diagnostic yields.

RESULTS

The analysis included 204 passes from 102 EUS-TAs. MVC length correlated positively with histological sample quantity (P < 0.01). On the receiver operating characteristic curve for MVC length, the cut-off value and area under the curve for obtaining a candidate sample for NGS were 30 mm and 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-0.83), respectively. On multivariate analysis, MVC length ≥30 mm was a significant factor affecting suitability for NGS (odds ratio 6.19; 95% CI 2.72-14.10). Histologic diagnostic yield correlated positively with MVC length (P = 0.01); however, there was no positive correlation between MVC length and overall (histology plus cytology) diagnostic yield.

CONCLUSIONS

Measuring MVC length to predict histological sample quantity on MOSE may be of clinical significance during EUS-TA using a 22-G Franseen needle. It may be an effective method, particularly while submitting samples for NGS.

REGISTRATION

University Hospital Medical Information Network Trials Registry (UMIN000036528).

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.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Predicting Malignancy of Biliary Stricture with a Nomogram in Patients with a Non-Malignant Endoscopic Tissue Diagnosis: A Retrospective Study

Purpose

The accurate differentiation between benign and malignant biliary stricture is significant but challenging. Tissue diagnosis of biliary stricture by endoscopy sampling can provide excellent specificity but insufficient sensitivity. For patients with suspected malignant biliary stricture (MBS) but non-malignant was reported in endoscopy tissue samples, we constructed a nomogram to predict malignancy and improve the overall diagnostic performance.

Patients and Methods

232 patients with suspected MBS and underwent endoscopy tissue sampling from January 2017 to December 2019 were included, among which 123 patients’ endoscopy tissue samples were classified as non-malignant (including atypical, negative for malignancy, and nondiagnostic). Demographics, serum markers, radiological and sampling results of these 123 patients were collected to construct a nomogram using multivariate analysis.

Results

The nomogram was developed based on bilirubin, CA19-9, radiological result, and atypical sampling results and provided an AUC of 0.863 (95% CI 0.795–0.930) for predicting MBS. The specificity, sensitivity, and accuracy of endoscopy tissue diagnosis were 100.00%, 59.90%, and 68.53%, respectively. With the nomogram added, the overall diagnosis specificity, sensitivity, and accuracy were 95.24%, 89.20%, and 90.23%, respectively.

Conclusion

The nomogram can predict malignancy in patients whose endoscopy tissue diagnoses were non-malignant. The overall diagnostic performance was improved with the nomogram added.

Optimal Techniques for EUS-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration of Pancreatic Solid Masses at Facilities without On-Site Cytopathology: Results from Two Prospective Randomised Trials

Background: EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has emerged as the primary modality for the cytologic diagnosis of pancreatic solid masses. The aim of this study is to determine whether technical factors including suction (S), non-suction (NS), capillary sampling with stylet slow-pull (CSSS), and the number of needle actuations (to-and-fro needle movements) may affect the accuracy of EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid masses at facilities without on-site cytopathology. Methods: The diagnostic yield of malignancy, blood contamination and cellularity at each sample acquired from EUS-FNA with or without S and different numbers of actuation (10, 15 and 20) were measured (study I). The optimal actuation number was determined and a head-to-head comparison trial between S and CSSS was performed (study II). Results: In study I, significant blood contamination was seen using S with 20 compared with 15 actuations (p = 0.002). Diagnostic yield of malignancy was not significantly different between 10, 15, and 20 actuations with S, whereas it was statistically higher for 15 actuations compared with 10 actuations with NS (p = 0.001). In study II, no difference was noted in diagnostic yield with 15 actuations between S and CSSS (88% vs. 90%, p = 0.74). Conclusions: Increasing actuation in NS resulted in a better diagnostic yield for EUS-FNA without significant blood contamination, whereas increasing actuation in S did not change the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA while causing significant blood contamination. With 15 actuations, the diagnostic yield was comparable between S and CSSS.

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.).

Role of fluorescence confocal microscopy for rapid evaluation of EUS fine-needle biopsy sampling in pancreatic solid lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EUS fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) sampling is the standard procedure for diagnosis of pancreatic lesions. Fluorescence confocal microscopy (FCM) allows imaging of tissues in the fresh state, requiring minimal preparation without damage or loss of tissue. Until now, no data exist on FCM in the field of microhistologic specimens. We aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of FCM in predicting histologic adequacy of EUS-FNB samples in pancreatic solid lesions and to assess the agreement between FCM evaluation and final histology.

METHODS

In this single-center prospective study on consecutive patients with pancreatic lesions receiving EUS-FNB, the obtained samples have been evaluated at FCM and classified as "inadequate" or "adequate" (benign, suspicious, or malignant). The kappa test was used to quantify agreement. The diagnostic accuracy of FCM was assessed. A P < .05 was considered to be statistically significant.

RESULTS

From April 2020 to September 2020, 81 patients were enrolled. In all cases FCM showed the macro image of the sample and created a digital image. Of the samples, 92.6% was defined as adequate at the FCM evaluation and confirmed at histopathology. Histologic diagnoses were 8% benign, 17.3% atypical/suspicious, and 74.7% malignant with satisfactory agreement with the FCM evaluation (Cohen's κ coefficient, .95; 95% confidence interval [CI], .89-1.01; P = .001). The sensitivity of the FCM evaluation was 100% (95% CI, 95%-100%), specificity 66.7% (95% CI, 22.3%-95.7%), accuracy 97% (95% CI, 90.7%-99.7%), positive predictive value 97% (95% CI, 91.8%-99%), and negative predictive value 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

FCM represents a new technique successfully applicable to microhistologic specimens. It provides fast information about sample adequacy in small specimens with good agreement in the final histology.

[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.

Performance of a new flexible 19 G EUS needle in pancreatic solid lesions located in the head and uncinate process: A prospective multicenter study

Background and study aims  The poor flexibility of large-bore EUS needles often leads to technical failure when sampling from the duodenum. The aim of this study was to evaluate the technical and diagnostic performances of a new Menghini tip 19G nitinol EUS needle for sampling pancreatic solid lesions in the head and uncinate process. Patients and methods  This was a European prospective multicenter single-arm study. A maximum of four passes were allowed. In case of failure, different needles were permitted. Results  We included 75 patients (51 % males) with lesions in the head (n = 68; 91 %) and uncinate process (n = 7; 9 %) (mean size: 33 ± 12 mm; number of passes: 1.8 ± 0.9). Technical success was seen in 71 of 75 (94.7 %). Diagnostic rates were 89.3 % (67/75) and 94.4 % (67/71) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analysis, respectively. In the eight cases with failure, diagnosis was obtained with another needle (n = 4), from another lesion (n = 3) or with follow-up (n = 1). A histological sample was obtained in 64 patients (ITT 85.3 % and PP 90 %) and immunohistochemistry was successfully performed in 13 of 15 lesions in which it was required. No differences between rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) and non-ROSE groups were observed regarding diagnostic success (87.5 % vs 91 %, P  = 0.582) and diagnosis at the first pass (70 % vs 81 %, P  = 0.289). Number of passes was lower in the ROSE group (1.4 + 0.9 vs 2.2 + 0.7, P  < 0.001). One adverse event was recorded (1.3 %) consisting in a duodenal perforation after a single session EUS-ERCP. Conclusions  The new nitinol Menghini tip 19G EUS needle showed high technical diagnostic success in safely sampling solid lesions in the head and uncinate process of the pancreas.

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.).

[Preoperative diagnostics of pancreatic neoplasms]

While patients with clinico-radiologically diagnosed resectable pancreatic cancer usually undergo surgery without preoperative cytological or histopathological diagnostics, patients with inoperable tumors or ambiguous findings in imaging often undergo EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB (endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration or endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy). In many cases, this concerns pancreatic cystic lesions, which can range from benign inflammatory pseudocysts to invasive pancreatic cancer emerging from intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) or mucinous cystic neoplasms (MCNs). However, the evaluation of EUS-FNA material can be especially hampered by contamination with gastric or enteric cells or mucin, degenerative changes, or low or even no cellularity of the sample. Next-generation-sequencing-based molecular analyses, especially of cystic lesions, can significantly increase the accuracy of EUS-FNA diagnostics of the pancreas. Interpretation of morphological and molecular data considering each case's clinico-radiological context is crucial. While reliable molecular markers for the detection of mucinous and specific nonmucinous pancreatic neoplasms already exist, establishing valid markers for the detection of high-grade lesions is an urgent future goal.

Contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration versus standard fine-needle aspiration in pancreatic masses: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

It is still unclear whether endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) contrast-enhanced fine-needle aspiration (CH-EUS-FNA) determines superior results in comparison to standard EUS-FNA in tissue acquisition of pancreatic masses. Aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the diagnostic outcomes of these two techniques.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed/Medline and Embase database through October 2020 and identified 6 studies, of which 2 randomized controlled trials (recruiting 701 patients). We performed pairwise meta-analysis through a random effects model and expressed data as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Pooled diagnostic sensitivity was 84.6% (95% CI 80.7%-88.6%) with CH-EUS-FNA and 75.3% (67%-83.5%) with EUS-FNA, with evidence of a significant superiority of the former (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.26-2.40; p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis confirmed the superiority of CH-EUS-FNA over EUS-FNA only in larger lesions. Pooled diagnostic accuracy was 88.8% (85.6%-91.9%) in CH-EUS-FNA group and 83.6% (79.4%-87.8%) in EUS-FNA group (OR 1.52, 1.01-2.31; p = 0.05). Pooled sample adequacy was 95.1% (91.1%-99.1%) with CH-EUS-FNA and 89.4% (81%-97.8%) with EUS-FNA (OR 2.40, 1.38-4.17; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

CH-EUS-FNA seems to be superior to standard EUS-FNA in patients with pancreatic masses. Further trials are needed to confirm these results.

Comparative diagnostic accuracy of EUS needles in solid pancreatic masses: a network meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue sampling is the standard of care for diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions. While many two-way comparisons between needle types have been made in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it is unclear which size and type of needle offers the best probability of diagnosis. We therefore performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare different sized and shaped needles to rank the diagnostic performance of each needle. Methods  We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases through August, 2020 for RCTs that compared the diagnostic accuracy of EUS fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and biopsy (FNB) needles in solid pancreatic masses. Using a random-effects NMA under the frequentist framework, RCTs were analyzed to identify the best needle type and sampling technique. Performance scores (P-scores) were used to rank the different needles based on pooled diagnostic accuracy. The NMA model was used to calculate pairwise relative risk (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals. Results  Review of 2577 studies yielded 29 RCTs for quantitative synthesis, comparing 13 different needle types. All 22G FNB needles had an RR > 1 compared to the reference 22G FNA (Cook) needle. The highest P-scores were seen with the 22G Medtronic FNB needle (0.9279), followed by the 22G Olympus FNB needle (0.8962) and the 22G Boston Scientific FNB needle (0.8739). Diagnostic accuracy was not significantly different between needles with or without suction. Conclusions  In comparison to FNA needles, FNB needles offer the highest diagnostic performance in sampling pancreatic masses, particularly with 22G FNB needles.

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.

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.