A prospective study comparing rapid assessment of smears and ThinPrep for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspirates

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.

Evaluation of the diagnostic efficacy of liquid-based cytology obtained via percutaneous ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic masses: a large tertiary center's 8-year experience

PURPOSE

There were limited data on the diagnostic efficacy of liquid-based cytology (LBC) for pancreatic tissues acquired by percutaneous ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (US-FNA). This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of LBC acquired via percutaneous US-FNA for pancreatic tumors compared with LBC combined with smear cytology (SC).

METHODS

A retrospective database search (January 2014 and February 2022) was performed for patients who underwent percutaneous US-FNA with both LBC and SC. Clinical and pathological data were collected from 298 patients; eventually, 251 cases met the inclusion criteria. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were compared. Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) was not available in all cases.

RESULTS

Based on the pancreaticobiliary cytology guidelines published by the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology, 224 (89.2%), 13 (5.2%) and 14 (5.6%) cases were diagnosed as malignant, pre-malignant and benign lesions, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of the LBC + SC (88.5%) was better than that of LBC (87.3%) but without statistical significance (P = 0.125). The SEN, SPE, PPV and NPV were 87.5%, 85.2%, 98.0% and 45.1%, respectively, in the LBC group and 88.8%, 85.2%, 98.0% and 47.9%, respectively, in the LBC + SC group. According to univariate and multivariate analyses, there were no factors have significant association with the diagnostic sensitivity of LBC.

CONCLUSIONS

LBC obtained via percutaneous US-FNA provides good diagnostic value for pancreatic lesions and there was no significant difference between the diagnostic accuracy of LBC and LBC + SC when ROSE was unavailable.

A prospective randomized noninferiority trial comparing conventional smears and SurePathTM liquid-based cytology in endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of esophageal, gastric, and duodenal lesions

BACKGROUND

Several liquid-based cytology (LBC) methods are currently used, but the diagnostic accuracy of each method is not well known. We aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of SurePathTM LBC and conventional smear (CS) cytology in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) samples of esophageal, gastric, and duodenal lesions.

METHODS

As a prospective randomized noninferiority study, patients who needed EUS-FNA due to subepithelial mass in the upper gastrointestinal tract were randomly assigned 1:1 to the LBC and CS groups. Cytologic preparation was carried out using a crossover design where 1 method was used for the first needle-pass sample and another method was used for the second needle-pass sample. The primary outcome was to compare the diagnostic performance between LBC and CS using the final diagnosis as the gold standard.

RESULTS

A total of 87 patients were randomized and 60 patients were analyzed. There were no differences between LBC and CS in diagnostic accuracy (91.7% vs 86.7%, P = .380), sensitivity (97.7% vs 90.7%, P = .169), specificity (76.5% vs 76.5%, P > .99), negative predictive value (92.9% vs 76.5%, P = .225), or positive predictive value (91.3% vs 90.7%, P = .921). The background of LBC was less bloody than that of CSs (5.0% vs 53.3%, P < .001) and the sample preparation time of LBC was shorter than that of CSs (29 ± 7 seconds vs 90 ± 17 seconds, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

In the EUS-FNA of a subepithelial mass in the upper gastrointestinal tract, the diagnostic performance of LBC was not inferior to that of CS. The field of view was better in LBC, because the background was less bloody and necrotic. As LBC is more convenient to perform and takes shorter time, it is expected that it can replace the CS method for EUS-FNA samples.

Current Practice Patterns of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Sampling for Pancreatic Solid Mass in Korea: Outcomes of a National Survey

Background/Aims

Although endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) are widely used for tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid mass, the optimal strategy of this procedure has not been established yet. The aim of this nationwide study was to investigate the current practice patterns of EUS-FNA/FNB for pancreatic solid mass in Korea.

Methods

The Policy-Quality Management of the Korean Pancreatobiliary Association (KPBA) developed a questionnaire containing 22 questions. An electronic survey consisting of the questionnaire was distributed by e-mail to members registered to the KPBA.

Results

A total of 101 respondents completed the survey. Eighty respondents (79.2%) performed preoperative EUS-FNA/FNB for operable pancreatic solid mass. Acquire needles (60.4%) were used the most, followed by ProCore needles (47.5%). In terms of need size, most respondents (>80%) preferred 22-gauge needles regardless of the location of the mass. Negative suction with a 10-mL syringe (71.3%) as sampling technique was followed by stylet slow-pull (41.6%). More than three needle passes for EUS-FNA/FNB was performed by most respondents (>80%). The frequency of requiring repeated procedure was significantly higher in respondents with a low individual volume (<5 per month, p=0.001). Prophylactic antibiotics were routinely used in 39 respondents (38.6%); rapid on-site pathologic evaluation was used in 6.1%.

Conclusions

According to this survey, practices of EUS-FNA/FNB for pancreatic solid mass varied substantially, some of which differed considerably from the recommendations present in existing guidelines. These results suggest that the development of evidence-based quality guidelines fitting Korean clinical practice is needed to establish the optimal strategy for this procedure.

The usefulness of liquid-based cytology for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic masses

Liquid-based cytology (LBC) is used primarily for cervical cytology, although it is also used for analyzing liquid samples such as urine and ascites specimens, as well as fine needle aspiration material, such as those obtained from breast and thyroid. The usefulness of the LBC method for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) of solid pancreatic masses was recently reported. The LBC method can produce multiple pathological slides and can be applied to immunocytochemistry and genetic analyses. In this article, we review the usefulness of LBC for EUS-TA of solid pancreatic masses.

[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.

Comparison of smear cytology with liquid-based cytology in pancreatic lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a safe and accurate technique to confirm the diagnosis of pancreatic cancers. Recently, numerous studies comparing the diagnostic efficacy of smear cytology (SC) and liquid-based cytology (LBC) for pancreatic lesions yielded mixed results.

AIM

To compare and identify the better cytology method for EUS-FNA in pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane was undertaken through July 18, 2020. The primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity). Secondary outcomes included sample adequacy and post procedure complications. In addition, factors affecting diagnostic efficacy were discussed.

RESULTS

Data on a total of 1121 comparisons from 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. Pooled rates of sensitivity for SC and LBC were 78% (67%-87%) vs 75% (67%-81%), respectively. In any case, both SC and LBC exhibited a high specificity close to 100%. Inadequate samples more often appeared in LBC compared with SC. However, the LBC samples exhibited a better visual field than SC. Very few post procedure complications were observed.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggested that for EUS-FNA in pancreatic lesions (particularly solid lesions), SC with Rapid On-Site Evaluation represents a superior diagnostic technique. If Rapid On-Site Evaluation is unavailable, LBC may replace smears. The diagnostic accuracy of LBC depends on different LBC techniques.

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. (Gut Liver 2021;15:-374)

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 8 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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Diagnostic value of liquid-based cytology and smear cytology in pancreatic endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Smear cytology (SC) using endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the established and traditional choice for diagnosing pancreatic lesions. Liquid-based cytology (LBC) is a novel alternative cytological method, however, the comparative diagnostic efficacy of LBC remains inconclusive.

AIM

To examine the diagnostic efficacy of LBC and SC for pancreatic specimens obtained through EUS-FNA via a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. The numbers of true positives, false positives, true negatives, and false negatives for each cytological test (LBC and CS) were extracted from the included studies. The pooled sensitivity and specificity and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated, and the AUC was compared by Tukey's multiple comparisons test. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies II tool.

RESULTS

A total of 1656 patients in eight studies were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity and the AUC for LBC were 0.76 (95%CI: 0.72-0.79), 1.00 (95%CI: 0.98-1.00), and 0.9174, respectively, for diagnosing pancreatic lesions. The pooled estimates for SC were as follows: Sensitivity, 0.68 (95%CI: 0.64-0.71); specificity, 0.99 (95%CI: 0.96-100.00); and AUC, 0.9714. Similarly, the corresponding values for LBC combined with SC were 0.87 (95%CI: 0.84-0.90), 0.99 (95%CI: 0.96-1.00), and 0.9894. Tukey’s multiple comparisons test was used to compare the sensitivities and AUCs of the three diagnostic methods; statistically significant differences were found between the three methods, and LBC combined with SC was superior to both LBC (P < 0.05) and SC (P < 0.05). The pooled sensitivity and AUC did not change significantly in the sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSION

LBC may be sensitive than SC in the cytological diagnosis of pancreatic lesions, however, the superior diagnostic performance of their combination emphasizes their integrated usage in the clinical evaluation of pancreatic lesions.

Comparison between Conventional Smear and Liquid-Based Preparation in Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology of Pancreatic Lesions

The present study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy between conventional smear (CS) and liquid-based preparation (LBP) in endoscopic ultrasonography-fine needle aspiration cytology (EUS-FNAC) of pancreatic lesions. Using 31 eligible studies, the diagnostic accuracy of cytologic examination in CS and LBP was evaluated through a conventional meta-analysis and diagnostic test accuracy review. Overall concordance rates were 82.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 79.8–85.5%) and 94.0% (95% CI, 84.4–97.8%) in CS and LBP, respectively. CS with rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) showed a higher concordance rate than CS without ROSE. In CS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 89.8% (95% CI, 85.2–93.1%) and 95.0% (95% CI, 90.0–97.6%), respectively. The diagnostic odds ratio (OR) and area under curve (AUC) of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve were 90.32 (95% CI, 43.85–147.11) and 0.945, respectively. In LBP, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 80.9% (95% CI, 69.7–88.7%) and 99.9% (95% CI, 1.5–100.0%), respectively. The diagnostic OR and AUC of the SROC curve were 57.21 (95% CI, 23.61–138.64) and 0.939, respectively. Higher concordance rates were found in CS with ROSE and LBP in EUS-FNAC of pancreatic lesions. Regardless of the cytologic preparation method, EUS-FNAC is a useful and accurate diagnostic tool for pancreatic lesions.

Comparison of liquid-based cytology with conventional smear cytology for EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: a prospective randomized noninferiority study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There are limited data on the efficacy of liquid-based cytology (LBC) for EUS-guided FNA specimens. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of LBC for solid pancreatic neoplasms compared with conventional smears (CSs).

METHODS

In this randomized, crossover, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned (1:1) patients with suspected pancreatic cancer to the LBC group or the CS group. Aspirates from the first needle pass were processed by one method, aspirates from the second pass by the other method, and specimens from the last pass were processed as core biopsy samples. The primary endpoint was the diagnostic efficacy of each method, with the final diagnosis as the gold standard. A noninferiority margin of -10% was assumed.

RESULTS

Of 170 randomized patients, 165 were classified as malignant and 5 as benign. Unsatisfactory samples were less frequent in the LBC group (1.78%) compared with the CS group (5.33%). The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of LBC versus CS were 88.0% versus 83.8% (P = .276), 87.7% versus 83.2% (P = .256), 100% versus 100% (P = .999), 100% versus 100% (P = .999), and 16.7% versus 16.1% (P = .953), respectively. A bloody background was significantly more frequent in the CS group (CS, 85.2%; LBC, 1.8%; P < .001), whereas the nuclear features were similar for both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnostic usefulness of LBC was comparable with that of CS. The cytomorphologic features did not differ significantly between the 2 methods, and the reduced bloody backgrounds allowed better visibility in the LBC method. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03606148.).

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.

Diagnostic yield and agreement on fine-needle specimens from solid pancreatic lesions : comparing the smear technique to liquid-based cytology

Background and study aims  The traditional "smear technique" for processing and assessing endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is sensitive to artifacts. Processing and evaluation of specimens collected in a liquid medium, liquid-based cytology (LBC) may be a solution. We compared the diagnostic value of EUS-FNA smears to LBC in pancreatic solid lesions in the absence of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE). Patients and methods  Consecutive patients who required EUS-FNA of a solid pancreatic lesion were included in seven hospitals in the Netherlands and followed for at least 12 months. Specimens from the first pass were split into two smears and a vial for LBC (using ThinPrep and/or Cell block). Smear and LBC were compared in terms of diagnostic accuracy for malignancy, sample quality, and diagnostic agreement between three cytopathologists. Results  Diagnostic accuracy for malignancy was higher for LBC (82 % (58/71)) than for smear (66 % (47/71), P  = 0.04), but did not differ when smears were compared to ThinPrep (71 % (30/42), P  = 0.56) or Cell block (62 % (39/63), P  = 0.61) individually. Artifacts were less often present in ThinPrep (57 % (24/42), P  = 0.02) or Cell block samples (40 % (25/63), P  < 0.001) than smears (76 % (54/71)). Agreement on malignancy was equally good for smears and LBC (ĸ = 0.71 versus ĸ = 0.70, P  = 0.98), but lower for ThinPrep (ĸ = 0.26, P  = 0.01) than smears. Conclusion  After a single pass, LBC provides higher diagnostic accuracy than the conventional smear technique for EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions in the absence of ROSE. Therefore, LBC, may be an alternative to the conventional smear technique, especially in centers lacking ROSE.

Diagnostic efficacy of smear plus liquid-based cytology for EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions: A propensity-matched study

Liquid-based cytology (LBC) is a thin-layer slide preparation procedure that was developed to overcome the cell crowding and contamination associated with smear cytology (SC). The present study compared diagnostic efficacy between SC alone and SC combined with LBC (SLBC) using endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) samples of pancreatic lesions.We retrospectively analyzed data derived from 311 consecutive patients. Specimens obtained via EUS-FNA from 179 patients between December 2011 and May 2016 were analyzed by SC, and those obtained from 132 patients between June 2016 and October 2017 were analyzed by SLBC. The 2 groups were compared in terms of adequate sample rate, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity using propensity score matching.SC and SLBC were compared using propensity score-matching in 204 patients (n = 102 per group). The adequate sample rate did not differ significantly between SLBC (100%) and SC (99.0%, P = 1). Diagnostic sensitivity, negative predictive value and accuracy were better for SLBC than for SC in terms of cytological (93.2% vs 67.4%, 68.4% vs 23.1%, and 94.1% vs 69.6%, P < .01 each, respectively) and cytohistological (95.5% vs 81.5%, 76.5% vs 34.6%, and 96.1% vs 82.4%, P < .01, P = .02, and P < .01, respectively) analyses.SLBC improves the diagnostic efficacy of EUS-FNA for pancreatic lesions compared to LBC.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration with liquid-based cytology preparation in the diagnosis of metastatic small-cell carcinoma in the pancreas

Pancreatic metastasis is extremely rare, particularly from small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Studies on the role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) with liquid-based cytology (LBC) in the diagnosis of metastatic small-cell carcinoma in the pancreas have been rarely conducted. We report herein a case of pancreatic metastasis from SCLC diagnosed using EUS-FNA with LBC (ThinPrep). A 71-year-old man presented with chief complaints of hemoptysis and jaundice over the past 1 month. Lung & pancreas tumors with multiple liver nodules were detected on computed tomography. The aspirated material from the pancreas using EUS-FNA was prepared as a cytologic specimen with ThinPrep method, which revealed scattered and clustered "small blue cells" with scant cytoplasm and stippled chromatin with frequent apoptotic bodies. Immunocytochemical staining of the cellblock material revealed strong positivity for CD56 and thyroid transcription factor-1. Endobronchial biopsy for lung mass revealed nests of small, round, blue tumor cells with hyperchromatic nuclei showing salt and pepper chromatin, scant cytoplasm, and brisk mitotic activity. Therefore, a diagnosis of metastatic small-cell carcinoma to the pancreas with an extensive stage was finally made.

Comparison of liquid-based cytology (CellPrepPlus) and conventional smears in pancreaticobiliary disease

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUSFNA) and brushing cytology are used worldwide to diagnose pancreatic and biliary malignant tumors. Liquid-based cytology (LBC) has been developed and it is currently used to overcome the limitations of conventional smears (CS). In this study, the authors aimed to compare the diagnostic value of the CellPrepPlus (CP; Biodyne) LBC method with CS in samples obtained using EUS-FNA and brushing cytology.

METHODS

This study prospectively enrolled 75 patients with pancreatic or biliary lesions from June 2012 to October 2013. For cytological analyses, including inadequate specimens, benign and atypical were further classified into benign, and suspicious and malignant were subcategorized as malignant. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive predictive values (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were evaluated.

RESULTS

In the EUS-FNA based cytological analysis of pancreatic specimens, CP had a sensitivity of 60.7%; specificity, 100%; accuracy, 77.1%; PPV, 100%; and NPV, 64.5%. CS had a sensitivity of 85.7%; specificity, 100%; accuracy, 91.7%; PPV, 100%; and NPV, 83.3%. In the brushing cytology based analysis of biliary specimens, CP had sensitivity of 53.1%; specificity, 100%; accuracy, 54.5%; PPV, 100%; and NPV, 6.3%. CS had a sensitivity of 78.1%; specificity, 100%; accuracy, 78.8%; PPV, 100%; and NPV, 12.5%.

CONCLUSION

Our study found that CP had a lower sensitivity because of low cellularity compared with CS. Therefore, CP (LBC) has a lower diagnostic accuracy for pancreatic EUS-FNA based and biliary brush cytology based analyses compared with CS.

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

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

Present status and perspectives of endosonography 2017 in gastroenterology

Endoscopic ultrasound has become an essential tool in modern gastroenterology and abdominal surgery. Compared with all other endoscopic methods, it has the most potential for innovation and its future looks bright. Thus, we compiled this summary of established and novel applications of endoscopic ultrasound methods to inform the reader about what is already possible and where future developments will lead in improving patient care further. This review is structured in four parts. The first section reports on developments in diagnostic endoscopic ultrasound, the second looks at semi-invasive endoscopic ultrasound, and the third discusses advances in therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound. An overview on the future prospects of endoscopic ultrasound methods concludes this article.

Diagnostic efficacy of liquid-based cytology for solid pancreatic lesion samples obtained with endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration: Propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

There is a paucity of data on the diagnostic efficacy of liquid-based cytology (LBC) for pancreatic samples obtained by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). Using propensity score matching, we retrospectively analyzed the additional diagnostic value of LBC compared to a conventional Papanicolaou smear (CPS) for samples of solid pancreatic lesions obtained by EUS-FNA.

METHODS

This cohort study included 126 matched patients who underwent initial EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic lesions between January 2009 and August 2014. CPS was used for cytology of EUS-FNA samples obtained until May 2012 (63 patients). Subsequently, LBC was used for cytological analysis (63 patients). Diagnostic yields of CPS and LBC for malignancy were compared. Risk factors for cytological misdiagnosis with LBC were investigated.

RESULTS

Overall rate of malignancy was 86% after matching. LBC had higher diagnostic sensitivity and accuracy than CPS (96.6% vs 84.0%, P = 0.03; and 96.8% vs 87.3%, P = 0.05). LBC was significantly more sensitive for diagnosing pancreatic head lesions (96.4% vs 78.1%, P = 0.04). The sensitivity for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) with LBC was higher (98.1% vs 83.0%, P = 0.009). Multivariate analysis revealed that malignant tumors other than PDAC (P = 0.004) and lesion size ≤20 mm (P = 0.046) were risk factors for LBC misdiagnosis in all participants.

CONCLUSIONS

For solid pancreatic lesions, LBC of EUS-FNA samples contributes to the diagnosis of malignancy. Malignant tumors other than PDAC and small tumors are difficult to diagnose using EUS-FNA and LBC.

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided tissue acquisition: How to achieve excellence

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition is a basic forte of an endosonographer. The multiple skills required to accomplish successful results include not only the puncture itself, but also proper lesion identification, correct puncture sequence, collaboration with the pathologist onsite or remotely, proper handling of the specimens, choosing one or more of cytology, cell-block, and/or tissue core preparation and, last, deciding the immunohistochemistry (IHC) panels and ancillary tests which may be needed for the current case. Error in any of these decisions may lead to incomplete or inconclusive information from the procedure, even if the aspirate is 'adequate.' In the present review, we will describe the technical aspects of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, current needles available and how to choose between them, and how to appropriately handle the specimen. We will also discuss the optimal approach to common targets including lymph nodes, pancreatic masses, pancreatic cysts, and subepithelial lesions.

Imaging modalities for characterising focal pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Comparison of cytologic preparation methods in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

There are few studies about the diagnostic yield of cytologic preparation method of pancreatic samples obtained by Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of ThinPrep(®) and smear method in diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

A total of 125 EUS-FNA procedures were performed between July 2010 and June 2015. Patients in group I (n = 36; July 2010 to June 2014) had cytology slides prepared by consecutive allocation of samples. Patients in group II (n = 12; July 2014 to June 2015) had cytology slides prepared by alternately allocation of samples.

RESULTS

There were 24 men and 24 women (median age: 67 years; range 39-84). The median size of lesions was 3.9 cm (range; 1.4-7.2 cm). The locations of the pancreatic cancer were 10 in head (20.8%), 21 in body (43.8%), and 17 in tail (35.4%). The ThinPrep(®) method confirmed malignancy in 35 of 48 cases (72.9%). On the other hand, the smear method confirmed malignancy in 44 of 48 cases (91.7%). The diagnostic yield of smear method was statistically higher than liquid method (P = 0.012). Also, smear method is superior to liquid method in both consecutive and alternative allocation method. ThinPrep(®) provided a correct diagnosis in one case where the smear method was incorrect.

CONCLUSIONS

Smear method was a superior preparation method to liquid method in diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, even if splitting method was not used and variable allocation method was used.

Diagnostic efficacy of cell block immunohistochemistry, smear cytology, and liquid-based cytology in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic lesions: a single-institution experience

Background

The diagnostic efficiency of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) cytology varies widely depending on the treatment method of the specimens. The present study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of cell block (CB) immunohistochemistry, smear cytology (SC), and liquid-based cytology (LBC) in patients with pancreatic lesions without consulting an on-site cytopathologist.

Methods

This study prospectively enrolled 72 patients with pancreatic lesions. The EUS-FNA specimens were examined by SC, LBC, and CB immunohistochemistry. The diagnostic efficacy of the 3 methods was then compared. Patients’ final diagnosis was confirmed by surgical resection specimens, diagnostic imaging, and clinical follow-up.

Results

Our results included 60 malignant and 12 benign pancreatic lesions. The diagnostic sensitivity (90%), negative predictive value (66.7%), and accuracy (91.7%) of CB immunohistochemistry were significantly higher than those of SC (70.0%, 30.0%, and 75.0%, respectively) and LBC (73.3%, 31.6%, and 77.8%, respectively) (all P<0.05). The combination of CB and SC, or CB and LBC, did not significantly increase the efficacy compared to CB immunohistochemistry alone.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that in the absence of an on-site cytopathologist, CB immunohistochemistry on EUS-FNA specimens offers a higher diagnostic efficacy in patients with pancreatic lesions than does SC and LBC.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Impact of rapid on-site evaluation on the adequacy of endoscopic-ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) has the potential to improve adequacy rates for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of solid pancreatic lesions, but its impact is context-dependent. No studies exist that summarize the relationship between ROSE, number of needle passes, and resulting adequacy rates.

AIMS

To analyze data from previous studies to establish if ROSE is associated with improved adequacy rates; to evaluate the relationship between ROSE, number of needle passes, and the resulting adequacy rates of EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting the adequacy rates for EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions.

RESULTS

The search produced 3822 original studies, of which 70 studies met our inclusion criteria. The overall average adequacy rate was 96.2% (95% confidence interval: 95.5, 96.9). ROSE was associated with a statistically significant improvement of up to 3.5% in adequacy rates. There was heterogeneity in adequacy rates across all subgroups. No association between the assessor type and adequacy rates was found. Studies with ROSE have high per-case adequacy and a relatively high number of needle passes in contrast to non-ROSE studies. ROSE is an effect modifier of the relationship between number of needle passes and adequacy.

CONCLUSIONS

ROSE is associated with up to 3.5% improvement in adequacy rates for EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions. ROSE assessor type has no impact on adequacy rates. ROSE is an effect modifier on the relationship between needle passes and per-case adequacy for EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions.

Tips to overcome technical challenges in EUS-guided tissue acquisition

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

Technical Advances in Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-Guided Tissue Acquisition for Pancreatic Cancers: How Can We Get the Best Results with EUS-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration?

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is one of the least invasive and most effective modality in diagnosing pancreatic adenocarcinoma in solid pancreatic lesions, with a higher diagnostic accuracy than cystic tumors. EUS-FNA has been shown to detect tumors less than 3 mm, due to high spatial resolution allowing the detection of very small lesions and vascular invasion, particularly in the pancreatic head and neck, which may not be detected on transverse computed tomography. Furthermore, this minimally invasive procedure is often ideal in the endoscopic procurement of tissue in patients with unresectable tumors. While EUS-FNA has been increasingly used as a diagnostic tool, most studies have collectively looked at all primary pancreatic solid lesions, including lymphomas and pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms, whereas very few studies have examined the diagnostic utility of EUS-FNA of pancreatic ductal carcinoma only. As with any novel and advanced endoscopic procedure that may incorporate several practices and approaches, endoscopists have adopted diverse techniques to improve the tissue procurement practice and increase diagnostic accuracy. In this article, we present a review of literature to date and discuss currently practiced EUS-FNA technique, including indications, technical details, equipment, patient selection, and diagnostic accuracy.

The frequency and cancer risk associated with the atypical cytologic diagnostic category in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration specimens of solid pancreatic lesions: a meta-analysis and argument for a Bethesda System for Reporting Cytopathology of the Pancreas

BACKGROUND

The atypical cytologic diagnostic category is ambiguous and presents a management problem for pathologists and clinicians. This meta-analysis reviewed the frequency and cancer risk associated with atypical diagnoses in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) specimens of solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

PubMed and Scopus were searched using the keywords "EUS-FNA" and "pancreas." Articles were screened focusing on studies of solid lesions. Studies with information regarding the frequency and outcomes of atypical diagnoses were included; the "suspicious" category was excluded from the analysis. The frequency of atypical diagnoses and the associated risk were calculated using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. The authors assessed whether the following factors explained the heterogeneity of the studies: rapid on-site interpretation; type of reference standard; the study type, size, and site; and the frequency of inadequate, atypical, and positive categories.

RESULTS

A total of 23 studies with complete data regarding atypical diagnoses were identified, 12 of which had complete data available regarding outcomes. The frequency of the atypical category ranged from 1% to 14% (mean, 5.3%; 95% confidence interval, 4.1%-6.9%). The risk of malignancy associated with an atypical diagnosis ranged from 25% to 100% (mean, 58%; 95% confidence interval, 47%-69%). There was significant heterogeneity noted among the studies (I-squared, 62%; P = .0004). The frequency of the atypical category and its associated risk were found to be correlated only with the frequency of the specimens being positive for malignancy.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of atypical diagnoses of the pancreas is similar to that of the thyroid but the risk of malignancy is higher. Significant heterogeneity exists among the studies reporting atypical diagnoses. There is a need for standardization of the reporting and management of atypical diagnoses in EUS-FNA specimens from the pancreas.

Current status on the diagnosis and evaluation of pancreatic tumor in Asia with particular emphasis on the role of endoscopic ultrasound

In Asia, the incidence of pancreatic cancer in some countries has been increasing. Owing to most cases being diagnosed late, prognosis for pancreatic cancer remains dismal. It is clear that the future for pancreatic cancer lies in early detection. While the possible presence of pancreatic masses is often first raised by non-invasive abdominal imaging, such as computerized tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, smaller lesions and locoregional lymph node metastases are often not detectable by these means. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) offers a higher sensitivity (93-100%) for detection of small potentially curable pancreatic masses than other existing imaging modalities. It is also recommended for the evaluation of portal vein confluence, portal vein, celiac axis, and superior mesentric artery origin, and exclusion of resectability. Due to the closer proximity of EUS to the target structure, and lower rate of needle tract seeding, EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic mass is considered the most suitable tissue acquisition technique. Lastly, EUS also enables the performance of endoscopic interventions. Its performance can be further enhanced with newer techniques, including contrast-enhanced ultrasound and elastrography. It is anticipated that in the near future, molecular technologies may make it possible to detect microscopic amounts of cancer in tissue or blood, predict relapse and survival after therapy, as well as determine optimal therapy.

Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

EUS-FNA of pancreatic lesion has been put into clinical use widely in many centers. The present meta-analysis was conducted to study the diagnostic role of EUS-FNA in pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

A comprehensive review of study on the precision of EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. A random effects model was used to pool the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). A summary receiver-operating characteristic (SROC) was constructed to summarize the overall test performance.

RESULTS

Thirty-one articles were eligible for the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR and DOR of EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer were 0.89 (95% CI: 0.88-0.90), 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95-0.97), 16.88 (95% CI: 10.63-26.79), 0.13 (95%CI: 0.10-0.16) and 150.80 (95%CI: 95.94-237.03) respectively. In subgroup meta-analysis of the prospective studies, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR and DOR were 0.91 (95% CI: 0.90-0.93), 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91-0.96), 11.19 (95% CI: 6.36-19.69), 0.10 (95% CI: 0.07-0.15) and 125.22 (62.37-251.41). The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.97, indicating a good performance of overall accuracy.

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNA has the high sensitivity and specificity in differentiating pancreatic cancer. Moreover, it is also a safe diagnostic modality with little complications.

Does on-site adequacy evaluation reduce the nondiagnostic rate in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic lesions?

BACKGROUND

This retrospective study compared the nondiagnostic rate for endoscopic ultrasound-guided (EUS) fine-needle aspiration (FNA) of pancreatic lesions in 2 settings: 1 with and 1 without on-site evaluation.

METHODS

The authors reviewed 381 consecutive cases and divided them into groups with and without on-site adequacy evaluation. For the group with on-site evaluation, cytopathology personnel prepared and evaluated Diff-Quik-stained direct smears and rinsed the remaining material in CytoLyt solution (Cytyc Corporation, Marlborough, Mass). The group without on-site evaluation was divided into 2 subgroups: the clinical team either prepared an air-dried smear for each FNA pass and then rinsed the remaining material in CytoLyt, or the entire sample was rinsed in CytoLyt. The cytologic diagnoses were reviewed and the nondiagnostic rates for each group were calculated.

RESULTS

On-site evaluation was provided for 167 cases with a nondiagnostic rate of 25.8% (43 of 167 cases). On-site evaluation was not provided for 214 cases with a nondiagnostic rate of 24.3% (52 of 214 cases). The nondiagnostic rate for the subgroup with air-dried smears prepared by the clinical team was 25.6% (43 of 168 cases) and that for the subgroup with the entire sample rinsed in CytoLyt was 19.6% (9 of 46 cases). There were no significant statistical differences in nondiagnostic rates noted among the different groups or subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the current study indicate that when experienced operators perform EUS FNA of pancreatic lesions, on-site adequacy evaluation offers no benefit in reducing the nondiagnostic rate. Optimizing visualization of the sampled material by omitting the preparation of direct smears and rinsing the entire sample in liquid-based media demonstrated a trend toward improving the diagnostic rate.

EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreas tumors

Although endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is considered superior to MRI and CT in detecting pancreatic masses, it is the ability to target and place a needle into suspicious lesions that has made EUS indispensible in the evaluation of patients with solid pancreatic tumors. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided-fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is an accurate and safe technique to confirm the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. EUS-FNA is now the principal technique applied to obtain the diagnosis of malignancy. We have designed this article to address a number of the key technical aspects of EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic masses.