Specialized clinical cytology may improve the results of EUS (endoscopic ultrasound)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) from pancreatic tumors

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.

Influence of the Histopathological Features of the Lesion on the Diagnostic Yield of Fine-Needle Aspiration Cytology of Pancreatic Solid Lesions

OBJECTIVE

The rate of pancreatic lesions has increased in recent decades due to the widespread use of advanced imaging techniques. Nowadays, a significant proportion of cases are incidentally discovered in asymptomatic patients and cytology is an important tool for the diagnosis and multidisciplinary management of these cases.

STUDY DESIGN

In this study we retrospectively review the experience with pancreatic fine-needle aspiration cytology in the last 17 years at a single large tertiary hospital in Madrid, Spain.

RESULTS

Our results indicate that more than 60% of pancreatic malignant lesions are cytologically confirmed before surgery and 30% of the patients are asymptomatic. Despite this, we have noted that the total number of malignant lesions surgically resected in our hospital has basically remained unchanged over the years, because incidental diagnosis is not always synonymous with resectability and a substantial number of patients are already metastatic at the time of diagnosis. Our series also shows an increase in the number of neuroendocrine tumors, which now represent almost 20% of all cytological diagnoses at our hospital. The sensitivity in our series is 70% and the false negative rate remains 30%, despite sample quality control by experienced cytologists and standardized technical conditions. Fibrosis and necrosis are the 2 features of the primary tumor that significantly and negatively influence the accuracy of cytologic diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

We herein report our experience with cytologic diagnosis of pancreatic lesions in a single tertiary hospital. Our results confirm that cytology is a safe, reliable, and important tool for pancreatic lesion diagnosis and management.

A Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration and Fine-Needle Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is the method of choice for sampling pancreatic lesions. This study compares the diagnostic accuracy and safety of FNB using a novel core needle to FNA in solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients in whom EUS FNA or FNB was performed for solid pancreatic lesions was conducted. Diagnostic performance was calculated based upon a dual classification system: classification 1, only malignant pathology considered a true positive, versus classification 2, atypical, suspicious, and malignant pathology considered a true positive.

RESULTS

43 patients underwent FNB compared with 51 FNA. Using classification 1, sensitivity was 74.0% versus 80.0%, specificity 100% versus 100%, and diagnostic accuracy 77.0% versus 80.0% for FNB versus FNA, respectively (all p > 0.05). Using classification 2, sensitivity was 97% versus 94.0%, specificity 100% versus 100%, and diagnostic accuracy 98.0% versus 94.0% for FNB versus FNA, respectively (all p > 0.05). FNB required significantly fewer needle passes (median = 2) compared to FNA (median = 3; p < 0.001). Adverse events occurred in two (4.5%) FNB patients compared with none in the FNA group (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

FNA and FNB have comparable sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy. FNB required fewer passes.