Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic lesions after inconclusive percutaneous ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition

Repeated endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions after previous nondiagnostic or inconclusive sampling

OBJECTIVES

Repeated endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition represents the standard practice for solid pancreatic lesions after previous nondiagnostic or inconclusive results. Since data are lacking, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of repeated EUS fine-needle biopsy (rEUS-FNB) in this setting. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy; sample adequacy, sensitivity, specificity, and safety were secondary outcomes.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing rEUS-FNB for solid pancreatic lesions at 23 Italian centers from 2019 to 2021 were retrieved. Pathology on the surgical specimen, malignant histology together with ≥6-month follow-up, and benign pathology together with ≥12-month follow-up were adopted as gold standards.

RESULTS

Among 462 patients, 56.5% were male, with a median age of 68 (59-75) years, malignancy prevalence 77.0%. Tumor size was 26 (20-35) mm. Second-generation FNB needles were used in 89.6% cases. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of rEUS-FNB were 89.2%, 91.4%, and 81.7%, respectively (19 false-negative and 12 false-positive results). On multivariate analysis, rEUS-FNB performed at high-volume centers (odds ratio [OR] 2.12; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-3.17; P = 0.03) and tumor size (OR 1.03; 95% CI 1.00-1.06; P = 0.05) were independently related to diagnostic accuracy. Sample adequacy was 94.2%. Use of second-generation FNB needles (OR 5.42; 95% CI 2.30-12.77; P < 0.001) and tumor size >23 mm (OR 3.04; 95% CI 1.31-7.06; P = 0.009) were independently related to sample adequacy.

CONCLUSION

Repeated EUS-FNB allowed optimal diagnostic performance after nondiagnostic or inconclusive results. Patients' referral to high-volume centers improved diagnostic accuracy. The use of second-generation FNB needles significantly improved sample adequacy over standard EUS-FNB needles.

Percutaneous Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Coaxial Cutting Needle Biopsy of Pancreatic Lesions: Diagnostic Accuracy and Safety

PURPOSE

To appraise the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging-guided percutaneous coaxial cutting needle biopsy of pancreatic lesions using a 0.4-T open magnetic resonance imaging scanner with optical tracking navigation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 158 patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging-guided pancreatic lesion biopsy procedures from May 2019 to December 2020. Two to four specimens were collected from each patient. Pathological diagnosis and clinical follow-ups were conducted to establish the final diagnosis. The procedures were evaluated for sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, diagnostic accuracy, and complications. The Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe guidelines were used to classify complications.

RESULTS

Biopsy pathology revealed 139 pancreatic tumor malignancies and 19 benign pancreatic lesions. Finally, 151 patients were diagnosed with pancreatic malignancy and 7 with benign disease confirmed by surgery, re-biopsy, and clinical follow-up. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and accuracy for diagnosis of pancreatic diseases were 92.1%, 100%, 100%, 36.8%, and 92.4%, respectively. The biopsy accuracy was significantly related to the size (≤ 2 cm, 76.2%; 2-4 cm, 94.0%; > 4 cm, 96.2%, P = .02) and not the lesion's location (head of pancreas, 90.7%; neck of pancreas, 88.9%; body of pancreas, 94.3%; tail of pancreas, 96.7%, P = .73). Minor complications included two patients experiencing mild abdominal pain and two with a minor occurrence of hemorrhage.

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous magnetic resonance imaging-guided pancreatic lesion biopsy combined with optical navigation has high diagnostic accuracy and is safe for clinical practice. Level of Evidence Level 4, Case-series.

Percutaneous ultrasound and endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions: An analysis of 1074 lesions

BACKGROUNDS

Percutaneous ultrasound (US) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided pancreatic biopsies are widely accepted in the diagnosis of pancreatic diseases. Studies comparing the diagnostic performance of US- and EUS-guided pancreatic biopsies are lacking. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic yields of US- and EUS-guided pancreatic biopsies and identify the risk factors for inconclusive biopsies.

METHODS

Of the 1074 solid pancreatic lesions diagnosed from January 2017 to February 2021 in our center, 275 underwent EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), and 799 underwent US-guided core needle biopsy (US-CNB/FNA). The outcomes were inconclusive pathological biopsy, diagnostic accuracy and the need for repeat biopsy. All of the included factors and diagnostic performances of both US-CNB/FNA and EUS-FNA were compared, and the independent predictors for the study outcomes were identified.

RESULTS

The diagnostic accuracy was 89.8% for EUS-FNA and 95.2% for US-CNB/FNA (P = 0.001). Biopsy under EUS guidance [odds ratio (OR) = 1.808, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.083-3.019; P = 0.024], lesion size < 2 cm (OR = 2.069, 95% CI: 1.145-3.737; P = 0.016), hypoechoic appearance (OR = 0.274, 95% CI: 0.097-0.775; P = 0.015) and non-pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma carcinoma (PDAC) diagnosis (OR = 2.637, 95% CI: 1.563-4.449; P < 0.001) were identified as factors associated with inconclusive pathological biopsy. Hypoechoic appearance (OR = 0.236, 95% CI: 0.064-0.869; P = 0.030), lesions in the uncinate process of the pancreas (OR = 3.506, 95% CI: 1.831-6.713; P < 0.001) and non-PDAC diagnosis (OR = 2.622, 95% CI: 1.278-5.377; P = 0.009) were independent predictors for repeat biopsy. Biopsy under EUS guidance (OR = 2.024, 95% CI: 1.195-3.429; P = 0.009), lesions in the uncinate process of the pancreas (OR = 1.776, 95% CI: 1.014-3.108; P = 0.044) and hypoechoic appearance (OR = 0.127, 95% CI: 0.047-0.347; P < 0.001) were associated with diagnostic accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, both percutaneous US- and EUS-guided biopsies of solid pancreatic lesions are safe and effective; though the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA is inferior to US-CNB/FNA. A tailored pancreatic biopsy should be considered a part of the management algorithm for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic disease.