Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses: the impact on patient-management strategy

Comparison of Diagnostic Yield and Safety of Serial Pancreatic Juice Aspiration Cytologic Examination (SPACE) with Different Indications

We assessed whether there are differences in the diagnostic yield and safety of serial pancreatic juice aspiration cytologic examination (SPACE) among different indications. We retrospectively analyzed 226 patients who underwent SPACE. They were classified into group A (patients with pancreatic masses, including advanced adenocarcinoma, sclerosing pancreatitis, or autoimmune pancreatitis), group B (suspicious pancreatic carcinoma patients without obvious pancreatic masses, including small pancreatic carcinoma, carcinoma in situ, or benign pancreatic duct stenosis), and group C (intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm, IPMN). There were 41, 66, and 119 patients, with malignancy diagnosed in 29, 14, and 22 patients, in groups A, B, and C, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were 69%, 100%, 100%, 57%, and 78% in group A; 79%, 98%, 92%, 94%, and 94% in group B; and 27%, 87%, 32%, 84%, and 76% in group C, respectively. PEP was observed in three (7.3%), three (4.5%), and fifteen (13%) patients in group A, B, and C, respectively (p = 0.20). SPACE is useful and safe in patients with suspicious small pancreatic carcinoma. However, it has limited efficacy and might not be recommended in patients with IPMN because of the high frequency of PEP.

Diagnostic and Therapeutic Indications for Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) in Patients with Pancreatic and Biliary Disease—Novel Interventional Procedures

There is growing evidence supporting the substantial, essential and indispensable role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) as a key diagnostic armamentarium for upper GI oncologic surgery. Well described in countless publications, EUS holds that position in gastroenterological expert centers all over Europe. Despite its undisputable contributions to oncologic upper GI surgery, the availability of this technique at the expert level shows up in an irregular spread pattern. Endoscopic ultrasound’s primary use during the first few years after its creation was the detection of pancreatic cancer. From then on, EUS developed in different directions, becoming a diagnostic tool that increasingly better defines its status as a method of minimally invasive therapeutic applications and a useful addition to surgical options. As a result, several surgical interventions could even be replaced by ultrasound-targeted interventions. This process took place in just a few years and was made possible by technical development that sensibly combined high-resolution ultrasound with therapeutic endoscopy. The present article will serve to cover the most prevalent uses with supporting data considering the growing list of suggested indications for EUS while also examining cutting-edge initiatives that might soon become the standard of clinical practice. Endoscopic centers with high expertise are needed to train future experts in the growing field of EUS interventions.

Evaluation of Pancreatic Lesions With Endoscopic Ultrasound and Fine Needle Aspiration

Background. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and fine-needle aspiration (FNA) are commonly used for assessing pancreatic lesions. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic yield and accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in a single tertiary institution. Methods. Consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNA of the pancreas at Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong, from January 2015 to March 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Endoscopic findings and FNA results were analysed. For patients who subsequently underwent surgical resection of pancreatic lesion, EUS-FNA diagnoses were compared to histopathological findings of surgical specimens to determine its diagnostic accuracy. Results. One hundred twelve EUS-FNA were performed in 99 patients within the study time period and were included for analysis. Sixty-six (66.7%) pancreatic lesions were solid in nature and 33 (33.3%) were cystic. The overall diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA was 70.5% (n = 79). On multivariate analysis, more passes of needle were associated with a higher diagnostic yield (odds ratio = 2.000, P = .049). 57.1% (n = 64) of EUS-FNA results had an impact on management. Sixteen patients with diagnostic EUS-FNA subsequently underwent surgery for resection of the pancreatic lesion. Upon correlation to the histopathological findings of surgical specimens, there were 12 true-positive, 2 true-negative, 0 false-positive, and 2 false-negative cases. Sensitivity was 85.7%, specificity was 100%, positive predictive value was 100%, and negative predictive value was 50%. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA was 87.5%. Conclusion. EUS-FNA is accurate and reliable for diagnosing pancreatic lesions.

Predicted Prognosis of Patients with Pancreatic Cancer by Machine Learning

PURPOSE

Pancreatic cancer remains a disease of high mortality despite advanced diagnostic techniques. Mucins (MUC) play crucial roles in carcinogenesis and tumor invasion in pancreatic cancers. MUC1 and MUC4 expression are related to the aggressive behavior of human neoplasms and a poor patient outcome. In contrast, MUC2 is a tumor suppressor, and we have previously reported that MUC2 is a favorable prognostic factor in pancreatic neoplasia. This study investigates whether the methylation status of three mucin genes from postoperative tissue specimens from patients with pancreatic neoplasms could serve as a predictive biomarker for outcome after surgery.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

We evaluated the methylation status of MUC1, MUC2, and MUC4 promoter regions in pancreatic tissue samples from 191 patients with various pancreatic lesions using methylation-specific electrophoresis. Then, integrating these results and clinicopathologic features, we used support vector machine-, neural network-, and multinomial-based methods to develop a prognostic classifier.

RESULTS

Significant differences were identified between the positive- and negative-prediction classifiers of patients in 5-year overall survival (OS) in the cross-validation test. Multivariate analysis revealed that these prognostic classifiers were independent prognostic factors analyzed by not only neoplastic tissues but also nonneoplastic tissues. These classifiers had higher predictive accuracy for OS than tumor size, lymph node metastasis, distant metastasis, and age and can complement the prognostic value of the TNM staging system.

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of epigenetic changes in mucin genes may be of diagnostic utility and one of the prognostic predictors for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Complication incidence of EUS-guided pancreas biopsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 thousand population from 78 cohort studies

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to estimate the incidence of possible complications following EUS-guided pancreas biopsy. Pancreatic cancer has a very poor prognosis with a high fatality rate. Early diagnosis is important to improve the prognosis of pancreatic cancer. We searched Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases for studies published from inception to Augest, 2018. Meta-analysis were conducted with random-effect models and heterogeneity was calculated with the Q, I² and τ² statistics. We enrolled 78 studies from 71 articles in the meta-analysis, comprising 11,652 patients. Pooled data showed that the whole complication incidences were low 0.210 × 10^-4(95%CI -0.648 × 10^-4, 1.068 × 10^-4). And they were in bleeding 0.002 × 10^-4 (95%CI -0.092 × 10^-4, 0.097 × 10^-4), pancreatitis 0.002 (95%CI -0.082 × 10^-4, 0.086 × 10^-4), abdominal pain 0 (95%CI -0.037 × 10^-4, 0.038 × 10^-4), fever 0 (95%CI -0.032 × 10^-4, 0. 032 × 10^-4), infection 0 (95%CI -0.030 × 10^-4, 0.031 × 10^-4), duodenal perforation 0 (95%CI -0.033 × 10^-4, 0.034 × 10^-4), pancreatic fistula 0 (95%CI -0.029 × 10^-4, 0.029 × 10^-4), abscess 0 (95%CI -0.029 × 10^-4, 0.029 × 10^-4) and sepsis 0 (95%CI -0.029 × 10^-4, 0.030 × 10^-4). Subgroup analysis based on the tumor size, site, needle type and tumor style also showed robust results. The pooled data showed EUS-guided pancreas biopsy could be a safe approach for the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions. More large-scale studies will be necessary to confirm the findings across different population.

Safety and efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for pancreatic masses: A prospective multicenter study

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for solid pancreatic lesions has high diagnostic yield. However, few prospective multicenter studies have been performed. We performed a prospective cohort study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EUS-FNA for diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study involved five hospitals in Japan. The primary outcome was sensitivity of EUS-FNA for diagnosing malignant lesions. We also evaluated parameters of diagnostic sufficiency and the safety of EUS-FNA.

RESULTS

In total, 246 patients were enrolled. The absolute values of the parameters evaluated showed no significant differences; however, the percentage changes in the white blood cell counts and C-reactive protein levels after examination were significantly higher, and the percentage change in hemoglobin concentrations was significantly lower. The minor and major complication rates at the time of puncture, 24 h, 7 days and 28 days were 4.1%, 2.8%, 1.6%, and 0.0%, respectively. The true complication rate was 1.2%. The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 97.2%, 88.0%, 96.2%, 100%, and 81.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic lesions has high diagnostic yield and is safe, consistent with previously studies.

Effect of Pancreatic Mass Size on Clinical Outcomes of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has high diagnostic accuracy for pancreatic diseases. However, the effect of mass size on diagnostic accuracy has yet to be determined, especially for small pancreatic lesions. We aimed to determine the effect of pancreatic mass size on the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA.

METHODS

We searched the database in Hokkaido University Hospital between May 2008 and December 2016 and identified solid pancreatic lesions examined by EUS-FNA. All lesions were stratified into five groups based on mass sizes: groups A (< 10 mm), B (10-20 mm), C (20-30 mm), D (30-40 mm) and E (≥ 40 mm). The sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy and adverse event rate were retrospectively evaluated.

RESULTS

We analyzed a total of 788 solid pancreatic lesions in 761 patients. The patients included 440 males (57.8%) with a mean age of 65.7 years. The sensitivities in groups A (n = 36), B (n = 223), C (n = 304), D (n = 147) and E (n = 78) were 89.3%, 95.0%, 97.4%, 98.5% and 98.7%, respectively, and they significantly increased as the mass size increased (P < 0.01, chi-squared test for trend). The diagnostic accuracies were 91.7%, 96.4%, 97.7%, 98.6% and 98.7%, respectively, and they also significantly increased as the mass size increased (P = 0.03). Multivariate analysis showed that pancreatic mass size was associated with diagnostic accuracy. The adverse event rates were not significantly different among the five groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The sensitivities and diagnostic accuracies of EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic lesions are higher for lesions ≥ 10 mm in size, and they are strongly correlated with mass size.

Prospective comparison of slow-pull and standard suction techniques of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic cancer

Background

The usage of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic cancer is increasing, however mainly retrospective studies are available about the detailed methods of sampling.

Methods

To compare prospectively the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA samples obtained with slow-pull (SP) and with standard suction technique (SS).

Results

EUS-FNA sampling was diagnostic in 72 of 92 cases (78.3%). Diagnostic yield was 67.4% in the SS and 65.2% in the SP group. The number of smear pairs (1.84 vs. 3.56; p < 0.001) and blood contamination (1.50 vs. 2.19; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the SS group, which resulted in lower rate of diagnostic samples (41.8% vs. 30.0%; p = 0.003). There was no difference in the cellularity (1.58 vs. 1.37; p = 0.2554), or in the sensitivity and specificity in the identification of malignancy between SP and SS subgroups (69.9, 100% vs. 73.5, 100%). Histological samples were obtained in 60 cases (with SP: 49 cases; with SS: 46 cases). There was no difference in the diagnostic yield of histological samples between the groups (63 and 58.7%).

Conclusion

The diagnostic yield, the cellularity of smears and the rate of acquiring sufficient histological material are similar in the SP and SS group, but due to lower bloodiness and decreased number of slides, the pathological diagnosis is faster and more cost-effective.

Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology new guidelines have a greater ability of risk stratification for pancreatic endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration specimens

The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology has recently proposed a standardized terminology and nomenclature guidelines for pancreatic cytology. However the risk of malignancy associated with the new guidelines has been scarcely studied. In this study, a series of pancreatic cytology cases obtained by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration from 294 Chinese patients were retrospectively re-categorized into six categories according the new guidelines. The risks of malignancy were 18.1% for “negative,” 20.0% for “neoplastic,” 57.1% for “nondiagnostic,” 69.2% for “atypical,” 87.5% for “suspicious,” and 100.0% for “positive” respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.93 (95% Confidence Interval, 0.90-0.96), which was significantly higher than that associated with old classification system (0.82; 95% Confidence Interval, 0.77-0.87) conventionally used in China. Our investigation demonstrated that the new guidelines have a greater ability of risk stratification than the old classification system conventionally used in China. This may be helpful in giving better predictions of malignancy, thus leading to more personalized treatment strategies.

AHNAK2 is a potential prognostic biomarker in patients with PDAC

BACKGROUND

AHNAK nucleoprotein 2 (AHNAK2) belongs to the AHNAK protein family. The studies of AHNAK2 are limited. A recent study reported that AHNAK2 might be a biomarker for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC); however, tissue-based experiments have not been conducted. The aim of this study was to determine the tissue expression of AHNAK2 and to find the correlation between AHNAK2 and overall survival rate in PDAC.

RESULTS

AHNAK2 is highly expressed in PDAC (n=79) compared with adjacent normal tissues (n=64, P<0.001). Overexpression of AHNAK2 showed a significant relationship with a lower overall survival rate (P=0.033) in PDAC patients. The predictive value of increased expression of AHNAK2 remains relevant in patients with AJCC grade above II (n=43, P=0.006) or lymph node metastasis (n=32, P=0.004). Cox regression analysis showed that AHNAK2 expression (P=0.003) and pathology grade (P<0.001) are independent prognostic factors for PDAC. The nomogram model was performed to predict the 1- and 3-year survival rates based on Cox regression. The C-index was 0.61. The calibration curves were also made to show the association between the observed and predicted probability of the overall survival rates.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

AHNAK2 expression was performed in tissue microarrays by immunohistochemistry. The overall survival rate analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method, Cox proportional hazards regression, and a nomogram model.

CONCLUSIONS

AHNAK2 is overexpressed in PDAC tissues and is an independent prognostic factor in patients with PDAC.

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.

Pancreatic Cytopathology

Pancreatic cytopathology, particularly through the use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA), has excellent specificity and sensitivity for the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions. Such diagnoses can help guide preoperative management of patients, provide prognostic information, and confirm diagnoses in patients who are not surgical candidates. Furthermore, FNA can be used to obtain cyst fluid for ancillary tests that can improve the diagnosis of cystic lesions. In this article, we describe the cytomorphological features and differential diagnoses of the most commonly encountered pancreatic lesions on FNA.

Endoscopic ultrasonography with fine-needle aspiration for histological diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses: a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies

Background

Previous studies have demonstrated that endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a reliable tool for diagnosing pancreatic lesions; however, the reported sensitivity and specificity vary greatly across studies. The aim of this study was to pool the existing literature and assess the overall performance of EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions.

Methods

A systematic search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews, and EMBASE was performed to identify original and review articles published between January 1995 and January 2014 that reported the accuracy of EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of pancreatic masses. Quality of the included studies was assessed using the quality assessment of diagnosis accuracy studies score tool. Meta-DiSc software was used to calculate the pooled sensitivity and specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and to construct the summary receiver operating characteristics curve.

Results

Twenty studies involving a total of 2,761 patients were included in the study. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions were 90.8 % [95 % confidence interval (CI), 89.4–92 %] and 96.5 % (95 % CI, 94.8–97.7 %), respectively. The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 14.8 (95 % CI, 8.0–27.3) and 0.12 (95 % CI, 0.09–0.16), respectively. The overall diagnostic accuracy was 91.0 %.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that EUS-FNA has high sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions.

Review of current and evolving clinical indications for endoscopic ultrasound

For the first several years after its development, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) was primarily limited to identification of pancreatic malignancies. Since this time, the field of EUS has advanced at a tremendous speed in terms of additional clinical diagnostic and therapeutic uses. The combination of ultrasound with endoscopy provides a unique interventional modality that is a minimally invasive alternative to various surgical interventions. Given the expanding recommended indications for EUS, this article will serve to review the most common uses with supporting evidence, while also exploring innovative endeavors that may soon become common clinical practice.

Impact of inconclusive endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration results in the management and outcome of patients with solid pancreatic masses

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) can be inconclusive in diagnosing solid pancreatic masses. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the impact of an inconclusive EUS-FNA in the management of patients with solid pancreatic masses.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of a prospective database of patients with solid pancreatic masses referred for EUS-FNA between December 2011 and December 2013. Consecutive patients with inconclusive initial EUS-FNA were included. Demographic, clinical, procedural and outcome data were analyzed.

RESULTS

Over the study period, 387 patients underwent EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic masses, of which 38 patients had inconclusive cytology. Of the 38 patients, 18 were categorized as atypical, two were categorized as indeterminate or suspicious for malignancy, and 18 were categorized as benign process. Subsequently, 24 (63.2%) patients achieved cytopathological diagnosis by repeat EUS-FNA (8), transcutaneous FNA (4) and surgery (12). Repeat EUS-FNA were done a median of 13 days after the index examination and resulted in conclusive diagnosis in 72.7% of cases. Five patients undergoing surgery were confirmed to have benign lesions. In 14 (36.8%) patients not receiving a positive cytopathological diagnosis, 11 were eventually confirmed to be malignant based on clinical outcome and imaging evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Inconclusive EUS-FNA could lead to unnecessary surgical procedures in patients with resectable solid pancreatic masses if no cytopathological diagnosis is obtained through either repeat or alternative diagnostic modalities. Repeat EUS-FNA provided a conclusive diagnosis in a majority of cases, and therefore should be strongly considered ahead of other modalities.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of the pancreas: a retrospective study of 1000 cases

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) has emerged as a superior method for the diagnosis of pancreatic tumors. Very few large studies have been published. We retrospectively examined 1000 cases to determine the sensitivity and specificity of EUS-guided FNA for solid and cystic lesions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

EUS-guided FNA was performed in 1000 patients. Air-dried aspirates were reviewed immediately to ensure adequacy, and ethanol-fixed aspirates were reviewed the following day. The rendered diagnoses were placed into various categories and compared to subsequent histologic and clinical follow-up data.

RESULTS

Of the 1000 cases, 579 were solid lesions. The FNA diagnoses of the solid lesions were benign (B) 229 (39.5%), atypia (A) 22 (3.8%), suspicious (S) 27 (4.7%), malignant (M) 260 (44.9%), tumor (T) 1 (0.2%), and nondiagnostic (ND) 40 (6.9%). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for solid lesions were 97%, 97%, 99%, and 94%, respectively. There were 421 cystic lesions. The FNAs of the cystic lesions were classified as follows: B 342 (81.2%), A 5 (1.2%), S 4 (1%), M 7 (1.7%), T 46 (10.9%), and ND 17 (4.0%). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value to identify mucinous tumors and malignancy for cystic lesions were 46%, 98%, 94%, and 87%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

At our institution, EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic lesions is both sensitive and specific for the diagnosis of both primary and metastatic tumors. For cystic lesions, FNA is not as sensitive, but its specificity remains high.

Predictors of malignancy in patients with suspicious or indeterminate cytology on pancreatic endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration: a multivariate model

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate predictors of malignancy in pancreatic lesions with suspicious or indeterminate endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) cytology.

METHODS

Suspicious/indeterminate EUS-FNA cytology was identified from our database. Stable imaging, benign pathology, or survival for 12 months after EUS-FNA was considered benign. Diagnosis of malignancy was based on positive pathology, local invasion/metastasis on imaging, or death within 12 months from cancer-associated causes. Univariate analysis was performed to compare variables between benign and malignant lesions. Multivariate analysis (covariates: age [<70 or ≥70], appearance [solid/cystic], size [<20 or ≥20 mm], and serum CA19-9 [<40 or ≥40]) was performed using binary logistic regression.

RESULTS

There were 81 patients with suspicious or indeterminate cytology. Final diagnosis was cancer in 55 (67.9%) of 81 (adenocarcinoma in 40/81 [49.4%], "other neoplasms" in 15/81 [18.5%]) and benign in 26 (32.1%) of 81. Univariate analysis revealed a difference in age, lesion size, solid/cystic characteristics, and serum CA 19-9 between benign and malignant lesions. Only elevated serum CA 19-9 was independently associated with a diagnosis of malignancy on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Age, lesion size, and solid/cystic characteristics on EUS were not independently associated with cancer. Pancreatic lesions with suspicious/indeterminate cytology and elevated serum CA 19-9 should be considered as concerning for a malignant diagnosis.

Expression of KOC, S100P, mesothelin and MUC1 in pancreatico-biliary adenocarcinomas: development and utility of a potential diagnostic immunohistochemistry panel

BACKGROUND

Pancreatico-biliary adenocarcinomas (PBA) have a poor prognosis. Diagnosis is usually achieved by imaging and/or endoscopy with confirmatory cytology. Cytological interpretation can be difficult especially in the setting of chronic pancreatitis/cholangitis. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) biomarkers could act as an adjunct to cytology to improve the diagnosis. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis and selected KOC, S100P, mesothelin and MUC1 for further validation in PBA resection specimens.

METHODS

Tissue microarrays containing tumour and normal cores in a ratio of 3:2, from 99 surgically resected PBA patients, were used for IHC. IHC was performed on an automated platform using antibodies against KOC, S100P, mesothelin and MUC1. Tissue cores were scored for staining intensity and proportion of tissue stained using a Histoscore method (range, 0-300). Sensitivity and specificity for individual biomarkers, as well as biomarker panels, were determined with different cut-offs for positivity and compared by summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

RESULTS

The expression of all four biomarkers was high in PBA versus normal ducts, with a mean Histoscore of 150 vs. 0.4 for KOC, 165 vs. 0.3 for S100P, 115 vs. 0.5 for mesothelin and 200 vs. 14 for MUC1 (p < .0001 for all comparisons). Five cut-offs were carefully chosen for sensitivity/specificity analysis. Four of these cut-offs, namely 5%, 10% or 20% positive cells and Histoscore 20 were identified using ROC curve analysis and the fifth cut-off was moderate-strong staining intensity. Using 20% positive cells as a cut-off achieved higher sensitivity/specificity values: KOC 84%/100%; S100P 83%/100%; mesothelin 88%/92%; and MUC1 89%/63%. Analysis of a panel of KOC, S100P and mesothelin achieved 100% sensitivity and 99% specificity if at least 2 biomarkers were positive for 10% cut-off; and 100% sensitivity and specificity for 20% cut-off.

CONCLUSION

A biomarker panel of KOC, S100P and mesothelin with at least 2 biomarkers positive was found to be an optimum panel with both 10% and 20% cut-offs in resection specimens from patients with PBA.

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.

Significance of the diagnostic categories "atypical" and "suspicious for malignancy" in the cytologic diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses

Endoscopic ultrasound guided (EUS) fine-needle aspiration (FNA) investigation of solid pancreatic lesions has been shown to have good sensitivity and specificity. Many lesions can be definitely classified as benign or malignant but some can only be cytologically classified as "atypical" or "suspicious for malignancy". Risk for malignancy in these indeterminate categories has not been well categorized. The cytology records of four University Medical centers were searched for all EUS guided FNAs of solid pancreatic lesions. All cases with a diagnosis of "atypical", or "suspicious for malignancy" were selected for analysis when histologic biopsy or over 18 months clinical follow-up was available. Two hundred and ninety-two cases with a diagnosis of "atypical" or "suspicious for malignancy" and adequate follow-up were obtained from the combined data of the four institutions. The percentage malignant for the categories "atypical" and "suspicious for malignancy" were 79.2 and 96.3%, respectively. If the category "atypical" was classified as benign and "suspicious for malignancy" was classified as malignant, the resulting positive predictive value was 96.3 (95% CI: 92.6-98.5) and the negative predictive value 20.8 (95% CI: 13.4-30.0). The categories of "atypical" and "suspicious for malignancy" stratify risk for malignancy in a fashion, which may aid in patient counseling and selection of follow-up protocols. Classification of "suspicious for malignancy" as malignant optimizes diagnostic sensitivity and specificity.

Malignancy risk associated with diagnostic categories defined by the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology pancreaticobiliary guidelines

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is currently the predominant method for obtaining a preoperative tissue diagnosis for pancreatic lesions suspicious for malignancy. The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of EUS-FNA are well documented, but malignancy risk associated with the diagnostic categories proposed by the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology is poorly defined.

METHODS

The records of the Departments of Pathology at Duke University and the University of Utah were searched for all cases of EUS-FNA performed for the investigation of pancreatic lesions. All cases with follow-up surgical diagnosis or greater than 3 years of clinical follow-up were selected. Cytologic diagnostic categories were "nondiagnostic," "benign," "atypical (not otherwise specified)," "suspicious for malignancy," "neoplasm," and "malignant." Correlation of cytologic diagnosis with surgical and/or clinical follow-up was made and risk of malignancy calculated for each category.

RESULTS

Three hundred seventeen EUS-FNAs with adequate surgical or clinical follow-up were obtained. Risk of malignancy for nondiagnostic specimens was 21%;, benign specimens, 13%; atypical cases, 74%; suspicious for malignancy, 82%; the neoplasm category, 14%; and the malignant category, 97%

CONCLUSIONS

The cytologic categories proposed by the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology demonstrate an increasing risk for malignancy extending from benign to malignant. Aspirates designated benign have the lowest risk of malignancy (13%) and aspirates designated malignant the highest (97%). The proposed categorization scheme stratifies risk for malignancy giving useful information to clinicians treating patients with pancreatic lesions.

Pancreatic fine-needle aspiration cytology in patients < 35-years of age: a retrospective review of 174 cases spanning a 17-year period

Pancreatic lesions in young patients are relatively rare and, to our knowledge, the clinical value of pancreatic fine needle aspiration (FNA) in patients < 35 years of age has not been previously established by any other large retrospective studies. All pancreatic endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) cases performed on patients < 35 years of age were identified for a 17-year period (1994-2010). All FNAs and all available correlating surgical pathology reports were reviewed. There were a total of 174 cases of pancreatic FNA performed on 109 females and 65 males under the age of 35 (range: 8-34, mean: 27 years). The FNA diagnoses included 37 malignant, 114 negative, nine atypia/suspicious, and 14 cases that were nondiagnostic. Of the 37 malignant FNA cases, the diagnoses included 18 pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNeT), 11 solid pseudopapillary neoplasms (SPN), five adenocarcinomas and three metastatic neoplasms. Histologic follow-up was available in 22 of the 37 malignant cases diagnosed by FNA, and the diagnosis was confirmed in 21 cases. One pancreatoblastoma was misclassified as SPN on EUS-FNA. False negative diagnoses were noted in three cases of low-grade mucinous cystic neoplasm and one case of PanNeT. The most common type of neoplasms diagnosed by EUS-FNA in patients < 35-year old is PanNeT, followed by SPN with both tumors accounting for 75% of all the neoplasms encountered in this age group. The sensitivity and specificity for positive cytology in EUS-FNA of the pancreas to identify malignancy and mucinous neoplasms were 90% and 100%, respectively. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2014;42:297-301. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Immunocytochemistry for MUC4 and MUC16 is a useful adjunct in the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma on fine-needle aspiration cytology

CONTEXT

Diagnoses rendered as atypical/suspicious for malignancy on fine-needle aspiration (FNA) of pancreatic mass lesions range from 2% to 29% in various studies. We have identified the expression of 3 genes, MUC4, MUC16, and NGAL that are highly upregulated in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. In this study, we analyzed the expression of these markers in FNA samples to determine whether they could improve sensitivity and specificity.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the utility of MUC4, MUC16, and NGAL in the evaluation of pancreatic FNA specimens.

DESIGN

Records of pancreatic FNAs performed during 10 consecutive years were reviewed. Unstained sections from corresponding cell blocks were immunostained for MUC4, MUC16, and NGAL (polyclonal). Immunostaining was assessed using the H-score (range, 0-3). Any case with an H-score of >0.5 was considered positive.

RESULTS

Cases were classified using cytomorphologic criteria as adenocarcinoma (31 of 64; 48.4%), benign (17 of 64; 26.6%), and atypical/suspicious (16 of 64; 25%). On follow-up, all cases (100%; 31 of 31) diagnosed as carcinoma on cytology were confirmed on biopsy/resection samples or by clinical follow-up (such as unresectable disease). Of the cases diagnosed as atypical/suspicious, 69% (11 of 16) were found to be positive for adenocarcinoma and 31% (5 of 16) were benign on subsequent follow-up. Overall sensitivity and specificity, respectively, for the various markers for the detection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma were as follows: MUC4 (74% and 100%), MUC16 (62.9% and 100%), and NGAL (61.3% and 58.8%). In cases that were atypical/suspicious on cytology, expression of MUC4 and MUC16 was 100% specific for carcinoma with sensitivities of 63.6% and 66.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Immunocytochemistry for MUC4 and MUC16 appears to be a useful adjunct in the classification of pancreatic FNA samples, especially in cases that are equivocal (atypical/suspicious) for adenocarcinoma on cytomorphologic assessment.

Clinical usefulness of repeated pancreatic juice cytology via endoscopic naso-pancreatic drainage tube in patients with pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Cytological examination of pancreatic juice obtained during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is well established, but its sensitivity for pancreatic cancer has not been satisfactory. The aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of repeated pancreatic juice cytology (PJC) via the endoscopic naso-pancreatic drainage (ENPD) tube in patients with pancreatic cancer compared with conventional PJC.

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated 139 patients with pancreatic disease. Between April 2004 and November 2007, conventional PJC was performed in 56 patients with pancreatic cancer and 23 with benign pancreatic stricture. Between January 2008 and November 2010, ENPD was used in 40 patients with pancreatic cancer and 20 with benign pancreatic stricture. The ENPD tube was placed into the main pancreatic duct for up to 3 days, and cytological samples of pancreatic juice were collected up to 6 times in total.

RESULTS

Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and overall accuracy of the ENPD method for pancreatic cancer were 80, 100, 100, 71, and 87 %, respectively, revealing significantly higher sensitivity than the conventional method (p = 0.0001). Sensitivities according to tumor location and size were 90 % (19/21), 69 % (9/13), and 67 % (4/6) in the head, body, and tail of the pancreas, 88 % (7/8), 79 % (19/24), and 75 % (6/8) in tumors with a diameter less than 20 mm including carcinoma in situ, 21-40, and greater than 41 mm, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The ENPD method was found to have high diagnostic yield, especially for tumors less than 20 mm or located in the pancreatic head, and might be useful for the diagnosis of early-stage pancreatic cancer.

The presence of a cytopathologist increases the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration cytology for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

A meta-analysis has not been previously performed to evaluate critically the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of solely pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and address factors that have an impact on variability of accuracy. The aim of this study was to determine whether the presence of a cytopathologist, variability of the reference standard and other sources of heterogeneity significantly impacts diagnostic accuracy.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search to identify studies, in which the pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios for a positive or negative test (LR+, LR-) and summary receiver-operating curves (SROC) could be determined for EUS-FNA of the pancreas for ductal adenocarcinoma using clinical follow-up, and/or surgical biopsy or excision as the reference standard.

RESULTS

We included 34 distinct studies (3644 patients) in which EUS-FNA for a solid pancreatic mass was evaluated. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for EUS-FNA for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma was 88.6% [95% confidence interval (CI): 87.2-89.9] and 99.3% (95% CI: 98.7-99.7), respectively. The LR+ and LR- were 33.46 (95% CI: 20.76-53.91) and 0.11 (95% CI: 0.08-0.16), respectively. The meta-regression model showed rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) (P = 0.001) remained a significant determinant of EUS-FNA accuracy after correcting for study population number and reference standard.

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNA is an effective modality for diagnosing pancreatic ductal adencarcinoma in solid pancreatic lesions, with an increased diagnostic accuracy when using on-site cytopathology evaluation.

A proposal of a diagnostic algorithm with validation of International Consensus Diagnostic Criteria for autoimmune pancreatitis in a Japanese cohort

BACKGROUND

Among many diagnostic criteria for autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP), the International Consensus Diagnostic Criteria (ICDC) first enabled us to diagnose and compare type 1 and type 2 AIP, which permitted tailoring individual diagnostic algorithms depending on local expertise. We compared them and validated ICDC with special reference to levels 1 and 2, and proposed a diagnostic algorithm for AIP in Japan.

METHODS

The diagnostic sensitivity of 5 major criteria (ICDC, Korean, Japanese-2011, Asian, and HISORt criteria) was compared, using 61 patients with AIP. Fifty six patients with pancreatic cancer served as a control. Pancreas imaging on computed tomography (CT) and endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP) were independently evaluated by 3 pancreatologists (5, 10, and 20 years of career experience) and each diagnostic criterion of ICDC was validated with special reference to levels 1 and 2.

RESULTS

The sensitivities of 5 major criteria were 95.1% (ICDC), 90.2% (Korean), 86.9% (Japanese), 83.6% (Asian), and 83.6% (HISORt) with 100% of specificity in each. In the evaluation of pancreas imaging, diagnostic sensitivities of combination with CT and ERP in segmental/focal type AIP were significantly higher than single imaging (26% in CT (P < 0.01) or 35% in ERP (P < 0.05) vs 63% in CT + ERP), but not significantly different in the diffuse type.

CONCLUSIONS

Of the 5 criteria, ICDC is the most sensitive and useful for diagnosing AIP. We have proposed a diagnostic algorithm with CT for the diffuse type of AIP, and combination with CT + ERP followed by EUS-FNA for the segmental/focal type.

Rapid on-site evaluation increases endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration adequacy for pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND

Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) has the potential to improve adequacy rates and affect other outcomes; however, there have been few comparative studies to assess the impact of ROSE in the setting of ultrasound-guided endoscopic fine-needle aspiration cytology for pancreatic lesions.

AIMS

To determine whether ROSE improves adequacy rates of endoscopic fine-needle aspiration cytology for pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting a head-to-head comparison of adequacy or diagnostic accuracy (with ROSE vs. without ROSE) at a single site.

RESULTS

ROSE was associated with a statistically significant (p < 0.001) improvement in the adequacy rate (average 10 %, 95 % CI: 5-24 %). The impact of ROSE depends on the per-pass adequacy rate without ROSE. ROSE had no impact on diagnostic yield (p < 0.76).

CONCLUSIONS

ROSE is associated with an improvement in adequacy rates when implemented at sites where the per-case adequacy rate without ROSE is low (<90 %). It is unclear whether the type of assessor (pathologist vs. non-pathologist) has a significant impact on the success rate of ROSE. ROSE has no impact on diagnostic yield. Studies should employ head-to-head comparisons of cohorts with and without ROSE at a single location.

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.

Cercariform cells: another cytologic feature distinguishing solid pseudopapillary neoplasms from pancreatic endocrine neoplasms and acinar cell carcinomas in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspirates

BACKGROUND

Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm (SPPN) is a rare tumor of unknown origin that occurs predominantly in the body or tail of the pancreas in young women. The authors recently identified cercariform (Greek: tailed) cells, similar to those described in urothelial carcinomas, as a consistent cytologic feature in ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) samples from SPPNs. The objective of the current multi-institutional study was to define the value of these cells in the differential diagnosis of SPPN with other neoplasms characterized cytologically by the presence of monotonous, uniform cells in pancreatic aspirates: pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (Pan-NETs) and acinar cell carcinomas (ACCs).

METHODS

The files of 4 academic hospitals were searched for SPPNs, Pan-NETs, and ACCs that were diagnosed by EUS-FNA. The slides were reviewed, and several cytologic features were recorded semiquantitatively to identify discriminating features between SPPNs, Pan-NETs, and ACCs.

RESULTS

From the analysis of 18 SPPNs, 4 ACCs, and 20 Pan-NETs, the following cytologic features were identified as common to all 3 neoplasms: single cells and rosettes/acinar cell groups, round-to-plasmacytoid cells, pale-to-granular cytoplasm, fine vacuoles, and binucleated cells. Papillary structures, cercariform cells, large cytoplasmic vacuoles, reniform nuclei, hyaline globules/magenta-colored material, and degenerative features (cholesterol crystals, calcifications, foam cells, or giant cells) were significantly more common in SPPNs. Prominent nuclear grooves were encountered in only 4 of 18 SPPNs.

CONCLUSIONS

The current results indicated that the presence of cercariform cells is another useful clue for the cytologic diagnosis of SPPN in challenging cases.

Effectiveness of combined endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy and stenting in patients with suspected pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNA) can be coupled with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the same setting when biliary and/or duodenal stenting are required.

AIMS

Our aim was to examine the effectiveness of EUS-FNA combined with stenting during the same session in patients with pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

Consecutive patients referred for EUS-FNA of a pancreatic mass with symptoms of biliary (±upper digestive) obstruction were included. Consecutive patients undergoing biliary and/or duodenal stenting without EUS-FNA during the same period were used as controls. Procedure-related complications were the primary outcome measure. Duration of the procedure, ability to achieve biliary/duodenal stenting, the yield of EUS-FNA, and clinical outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 122 patients underwent combined EUS-FNA and stenting and 68 underwent stenting alone (control group). In the combined group, histological proof of cancer was obtained in 88.52% at first EUS-FNA and 95.08% after a second EUS-FNA. Biliary stent placement was successful in 97.5 and 98% in the combined and the control groups, respectively. There was no statistical difference between the groups for length of stay after endoscopy and for procedure-related mortality and morbidity within 30 days. The median time from endoscopy to chemotherapy in the combined group was 12 days.

CONCLUSION

Combined EUS-FNA and biliary and/or duodenal stenting is feasible in almost all patients with suspected pancreatic cancer, with no additional hazard and a high histological yield.

MicroRNA profiling of diagnostic needle aspirates from patients with pancreatic cancer

Background:

A major challenge to the development of biomarkers for pancreatic cancer (PC) is the small amount of tissue obtained at the time of diagnosis. Single-gene analyses may not reliably predict biology of PC because of its complex molecular makeup. MicroRNA (miRNA) profiling may provide a more informative molecular interrogation of tumours. The primary objective of this study was to determine the feasibility of performing miRNA arrays and quantitative real-time PCR (qRT–PCR) from archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) cell blocks obtained from fine-needle aspirates (FNAs) that is the commonest diagnostic procedure for suspected PC.

Methods:

MicroRNA expression profiling was performed on FFPE from FNA of suspicious pancreatic masses. Subjects included those who had a pathological diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma and others with a non-malignant pancreatic histology. Exiqon assay was used to quantify miRNA levels and qRT–PCR was used to validate abnormal expression of selected miRNAs.

Results:

A total of 29 and 15 subjects had pancreatic adenocarcinoma and no evidence of cancer, respectively. The RNA yields per patient varied from 25 to 100 ng. Profiling demonstrated deregulation of over 228 miRNAs in pancreatic adenocarcinoma of which the top 7 were further validated by qRT–PCR. The expression of let-7c, let-7 f, and miR-200c were significantly reduced in most patients whereas the expression of miR-486-5p and miR-451 were significantly elevated in all pancreas cancer patients. MicroRNAs let-7d and miR-423-5p was either downregulated or upregulated with a significant inter-individual variation in their expression.

Conclusion:

This study demonstrated the feasibility of using archival FFPE cell blocks from FNAs to establish RNA-based molecular signatures unique to pancreatic adenocarcinoma with potential applications in clinical trials for risk stratification, patient selection, and target validation.

Diagnostic value of EUS elastography in differentiation of benign and malignant solid pancreatic masses: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

EUS elastography is a novel technique that can be used for distinguishing benign from malignant lymph nodes and focal pancreatic masses. However, the studies pertaining to EUS elastography for differential diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses have reported widely varied sensitivities and specificities. A meta-analysis of all relevant articles was performed to estimate the overall diagnostic accuracy of EUS elastography for differentiating benign and malignant solid pancreatic masses.

METHODS

The literatures were identified by searching in PubMed and Embase databases. Two reviewers independently extracted the information from the literatures for constructing 2 × 2 table. A random-effect model or a fixed-effect model was used to estimate the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio. A summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) also was constructed. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were used to explore the sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

13 studies including a total of 1042 patients with solid pancreatic masses were selected for meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of EUS elastography for differentiating benign and malignant solid pancreatic masses were 95% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93%-96%), 69% (95% CI, 63%-75%), respectively. The area under SROC (AUC) was 0.8695. Two significant variables were associated with heterogeneity: color pattern and blinding.

CONCLUSION

As a less invasive modality, EUS elastography is a promising method for differentiating benign and malignant solid pancreatic masses with a high sensitivity, and it can prove to be a valuable supplement to EUS-FNA.

Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for solid pancreatic lesion: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To summarize EUS-FNA test performance in suspected pancreatic malignancy with meta-analysis.

METHOD

Two reviewers searched MEDLINE (PubMed and Ovid from January 2002 to January 2012) database to identify relevant studies. The reference lists of the trials were manually searched. Included studies used histopathology or clinical and morphological (CT and MRI and US) follow-up as the "gold standard" and provided sufficient data to construct a diagnostic 2 × 2 table. A statistical program of Meta-Disc was used to calculate the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive LR, negative LR, DOR, and the SROC curve. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were calculated to evaluate potential sources of heterogeneity.

RESULT

A total of 15 studies with 1860 patients were included for the analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of EUS-FNA were 92 % (95 % CI = 91-93 %, p < 0.001, I (2) = 69.6 %) and 96 % (95 % CI = 93-98 %, p = 0.006, I (2) = 54.9 %), respectively. The positive LR and negative LR were 14.24 (95 % CI = 7.78-26.07) and 0.09 (95 % CI = 0.07-0.13), respectively. The area under the curve was 0.974. The subgroup analysis of six studies with rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) showed a pooled sensitivity of 95 % (95 % CI = 93-96 %), with p value equal 0.622 and I (2) = 0. The sensitivity analysis of ten high-quality studies (a score of ≥4) showed a pooled sensitivity of 94 % (95 % CI = 93-96 %, p = 0.144, I (2) = 33.1 %), and the pooled specificity was 0.95 (95 % CI, 0.91-0.97).

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNA had overall excellent specificity and sensitivity in accurately diagnosing solid pancreatic masses. ROSE could help to improve the accuracy of diagnostic test.

EUS-guided FNA for diagnosis of solid pancreatic neoplasms: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Preoperative diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions remains challenging despite advancement in imaging technologies. EUS has the benefit of being a minimally invasive, well-tolerated procedure, although results are operator-dependent. The addition of FNA (EUS-guided FNA) provides samples for cytopathologic analysis, a major advantage over other imaging techniques.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA for pancreatic cancer.

DESIGN

This is a meta-analysis of published studies assessing the diagnostic capability of EUS-FNA. Relevant studies were identified via MEDLINE and were included if they used a reference standard of definitive surgical histology or clinical follow-up of at least 6 months.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Data from selected studies were analyzed by using test accuracy meta-analysis software, providing a pooled value for sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, and summary receiver operating characteristic curve. Cytology results were classified as inadequate, benign, atypical, suspicious, or malignant. Predefined subgroup analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies published between 1997 and 2009 were included, with a total number of 4984 patients. The pooled sensitivity for malignant cytology was 85% (95% confidence interval [CI], 84-86), and pooled specificity was 98% (95% CI, 0.97-0.99). If atypical and suspicious cytology results were included to determine true neoplasms, the sensitivity increased to 91% (95% CI, 90-92); however, the specificity was reduced to 94% (95% CI, 93-96). The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA was enhanced in prospective, multicenter studies.

LIMITATION

Publication bias was not a significant determinant of pooled accuracy.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrates that EUS-FNA is a highly accurate diagnostic test for solid neoplasms of the pancreas and should be considered when algorithms for investigating solid pancreatic lesions are being planned.

Efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration in patients with solid pancreatic neoplasms

BACKGROUND/AIM

Endosonography is a distinct method for evaluating the structural lesions of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, particularly the pancreatobilliary region. This procedure has made a fundamental change in the diagnosis of pancreatic mass lesion through providing fine needle aspiration. This study aims at evaluating the results and efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in patients with pancreatic solid mass.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The present study is an observational, prospective case series nature, evaluated patients with pancreatic solid mass referred to Imam Khomeini educational hospital in Tehran for a duration of one year since November 2010. In order to determine the false negative cases, the patients were followed-up from 6 to 12 months.

RESULTS

EUS-FNA was conducted on all 53 patients without any complication. The majority of patients included in the study were males (68%) and 81% of patients had a mass in the head of pancreas. The result of cytopathology revealed 36 adenocarcinomas (68%), 7 other malignancies (13%), benign lesions (6%) and 7 non-diagnostic cases (13%). The frequency of non-diagnostic results was significantly high in masses smaller than 3 cm (6 vs. 1, P < 0.002). Patients with non-diagnostic result were younger than those with malignant cytopathology (52 ± 7.5 vs. 66 ± 7.5 years, P < 0.001).. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of this procedure concerning Adenocarcinoma were 88%, 100%, 100%, 70% and 90%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

EUS - FNA is an effective and safe procedure in histopathologic diagnosis of pancreatic tumors. This procedure is useful in all pancreatic mass cases including resectable and non-resectable ones.

Effect of dedicated and supervised training on achieving competence in EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has been suggested as a benchmark of quality performance in EUS. However, there is paucity of data on the training requirement for competency in EUS-FNA of the pancreas. KO commenced the service without prior formal training in EUS-FNA. A formally trained colleague (MN) who underwent a fellowship in the same unit was appointed to a substantive post in 2007. The aims of the study were to assess if a dedicated training program in pancreaticobiliary (PB) EUS-FNA of solid lesions: (1) produced better results at the outset of independent practice than produced at the initiation of service without formal training and (2) produced results comparable with those of an experienced endosonographer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a retrospective review comparing the first 80 consecutive cases at the onset of practice of operator KO1 (2003/2004) and MN (2007/2008) as well as consecutive cases of operator KO2 (2007/2008) in the same time frame as the initial cases of operator MN.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference in EUS-FNA sensitivity for pancreatic malignancy between operator KO1 (56%) and operator MN (77%) p < 0.05. There was no significant difference in test performance between operator KO2 (82%) and MN (77%) (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our data show that formal training in PB EUS produces test performance at the outset of independent practice that is comparable with an experienced endosonographer, in line with the published standards for EUS-FNA of the pancreas and significantly better than that achieved without training.

Role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses

Since it was developed in 1992, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has been widely used and has been adapted for gastrointestinal and perigastrointestinal lesions. A medical literature review to evaluate the role of EUS-FNA for diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses showed a 78-95% sensitivity, 75-100% specificity, 98-100% positive predictive value, 46-80% negative predictive value and a 78-95% accuracy. The reported complication rates of EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid masses were 0-2%, although the criteria for complications varied among the studies. Because of its high diagnostic yield and low complication rate, EUS-FNA is cost-effective and widely applicable for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses, and is the best initial and the preferred secondary method compared with other biopsy techniques, such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-guided biopsy, computed tomography/ultrasound-FNA and surgery. Although EUS-FNA is 'a nearly perfected procedure,' controversy remains, such as the most suitable diameter of the needle, the appropriate number of needle passes and the necessity of on-site cytopathological evaluation. Recently investigators reported that using molecular analysis of EUS-FNA samples can achieve a higher diagnostic efficacy. Further research is encouraged to optimize the EUS-FNA procedure to reach its maximum diagnostic yield for solid pancreatic masses.

Contrast harmonic echo-endoscopic ultrasound improves accuracy in diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Contrast harmonic echo (CHE) has been developed for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). This new technique detects echo signals from microbubbles in vessels with very slow flow, without artifacts. We assessed whether CHE-EUS increases the accuracy of diagnosis of pancreatic solid lesions.

METHODS

At a tertiary-care EUS center, we examined 90 patients who were suspected of having pancreatic solid neoplasm. Radial and linear echoendoscopes were used with dedicated software for CHE. Sonovue (Bracco International BV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) uptake, pattern, and washout were studied; data were compared for pancreatic lesions and adjacent parenchyma. The final diagnosis was obtained based on results of surgical pathology and/or EUS-fine needle aspiration (FNA) analyses.

RESULTS

The finding of a hypoenhancing mass with an inhomogeneous pattern was a sensitive and accurate identifier of patients with adenocarcinoma (96% and 82%, respectively) (49 of 51 patients with primary pancreatic adenocarcinoma had a hypoenhancing mass that was inhomogeneous and had fast washout). This finding was more accurate in diagnosis than the finding of a hypoechoic lesion using standard EUS (P < .000). Hyperenhancement specifically excluded adenocarcinoma (98%), although sensitivity was low (39%). Of neuroendocrine tumors, 11 of 13 were non-hypo-enhancing (9 hyperenhancing, 2 isoenhancing). Interestingly, CHE-EUS allowed detection of small lesions in 7 patients who had uncertain standard EUS findings because of biliary stents (n = 5) or chronic pancreatitis (n = 2). Targeted EUS-FNA was performed on these lesions.

CONCLUSIONS

Detection of a hypoenhancing and inhomogeneous mass accurately identified patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. CHE-EUS increased the detection of malignant lesions in difficult cases (patients with chronic pancreatitis or biliary stents) and helped guide EUS-FNA. A hyperenhancing pattern could be used to rule out adenocarcinoma.