Value of EUS-FNA cytological preparations compared with cell block sections in the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumours

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Tumor Location in the Head/Uncinate Process and Presence of Fibrosis Impair the Adequacy of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition of Solid Pancreatic Tumors

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) of solid pancreatic tumors shows optimal specificity despite fair sensitivity, with an overall suboptimal diagnostic yield. We aim to quantify the adequacy and accuracy of EUS-TA and assess predictive factors for success, focusing on the presence and degree of specimen fibrosis. All consecutive EUS-TA procedures were retrieved, and the specimens were graded for sample adequacy and fibrosis. The results were evaluated according to patients' and tumor characteristics and the EUS-TA technique. In total, 407 patients (59% male, 70 [63-77] year old) were included; sample adequacy and diagnostic accuracy were 90.2% and 94.7%, respectively. Fibrosis was significantly more represented in tumors located in the head/uncinate process (p = 0.001). Tumor location in the head/uncinate (OR 0.37 [0.14-0.99]), number of needle passes ≥ 3 (OR 4.53 [2.22-9.28]), and the use of cell block (OR 8.82 [3.23-23.8]) were independently related to adequacy. Severe fibrosis was independently related to false negative results (OR 8.37 [2.33-30.0]). Pancreatic tumors located in the head/uncinate process showed higher fibrosis, resulting in EUS-TA with lower sample adequacy and diagnostic accuracy. We maintain that three or more needle passes and cell block should be done to increase the diagnostic yield.

Diagnostic utility of conventional and liquid-based cytology in the management of thyroid lesions; an institutional experience

Objectives:

Liquid-based cytology (LBC) is becoming a useful method in evaluating both gynecological and nongynecological preparations. Many studies have been conducted these days to see the quality of LBC in diagnosing thyroid lesions and its role is yet to be standardized. This study has been done to pick the cytomorphological features of thyroid lesions on LBC and to compare them with the conventional cytology of these lesions.The objective of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of thyroid fine-needle aspiration cytology processed by LBC as compared to conventional smears.

Material and Methods:

A prospective study has been done on 53 cases of thyroid lesions using standard conventional and LBC techniques.

Results:

In most of the cases, the cytological features are similar in conventional cytology smears and LBC, but the colloid film and the lymphocytic component show a clear picture on direct smears, whereas nuclear and cytoplasmic details are better evaluated in LBC slides. The preservative solution used in LBC could be efficiently used for the application of immunocytochemical and molecular techniques.

Conclusion:

LBC does not represent as a valid alternative to conventional cytology but it can be considered as a diagnostic utility process especially due to the possibility of applying additional techniques which enhance the efficacy of the cytological diagnosis of thyroid lesions.

Endoscopic tissue sampling - Part 1: Upper gastrointestinal and hepatopancreatobiliary tracts. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

1: ESGE recommends that, where there is a suspicion of eosinophilic esophagitis, at least six biopsies should be taken, two to four biopsies from the distal esophagus and two to four biopsies from the proximal esophagus, targeting areas with endoscopic mucosal abnormalities. Distal and proximal biopsies should be placed in separate containers.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 2: ESGE recommends obtaining six biopsies, including from the base and edge of the esophageal ulcers, for histologic analysis in patients with suspected viral esophagitis.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 3: ESGE recommends at least six biopsies are taken in cases of suspected advanced esophageal cancer and suspected advanced gastric cancer.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 4: ESGE recommends taking only one to two targeted biopsies for lesions in the esophagus or stomach that are potentially amenable to endoscopic resection (Paris classification 0-I, 0-II) in order to confirm the diagnosis and not compromise subsequent endoscopic resection.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 5: ESGE recommends obtaining two biopsies from the antrum and two from the corpus in patients with suspected Helicobacter pylori infection and for gastritis staging.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 6: ESGE recommends biopsies from or, if endoscopically resectable, resection of gastric adenomas.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 7: ESGE recommends fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles equally for sampling of solid pancreatic masses.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 8: ESGE suggests performing peroral cholangioscopy (POC) and/or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition in indeterminate biliary strictures. For proximal and intrinsic strictures, POC is preferred. For distal and extrinsic strictures, EUS-guided sampling is preferred, with POC where this is not diagnostic.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 9: ESGE suggests obtaining possible non-neoplastic biopsies before sampling suspected malignant lesions to prevent intraluminal spread of malignant disease.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. 10: ESGE suggests dividing EUS-FNA material into smears (two per pass) and liquid-based cytology (LBC), or the whole of the EUS-FNA material can be processed as LBC, depending on local experience.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

Feasibility and Accuracy of Transduodenal Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration of Solid Lesions Using a 19-Gauge Flexible Needle: A Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the go-to method for obtaining samples from gastrointestinal tract and pancreatic lesions. When the transduodenal approach is utilized, the use of a more flexible needle, such as a nitinol 19-gauge (G) needle, has been recommended. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of 19-G flexible aspiration needles in obtaining samples from solid lesions through a transduodenal approach.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from eight Italian endoscopy centers. Consecutive patients with solid lesions who underwent transduodenal EUS-FNA with a 19-G flexible needle were included.

RESULTS

A total of 201 patients were enrolled. According to histology, EUS, radiology and 12 months of follow-up, 151 patients had malignant lesions and 50 patients had benign lesions. EUS-FNA was feasible in all cases. An adequate histologic sample was obtained in all except eight cases (96.1%). The sensitivity of EUS-FNA was 92.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86.8%-95.7%), and the specificity was 100% (95% CI, 90.5%-100%). The positive predictive value was 100% (95% CI, 93.4%-100%), and the negative predictive value was 74% (95% CI, 62.8%-82.7%). The diagnostic accuracy was 93.5% (95% CI, 89.2%-96.5%).

CONCLUSION

The transduodenal approach for obtaining samples from solid lesions using a 19-G flexible needle seems feasible and accurate.

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.

Endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle biopsies of pancreatic lesions: Prospective study of histology quality using Franseen needle

BACKGROUND

The introduction of fine needle biopsies (FNB) to clinical practice presents a changing trend towards histology in the endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA).

AIM

To evaluate the clinical performance of a new FNB needle, the 22-gauge (22G) Franseen needle, when sampling pancreatic solid lesions.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with an indication for EUS-TA for the assessment of pancreatic solid lesions were included in this prospective, single-center, single-arm trial. Each patient underwent a puncture of the lesion two times using the 22G Franseen needle and the obtained samples were directly placed into formalin for histological analysis. The primary study endpoint was the rate of high-quality obtained specimen. Secondary endpoints included the length and diameter of the core specimen, the diagnostic accuracy and the complication rate.

RESULTS

From June 2017 to December 2018, forty patients with pancreatic solid lesions (22 females; mean age 67.2 years) were enrolled. Tissue acquisition was achieved in all cases. High-quality histology, rated with Payne score 3, was obtained in 37/40 cases (92.5%) after two needle passes. The mean size of the acquired histological core tissue was 1.54 mm × 0.39 mm. The diagnostic accuracy for the correct diagnosis was 85% (34/40). Only one adverse event was occurred, consisting of a self-limiting bleeding in the puncture site.

CONCLUSION

The 22G Franseen needle achieved according to our standardized protocol a high rate of histological core procurement, and a high diagnostic accuracy, with one minor adverse event reported.

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.

Imaging of Pancreatic-Neuroendocrine Tumours: An Outline of Conventional Radiological Techniques

IIntroduction:

Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumours (p-NETs) are an important disease entity and comprise of peptide-secreting tumours often with a functional syndrome.

:

Accounting for a small percentage of all pancreatic tumours, they have a good overall survival rate when diagnosed early, with surgery being curative. The role of nuclear medicine in the diagnosis and treatment of these tumours is evident. However, the vast majority of patients will require extensive imaging in the form of conventional radiological techniques. It is important for clinicians to have a fundamental understanding of the p-NET appearances to aid prompt identification and to help direct management through neoplastic staging.

Methods:

This article will review the advantages and disadvantages of conventional radiological techniques in the context of p-NETs and highlight features that these tumours exhibit.

Conclusion:

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours are a unique collection of neoplasms that have markedly disparate clinical features but similar imaging characteristics. Most p-NETs are small and welldefined with homogenous enhancement following contrast administration, although larger and less welldifferentiated tumours can demonstrate areas of necrosis and cystic architecture with heterogeneous enhancement characteristics.

:

Prognosis is generally favourable for these tumours with various treatment options available. However, conventional radiological techniques will remain the foundation for the initial diagnosis and staging of these tumours, and a grasp of these modalities is extremely important for physicians.

Endoscopic ultrasonography in pancreatic diseases: advances in tissue acquisition

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) improved the diagnostic performance and upgraded the role of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) into an interventional modality, able to guide patient management and treatment.This review aimed to highlight the advances, emerging practices, procedural techniques and technological innovations in EUS tissue acquisition in pancreatic diseases. Methods  A thorough review of the literature was performed using PubMed to identify articles that describe techniques, advances, and practices in EUS tissue acquisition in gastrointestinal diseases. Conclusion  Since the first EUS-FNA procedure, EUS guided-tissue acquisition has been evolving continuously. Development of needles with innovative tip design enabled procurement of larger samples with preserved histological architecture. Moreover, sampling techniques and complementary methods, such as contrast harmonic imaging and EUS-elastography, have been introduced in an effort to improve diagnostic performance and sample adequacy.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Specimen Collection and Evaluation Techniques Affect Diagnostic Accuracy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) evaluation vary with technique, needles, and methods of specimen evaluation. We performed a direct comparison of diagnostic yields of EUS-FNA samples collected using different gauge needles (22- vs 25-gauge), with or without suction.

METHODS

We performed a randomized controlled study of 352 patients with suspected pancreatic masses, referred for EUS-FNA at a tertiary referral center. Patients were randomly assigned to 22-gauge needles with or without suction or 25-gauge needles with or without suction. Specimens were evaluated offsite by cell block and rapid onsite cytologic evaluation (ROSE). Final diagnoses were made based on histologic analyses or 12-month follow-up evaluations. The primary outcome was diagnostic adequacy of cell blocks. Secondary outcomes were operating characteristics of ROSE and EUS-FNA, number of passes required for accurate onsite diagnosis, and amount of blood in specimens.

RESULTS

The final diagnoses were malignancy (81.5% of patients) and benign disease (17.0% of patients); 1.4% of patients were lost during follow up. Cell block, ROSE, and EUS-FNA led to diagnostic accuracies of 71.9%, 95.5%, and 96.6%, respectively. A 22-gauge needle with suction was associated with more passes for adequate onsite diagnosis (P = .003) and specimens contained more blood (P = .01). Diagnostic accuracy of specimens collected by transduodenal EUS-FNA was lower with 22-gauge needles with suction compared to other techniques (P = .004).

CONCLUSION

In a randomized trial of patients undergoing EUS-FNA for pancreatic masses, samples collected with 22-gauge vs 25-gauge needles performed equally well for offsite specimen evaluation. Use of suction appears to increase number of passes needed and specimen bloodiness. Specimen collection techniques should be individualized based on method of evaluation. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02424838.

Randomized trial comparing the Franseen and Fork-tip needles for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling of solid pancreatic mass lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Recently, a 3-plane symmetric needle with Franseen geometry and a Fork-tip biopsy needle have been developed for histologic tissue procurement. We compared 22-gauge Franseen and 22-gauge Fork-tip needles in patients undergoing EUS-guided sampling of pancreatic masses.

METHODS

Fifty patients underwent sampling using both 22-gauge Franseen and 22-gauge Fork-tip needles, with randomization of needle order. Two dedicated passes were performed using both needles for cell block. Subsequent passes were performed for rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE) using both needles alternately until diagnosis was established. The main outcome was to evaluate for histologic core tissue by comparing area of total tissue, tumor, desmoplastic fibrosis, and rate of retained tissue architecture between cohorts. Other outcomes were rates of diagnostic cell block and diagnostic adequacy at ROSE.

RESULTS

Final diagnosis was pancreatic cancer in 44 patients, neuroendocrine tumor in 2, lymphoma in 1, and chronic pancreatitis in 3. There was no significant difference in area of total tissue (median 6.1 [interquartie range {IQR}, 3.5-10.5] vs 8.2 mm² [IQR, 4.0-13.0], P = .50), tumor (median .9 [IQR .3-2.8] vs 1.0 mm² [IQR .4-2.7], P = .33), desmoplastic fibrosis (median 4.3 [IQR, 2.0-6.7] vs 5.2 mm² [IQR, 1.7-6.1], P = .71), retained architecture (100% vs 83%, P = .25), diagnostic cell block (96.0% vs 92.0%, P = .32), and diagnostic adequacy at ROSE (94.0% vs 98.0%, P = .32) between Franseen and Fork-tip needles, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference between Franseen and Fork-tip needles in yielding histologic tissue. Given their ability to yield diagnostic cell block in greater than 90% of patients, the new-generation fine-needle biopsy needles may obviate the need for ROSE. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02910960.).

A comprehensive review of endoscopic ultrasound core biopsy needles

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition by-fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) developed over the last two decades as an attempt to overcome the limitations of fine needle aspiration (FNA). There are now three commercially available second-generation FNB needles with different tip designs.

AREAS COVERED

In this review the roles of EUS-FNA and FNB, the history and evolution of the EUS core biopsy needle are addressed followed by a presentation of currently available needles. Literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, Controlled Trials Register, US Patent Registry, Google Scholar, and Conference Abstracts.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

While FNA remains the reference standard, it is limited by the inability to retain stroma and associated cellular architecture in biopsy samples. Histologic architecture is of paramount importance in providing a molecular diagnosis and for accurate tumor staging. FNB offers a superior diagnostic yield to FNA and initial experiences with the three commercially available second-generation FNB needles show highly promising results.

Comparison of cytological and histological preparations in the diagnosis of pancreatic malignancies using endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has become a crucial diagnostic technique for pancreatic malignancies. The specimen obtained by EUS-FNA can be prepared for either cytological or histological examinations. This study was to compare diagnostic performance of cytological and histological preparations using EUS-FNA in the same lesions when pancreatic malignancies were suspected.

METHODS

One hundred and eighteen patients who underwent EUS-FNA for suspected pancreatic malignancies were consecutively enrolled. All procedures were conducted by a single echoendoscopist under the same conditions. Four adequate preparations were obtained by 22-gauge needles with 20 to-and-fro movements for each pass. The 4 preparations included 2 cytological and 2 histological specimens. The pathologic reviews of all specimens were conducted independently by a single experienced cytopathologist. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the 2 preparations were compared.

RESULTS

The enrolled patients consisted of 62 males (52.5%), with the mean age of 64.6±10.5 years. Surgery was performed in 23 (19.5%) patients. One hundred and sixteen (98.3%) lesions were classified as malignant, while 2 (1.7%) were benign. Sensitivity of cytology and histology were 87.9% and 81.9%, respectively, with no significant difference (P=0.190). Accuracy was also not significantly different. Cytological preparation was more sensitive when the size of lesion was <3 cm (86.7% vs 68.9%, P=0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggested that the diagnostic performances of cytological and histological preparations are not significantly different for the diagnosis of pancreatic malignancies. However, cytological preparation might be more sensitive for pancreatic lesions <3 cm.

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.

22-gauge core vs 22-gauge aspiration needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of abdominal masses

AIM

To compare the aspiration needle (AN) and core biopsy needle (PC) in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of abdominal masses.

METHODS

Consecutive patients referred for EUS-FNA were included in this prospective single-center trial. Each patient underwent a puncture of the lesion with both standard 22-gauge (G) AN (Echo Tip Ultra; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana, United States) and the novel 22G PC (EchoTip ProCore; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana, United States) in a randomized fashion; histology was attempted in the PC group only. The main study endpoint was the overall diagnostic accuracy, including the contribution of histology to the final diagnosis. Secondary outcome measures included material adequacy, number of needle passes, and complications.

RESULTS

Fifty six consecutive patients (29 men; mean age 68 years) with pancreatic lesions (n = 38), lymphadenopathy (n = 13), submucosal tumors (n = 4), or others lesions (n = 1) underwent EUS-FNA using both of the needles in a randomized order. AN and PC reached similar overall results for diagnostic accuracy (AN: 88.9 vs PC: 96.1, P = 0.25), specimen adequacy (AN: 96.4% vs PC: 91.1%, P = 0.38), mean number of passes (AN: 1.5 vs PC: 1.7, P = 0.14), mean cellularity score (AN: 1.7 vs PC: 1.1, P = 0.058), and complications (none). A diagnosis on the basis of histology was achieved in the PC group in 36 (64.3%) patients, and in 2 of those as the sole modality. In patients with available histology the mean cellularity score was higher for AN (AN: 1.7 vs PC: 1.0, P = 0.034); no other differences were of statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

Both needles achieved high overall diagnostic yields and similar performance characteristics for cytological diagnosis; histological analysis was only possible in 2/3 of cases with the new needle.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses: 22-gauge aspiration versus 25-gauge biopsy needles

Background

Biopsy needles have recently been developed to obtain both cytological and histological specimens during endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). We conducted this study to compare 22-gauge (G) fine needle aspiration (FNA) needles, which have been the most frequently used, and new 25G fine needle biopsy (FNB) needles for EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all EUS-guided sampling performed between June 2010 and October 2013. During the study period, 76 patients with pancreatic masses underwent EUS-guided sampling with a 22G FNA needle (n = 38) or a 25G FNB needle (n = 38) for diagnosis. An on-site cytopathologist was not present during the procedure. Technical success, the number of needle passes, cytological diagnostic accuracy, cytological sample quality (conventional smear and liquid-based preparation), histological diagnostic accuracy, and complications were reviewed and compared.

Results

There were no significant differences in technical success (100 % for both), the mean number of needle passes (5.05 vs. 5.55, P = 0.132), or complications (0 % for both) between the 22G FNA group and the 25G FNB group. The 22G FNA and 25G FNB groups exhibited comparable outcomes with respect to cytological diagnostic accuracy (97.4 % vs. 89.5 %, P = 0.358) and histological diagnostic accuracy (34.2 % vs. 52.6 %, P = 0.105). In the cytological sample quality analysis, the 25G FNB group exhibited higher scores for the amount of diagnostic cellular material present (22G FNA: 0.92 vs. 25G FNB: 1.32, P = 0.030) and the retention of appropriate architecture (22G FNA: 0.97 vs. 25G FNB: 1.42, P = 0.010) in the liquid-based preparation. The 25G FNB group showed a better histological diagnostic yield for specific tumor discrimination compared with the 22G FNA group (60 % vs. 32.4 %, P = 0.018).

Conclusions

Use of the 25G FNB needle was technically feasible, safe, efficient, and comparable to use of the standard 22G FNA needle in patients with solid pancreatic masses in the absence of an on-site cytopathologist. The cytological sample quality in the liquid-based preparation and the histological diagnostic yield for specific tumor discrimination of EUS-guided sampling using a 25G FNB needle were significantly higher than those using a 22G FNA needle.

Cell-block procedure in endoscopic ultrasound-guided-fine-needle-aspiration of gastrointestinal solid neoplastic lesions

In the present review we have analyzed the clinical applications of endoscopic ultrasound-guided-fine-needle-aspiration (EUS-FNA) and the methodological aspects obtained by cell-block procedure (CBP) in the diagnostic approach to the gastrointestinal neoplastic pathology. CBP showed numerous advantages in comparison to the cytologic routine smears; in particular, better preservation of cell architecture, achievement of routine haematoxylin-eosin staining equivalent to histological slides and possibility to perform immunohistochemistry or molecular analyses represented the most evident reasons to choose this method. Moreover, by this approach, the differential diagnosis of solid gastrointestinal neoplasias may be more easily achieved and the background of contaminant non-neoplastic gastrointestinal avoided. Finally, biological samples collected by EUS-FNA CBP-assisted should be investigated in order to identify and quantify further potential molecular markers.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology in pancreaticobiliary carcinomas: diagnostic efficacy of cell-block immunocytochemistry

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology was demonstrated to be a useful tool for the diagnosis and staging of pancreaticobiliary neoplastic lesions. Nonetheless, the diagnostic value of this procedure may be limited by low cellularity of the specimen, contamination of intestinal cells and unfeasibility of ancillary immunocytochemical procedures. The present study was to evaluate its usefulness in the diagnosis of neoplastic lesions.

METHODS

A series of 46 pancreaticobiliary carcinomas with available cell block preparations was submitted to immunocytochemistry against cytokeratins, carcinoembryonic antigen, E-cadherin, CD10 and p53. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the cytological smear in the discrimination of malignant lesions were calculated and compared with those of cell block preparation with the immunocytochemical stains against p53 and CD10.

RESULTS

According to our findings, the use of cell block preparations together with immunostains against p53 and CD10 allowed to discriminate malignant versus benign specimens with higher sensitivity than the only cytological examination. In detail, CD10 immunostaining was of significant help for the discrimination between cytological contaminants, such as benign gastrointestinal cells, and the neoplastic elements of pancreaticobiliary well differentiated adenocarcinomas. Also, intense nuclear immunoreactivity for p53 was encountered in about 2/3 of the cases and identified pancreatic malignancy with high sensitivity.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that immunocytochemistry against both CD10 and p53 could be applied case by case, mainly to differentiate gastrointestinal and pancreatic benign cellular contaminants showing hyperplasia or reactive changes from differentiated pancreaticobiliary adenocarcinomas.

CD10 is useful to identify gastrointestinal contamination in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) cytology from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) cytology is an effective tool to diagnose pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA). Standard morphological criteria are usually reliable. When contaminating gastrointestinal (GI) epithelial cells are prevalent among neoplastic cells, these can be highlighted by carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) staining. CD10 is a cell-surface metallopeptidase normally expressed by the GI epithelial apical border, whose expression is decreased or lost in PDA. We included CD10 in a panel, together with CEA, to discriminate the GI contaminant cells from PDA cells on cell blocks.

METHODS

Eight cases of EUS-FNA of PDA, featuring both contaminating GI cells and neoplastic cells, whose corresponding cell blocks were available for immunostaining, were selected. CD10 and CEA were stained on cell blocks by standard methods.

RESULTS

CD10 strongly labelled only the GI cells, with a well-defined apical membrane signal; conversely, GI cells did not show CEA staining; benign duodenal cells were faintly labelled in only one case. Malignant cells were positive for CEA and negative for CD10, with the exception of one case with labelled neoplastic cells with weak diffuse cytoplasmic positivity. CD10 apical membrane staining was a feature only seen in benign GI cells.

CONCLUSIONS

As a loss of CD10 is a consistent feature of PDA, this marker can be useful, together with CEA, to aid the cytopathologist to identify neoplastic cells in a background rich in GI contaminant cells.

The 25-gauge EUS-FNA needle: Good for on-site but poor for off-site evaluation? Results of a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

When on-site cytopathology support is not available, EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is performed for cell-block preparation to allow off-site interpretation.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the number of passes required to obtain a diagnostic cell block by using a 25-gauge needle for sampling pancreatic masses.

DESIGN

Randomized trial.

SETTING

Tertiary care hospital.

PATIENTS

Sixty-two patients with solid pancreatic mass lesions.

INTERVENTIONS

EUS-FNA was performed by using a 25-gauge needle. After establishing a preliminary on-site diagnosis, patients were randomized to 2 or 4 FNA passes for a cell block. A cell block was evaluated by a pathologist blinded to on-site interpretation for the presence of a tissue pellet, histological core tissue size, and diagnostic accuracy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

To determine the number of passes required to obtain a diagnostic cell block with a 25-gauge FNA needle.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients were randomized to undergo either 2 (n = 31) or 4 (n = 31) FNA passes for a cell block. Before randomization, an on-site diagnosis was established in all 62 patients (100%). The final diagnosis was adenocarcinoma in 45 (72.6%), neuroendocrine/other tumor in 7 (11.3%), and chronic pancreatitis in 10 (16.1%). There was no difference in the presence of a tissue pellet (93.5 vs 96.8%; P = .99), the median size of the histological core (0.006 vs 0.05 mm(2); P = .12), or the presence of a diagnostic cell block (80.6 vs 80.6%; P = .99) between patients randomized to 2 or 4 FNA passes, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

Only pancreatic masses were evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

The 25-gauge FNA needle yielded a diagnostic cell block in only 81% of patients, irrespective of whether 2 or 4 FNA passes were performed. These findings have important implications for centers without on-site cytopathology services. (Clinical trial registration number NCT01809028.).

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.

Cell blocks in cytopathology: a review of preparative methods, utility in diagnosis and role in ancillary studies

The cell block (CB) is a routine procedure in cytopathology that has gained importance because of its pivotal role in diagnosis and ancillary studies. There is no precise review in the published literature that deals with the various methods of preparation of CB, its utility in diagnosis, immunocytochemistry (ICC) or molecular testing, and its drawbacks. An extensive literature search on CB in cytology using internet search engines was performed for this review employing the following keywords: cell block, cytoblock, cytology, cytopathology, methods, preparation, fixatives, diagnostic yield, ancillary and molecular studies. Ever since its introduction more than a century ago, the CB technique has undergone numerous modifications to improve the quality of the procedure; however, the overall principle remains the same in each method. CBs can be prepared from virtually all varieties of cytological samples. In today's era of personalized medicine, cytological specimens, including CBs, augment the utility of cytological samples in analysing the molecular alterations as effectively as surgical biopsies or resection specimens. With the availability of molecular targeted therapy for many cancers, a large number of recent studies have used cytological material or CBs for molecular characterization. The various techniques of CB preparation with different fixatives, their advantages and limitations, and issues of diagnostic yield are discussed in this review.

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.

How can an endosonographer assess for diagnostic sufficiency and options for handling the endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration specimen and ancillary studies

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has become well established as a minimally invasive technique in diagnosing and staging various gastrointestinal, pancreaticobiliary, and retroperitoneal malignancies. The diagnostic accuracy of this procedure is significantly enhanced by the presence of on-site cytopathology. However, in many EUS centers, cytopathology is not readily available for on-site evaluation. This article is intended to assist the independent endosonographer in the assessment of diagnostic sufficiency and in specimen handling.

Diagnostic ability and factors affecting accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for pancreatic solid lesions: Japanese large single center experience

BACKGROUND

Several studies have investigated the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for pancreatic lesions, but they have included only limited patient populations. This study aimed to clarify the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA in a large number of pancreatic lesions, and to describe the factors that influence it.

METHODS

From March 1997 to May 2010, 944 consecutive patients who had undergone EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid lesions were evaluated retrospectively. Factors affecting EUS-FNA accuracy were then analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 996 solid pancreatic lesions were sampled by EUS-FNA. The overall sampling adequacy and diagnostic accuracy of these lesions were 99.3 % (989/996) and 91.8 % (918/996), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for differentiating malignant from benign lesions were 91.5 % (793/867) and 97.7 % (126/129), respectively. The diagnostic performance was significantly higher when both cytological and cell-block examinations were carried out than with only cytological examination. In multivariate analysis, final diagnosis, location of lesion, lesion size, availability of on-site cytopathological evaluation, and experience of EUS-FNA procedure were independent factors affecting the accuracy of EUS-FNA. On-site cytopathological evaluation and lesion size were found to be the most weighted factors affecting diagnostic accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid lesions yielded a high accuracy and low complication rate. Both cytological and cell-block preparations and on-site cytopathological evaluation contributed to improve the accuracy. The diagnostic ability of EUS-FNA was less for smaller lesions, and repeated procedures may be needed if malignancy is suspected.

Five Top Stories in Cytopathology

Context.—Cytology relies heavily on morphology to make diagnoses, and morphologic criteria have not changed much in recent years. The field is being shaped predominantly by new techniques for imaging and for acquiring and processing samples, advances in molecular diagnosis and therapeutics, and regulatory issues.

Objective.—To review the importance of classical morphology in the future of cytopathology, to identify areas in which cytology is expanding or contracting in its scope, and to identify factors that are shaping the field.

Data Sources.—Literature review.

Conclusions.—Five stories paint a picture in which classical cytomorphology will continue to have essential importance, both for diagnosis and for improving our understanding of cancer biology. New endoscopy and imaging techniques are replacing surgical biopsies with cytology samples. New molecularly targeted therapies offer a chance for cytology to play a major role, but they pose new challenges. New molecular tests have the potential to synergize with, but not replace, morphologic interpretation of thyroid fine-needle aspirations. Ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration performed by cytopathologists is opening a new field of “interventional cytopathology” with unique value. For the productive evolution of the field, it will be important for cytopathologists to play an active role in clinical trials that document the ability of cytology to achieve cost-effective health care outcomes.

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.

Analyzing S100A6 expression in endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration specimens: a promising diagnostic method of pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND AND GOALS

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) cytology in combination with other tests is necessary to improve diagnostic accuracy. We evaluated the diagnostic utility of S100A6 expression in EUS-FNA tissue samples in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA).

METHODS

RNA was extracted from 36 PDA and 44 nontumor pancreatic tissues obtained during surgery. S100A6 expression was quantified by real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction, and receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to determine the cutoff value for PDA. We preoperatively performed EUS-FNA in 52 patients with pancreatic masses, then prospectively evaluated the diagnostic value of S100A6 expression of EUS-FNA samples in pancreatic cancer diagnosis. S100A6 immunohistology was conducted to validate the S100A6 expression data in PDA samples.

RESULTS

Of the 52 EUS-FNA patients with pancreatic masses, RNA was successfully extracted from 44, which comprised 34 pancreatic cancer patients and 10 patients with benign pancreatic diseases. Cytology results were malignant in 23 cases, benign in 9, and atypical or abnormal in 12. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of cytology for diagnosis of pancreatic cancer were 67.65%, 100%, and 75%, respectively. When an S100A6 expression >0.005248 was defined as positive for malignancy, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of S100A6 expression of EUS-FNA for diagnosis of pancreatic cancer were 88.24%, 90.00%, and 88.64%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Quantification of S100A6 expression in EUS-FNA samples had a high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of PDA.

Randomized trial comparing the 22-gauge aspiration and 22-gauge biopsy needles for EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic mass lesions

BACKGROUND

To overcome limitations of cytology, biopsy needles have been developed to procure histologic samples during EUS.

OBJECTIVE

To compare 22-gauge (G) FNA and 22G biopsy needles (FNB) for EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses.

DESIGN

Randomized trial.

SETTING

Tertiary-care medical center.

PATIENTS

This study involved 56 patients with solid pancreatic masses.

INTERVENTION

Sampling of pancreatic masses by using 22G FNA or 22G FNB devices.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Compare the median number of passes required to establish the diagnosis, diagnostic sufficiency, technical performance, complication rates, procurement of the histologic core, and quality of the histologic specimen.

RESULTS

A total of 28 patients were randomized to the FNA group and 28 to the FNB group. There was no significant difference in median number of passes required to establish the diagnosis (1 [interquartile range 1-2.5] vs 1 [interquartile range 1-1]; P = .21), rates of diagnostic sufficiency (100% vs 89.3%; P = .24), technical failure (0 vs 3.6%; P = 1.0), or complications (3.6% for both) between FNA and FNB needles, respectively. Patients in whom diagnosis was established in passes 1, 2, and 3 were 64.3% versus 67.9%, 10.7% versus 17.9%, and 25% versus 3.6%, respectively, for FNA and FNB cohorts. There was no significant difference in procurement of the histologic core (100% vs 83.3%; P = .26) or the presence of diagnostic histologic specimens (66.7% vs 80%; P = .66) between FNA and FNB cohorts, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

Only pancreatic masses were evaluated.

CONCLUSION

Diagnostic sufficiency, technical performance, and safety profiles of FNA and FNB needles are comparable. There was no significant difference in yield or quality of the histologic core between the 2 needle types.

Assessment of the technical performance of the flexible 19-gauge EUS-FNA needle

BACKGROUND

A needle made of nitinol has been developed with enhanced flexibility to overcome the limitations of the currently available 19-G EUS-FNA needles.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the ability to perform transduodenal FNAs, procure histologic specimens, and undertake therapeutic interventions using the flexible 19-G needle.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary-care academic medical center.

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients with subepithelial masses, pancreatic head or uncinate lesions, or lesions adjacent to the pancreatic head, and patients undergoing therapeutic intervention.

INTERVENTIONS

Perform tissue acquisition and interventions with the flexible 19-G FNA needle.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Evaluate the ability to perform transduodenal passes with the flexible 19-G FNA needle. Also, assess the utility of the needle to yield both cytologic and histologic samples and to perform therapeutic interventions.

RESULTS

Of the 50 patients enrolled, tissue acquisition was undertaken in 38 and therapeutic intervention in 12. Of 38 patients from whom tissue was procured, 32 tissue samples were from pancreatic head/uncinate or peripancreatic masses and 6 were from subepithelial masses. Tissue acquisition, which included transduodenal passes, was successful and adequate for cytologic assessment in all 38 patients (100%). Satisfactory histologic specimens were procured from 36 of 38 (94.7%) patients. An onsite diagnosis was established in 35 of 38 (92.1%) patients. In 3 patients with indeterminate/suspicious lesions, a definitive diagnosis was established at histology. A mean of 1.45 ± 0.79 passes per patient was performed. All 12 therapeutic interventions were successful (100%) and included pseudocyst drainage in 5, pelvic abscess drainage in 2, fiducial placement in 2, celiac plexus neurolysis in 2, and cholangiogram in 1. Needle dysfunction or procedural complications were not encountered.

LIMITATIONS

Single-center study with limited power.

CONCLUSIONS

Preliminary data suggest that the flexible 19-G needle can be used for procuring cytologic aspirates and histologic specimens and to undertake therapeutic interventions even by the transduodenal route. Confirmatory studies are required in a larger cohort of patients with varied pathologic conditions to validate these findings.