Value of repeat endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for suspected pancreatic cancer

The Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound and Ancillary Techniques in the Diagnosis of Autoimmune Pancreatitis: A Comprehensive Review

Autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is a unique form of chronic pancreatitis with a multifactorial pathogenesis. Historically, it has been classified as type 1 and type 2, according to its clinical and histological features. The diagnosis of AIP is challenging and relies on a combination of clinical, histopathologic, serologic, and imaging characteristics. In the available guidelines, the imaging hallmarks of AIP are based on cross-sectional imaging and cholangiopancreatography retrograde endoscopic findings. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is generally used for pancreatic tissue acquisition to rule out pancreatic cancer and diagnose AIP with limited accuracy. Several papers reported the reliability of EUS for providing informative morphologic features of AIP. Nowadays, the improvement in the resolution of EUS conventional images and the development of new ancillary technologies have further increased the diagnostic yield of EUS: contrast-enhanced EUS and EUS elastography are non-invasive and real-time techniques that strongly support the diagnosis and management of pancreatic diseases. In this review article, we will present the role of conventional EUS and ancillary diagnostic techniques in the diagnosis of AIP to support clinicians and endosonographers in managing this condition.

K-ras gene mutation analysis to diagnosis pancreatic adenocarcinoma from endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition; a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) has high sensitivity for the pathological diagnosis of pancreatic masses, but also a high false-negative rate. K-ras gene mutations occur in over 75 % of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDAC), and this meta-analysis evaluated the utility of detecting K-ras gene mutations from EUS-TA specimens for the diagnosis of PDAC.

METHODS

Relevant studies in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched. Meta-analysis was performed on data from the selected studies using a bivariate model to provide pooled values of sensitivity, specificity, and their 95 % confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 1521 patients (from 10 eligible studies) who underwent EUS-TA with K-ras gene mutation analysis for diagnosis of pancreatic solid masses. The pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were 76.6 % (95 % CI, 70.9-81.5 %) and 97.0 % (95 % CI, 94.0-98.5 %), respectively, for pathological diagnosis, 75.9 % (95 % CI 69.5-81.4 %) and 95.3 % (95 % CI, 92.3-97.2 %) for K-ras gene mutation analysis, and 88.7 % (95 % CI 87.1-91.7 %) and 94.9 % (95 % CI, 91.5-97.0 %) for pathological diagnosis in combination with K-ras gene mutation analysis. The sensitivity for diagnosis of PDAC was significantly higher for pathological diagnosis in combination with K-ras gene mutation analysis than for pathological diagnosis or K-ras gene mutation analysis alone (both, p < 0.001). There was no difference in specificity between pathological diagnosis in combination with K-ras gene mutation analysis and both either (p = 0.234, 0.945, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

K-ras gene mutation analysis in combination with to pathological diagnosis of EUS-TA increases the accuracy of differential diagnosis of PDAC.

Impact of Biopsy Attempts, Race, and Access on Time to Initiation of Treatment for Pancreatic Cancer

BACKGROUND

Biopsy of suspected pancreatic cancer (PDAC) in surgical candidates is informative however not always necessary. Biopsies impact treatment options as histological diagnosis are presently required for neo-adjuvant therapy, but not surgical resection. We explored the impact of pursuing tissue diagnosis by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) biopsy on time to treatment in patients with resectable and borderline resectable PDAC.

METHODS

A retrospective review of surgical patients with ultimately proven PDAC was performed (2011-2021). Milestone dates (cancer suspected, biopsy(ies), surgical or neo-adjuvant treatment) were collected. Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon tests, Pearson's chi-squared tests, Fisher's exact tests, linear regressions, and Cox proportional hazard models were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Among 131 resectable and 58 borderline resectable patients, the borderline resectable group underwent more biopsies (1.2 vs 0.7, p < 0.0001), were more likely to undergo biopsy at tertiary care centers (67.2% vs 30.5%, p < 0.0001), and trended toward longer time to treatment (49 vs 44 days, p = 0.070). Significant increases in days to treatment were seen in patients with Black race (29 days, p = 0.0002) and Medicare insurance (22 days, p = 0.038) and no biopsies at a tertiary care center (10 days, p = 0.039). After adjusting for covariates, additional biopsies significantly delayed treatment (1 biopsy: 21 days, p = 0.0001; 2 biopsies: 44 days, p < 0.0001; 3 biopsies: 68 days, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS biopsy significantly impacts time between suspicion and treatment of PDAC. This may be exacerbated by clinical practices increasingly favoring neo-adjuvant therapy that necessitates biopsy-proven disease. Time to treatment may also be impacted by access to tertiary centers and racial disparities.

Diagnostic performance of endoscopic tissue acquisition for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the PREOPANC and PREOPANC-2 trials

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant treatment for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has increased, necessitating histopathologic confirmation of cancer. This study evaluates the performance of endoscopic tissue acquisition (TA) procedures for borderline resectable and resectable PDAC.

METHODS

Pathology reports of patients included in two nationwide randomized controlled trials (PREOPANC and PREOPANC-2) were reviewed. The primary outcome was sensitivity for malignancy (SFM), considering both "suspicious for" and "malignant" as positive. Secondary outcomes were rate of adequate sampling (RAS) and diagnoses other than PDAC.

RESULTS

Overall, 892 endoscopic procedures were performed in 617 patients, including endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided TA in 550 (89.1%), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-guided brush cytology in 188 (30.5%), and periampullary biopsies in 61 patients (9.9%). The SFM was 85.2% for EUS, 88.2% for repeat EUS, 52.7% for ERCP, and 37.7% for periampullary biopsies. The RAS ranged 94-100%. Diagnoses other than PDAC were other periampullary cancers in 24 (5.4%), premalignant disease in five (1.1%), and pancreatitis in three patients (0.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-guided TA of patients with borderline resectable and resectable PDAC included in RCTs had an SFM above 85% for both first and repeat procedures, meeting international standards. Two percent had false positive result for malignancy and 5% had other (non-PDAC) periampullary cancers.

Approach to Pancreatic Head Mass in the Background of Chronic Pancreatitis

Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is a known risk factor for pancreatic cancer. CP may present with an inflammatory mass, and differentiation from pancreatic cancer is often difficult. Clinical suspicion of malignancy dictates a need for further evaluation for underlying pancreatic cancer. Imaging modalities remain the mainstay of evaluation for a mass in background CP; however, they have their shortcomings. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become the go-to investigation. Adjunct modalities such as contrast-harmonic EUS and EUS elastography, as well as EUS-guided sampling using newer-generation needles are useful in differentiating inflammatory from malignant masses in the pancreas. Paraduodenal pancreatitis and autoimmune pancreatitis often masquerade as pancreatic cancer. In this narrative review, we discuss the various modalities used to differentiate inflammatory from malignant masses of the pancreas.

Approach to Pancreatic Head Mass in the Background of Chronic Pancreatitis

Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is a known risk factor for pancreatic cancer. CP may present with an inflammatory mass, and differentiation from pancreatic cancer is often difficult. Clinical suspicion of malignancy dictates a need for further evaluation for underlying pancreatic cancer. Imaging modalities remain the mainstay of evaluation for a mass in background CP; however, they have their shortcomings. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become the go-to investigation. Adjunct modalities such as contrast-harmonic EUS and EUS elastography, as well as EUS-guided sampling using newer-generation needles are useful in differentiating inflammatory from malignant masses in the pancreas. Paraduodenal pancreatitis and autoimmune pancreatitis often masquerade as pancreatic cancer. In this narrative review, we discuss the various modalities used to differentiate inflammatory from malignant masses of the pancreas.

EUS-guided FNAC in intra-abdominal lesions: Technique of tissue acquisition, ancillary testing, pearls and perils, and prospects

Endoscopic ultrasound enables visualization of lesions within and in the vicinity of the gastrointestinal tract. Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration cytology (EUS-FNAC) helps in targeting various luminal and extraluminal lesions both diagnostically and therapeutically. Various intra-abdominal organs amenable to EUS-FNA include the gastrointestinal tract (GIT), pancreas, kidney, adrenal gland, liver, bile duct, gallbladder, spleen, and lymph nodes. EUS-FNAC is mostly done for pancreatic and intra-abdominal lymph nodal lesions. In the present review, we have discussed various aspects of EUS-FNAC.

[Clinical and Technical Guideline for Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Tissue Acquisition of Pancreatic Solid Tumor: Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy]

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence- based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.

Clinical and Technical Guideline for Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-Guided Tissue Acquisition of Pancreatic Solid Tumor: Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE)

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a task force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.

Clinical and Technical Guideline for Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-Guided Tissue Acquisition of Pancreatic Solid Tumor: Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE)

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a task force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.

Diagnostic value of digital droplet polymerase chain reaction and digital multiplexed detection of single-nucleotide variants in pancreatic cytology specimens collected by EUS-guided FNA

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EUS-guided FNA is recommended as a first-line procedure for the histopathologic diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Molecular analysis of EUS-FNA samples might be used as an auxiliary tool to strengthen the diagnosis. The current study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performances of K-ras testing using droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) and a novel single-nucleotide variant (SNV) assay performed on pancreatic EUS-FNA samples.

METHODS

EUS-FNA specimens from 31 patients with pancreatic masses (22 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas, 7 chronic pancreatitis, and 2 pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors) were included in the study. K-ras testing was initially performed by ddPCR. In addition, mutational status was evaluated using an SNV assay by NanoString technology, using digital enumeration of unique barcoded probes to detect 97 SNVs from 24 genes of clinical significance.

RESULTS

The overall specificity and sensitivity of cytologic examination were 100% and 63%, respectively. K-ras mutation testing was performed using ddPCR, and the sensitivity increased to 87% with specificity 90%. The SNV assay detected at least 1 variant in 90% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma samples; the test was able to detect 2 K-ras codon 61 mutations in 2 cases of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, which were missed by ddPCR. The overall diagnostic accuracy of the cytologic examination alone was 74%, and it increased to 91% when the results of both molecular tests were considered for the cases with negative and inconclusive results.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study illustrated that integration of K-ras analysis with cytologic evaluation, especially in inconclusive cases, can enhance the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA for pancreatic lesions.

Interobserver Reliability of Endoscopic Ultrasonography: Literature Review

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has been applied to the diagnosis of various digestive disorders. Although it has been widely accepted and its diagnostic value is high, the dependence of EUS diagnosis on image interpretation done by the endosonographer has persisted as an important difficulty. Consequently, high interobserver reliability (IOR) in EUS diagnosis is important to demonstrate the reliability of EUS diagnosis. We reviewed the literature on the IOR of EUS diagnosis for various diseases such as chronic pancreatitis, pancreatic solid/cystic mass, lymphadenopathy, and gastrointestinal and subepithelial lesions. The IOR of EUS diagnosis differs depending on the disease; moreover, EUS findings with high IOR and those with IOR that was not necessarily high were used as diagnostic criteria. Therefore, to further increase the value of EUS diagnosis, EUS diagnostic criteria with high diagnostic characteristics based on EUS findings with high IOR must be established.

Repeat EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses after nondiagnostic or inconclusive results: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) is the criterion standard for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions. Several studies assessed the role of repeat EUS-FNA (rEUS-FNA) after an inconclusive examination. Our aim was to evaluate the pooled diagnostic accuracy of rEUS-FNA after a nondiagnostic result.

METHODS

We conducted systematic research on electronic databases (Medline, PubMed, EMBASE) and a meta-analysis to obtain pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio. A summary receiver operating characteristic curve was used to calculate area under the curve. Subgroup analysis was used to assess the role of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE).

RESULTS

Twelve studies (505 patients) were included. Sensitivity was 77% (66%-86%), specificity 98% (78%-100%), and positive and negative predictive values 99% (98%-100%) and 61 (60%-63%), respectively. At 73% of disease prevalence (pretest probability), positive rEUS-FNA increased the disease probability to 99%, whereas a negative result decreased the disease probability to 39%. The sensitivity was 83% (64%-93%) and specificity 98% (80%-100%) when ROSE was available and 65% (57%-73%) and 94% (31%-100%) when not available. The number needed to diagnose was 1.2 (1.1-2.3) and 1.7 (1.4-8.3) in ROSE-positive and ROSE-negative cases, respectively. The number of correctly diagnosed cases increased from 6 (1-7) to 8 (4-9) of 10 patients without and with ROSE, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study objectively substantiated the added value of rEUS-FNA for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses in cases of a previous nondiagnostic or inconclusive result. Moreover, our data suggested that ROSE may be beneficial in this setting, because it increased the proportion of definitive diagnoses.

Cytopathological results of initial endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for primary mass and prognosis in pancreatic cancer patients

OBJECTIVES

Clinical outcomes remain unclear in patients suspected of having pancreatic cancer with indeterminate endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) results. This work aimed to investigate the prognosis of pancreatic cancer patients with indeterminate findings at initial EUS-FNA.

METHODS

Findings in all patients who underwent EUS-FNA for suspected pancreatic cancer between 2008 and 2015 at the National Cancer Center, Korea, were retrospectively reviewed. A final diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma was based on pathology reports.

RESULTS

Of the 144 patients evaluated, 113 (78%) were diagnosed as being positive/suspicious for malignancy on cytological evaluation and 31 (22%) as having atypia/negative/non-diagnostic findings at initial EUS-FNA but subsequently diagnosed with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Tumour size, clinical stage and treatment modalities did not differ significantly between these two groups. Median overall survival was significantly shorter in patients diagnosed (11.3 ± 0.74 months; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.4-12.8 months) than non-diagnosed (16.9 ± 2.34 months; 95% CI, 12.0-17.4 months) on initial EUS-FNA (P = .024). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that a non-diagnosis on initial EUS-FNA was independently associated with better overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.38-0.88; P = .011).

CONCLUSIONS

Non-diagnostic results on initial EUS-FNA of a primary mass may be associated with better prognosis in patients with pancreatic cancer.

Follow-up of indeterminate cytologic diagnoses of solid pancreatic lesions: atypia versus suspicious (one institution's experience)

INTRODUCTION

A comparison of the long-term risk of malignancy between indeterminate cytological diagnoses, namely, atypical versus suspicious for malignancy, from endoscopic ultrasound-guided (EUS) fine-needle aspiration (FNA) of a pancreatic mass has not been well characterized. The primary aim of this study was to compare the risk of malignancy between patients with such indeterminate diagnoses. Secondarily, we investigated whether serologic markers serve as predictors of risk of malignancy in the setting of indeterminate cytological diagnoses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed 484 cases of EUS-FNA on solid pancreatic lesions, performed at a single academic tertiary care center from 2004 to 2017. Patients with solid pancreas mass lesions who had atypical or suspicious final cytology were identified for further clinical outcome analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 484 patients with pancreas mass lesions, 53 (11%) were given an indeterminate final cytologic diagnosis, with 28 atypical and 25 suspicious for malignancy. Follow-up was completed for 22 and 20 patients from atypical and suspicious diagnoses, respectively. Of patients with follow-up, 15 (68%) and 18 (90%) had subsequent diagnoses of malignancy from atypical and suspicious groups, respectively. There was no statistical difference in predicting risk of malignancy between the two groups (P = 0.24). Serologic markers were available in 29 of 42 patients with follow-up. Serologic markers were elevated in 21 of 29 patients and all were subsequently diagnosed with malignancy. Elevated serologic markers correlated with future risk of malignancy (P = 0.0026).

CONCLUSION

The risk of subsequent malignancy is high for both atypical and suspicious pancreatic solid lesions but there exists no statistical difference between the two. Combined serologic markers with indeterminate cytology proved to be a good predictor of malignancy.

Management of Benign and Malignant Pancreatic Duct Strictures

The diagnosis and management of pancreatic strictures, whether malignant or benign, remain challenging. The last 2 decades have seen dramatic progress in terms of both advanced imaging and endoscopic therapy. While plastic stents remain the cornerstone of the treatment of benign strictures, the advent of fully covered metal stents has initiated a new wave of interest in calibrating the pancreatic duct with fewer sessions. In malignant disease, palliation remains the priority and further data are necessary before offering systematic pancreatic stenting.

Team work and cytopathology molecular diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is expected to become the second leading cause of cancer-associated death in the next decade or so. It is widely accepted that tumorigenesis is linked to specific alterations in key genes and pancreatic neoplasms are some of the best characterized at the genomic level. Recent whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing analyses confirmed that PDAC is frequently characterized by mutations in a set of four genes among others: KRAS, TP53, CDKN2A/p16, and SMAD4. Sequencing, for example, is the preferable technique available for detecting KRAS mutations, whereas in situ immunochemistry is the main approach for detecting TP53 gene alteration. Nevertheless, the diagnosis of PDAC is still a clinical challenge, involving adequate acquisition of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and specific pathological assessment from tissue architecture to specific biomolecular tests. The aim of the present review is to provide a complete overview of the current knowledge of the biology of pancreatic cancer as detected by the latest biomolecular techniques and, moreover, to propose a paradigm for strict teamwork collaboration in order to improve the correct use of diagnostic sources.

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.

Harmonic contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration: Fact or fiction?

The negative predictive value of endoscopic ultrasonography fine-needle aspiration is relatively low. To achieve the improvement of the diagnostic yield, the following were proposed: a higher number of passes, the presence of the rapid on-site cytopathologist evaluation, the fanning technique, or the repetition of the fine needle biopsy. Harmonic contrast-enhanced endosonography may better identify the targeted area in the lesions by avoiding the inside necrosis and the vessels of fibrosis, so it can guide the fine-needle aspiration. Both techniques are complementary, not competitive, and they can be done in the same session. The combined technique is simple, safe, and requires only a few minutes with minimal extra costs compared to standard fine-needle aspiration. It minimally increases the diagnostic rate, and it permits the decrease of the number of passes. However, we will know its real clinical impact only in the future and whether it will be incorporated into the lesion assessment process.

Variation of cytopathologists' use of the indeterminate diagnostic categories "atypical" and "suspicious for malignancy" in the cytologic diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions on endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspirates

Indeterminate cytologic diagnoses in endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNA) of solid pancreatic lesions include the diagnostic categories "atypical" (ATY) and "suspicious for malignancy" (SUSP), which are used at variable rates and are associated with variable underlying risk of malignancy. The aim of this study was to determine individual cytopathologists' rates of indeterminate diagnoses in EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions and their relationship to cytopathologists' experience and volume of pancreatic EUS-FNA examined, as well as the potential impact of departmental consensus review on indeterminate diagnoses.

DESIGN

The diagnostic rates of ATY and SUSP and their underlying risk of malignancy were calculated for six cytopathologists who diagnosed 1,114 of 1,225 EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions from 1/1/2001 to 9/15/2014, and were then compared for the periods before and after the implementation of departmental consensus review during 2009.

RESULTS

The six cytopathologists diagnosed 10% of cases as indeterminate; 82 (7.4%) as "atypical" and 29 (2.6%) as "suspicious". The individual cytopathologists' indeterminate diagnosis rates varied twofold (6.67-12.80%) and did not correlate with their experience, total or annual volume of EUS-FNAs. Of the 56/99 (56.57%) cases with follow-up, the underlying rate of malignancy was 47% (35/75; for "atypical" and 87.5% (21/24); for "suspicious"). The underlying rates of malignancy were 33-67% for "atypical" and 80-100% for "suspicious" diagnoses made by individual cytopathologists. The rate of indeterminate diagnoses decreased from 11.55 to 7.88% after the implementation of departmental consensus review.

CONCLUSION

Individual cytopathologists' rates of indeterminate diagnoses and their significance vary; however, consensus review is helpful in reducing these rates. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2017;45:3-13. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided techniques for diagnosing pancreatic mass lesions: Can we do better?

The diagnostic approach to a possible pancreatic mass lesion relies first upon various non-invasive imaging modalities, including computed tomography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging techniques. Once a suspect lesion has been identified, tissue acquisition for characterization of the lesion is often paramount in developing an individualized therapeutic approach. Given the high prevalence and mortality associated with pancreatic cancer, an ideal approach to diagnosing pancreatic mass lesions would be safe, highly sensitive, and reproducible across various practice settings. Tools, in addition to radiologic imaging, currently employed in the initial evaluation of a patient with a pancreatic mass lesion include serum tumor markers, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). EUS-FNA has grown to become the gold standard in tissue diagnosis of pancreatic lesions.

Repeat Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration in Patients with Suspected Pancreatic Cancer: Diagnostic Yield and Associated Change in Access to Appropriate Care

Background. There is a high incidence of inconclusive cytopathology at initial EUS-FNA (endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration) for suspected malignant pancreatic lesions. To obtain appropriate preoperative or palliative chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer, definitive cytopathology is often required. The utility of repeat EUS-FNA is not well established. Methods. A retrospective cohort study was conducted evaluating the yield of repeat EUS-FNA in determining a cytological diagnosis in patients who had undergone a prior EUS-FNA for diagnosis of suspected malignant pancreatic lesions with inconclusive cytopathology. The wait times to the second procedure and to decisions regarding therapy were calculated. Results. Overall, 45 repeat EUS-FNA procedures were performed over seven years for suspected malignant pancreatic lesions. Cytopathological class (I to IV) changed between first and second EUS-FNA in 32 patients (71%). Of 34 patients with an initially nonconclusive diagnosis, 20 had a conclusive diagnosis (59%) on repeat EUS-FNA. The cumulative yield after repeat EUS-FNA for definite pancreatic adenocarcinoma was 7 (16%). The median time interval between first and second EUS-FNA was 31 (7-175) days. Conclusions. A substantial number of patients had a definitive diagnosis of adenocarcinoma on repeat FNA and were, therefore, subsequently able to access appropriate care.

Repeat endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration after a first negative procedure is useful in pancreatic lesions

Background and Objectives:

There is no consensus about the ideal method for diagnosis in patients who have already undergone endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), and the inconclusive material is often obtained. The aim was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of the second EUS-FNA of pancreatic lesions.

Materials and Methods:

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of patients with EUS-FNA of pancreatic lesions is performed. All patients who underwent more than one EUS-FNA for the evaluation of suspected pancreatic cancer over a 7-year period were included in the analysis.

Results:

A total of 296 EUS-FNAs of the pancreas were performed in 257 patients. The diagnostic yield with the first EUS-FNA was 78.6% (202/257). Thirty-nine (13.3%) FNAs were repeated in 34 patients; 17 (50%) patients were women. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) age was 58.8 ± 16.1 years. The location of the lesions in the pancreatic gland, from which the second biopsies were taken, was head of the pancreas, n = 28 (82.4%), body of the pancreas, n = 3 (8.8%), and tail, n = 3 (8.8%). The mean ± SD of the size of the lesion was 36.3 ± 14.6 mm. The second EUS-FNA was more likely to be positive for diagnosis in patients with an “atypical“ histological result in the first EUS-FNA (odds ratio [OR]: 4.04; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.9–18.3), in contrast to patients with a first EUS-FNA reported as “normal” (OR: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.06–0.71). Overall, the diagnostic yield of the second EUS-FNA was 58.8% (20/34) with an increase to 86.3% overall (222/257).

Conclusion:

Repeat EUS-FNA in pancreatic lesions is necessary in patients with a negative first EUS-FNA because it improves the diagnostic yield.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration of Pancreatic Lesions: A Systematic Review of Technical and Procedural Variables

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition has emerged over the last decade as an invaluable diagnostic tool in approaching the different pancreatic lesions. Given the safety and minimal invasiveness of this approach combined with the high diagnostic yield, it became the standard of care when dealing with different pancreatic pathologies. However, some variables regarding this procedure remain not fully understood. These can influence the diagnostic yield of the procedure and include the presence of the on-site cytopathologist, the type and size of the needle used as well as obtaining aspiration versus core biopsy, the number of passes and the sampling technique, and the role of suction and stylet use among others. We performed a comprehensive literature search using PubMed, Google Scholar, and Embase for studies that assessed these variables. Eligible studies were analyzed using several parameters such as technique and procedure, with the aim of reviewing results from an evidence-based standpoint.

Endoscopic ultrasonography guided-fine needle aspiration for the diagnosis of solid pancreaticobiliary lesions: Clinical aspects to improve the diagnosis

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has been applied to pancreaticobiliary lesions since the 1990s and is in widespread use throughout the world today. We used this method to confirm the pathological evidence of the pancreaticobiliary lesions and to perform suitable therapies. Complications of EUS-FNA are quite rare, but some of them are severe. Operators should master conventional EUS observation and experience a minimum of 20-30 cases of supervised EUS-FNA on non-pancreatic and pancreatic lesions before attempting solo EUS-FNA. Studies conducted on pancreaticobiliary EUS-FNA have focused on selection of suitable instruments (e.g., needle selection) and sampling techniques (e.g., fanning method, suction level, with or without a stylet, optimum number of passes). Today, the diagnostic ability of EUS-FNA is still improving; the detection of pancreatic cancer (PC) currently has a sensitivity of 90%-95% and specificity of 95%-100%. In addition to PC, a variety of rare pancreatic tumors can be discriminated by conducting immunohistochemistry on the FNA materials. A flexible, large caliber needle has been used to obtain a large piece of tissue, which can provide sufficient histological information to be helpful in classifying benign pancreatic lesions. EUS-FNA can supply high diagnostic yields even for biliary lesions or peri-pancreaticobiliary lymph nodes. This review focuses on the clinical aspects of EUS-FNA in the pancreaticobiliary field, with the aim of providing information that can enable more accurate and efficient diagnosis.

Impact of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and multidisciplinary approach in the management of abdominal or mediastinal mass

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a useful tool for the diagnosis of suspected abdominal or mediastinal neoplastic lesions.

AIM

To evaluate the impact of EUS-FNA and multidisciplinary approach on the diagnostic work-up and therapeutic management of patients with abdominal or mediastinal neoplastic lesions.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred and twenty patients (69 men, median age 65 years) with a suspected abdominal or mediastinal neoplastic mass at computed tomography or MRI underwent EUS-FNA. All EUS-FNA findings and clinical data were evaluated by a multidisciplinary team (oncologists, surgeons, and gastroenterologists). EUS-FNA findings were compared with the final diagnosis made by histological evaluation of the surgical specimen or clinical outcome at follow-up.

RESULTS

A correct diagnosis was obtained by EUS-FNA in 96/120 patients (80%), indicating benignancy of the lesion in 21 (18%) cases and confirming malignancy in 75 (62%). On the basis of EUS-FNA findings, chemotherapy was tailored in 57/75 (76%) patients with malignancy whereas the surgical strategy was changed in 21/120 (18%) of patients. Overall, the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA was 85%. A multidisciplinary team approach enabled a correct diagnosis in patients in whom EUS-FNA was nondiagnostic and to identify five cases with false-negative EUS-FNA findings.

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNA has a relevant impact on the management of suspected abdominal or mediastinal neoplastic lesions. A multidisciplinary team approach enables to overcome the EUS-FNA methodological limitations. The combination of EUS-FNA and multidisciplinary team approach could help to diagnose and tailor therapeutic options in such patients.

Endoscopic ultrasound in the evaluation of pancreatic neoplasms-solid and cystic: A review

Pancreatic neoplasms have a wide range of pathology, from pancreatic adenocarcinoma to cystic mucinous neoplasms. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with or without fine needle aspiration (FNA) is a helpful diagnostic tool in the work-up of pancreatic neoplasms. Its utility in pancreatic malignancy is well known. Over the last two decades EUS-FNA has become a procedure of choice for diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. EUS-FNA is highly sensitive and specific for solid lesions, with sensitivities as high as 80%-95% for pancreatic masses and specificity as high as 75%-100%. Multiple aspects of the procedure have been studied to optimize the rate of diagnosis with EUS-FNA including cytopathologist involvement, needle size, suctioning and experience of endoscopist. Onsite pathology is one of the most important elements in increasing diagnostic yield rate in EUS-FNA. EUS-FNA is valuable in diagnosing rare and atypical pancreatic neoplasms including neuroendocrine, lymphoma and metastatic disease. As more and more patients undergo cross sectional imaging, cystic lesions of the pancreas are becoming a more common occurrence and EUS-FNA of these lesions can be helpful for differentiation. This review covers the technical aspects of optimizing pancreatic neoplasm diagnosis rate, highlight rare pancreatic neoplasms and role of EUS-FNA, and also outline the important factors in diagnosis of cystic lesions by EUS-FNA.

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

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

A variety of factors (needle type, needle passes, tumor location, cytological assessment, etc.) may influence the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology (EUS-FNAC) from pancreatic tumors. Whereas most published studies report a diagnostic accuracy of > 80 % for EUS-FNAC, the results in routine settings are often considerably lower. This retrospective study aimed to define the effect of switching microscopic assessment from a standard pathology department to a highly specialized institute of cytology.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 63 patients underwent EUS-FNAC of solid or semisolid pancreatic masses. Specimens of the first consecutive 20 cases (Phase 1) were assessed by the local department of pathology. Then in Phase 2, involving another 43 subsequent cases, a specialized cytology laboratory examined all aspirates. All EUS-FNACs were performed in the same manner, using a 22-gauge needle. After cytological evaluation, all patients either underwent surgery or were followed up for at least 6 months.

RESULTS

Of the tumors, 56 were solid and 7 semisolid; the mean size was 30 mm. Sensitivity (sens.), specificity (spec.), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of EUS-FNAC were 38.5 % (95 %CI [confidence interval] 13.9 - 68.4 %), 100 % (59.0 - 100 %), 100 % (47.8 - 100 %), and 46.7 % (21.3 - 73.4 %) during Phase 1 versus 91.4 % (95 %CI 76.9 - 98.2 %), 100 % (63.1 - 100 %), 100 % (89.1 - 100 %), and 72.7 % (39.0 - 94.0 %) during Phase 2.

CONCLUSION

These results emphasize the considerable impact of a dedicated cytological evaluation on the results of EUS-FNAC.

Implication of suspicious cytology in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic cancer

PURPOSE

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has become a preferred technique to evaluate pancreatic masses. The clinical management of a "suspicious for adenocarcinoma" cytological diagnosis is unclear in unresectable cases. We sought to determine whether a suspicious diagnosis in the setting of a high clinical suspicion of malignancy could be sufficient for initiating non-operative therapy, such as chemotherapy, in unresectable patients.

METHODS

Twenty-nine solid pancreatic mass cytology specimens obtained by EUS-FNA with a diagnosis of suspicious for adenocarcinoma were identified from 2000 to 2012. Pathology, clinical, and radiologic data were analyzed.

RESULTS

Additional procedures were performed in 21 of the 29 patients. Sixteen of the 21 patients had confirmation of malignancy on further tissue sampling and an additional 2 had confirmed unresectable cancers during surgical exploration. Three of the 21 patients had benign diagnoses on subsequent tissue sampling. Of the remaining eight patients who did not undergo additional diagnostic procedures, six were deemed clinically malignant and treated, one died within a year of the EUS-FNA, and one was lost to follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Consideration of a suspicious diagnosis on EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic masses as sufficient for initiating non-operative therapy is reasonable in the setting of a high clinical suspicion of malignancy.

PDX-1 mRNA expression in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle cytoaspirate: perspectives in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration is routinely used in the diagnostic work up of pancreatic cancer but has a low sensitivity. Studies showed that Pancreatic Duodenal Homeobox-1 (PDX-1) is expressed in pancreatic cancer, which is associated with a worse prognosis. We aimed to verify whether the assessment of PDX-1 in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration samples may be helpful for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

mRNA of 54 pancreatic cancer and 25 cystic lesions was extracted. PDX-1 expression was assessed by Real-Time PCR.

RESULTS

In all but two patients with pancreatic cancer, PDX-1 was expressed and was found positive in 7 patients with pancreatic cancer in which cytology was negative. The positivity was associated with a probability of 0.98 (95% CI 0.90-1.00) of having cancer and the negativity with one of 0.08 (95% CI 0.01-0.27). The probability of cancer rose to 1.00 (95% CI 0.97-1.00) for patients positive to both PDX-1 and cytology and fell to 0.0 (95% CI 0.00-0.15) in patients negative for both.

CONCLUSIONS

PDX-1mRNA is detectable in samples of pancreatic cancer. Its quantification may be helpful to improve the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.

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.

Neoplasia in chronic pancreatitis: how to maximize the yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration

When performing endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), identifying neoplasia in the setting of chronic pancreatitis can be technically challenging. The morphology of an ill-defined mass on sonography, presence of calcifications or intervening collaterals, reverberation from a biliary stent, low yield of tissue procurement, and interpretative errors in cytopathology can result in both false-negative and false-positive results. Although these challenges cannot be completely eliminated, elastography or contrast-enhanced imaging can aid in differentiating an inflammatory mass from a neoplasm. Also, performing more passes of FNA, procuring core biopsy material, performing rapid onsite evaluation, conducting ancillary pathology studies, and even repeating the procedure on a different day can aid in improving the diagnostic performance of EUS-FNA. This review provides a concise update and offers practical tips to improving the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA when sampling solid pancreatic mass lesions in the setting of chronic pancreatitis.

Rapid on-site evaluation of endoscopic-ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration diagnosis of pancreatic masses

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become an essential tool for the study of pancreatic diseases. Specifically, EUS plays a pivotal role evaluating patients with a known or suspected pancreatic mass. In this setting, differential diagnosis remains a clinical challenge. EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (FNB) have been proven to be safe and useful tools in this setting. EUS-guided FNA and FNB, by obtaining cytological and/or histological samples, are able to diagnose pancreatic lesions with high sensitivity and specificity. In this context, several methodological features, trying to increase the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided FNA and FNB, have been evaluated. In this review, we focus on the role of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE). From data reported in the literature, ROSE may increase diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA specimens by 10%-30%, and thus, diagnostic accuracy. However, we should point out that many recent studies have reported adequacy rates of > 90% without ROSE, indicating that, perhaps, at high-volume centers, ROSE may not be indispensable to achieve excellent results. The use of ROSE can be considered important during the learning curve of EUS-FNA, and also in hospital with diagnostic accuracy rates < 90%.

Utility of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration for peri-arterial soft tissue cuffs without identifiable pancreas mass on CT and EUS: a prospective comparative study

Pancreatic cancer may present as a peri-arterial soft tissue cuff (PSTC) around the superior mesenteric artery or celiac axis without an identifiable pancreatic mass. We evaluated the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in patients with a PSTC without definite pancreas involvement and those with a typical pancreatic mass. The patients who underwent EUS-FNA of a PSTC without pancreatic involvement were prospectively enrolled. The patients who underwent EUS-FNA for a pancreatic mass were recruited as a control group. A total of 224 patients underwent 247 EUS-FNAs. Among the 13 patients with a PSTC, 11 were positive for malignancy as determined by EUS-FNA, with 5 diagnosed after the first session and 6 after the second session. The diagnostic yield of PSTCs by EUS-FNA was significantly lower than that for typical pancreatic masses (65% vs. 87%, p = 0.02). An on-site cytopathologist and repeated EUS-FNA are recommended to improve the diagnostic accuracy of this disease entity.

When to puncture, when not to puncture: Pancreatic masses

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has evolved to become a crucial tool for the evaluation of pancreatic diseases, among them solid pancreatic lesions. However, its ability to determine whether a lesion is malignant or not is difficult to establish based only in the endosonographic image. EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) allows obtaining a cytological and/or histological sample from pancreatic lesions, with a high overall accuracy and low complication rates. Although the clinical usefulness of EUS-FNA for pancreatic diseases is widely accepted, the indications for tissue diagnosis of pancreatic lesions suspected to be malignant is still controversial. This review highlights the diagnostic accuracy and complications of EUS-FNA, focusing on its current indications.

Poor 'real-life' negative predictive value of cross-sectional imaging in obstructive jaundice

BACKGROUND

Cross-sectional imaging remains the first-line test for obstructive jaundice despite high miss rates for pancreatobiliary tumours. Improvements in resolution and slice thickness of spiral computed tomography⁄magnetic resonance imaging⁄magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography promised to increase accuracy.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether the post-test probability of neoplasm is truly altered by the presence or absence of a mass on computed tomography⁄magnetic resonance imaging in obstructive jaundice.

METHODS

The institutional endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) database was retrospectively reviewed to stratify patients presenting to EUS over a two-year period for obstructive jaundice (suspicious for malignancy) according to their pre-EUS imaging results. The primary analysis involved the calculation of the positive predictive value and negative predictive value (NPV) of imaging with 95% binomial CIs. Test performance of EUS⁄fine-needle aspiration (FNA) was also calculated. Final diagnosis was determined by positive cytology⁄histology; negative EUS was supplemented by clinical follow-up.

RESULTS

The positive predictive value (n = 51) and NPV (n = 53) of pre-EUS imaging was 98% (95% CI 90% to 100%) and 9% (95% CI 3% to 21%), respectively (accuracy 53%), with post-test suspicion of malignancy similar between imaging-positive and -negative groups. EUS demonstrated a mass in 96% of imaging-positive cases versus 85% in imaging-negative cases (exact P = 0.09). Malignant or suspicious FNA cytology was obtained with EUS in 92% of the imaging-positive group, and 62% of the imaging-negative group (75% of subgroup with FNA) (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Lack of a definite mass on pre-EUS imaging had low NPV, and was clearly not sufficiently accurate or reassuring in this clinical setting. In suspicious obstructive jaundice, EUS with FNA has a high diagnostic yield regardless of the findings of pre-EUS cross-sectional imaging and, as such, EUS may be a more reasonable first-line test in this high-suspicion setting.

How good is fine needle aspiration? What results should you expect?

Tissue acquisition plays a key role before treatment decision in most of oncological pathologies but also in several benign diseases. By offering tissue sampling, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has become an essential tool in the diagnostic processes. One of the reasons for the success of the technique is related to its excellent diagnostic performance. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA is above 80% for most of the usual indications. These performances are however dependent on some factors related to both the disease and patient's medical history but also related to medical staff expertise. Endoscopist needs to know how to reach a lesion but also how to efficiently acquire good tissue samples. This review aims to report general recommendations available in the literature for high quality EUS-FNA. Sample processing and sample interpretation also influence diagnostic accuracy of FNA. This paper includes a discussion on sample processing and benefits of the on-site pathology examination. It also provides the results reported in the literature of sample adequacy and diagnostic performance of EUS-FNA for most common indications: Pancreatic diseases, sub-mucosal lesion, mucosal thickenings, lymph nodes, cystic lesion and free fluids.

Tips to overcome technical challenges in EUS-guided tissue acquisition

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

The changing paradigm in EUS-guided tissue acquisition

The diagnostic performance of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration is strongly dependent on the availability of an onsite cytopathologist. The diagnosis of some rare tumors may require ancillary testing for which a histologic core biopsy is required. There is increasing interest in evaluating core tissue for molecular markers that may serve as prognostic predictors and targets for focused chemotherapy in patients with cancer. If core tissue can be procured efficiently and reliably at endoscopic ultrasound, this will eliminate the need for an onsite cytopathologist, accurately diagnose tumors that are occasionally missed by fine-needle aspiration cytology, and enable the assessment for molecular markers.

Autoimmune pancreatitis: role of endoscopy in diagnosis and treatment

This review addresses the role of endoscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) and provides a diagnostic process for patients with suspected AIP. When should AIP be suspected? When can it be diagnosed without endoscopic examination? Which endoscopic approaches are appropriate in suspected AIP, and when? What are the roles of diagnostic endoscopic retrograde pancreatography, endoscopic biopsies, and IgG4 immunostaining? What is the proper use of the steroid trial in the diagnosis of AIP in patients with indeterminate computed tomography imaging? Should biliary stenting be performed in patients with AIP with obstructive jaundice?

The role of K-ras gene mutation analysis in EUS-guided FNA cytology specimens for the differential diagnosis of pancreatic solid masses: a meta-analysis of prospective studies

BACKGROUND

Differential diagnosis of pancreatic solid masses with EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) is still challenging in about 15% of cases. Mutation of the K-ras gene is present in over 75% of pancreatic adenocarcinomas (PADC).

OBJECTIVE

To assess the accuracy of K-ras gene mutation analysis for diagnosing PADC.

DESIGN

We systematically searched the electronic databases for relevant studies published. Data from selected studies underwent meta-analysis by use of a bivariate model providing a pooled value for sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, and summary receiver operating characteristic curve.

SETTING

Meta-analysis of 8 prospective studies.

PATIENTS

Total of 931 patients undergoing EUS-FNA for diagnosis of pancreatic solid masses.

INTERVENTION

K-ras mutation analysis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Diagnostic accuracy of K-ras mutation analysis and of combined diagnostic strategy by using EUS-FNA and K-ras mutation analysis in the diagnosis of PADC.

RESULTS

The pooled sensitivity of EUS-FNA for the differential diagnosis of PADC was 80.6%, and the specificity was 97%. Estimated sensitivity and specificity were 76.8% and 93.3% for K-ras gene analysis, respectively, and 88.7% and 92% for combined EUS-FNA plus K-ras mutation analysis. Overall, K-ras mutation testing applied to cases that were inconclusive by EUS-FNA reduced the false-negative rate by 55.6%, with a false-positive rate of 10.7%. Not repeating EUS-FNA in cases in which mutation testing of the K-ras gene is inconclusive would reduce the repeat-biopsy rate from 12.5% to 6.8%.

LIMITATIONS

Small number of studies and between-study heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

K-ras mutation analysis can be useful in the diagnostic work-up of pancreatic masses, in particular when tissue obtained by EUS-FNA is insufficient, and the diagnosis inconclusive.

Role of repeated endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for inconclusive initial cytology result

For tissue diagnosis of suspected pancreatic cancer, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the procedure of choice with high safety and accuracy profiles. However, about 10% of cytologic findings of EUS-FNA are inconclusive. In that situation, careful observation, surgical exploration, or alternative diagnostic tools such as bile duct brushing with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or computed tomography-guided biopsy can be considered. However, some concerns and/or risks of these options render repeat EUS-FNA a reasonable choice. Repeated EUS-FNA may impose substantial clinical impact with low risk.

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

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

Ratio of pancreatic duct caliber to width of pancreatic gland by endosonography is predictive of pancreatic cancer

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine whether (1) a pancreatic duct (PD) diameter to pancreatic gland width (G) ratio (PDG) by endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) predicts pancreatic cancer (PC) and (2) whether this ratio better indicates PC compared to PD dilation alone.

METHODS

Patients presenting for EUS were classified into the following 4 categories: (1) normal, (2) noncalcific chronic pancreatitis (NCCP), (3) calcific CP (CCP), and (4) PC.

RESULTS

There were 198 patients enrolled. Final diagnoses were PC (n = 34), CCP (n = 16), and normal/NCCP (n = 148). The median PD diameter (8, 5, and 2 mm, respectively; P = <0.001), G (16, 20, and 17 mm, respectively; P = 0.002), and PDG ratio were significantly different among groups (0.54, 0.25, and 0.12, respectively; P < 0.001). Patients with PC were more likely to have a PDG ratio of greater than or equal to 0.34 compared to CCP, and normal/NCCP groups (94%, 19%, 1.3%, respectively; P < 0.001). The positive predictive value, negative predictive value, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of PDG greater than or equal to 0.34 for detecting cancer were 87%, 99%, 94%, 97%, and 97%, respectively. The accuracy and positive predictive value of PD dilation alone for diagnosing PC were 83% and 50%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A PDG ratio is a good predictor of PC and is better than PD dilation. This sign should be routinely used by endosonographers to improve EUS diagnostic capability of PC.

Endoscopic management of chronic pancreatitis

Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is a common gastrointestinal illness, which affects the quality of life with substantial morbidity and mortality. The management includes medical, endoscopic and surgical approaches with the need for interaction between various specialties, calling for a concerted multidisciplinary approach. However, at the time of this publication, guidelines to establish care of these patients are lacking. This review provides the reader with a comprehensive overview of the studies summarizing the various treatment options available, including medical, surgical and endoscopic options. In addition, technological advances such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatogrophy, endoscopic shock wave lithotripsy and endoscopic ultrasound can now be offered with reasonable success for pancreatic decompression, stricture dilatation with stent placement, stone fragmentation, pseudocyst drainage, and other endoscopic interventions such as celiac plexus block for pain relief. We emphasize the endoscopic options in this review, and attempt to extract the most up to date information from the current literature. The treatment of CP and its complications are discussed extensively. Complications such as biliary strictures. pancreatic pseudocysts, and chronic pain are common issues that arise as long-term complications of CP. These often require endoscopic or surgical management and possibly a combination of approaches, however choosing amongst the various therapeutic and palliative modalities while weighing the risks and benefits, makes the management of CP challenging. Treatment goals should be not just to control symptoms but also to prevent disease progression. Our aim in this paper is to advocate and emphasize an evidence based approach for the management of CP and associated long term 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.

Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration: Technique and applications in clinical practice

Since its initial report in 1992, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has now been incorporated into the diagnostic and staging algorithm for the evaluation of benign and malignant diseases of the gastrointestinal tract and of adjacent organs. Its introduction constitutes a major breakthrough in the endoscopic field and has gradually transformed EUS from a pure imaging modality into a more interventional. In addition, the possibility of collecting samples, providing a definitive cytological and/or histological evidence of the presence of malignancy, has strongly contributed to changing EUS from a subjective, highly operator dependant procedure into a more objective one. This article will review the instrumentation, technique and the most important clinical applications of EUS-FNA.

Percutaneous fine needle biopsy in pancreatic tumors: a study of 42 cases

The technological progress within the range of methods of pancreas imaging and their more common accessibility selects a group of patients requiring a microscopic diagnosis. Percutaneous fine needle aspiration biopsy under the control of ultrasonography (PCFNA/USG) is the method commonly used in determining the character of a focal pancreatic lesion. Aim of the Work. An assessment of the accessibility of PCFNA biopsy in the assessment of solid and cystic changes in a pancreas and the correlation of the results of imaging examination, cytological smear and concentration of a serous marker CA19-9. Material and Methodology. In our material we analysed 43 cases of tumors of the pancreas among the patients who were at the average age of 59 ± 10.4 (14 women, 28 men) diagnosed by PCFNA biopsy. Results. In a group we are 23 cases of cancer, 12 cases of inflammation and 7 cases of cellular atypia for which 2 cases of IPMN were included. The sensitivity of the method was 92.5% but specificity was 68%. In our opinion PCFNA/USG is a method of the comparable sensitivity and specificity with fine needle aspiration biopsy with EUS control and its efficiency depends to a considerable degree on experience and interdisciplinary collaboration.