Diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration

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

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

Role of Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration/Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Autoimmune Pancreatitis

Type 1 autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is histologically characterized by lymphoplasmacytic sclerosing pancreatitis (LPSP). Recently, the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) for AIP has been reported. However, its role in the diagnostic flow of AIP is not fully elucidated. We retrospectively reviewed 53 consecutive patients who were suspected with AIP and underwent EUS-FNA/B. We evaluated the contribution of EUS-FNA/B to the diagnosis of AIP before considering response to steroid therapy among patients with diffuse enlargement of the pancreas and those with focal enlargement, respectively. Twenty-two patients showed diffuse pancreatic enlargement and 31 showed focal enlargement. The final diagnosis was definitive AIP in 32 patients, probable AIP in 2, possible AIP in 1, and mass-forming focal pancreatitis in 18. There was no change in diagnosis after EUS-FNA/B among patients with diffuse pancreatic enlargement, while diagnosis changed in 38.7% (12/31) among those with focal enlargement—there was a probable to definitive diagnosis in 4 patients, unspecified to definitive in 3, and unspecified to probable in 5. EUS-FNB provided a significantly higher sensitivity for typical pathological findings of LPSP than EUS-FNA, and 10 patients were diagnosed as pathologically definitive AIP by EUS-FNB, though none were by EUS-FNA (p = 0.002). EUS-FNA/B was useful in the diagnosis of focal type AIP, and steroid therapy could be introduced after the diagnosis was confirmed. Meanwhile, EUS-FNA/B provided no contribution to diagnosis of diffuse type AIP. EUS-FNB showed a higher diagnostic yield than FNA.

Successful use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) on a pancreatic lesion in a peritoneal dialysis patient without interrupting treatment

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), a well-established minimally invasive gastrointestinal procedure, has been used to diagnose and stage cancers of the pancreas. We describe the successful use of EUS-FNA in a peritoneal dialysis (PD) patient to evaluate a pancreatic cyst. The patient continued on PD immediately after the procedure without using hemodialysis. The patient did not experience any complication such as infection, bleeding, or peritoneal fluid leakage.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Differential diagnosis between pancreatic neuroendocrine and solid pseudopapillary neoplasms on endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration. An immunohistochemical study

Objectives:

To evaluate the role of applying a limited panel of immunohistochemical stains on the cellblock preparation from samples obtained by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in the aim of differentiating solid pseudopapillary neoplasms (SPNs) from neuroendocrine tumors (NETs).

Methods:

We retrospectively retrieved all the EUS-FNAs of the pancreas that have a diagnosis of NET or SPN that were performed at 2 tertiary care hospitals in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from May 2004 to December 2014. Diff-Quik, Papanicolaou, and Immunohistochemistry stains on cellblock preparations were performed.

Results:

Twenty cases were available (16 pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) and 4 SPNs). The pNETs were immunoreactive for synaptophysin, chromogranin A and CD56 while E-cadherin was diffusely to focally cytoplasmic positive. β-catenin was negative or showed focal cytoplasmic immunoreactivity. In comparison, SPNs were positive for vimentin, CD10, CD-56, focally positive for progesterone receptors and synaptophysin, and revealed nuclear immunostaining for β-catenin. They were negative for chromogranin A and E-cadherin.

Conclusion:

Based on EUS-FNA samples, nuclear immunoreactivity for β-catenin with loss of membranous immunostaining for E-Cadherin can potentially facilitate differentiating SPNs from pNETs.

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.

Prospective multicenter study on the usefulness of EUS-guided FNA biopsy for the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In the International Consensus Diagnostic Criteria (ICDC), autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is classified into types 1 and 2, and its definite histopathology diagnosis can be made based only on surgical or core biopsy specimens. Although EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) biopsy is a safe technique for the collection of pancreatic tissue, no consensus viewpoint has been reached with regard to the role of EUS-FNA biopsy in the diagnosis of AIP. This study investigated the utility of pancreatic tissue collected by EUS-FNA biopsy by using a standard 22-gauge aspiration needle in the diagnosis of AIP.

METHODS

Patients with suspected AIP were prospectively enrolled in Nagoya University Hospital and Nagoya University-affiliated institutions. Pancreatic tissue was collected from each by EUS-FNA biopsy with a standard 22-gauge aspiration needle.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were registered, including 45 with a final diagnosis of AIP. Lymphoplasmacytic infiltration and abundant immunoglobulin G4-positive plasmacyte infiltration (>10/high-power field) were detected in 36 (72%) and 27 (54%) patients, respectively. Obliterative phlebitis and storiform fibrosis were not detected in our study. Granulocytic epithelial lesions (GEL) were observed in 3 patients. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of EUS-FNA biopsy to definitively diagnose AIP were 7.9% (3/38), 100% (12/12), 100% (3/3), and 25.5% (12/47), respectively. Pathology evaluation of pancreatic tissue collected by EUS-FNA biopsy improved the diagnostic accuracy in 8 (16%) of the 50 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, EUS-FNA biopsy by using a standard 22-gauge aspiration needle is not an effective diagnostic method for most patients with AIP. The combination of level 2 histology diagnosis of AIP with other findings specified in the ICDC slightly improved the diagnostic accuracy, although it still remains insufficiently accurate for routine clinical use.(

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

000006297.).

Role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration in the diagnosis of mass lesions

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is an accurate technique for sampling the pancreas and mediastinum; however, limited data are available for other mass lesions. The aim of this study was to explore the value of EUS-FNA in the differential diagnosis of all mass lesions. Data from patients who underwent EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of mass lesions, including pancreatic, mediastinal, celiac and retroperitoneal lesions were retrospectively analyzed. The accuracy was calculated by comparing the results of FNA with the results of pathological examination or follow-up surveillances in non-operated cases. A total of 150 cases were included. The location of the mass varied from the pancreas (n=62) to the mediastinum (n=29), gastrointestinal tract (n=36), celiac cavity and retroperitoneum (n=23). The sensitivity and Youdens index of EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of all lesions were 92.97% and 0.93 respectively. The accuracy of diagnosis of pancreatic, mediastinal, gastrointestinal, celiac and retroperitoneal lesions was 85.48, 89.66, 83.33 and 78.23%, respectively. Masses were categorized into parenchymal organs (n=66), luminal organs (n=36) and enlarged lymph nodes (n=33). Lesions in parenchymal organs were likely to be bigger than those in luminal organs (P=0.03) and enlarged lymph nodes (P=0.01). For solid and cystic masses, which constituted 63.3 and 14.7% of the total masses, no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy was observed (P=0.56); however, lesion sizes were significantly different between these two groups (P=0.04) and the majority of cystic masses were identified in women (P=0.03). Malignant lesions were more common in older (P=0.01) and male (P=0.03) patients. In conclusion, EUS-FNA is an effective tool in the diagnosis of unexplained mass lesions; it influences the management of patients by enabling the appropriate treatment to be identified.

Meta-analysis of transcriptome data identifies a novel 5-gene pancreatic adenocarcinoma classifier

PURPOSE

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is largely incurable due to late diagnosis. Superior early detection biomarkers are critical to improving PDAC survival and risk stratification.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Optimized meta-analysis of PDAC transcriptome datasets identified and validated key PDAC biomarkers. PDAC-specific expression of a 5-gene biomarker panel was measured by qRT-PCR in microdissected patient-derived FFPE tissues. Cell-based assays assessed impact of two of these biomarkers, TMPRSS4 and ECT2, on PDAC cells.

RESULTS

A 5-gene PDAC classifier (TMPRSS4, AHNAK2, POSTN, ECT2, SERPINB5) achieved on average 95% sensitivity and 89% specificity in discriminating PDAC from non-tumor samples in four training sets and similar performance (sensitivity = 94%, specificity = 89.6%) in five independent validation datasets. This classifier accurately discriminated PDAC from chronic pancreatitis (AUC = 0.83), other cancers (AUC = 0.89), and non-tumor from PDAC precursors (AUC = 0.92) in three independent datasets. Importantly, the classifier distinguished PanIN from healthy pancreas in the PDX1-Cre;LSL-KrasG12D PDAC mouse model. Discriminatory expression of the PDAC classifier genes was confirmed in microdissected FFPE samples of PDAC and matched surrounding non-tumor pancreas or pancreatitis. Notably, knock-down of TMPRSS4 and ECT2 reduced PDAC soft agar growth and cell viability and TMPRSS4 knockdown also blocked PDAC migration and invasion.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified and validated a highly accurate 5-gene PDAC classifier for discriminating PDAC and early precursor lesions from non-malignant tissue that may facilitate early diagnosis and risk stratification upon validation in prospective clinical trials. Cell-based experiments of two overexpressed proteins encoded by the panel, TMPRSS4 and ECT2, suggest a causal link to PDAC development and progression, confirming them as potential therapeutic targets.

Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsy Specimens: Adequate Diagnostic Yield and Accuracy Can Be Achieved without On-Site Evaluation

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNA) is the preferred method for biopsying the gastrointestinal tract, and rapid on-site cytological evaluation is considered standard practice. Our institution does not perform on-site evaluation; this study analyzes our overall diagnostic yield, accuracy, and incidence of nondiagnostic cases to determine the validity of this strategy.

DESIGN

Data encompassing clinical information, procedural records, and cytological assessment were analyzed for gastrointestinal EUS-FNA procedures (n = 85) performed at Vancouver General Hospital from January 2012 to January 2013. We compared our results with those of studies that had on-site evaluation and studies that did not have on-site evaluation.

RESULTS

Eighty-five biopsies were performed in 78 patients, from sites that included the pancreas, the stomach, the duodenum, lymph nodes, and retroperitoneal masses. Malignancies were diagnosed in 45 (53%) biopsies, while 24 (29%) encompassed benign entities. Suspicious and atypical results were recorded in 8 (9%) and 6 (7%) cases, respectively. Only 2 (2%) cases received a cytological diagnosis of 'nondiagnostic'. Our overall accuracy was 72%, our diagnostic yield was 98%, and our nondiagnostic rate was 2%. Our results did not significantly differ from those of studies that did have on-site evaluation.

CONCLUSION

Our study highlights that adequate diagnostic accuracy can be achieved without on-site evaluation.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration: from the past to the future

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a technique which allows the study of cells obtained through aspiration in different locations near the gastrointestinal tract. EUS-FNA is used to acquire tissue from mucosal/submucosal tumors, as well as peri-intestinal structures including lymph nodes, pancreas, adrenal gland, gallbladder, bile duct, liver, kidney, lung, etc. The pancreas and lymph nodes are still the most common organs targeted in EUS-FNA. The overall accuracy of EUS is superior to computed tomography scan and magnetic resonance imaging for detecting pancreatic lesions. In most cases it is possible to avoid unnecessary surgical interventions in advanced pancreatic cancer, and EUS is considered the preferred method for loco-regional staging of pancreatic cancer. FNA improved the sensitivity and specificity compared to EUS imaging alone in detection of malignant lymph nodes. The negative predictive value of EUS-FNA is relatively low. The presence of a cytopathologist during EUS-FNA improves the diagnostic yield, decreasing unsatisfactory samples or need for additional passes, and consequently the procedural time. The size of the needle is another factor that could modify the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA. Even though the EUS-FNA technique started in early nineteen's, there are many remarkable progresses culminating nowadays with the discovery and performance of needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy. Last, but not least, identification and quantification of potential molecular markers for pancreatic cancer on cellular samples obtained by EUS-FNA could be a promising approach for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses.

Impact of rapid on-site evaluation on the adequacy of endoscopic-ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) has the potential to improve adequacy rates for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of solid pancreatic lesions, but its impact is context-dependent. No studies exist that summarize the relationship between ROSE, number of needle passes, and resulting adequacy rates.

AIMS

To analyze data from previous studies to establish if ROSE is associated with improved adequacy rates; to evaluate the relationship between ROSE, number of needle passes, and the resulting adequacy rates of EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting the adequacy rates for EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions.

RESULTS

The search produced 3822 original studies, of which 70 studies met our inclusion criteria. The overall average adequacy rate was 96.2% (95% confidence interval: 95.5, 96.9). ROSE was associated with a statistically significant improvement of up to 3.5% in adequacy rates. There was heterogeneity in adequacy rates across all subgroups. No association between the assessor type and adequacy rates was found. Studies with ROSE have high per-case adequacy and a relatively high number of needle passes in contrast to non-ROSE studies. ROSE is an effect modifier of the relationship between number of needle passes and adequacy.

CONCLUSIONS

ROSE is associated with up to 3.5% improvement in adequacy rates for EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions. ROSE assessor type has no impact on adequacy rates. ROSE is an effect modifier on the relationship between needle passes and per-case adequacy for EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

The role of cytology in the preoperative assessment and management of patients with pancreaticobiliary tract neoplasms

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and bile duct brushings are utilized in the cytologic evaluation of solid and cystic pancreaticobiliary tract lesions. We sought to determine the diagnostic accuracy of cytology.

METHODS

Five hundred seventy-nine pancreatic resections with 727 corresponding cytology specimens were identified from 1997 to 2012. Histologic diagnoses included benign, carcinoma, pancreatic endocrine neoplasm (PEN), nonepithelial neoplasms, cystic neoplasms, and ampullary adenomas. Standard interpretative categories-nondiagnostic, negative, atypical, suspicious, and positive--were utilized for preoperative cytology specimens.

RESULTS

For solid masses, the sensitivity and specificity of positive fine-needle aspiration (FNA) cytology for detecting carcinoma were 74 and 100 %, respectively. FNAs performed better than brushings (sensitivity, 40 %; specificity, 98 %) in detecting carcinomas. Similar findings were seen for PENs and nonepithelial neoplasms. For cystic lesions, the sensitivity of FNA for predicting malignancy was lower (24 %) with a specificity of 97 %. Sequentially combining suspicious and atypical categories with the positive category resulted in increases in sensitivity and decreases in specificity for all cases except for cystic lesions.

CONCLUSIONS

Cytology adds to the assessment of solid masses, but its utility in cystic lesions is less clear. Consideration of a suspicious cytologic interpretation as a positive diagnosis for triaging patients to surgery is supported by our study.

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHOD

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

RESULT

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

CONCLUSION

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

Diagnostic value of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for solid pancreatic masses: A meta-analysis

AIM: To establish the overall diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for solid pancreatic masses.

METHODS: We searched PubMed (1966/2011-10), Cochrane Library (from establishment to 2011-10), CNKI (1994/2011-10), CBM (1978/2011-10) and Wanfang (2000/2011-10) databases to find all diagnostic tests about EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic masses. After collecting studies according to inclusion criteria of diagnostic tests, data (study background, design information and diagnostic parameters) were extracted. QUADAS items were used to evaluate the qualities of the included studies. Meta-disc software was used to handle data of included studies and to examine heterogeneity. The effect-model was selected according to outcomes of heterogeneity. After all included studies were weighted and combined, sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and their 95%CI were calculated, and SROC curve was drawn.

RESULTS: A total of 280 potentially relevant studies were retrieved. According to eligibility criteria, 18 studies were included (all in English). The meta-analysis results are as follows: pooled sensitivity 0.90 (95%CI, 0.89-0.92), pooled specificity 0.95 (95%CI, 0.93-0.97), PLR 13.56 (95%CI, 8.31-22.15), NLR 0.12 (95%CI, 0.10-0.15), DOR 143.62 (95%CI, 93.98-219.46) and SROC AUC 0.9711 (Q* = 0.9215). Moreover, subgroup analysis was performed to identify the sources of heterogeneity according to the presence or absence of an on-site cytopathologist. The SROC AUC was 0.9757 (Q* = 0.9295) in the presence of an on-site cytopathologist. The DOR in the presence of an on-site cytopathologist was higher that in the absence of an on-site cytopathologist [173.37 (95%CI, 98.09-306.44) vs 113.64 (95%CI, 60.22-214.46)].

CONCLUSION: EUS-FNA has a high sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses, especially in the presence of an on-site cytopathologist.

Use of samples from endoscopic ultrasound-guided 19-gauge fine-needle aspiration in diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Histologic techniques are used to distinguish autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) from pancreatic malignancies and to confirm the etiology of pancreatitis. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a well-established technique used in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. However, it is unclear whether specimens obtained from pancreatic lesions by EUS-FNA are adequate for the histologic diagnosis of AIP, because the evaluation of tissue architecture and immunostaining assays usually require larger samples.

METHODS

We evaluated samples collected by EUS-FNA with a conventional 19-gauge needle by histologic analysis, looking for features of AIP. We analyzed data from 44 patients who were diagnosed with AIP and underwent EUS-FNA with a 19-gauge needle from January 2004 to September 2010. The FNA specimens were reviewed by histologic analysis; AIP was diagnosed based on the presence of lymphoplasmacytic sclerosing pancreatitis or immunoglobulin (Ig)G4-positive plasma cells in the infiltrate.

RESULTS

The specimen amount was inadequate from 3 patients. Among the remaining 41 patients, histopathologic analysis revealed lymphoplasmacytic sclerosing pancreatitis in 17 samples and IgG4-positive plasma cells in 5 (3 samples were positive for both); no samples had granulocytic epithelial lesions. Therefore, 19 patients (43%) were diagnosed with AIP based on histologic analysis. One patient had temporary abdominal pain.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNA, with a 19-gauge needle, is a safe and reliable procedure for obtaining pancreatic samples for the histologic analysis of AIP. Although it does not have a high diagnostic yield, it might be useful in patients without typical features of AIP because it would allow patients to avoid surgery.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATION

Publication bias was not a significant determinant of pooled accuracy.

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND/AIM

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND AND AIM

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Diagnosis of pancreatic neoplasia with EUS and FNA: a report of accuracy

BACKGROUND

EUS-guided FNA has the potential to provide diagnostic cytologic material from pancreatic lesions that are suspicious for malignancy.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the operating characteristics of EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma and pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PENs).

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database.

SETTING

Academic tertiary-care center.

PATIENTS

This study involved 559 patients undergoing evaluation of pancreatic masses or diffuse pancreatic parenchymal abnormalities.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Performance characteristics of EUS-FNA of pancreatic adenocarcinoma and PEN.

RESULTS

From January 1997 to December 2005, 737 patients undergoing initial EUS-FNA evaluation for a pancreatic mass were identified. In the final analysis, 559 patients with 560 FNA-sampled lesions were included. Overall, 442 lesions were pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and 40 were PEN. The sensitivity of EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinomas and PENs was 77% (95% CI, 72.8%-80.8%) and 68% (95% CI, 50.8%-80.9%), respectively, using strict cytologic criteria. Reclassification of atypical and suspicious cytologies as diagnostic of malignancy resulted in a sensitivity of 93%, (95% CI, 90.9%-99.7%) in adenocarcinoma and 80% (95% CI, 63.9%-90.4%) in PEN. Tumor size, tumor location, and number of needle passes did not significantly influence diagnosis, but immediate cytologic evaluation was influential.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective analysis at a single center.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large, well-controlled study, EUS-FNA was found to be an accurate test (80%) for the detection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma by using aspiration cytology. The accuracy of the examination is significantly improved (94%) when atypical and suspicious samples are considered positive. Finally, only 2 to 3 FNA passes may be needed to achieve a good diagnostic yield.

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

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a safe and accurate technique for diagnosing pancreatic cancer. However, its impact for management of these patients is poorly investigated.

AIMS

To investigate the diagnostic yield and the therapeutic impact of EUS-FNA in the management of solid pancreatic masses.

METHODS

One hundred consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNA for a solid pancreatic mass were included. Aspirates were placed onto glass slides for cytological examination and microbiopsies were fixed in formaldehyde for histology. The impact on clinical management was analysed retrospectively according to different endpoints, such as its impact on indications for chemotherapy, surgery or appropriate follow-up modality.

RESULTS

Eight procedures were considered failures and two patients were lost to follow-up. A final diagnosis was obtained in 90 patients. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of combined cytology and histology for the diagnosis of malignant or potentially-malignant tumours were 78%, 75%, and 78% respectively. The sensitivity and accuracy of cytology alone were significantly higher than those of histology alone (P = 0.0003). By intention-to-diagnose analysis, EUS-FNA directly influenced the management strategy in 62 of 100 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with pancreatic mass and suspected malignancy, EUS-FNA provides an accurate diagnosis in approximately 80% of cases. EUS-FNA directly influences the management in two-thirds of patients.