Effect of pancreatic juice cytology and/or endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy for pancreatic tumor

True diagnostic ability of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy sampling for small pancreatic lesions ≤10 mm and salvage diagnosis by pancreatic juice cytology: a multicenter study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The diagnostic performance of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy sampling (EUS-FNAB) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) ≤10 mm in diameter is relatively low. Pancreatic juice cytology (PJC) has gained attention because of its high sensitivity for small PDACs. We aimed to clarify the diagnostic ability of EUS-FNAB and the salvage ability of PJC for PDAC ≤10 mm.

METHODS

Data obtained from attempted EUS-FNAB for patients with EUS-confirmed pancreatic tumors ≤10 mm (excluding pancreatic metastases/malignant lymphomas) were retrospectively analyzed. Patients who experienced technical failure or had a negative EUS-FNAB result and had a strong likelihood of PDAC based on imaging characteristics underwent PJC. PDAC was diagnosed using resected histologic specimens, EUS-FNAB-positive tumor growth on the imaging examination, or additional EUS-FNAB-positive results after increase in tumor size. The primary endpoint was the diagnostic ability of EUS-FNAB for PDAC ≤10 mm. The salvage ability of PJC was also assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 86 of 271 patients with pancreatic tumors ≤10 mm who underwent attempted EUS-FNAB were diagnosed with PDAC. The technical success rate, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of EUS-FNAB for PDAC ≤10 mm were 80.8%, 82.3%, 94.9%, and 91.3%, respectively. Among the 35 PDAC patients who experienced technical failure or false-negative results of EUS-FNAB, 26 (74.3%) were correctly diagnosed using salvage PJC.

CONCLUSIONS

The true success rate and sensitivity of EUS-FNAB for PDAC ≤10 mm were relatively low. When EUS-FNAB for a pancreatic lesion ≤10 mm strongly suspected to be PDAC is unsuccessful or yields a negative result, PJC is recommended. (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN000049965.).

Pancreatic Juice Cytology Evaluations Using Synthetic Secretin and Serial Pancreatic Juice Aspiration Cytological Examination for the Diagnosis of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

Pathological examination by endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle aspiration is not possible in approximately 10% of pancreatic tumor cases. Pancreatic juice cytology (PJC) is considered an alternative diagnostic method. However, its diagnostic capability is insufficient, and PJC has been repeatedly redevised. Serial pancreatic juice aspiration cytological examination (SPACE) and secretin-loaded PJC (S-PJC) have been recently introduced as alternative diagnostic methods. This study aimed to determine the diagnostic capacity and safety of SPACE and S-PJC using a propensity score-matched analysis. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 75.0%, 100%, and 92.3% for S-PJC, respectively, and 71.4%, 100%, and 92.3% for SPACE, respectively, meaning that there was no significant difference between the groups. Four patients (15.4%) each in the S-PJC and SPACE groups experienced complications, including postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, pancreatitis, and cholangitis. Overall, there was no difference in efficacy and safety between the SPACE and S-PJC groups.

Usefulness of Practitioner-Led Pancreatic Cancer Screening

The 5-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer has improved (10%) but remains worse than that for other cancers. Early pancreatic cancer diagnosis is challenging, and delayed diagnosis can delay treatment, which impairs survival. Practitioners do not promptly refer cases to a general hospital, causing delayed discovery. Herein, we aimed to examine the usefulness of the Pancreatic Cancer Project in Matsue, whose objective is to detect pancreatic cancer in patients presenting at any medical institution in Matsue City. Clinical data were extracted from medical records, and abdominal ultrasonography and tumor marker blood level assessments were performed (n = 234; median age, 71 [range, 41–94] years; 51% male). Cases with abnormal abdominal ultrasonography or blood test findings were referred for specialist imaging and followed up. The pancreatic cancer detection rate was 6.0% (n = 14); all cases were referred to a general hospital by practitioners within 1 month. Patients had stage IA (n = 1), IIA (n = 6), IIB (n = 2), III (n = 1), and IV (n = 4) disease. Overall, pancreatic cancer could be detected at an earlier stage (I–II), but referral to a general hospital by visiting practitioners should be prompt. The Pancreatic Cancer Project in Matsue may help improve the detection and prognosis of pancreatic cancer.

Optimal indication of endoscopic retrograde pancreatography-based cytology in the preoperative pathological diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is extremely useful for pathological diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC); however, puncturing is difficult in some cases, and there is a risk of needle tract seeding. This study evaluated the indications for endoscopic retrograde pancreatography-based (ERP)-based cytology for the preoperative diagnosis of PDAC.

METHODS

This study included 267 patients with PDAC who underwent preoperative ERP. The diagnostic performance of ERP-based cytology for PDAC was evaluated based on the sample collection method (pancreatic juice cytology [PJC] during ERP, brush cytology, PJC via endoscopic nasopancreatic drainage [ENPD] catheter), lesion site (pancreatic head, body/tail), and lesion size (≤10 mm, 10-20 mm, >20 mm), and compared with the diagnostic performance of EUS-FNA.

RESULTS

The overall sensitivity of ERP-based cytology was 54.9%; sensitivity by the sampling method was 34.7% for PJC during ERP, 65.8% for brush cytology, and 30.8% for PJC via an ENPD catheter. The sensitivity of EUS-FNA was 85.3%. Brush cytology and PJC via an ENPD catheter were performed more often in pancreatic body/tail lesions than in head lesions (P = 0.016 and P < 0.001, respectively), and the overall sensitivity of ERP-based cytology was better for body/tail lesions (63.2% vs. 49.0%, P = 0.025). The sensitivities of ERP-based cytology and EUS-FNA in diagnosing PDAC ≤10 mm were 92.3% and 33.3%, respectively. Post-ERP pancreatitis was observed in 22 patients (8.2%) and significantly less common with ENPD catheters (P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

ERP-based cytology may be considered the first choice for pathological diagnosis of PDAC ≤10 mm and in the pancreatic body/tail.

Pre-Operative Imaging and Pathological Diagnosis of Localized High-Grade Pancreatic Intra-Epithelial Neoplasia without Invasive Carcinoma

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) arises from precursor lesions, such as pancreatic intra-epithelial neoplasia (PanIN) and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN). The prognosis of high-grade precancerous lesions, including high-grade PanIN and high-grade IPMN, without invasive carcinoma is good, despite the overall poor prognosis of PDAC. High-grade PanIN, as a lesion preceding invasive PDAC, is therefore a primary target for intervention. However, detection of localized high-grade PanIN is difficult when using standard radiological approaches. Therefore, most studies of high-grade PanIN have been conducted using specimens that harbor invasive PDAC. Recently, imaging characteristics of high-grade PanIN have been revealed. Obstruction of the pancreatic duct due to high-grade PanIN may induce a loss of acinar cells replaced by fibrosis and lobular parenchymal atrophy. These changes and additional inflammation around the branch pancreatic ducts (BPDs) result in main pancreatic duct (MPD) stenosis, dilation, retention cysts (BPD dilation), focal pancreatic parenchymal atrophy, and/or hypoechoic changes around the MPD. These indirect imaging findings have become important clues for localized, high-grade PanIN detection. To obtain pre-operative histopathological confirmation of suspected cases, serial pancreatic-juice aspiration cytologic examination is effective. In this review, we outline current knowledge on imaging characteristics of high-grade PanIN.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy - Recent topics and technical tips

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNA) is a useful procedure that enables reliable pathological diagnoses of pancreatobiliary diseases, subepithelial lesions, and swollen lymph nodes. In recent years, a pathological diagnosis based on EUS-FNA has made it possible to provide accurate treatment methods not only in these fields, but also in respiratory organs and otorhinolaryngology. This review discusses the latest topics pertaining to EUS-FNA as well as procedural tips.

Efficacy and safety of pancreatic juice cytology by using synthetic secretin in the diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is difficult to detect in its early stages with the poorest prognosis of all cancers. To improve the prognosis, a precise diagnosis is needed when we suspect PDAC. Although endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNA) is a widely accepted modality for the diagnosis of PDAC, its sensitivity is 85-89%, and approximately 10% of PDAC cases cannot be diagnosed. The main causes that interrupt the diagnosis of PDAC by using EUS-FNA are tumor size, presence of a vessel or the main pancreatic duct along the puncture route, and difficulty in withdrawing anticoagulant. Pancreatic juice cytology (PJC), the sensitivity of which is 33.3-65.8%, is a method for the diagnosis of PDAC cases in which carrying out of EUS-FNA is difficult. To diagnose PDAC appropriately, we need to improve the diagnostic ability of PJC.

METHODS

We examined PJC using synthetic secretin for 138 cases of pancreatic tumor and pancreatic non-cancerous diseases.

RESULTS

Sensitivity of PJC improved from 50.9% to 74.0% as a result of synthetic secretin loading, and 13 PDAC cases that had not been able to be diagnosed with EUS-FNA could be diagnosed pathologically by PJC. Although there were 12 patients with mild pancreatitis (8.7%) as a complication, all were relieved with conservative treatment.

CONCLUSION

Adding synthetic secretin to PJC is useful for cases in which it is difficult to carry out EUS-FNA for PDAC.

Imaging modalities for characterising focal pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND

Increasing numbers of incidental pancreatic lesions are being detected each year. Accurate characterisation of pancreatic lesions into benign, precancerous, and cancer masses is crucial in deciding whether to use treatment or surveillance. Distinguishing benign lesions from precancerous and cancerous lesions can prevent patients from undergoing unnecessary major surgery. Despite the importance of accurately classifying pancreatic lesions, there is no clear algorithm for management of focal pancreatic lesions.

OBJECTIVES

To determine and compare the diagnostic accuracy of various imaging modalities in detecting cancerous and precancerous lesions in people with focal pancreatic lesions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index until 19 July 2016. We searched the references of included studies to identify further studies. We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include studies reporting cross-sectional information on the index test (CT (computed tomography), MRI (magnetic resonance imaging), PET (positron emission tomography), EUS (endoscopic ultrasound), EUS elastography, and EUS-guided biopsy or FNA (fine-needle aspiration)) and reference standard (confirmation of the nature of the lesion was obtained by histopathological examination of the entire lesion by surgical excision, or histopathological examination for confirmation of precancer or cancer by biopsy and clinical follow-up of at least six months in people with negative index tests) in people with pancreatic lesions irrespective of language or publication status or whether the data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched the references to identify relevant studies and extracted the data. We planned to use the bivariate analysis to calculate the summary sensitivity and specificity with their 95% confidence intervals and the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) to compare the tests and assess heterogeneity, but used simpler models (such as univariate random-effects model and univariate fixed-effect model) for combining studies when appropriate because of the sparse data. We were unable to compare the diagnostic performance of the tests using formal statistical methods because of sparse data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 54 studies involving a total of 3,196 participants evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of various index tests. In these 54 studies, eight different target conditions were identified with different final diagnoses constituting benign, precancerous, and cancerous lesions. None of the studies was of high methodological quality. None of the comparisons in which single studies were included was of sufficiently high methodological quality to warrant highlighting of the results. For differentiation of cancerous lesions from benign or precancerous lesions, we identified only one study per index test. The second analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous versus benign lesions, provided three tests in which meta-analysis could be performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing cancer were: EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.79 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 1.00), specificity 1.00 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.00); EUS: sensitivity 0.95 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.99), specificity 0.53 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.74); PET: sensitivity 0.92 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.97), specificity 0.65 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.84). The third analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous lesions from benign lesions, only provided one test (EUS-FNA) in which meta-analysis was performed. EUS-FNA had moderate sensitivity for diagnosing precancerous or cancerous lesions (sensitivity 0.73 (95% CI 0.01 to 1.00) and high specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.15 to 1.00), the extremely wide confidence intervals reflecting the heterogeneity between the studies). The fourth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (dysplasia) provided three tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing invasive carcinoma were: CT: sensitivity 0.72 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.87), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.97); EUS: sensitivity 0.78 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.94), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.98); EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.66 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.99), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.98). The fifth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) versus precancerous (low- or intermediate-grade dysplasia) provided six tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing cancer (high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) were: CT: sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.00 to 1.00), specificity 0.96 (95% CI 0.00 to 1.00); EUS: sensitivity 0.86 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.92), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.96); EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.47 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.70), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.00); EUS-FNA carcinoembryonic antigen 200 ng/mL: sensitivity 0.58 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.83), specificity 0.51 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.81); MRI: sensitivity 0.69 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.86), specificity 0.93 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.00); PET: sensitivity 0.90 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.96), specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.99). The sixth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) provided no tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The seventh analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous (intermediate- or high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) provided two tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing cancer were: CT: sensitivity 0.83 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.92), specificity 0.83 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.93) and MRI: sensitivity 0.80 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.92), specificity 0.81 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.95), respectively. The eighth analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous (intermediate- or high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) or benign lesions provided no test in which meta-analysis was performed.There were no major alterations in the subgroup analysis of cystic pancreatic focal lesions (42 studies; 2086 participants). None of the included studies evaluated EUS elastography or sequential testing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We were unable to arrive at any firm conclusions because of the differences in the way that study authors classified focal pancreatic lesions into cancerous, precancerous, and benign lesions; the inclusion of few studies with wide confidence intervals for each comparison; poor methodological quality in the studies; and heterogeneity in the estimates within comparisons.

Role of the preoperative usefulness of the pathological diagnosis of pancreatic diseases

Pancreatic cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer death and has the lowest survival rate of any solid cancer. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNA) is currently capable of providing a cytopathological diagnosis of pancreatic malignancies with a higher diagnostic power, with a sensitivity and specificity of 85%-89% and 98%-99%, compared to pancreatic juice cytology (PJC), whose sensitivity and specificity are only 33.3%-93% and 83.3%-100%. However, EUS-FNA is not effective in the cases of carcinoma in situ and minimally invasive carcinoma because both are undetectable by endoscopic ultrasonography, although PJC is able to detect them. As for the frequency of complications such as post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis, EUS-FNA is safer than PJC. To diagnose pancreatic cancer appropriately, it is necessary for us to master both procedures so that we can select the best methods of sampling tissues while considering the patient’s safety and condition.

Yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for solid pancreatic neoplasms

OBJECTIVE

Both endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) cytology may provide tissue diagnoses in solid pancreatic neoplasms. However, there are scant data comparing these two methods. This study aims at retrospectively comparing EUS-FNA and ERCP tissue sampling and ability of cytopathological diagnosis in solid pancreatic neoplasms and to determine usefulness and adverse events of combining both procedures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two hundred and thirty four patients suspected to have solid pancreatic mass on abdominal ultrasound and/or computed tomography (CT) were enrolled. EUS-FNA (group A), ERCP cytology (group B) and combined procedures (Group C) performed in 105, 91 and 38 cases, respectively.

RESULTS

Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 98.9%, 93.3% and 98.1% for group A, and 72.1%, 60% and 71.4% for group B. Those for group C were all 100%. Sensitivity for malignancy in the pancreas head was 100% for group A and 82.4% for group B, and in the pancreas body and tail, 97.6% for group A and 57.1% for group B. EUS-FNA was more sensitive than ERCP cytology in diagnosing malignant pancreatic neoplasms 21-30 mm in size (p = 0.0068), 31-40 mm (p = 0.028) and ≥ 41 mm (p < 0.0001). Sensitivity for pancreatic malignancy with group C was 100% regardless of mass location or size. Adverse events were 1.9%, 6.6% and 2.6% following EUS-FNA, ERCP and combined procedures, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNA is superior to ERCP cytology for diagnosis of solid pancreatic neoplasms. Although combination of both procedures provide efficient tissue diagnosis and with a minimal adverse events rate, a prospective study including larger number of patients is required.

Development of a device for detecting target specimens from EUS-guided FNA samples

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Specimens collected by fine needle are microscopic and contain blood; therefore, the presence of a target specimen within a sample is often difficult to confirm. Although rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNA) is beneficial, many health care facilities are unable to apply this technique due to a lack of cytopathologists. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a device that detects the target specimen within pancreatic tumor EUS-FNA samples.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Fifty-eight consecutive patients with solid pancreatic masses were studied for a preliminary case series at a tertiary-care university hospital (Tottori University Hospital, Yonago, Japan). The material collected was checked with a target sample check illuminator (TSCI) and was evaluated by one cytopathologist.

RESULTS

The agreement rate between the TSCI and histopathology was 93.7 %. Further testing procedures were not needed in 91.4 % of patients, and the mean number of needle punctures was 1.2 after a single pass using TSCI. No adverse events were encountered with the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

With the introduction of the TSCI in EUS-FNA, it became possible to both collect the minimum necessary target samples by EUS-FNA and to end further procedures, even without performing ROSE.

Clinical Impact of the KL-6 Concentration of Pancreatic Juice for Diagnosing Pancreatic Masses

Background and Aim. Pancreatic juice cytology (PJC) is considered optimal for differentially diagnosing pancreatic masses, but the accuracy of PJC ranges from 46.7% to 93.0%. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical impact of measuring the KL-6 concentration of pancreatic juice for diagnosing pancreatic masses. Methods. PJC and the KL-6 concentration measurements of pancreatic juice were performed for 70 consecutive patients with pancreatic masses (39 malignancies and 31 benign). Results. The average KL-6 concentration of pancreatic juice was significantly higher for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDACs) (167.7 ± 396.1 U/mL) and intraductal papillary mucinous carcinomas (IPMCs) (86.9 ± 21.1 U/mL) than for pancreatic inflammatory lesions (17.5 ± 15.7 U/mL, P = 0.034) and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (14.4 ± 2.0 U/mL, P = 0.026), respectively. When the cut-off level of the KL-6 concentration of pancreatic juice was 16 U/mL, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the KL-6 concentration of pancreatic juice alone were 79.5%, 64.5%, and 72.9%, respectively. Adding the KL-6 concentration of pancreatic juice to PJC when making a diagnosis caused the values of sensitivity and accuracy of PJC to increase by 15.3% (P = 0.025) and 8.5% (P = 0.048), respectively. Conclusions. The KL-6 concentration of pancreatic juice may be as useful as PJC for diagnosing PDACs.

Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration cytology of pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration cytology (EUS-FNAC) is currently the most commonly used procedure for obtaining cytologic specimens of the pancreas. It is accurate, minimally invasive, safe and cost-effective. However, there is discrepancy between cytological and surgical diagnoses. This study was aimed at evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNAC of the pancreas.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of 191 cases of pancreatic lesions initially diagnosed by EUS-FNAC with subsequent histological diagnosis between 2010 and 2012 in the Department of Pathology, Seoul National University Hospital. Cytologic and surgical diagnoses were categorized into five groups: negative, benign, atypical, malignant, and insufficient for diagnosis. Subsequently, 167 cases with satisfactory yield in both surgical and cytology specimens were statistically analyzed to determine correlations with diagnosis.

RESULTS

In comparison to surgical diagnoses, cytologic diagnoses were true-positive in 103 cases (61.7%), true-negative in 28 cases (16.8%), false-positive in 9 cases (5.4%), and false-negative in 27 cases (16.1%). The diagnostic accuracy was 78.4%, sensitivity was 79.2%, and specificity was 75.7%. The positive predictive value was 92.0%, and negative predictive value was 50.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNAC has high accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value. Overcoming the limitations of EUS-FNAC will make it a useful and reliable diagnostic tool for accurate evaluation of pancreatic lesions.

Endoscopic ultrasonography for surveillance of individuals at high risk for pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic cancer is a highly lethal disease with a genetic susceptibility and familial aggregation found in 3%-16% of patients. Early diagnosis remains the only hope for curative treatment and improvement of prognosis. This can be reached by the implementation of an intensive screening program, actually recommended for individuals at high-risk for pancreatic cancer development. The aim of this strategy is to identify pre-malignant precursors or asymptomatic pancreatic cancer lesions, curable by surgery. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with or without fine needle aspiration (FNA) seems to be the most promising technique for early detection of pancreatic cancer. It has been described as a highly sensitive and accurate tool, especially for small and cystic lesions. Pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia, a precursor lesion which is highly represented in high-risk individuals, seems to have characteristics chronic pancreatitis-like changes well detected by EUS. Many screening protocols have demonstrated high diagnostic yields for pancreatic pre-malignant lesions, allowing prophylactic pancreatectomies. However, it shows a high interobserver variety even among experienced endosonographers and a low sensitivity in case of chronic pancreatitis. Some new techniques such as contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS, computer-aided diagnostic techniques, confocal laser endomicroscopy miniprobe and the detection of DNA abnormalities or protein markers by FNA, promise improvement of the diagnostic yield of EUS. As the resolution of imaging improves and as our knowledge of precursor lesions grows, we believe that EUS could become the most suitable method to detect curable pancreatic neoplasms in correctly identified asymptomatic at-risk patients.

Sensitivity of alternative testing for pancreaticobiliary cancer: a 10-y review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Biliary strictures present a diagnostic challenge to differentiate benign disease from hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) malignancies. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography cytology is commonly performed in these patients; however, its sensitivity for diagnosis of HPB malignancy is poor (41.6%). Many adjunctive tests have been investigated to improve the sensitivity of HPB biopsies. To determine the best tests available, however, we reviewed the literature and performed a comparative analysis of all recently investigated tests and their sensitivities.

METHODS

A PubMed search identified articles published between 2003 and 2014, describing alternate methods for diagnosing HPB malignancies, reported sensitivity, final pathology, and had data available online. Meta-analysis was conducted for tests with multiple articles. Tests with the highest sensitivity and specificities were reported.

RESULTS

A total of 77 studies were identified. Meta-analysis was performed on the sensitivity of EUS-FNA (74.2%), fluorescence in situ hybridization (54.2%), immunostain of insulin-like growth factor 2 mRNA-binding Protein 3 (IMP3; 80.4%), IMP3 + cytology (86.4%), K homology domain containing protein overexpressed in cancer (KOC; 85.9%), S100P (77.8%), serum CA19-9 (69.3%), and K-ras mutations (47.0%) to detect malignancy. Ultimately, 12 tests were identified with superior sensitivity (85.3%-100%) and specificities (81.6%-100%) including stricture scrapping, brush sectioning, IMP3 stain + cytology, IMP3+S100A4, bile carcinoembryonic cell adhesion molecule 6 protein (±CA19-9), bile micro RNA (miRNA)-135b, serum miRNA-RNU2-1f, serum miRNA-21 (+CA19-9), peripheral blood mononuclear cells miRNA-27a-3p (+CA19-9), serum miRNA-16 + miRNA-196a (+CA19-9), peripheral blood mononuclear cells mRNAs h-TERT + CK20 + CEA + C-MET.

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend immunostaining with a panel of IMP3+KOC + S100A4 + cytology to achieve maximum sensitivity and specificity from HPB biopsies. One biliary protein (carcinoembryonic cell adhesion molecule 6) and several RNAs (bile and blood) offer exceptional sensitivity and specificity and should be tested prospectively in larger populations. Overall, this review identifies several tests to improve the sensitivity of diagnostic algorithms to identify HPB malignancies.