Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration. A cytopathologist's perspective

Comparing perspectives: frontal and oblique endoscopic ultrasound

The oblique-view echoendoscope is currently the sole tool for ultrasound-guided endoscopic procedures (EUS) in most hospital centers, despite its limitations like a lack of forward vision, issues with needle angle, and restricted accessory device size due to channel angulation. However, our study revealed no significant differences between the oblique and frontal endoscopes, except for minor variations in specific regions. For routine diagnostic studies, interchangeability between the devices is feasible. The anticipated advantages of the frontal device may emerge more prominently in future therapeutic procedures. This suggests that, while the oblique-view echoendoscope remains the primary tool, the frontal device holds potential for evolving roles in diagnostic and therapeutic interventions.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition Versus Fine Needle Aspiration for Diagnosis of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVES

Compare the 22G needle versus EchoTip ProCore® 20 (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA) on their handling, specimen suitability, amount of tissue obtained, diagnostic performance, the possibility of immunohistochemistry, and rate of adverse events.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective, comparative study of consecutively examined patients with pancreatic masses who underwent endosonography-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) via the 22G needle, and endosonography-guided tissue acquisition (TA) via ProCore 20 (PC20). The operator evaluated needle insertion and subjectively classified the specimen. The pathologist measured the samples, classified the amount of tissue, and determined the influence of bleeding on the interpretation.

RESULTS

A total of 129 patients participated in the study, out of whom 52 underwent endosonography-guided FNA with 22G and 77 underwent endosonography-guided TA with a PC20 needle. Malignant lesions were found in 106, and 23 had benign lesions. The duodenal route was used in 62% of patients. The 22G needle was easier to introduce (p=0.0495). However, PC20 obtained a larger amount (p<0.01) with fewer punctures (p<0.001). The PC20 also yielded a larger average microcore diameter (p=0.0032). Microhistology was adequate for 22G and PC20 in 22 (42.2%) and 50 (78.1%) specimens, respectively (p<0.001). Bleeding was not significantly different (p>0.999). Immunohistochemistry was possible in 36 (69.2%) and 40 (51.9%) specimens obtained by 22G and PC20, respectively (p=0.075). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of 22G were 93.5%, 100%, 100%, 66.7%, and 94.2%, respectively; and for PC20, it was 95%, 100%, 100%, 85%, and 96.1%, respectively. Mild bleeding was the most common early adverse event, occurring in 2/52 (3.8%) 22G and 4/77 (5.2%) PC20 cases (p>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The PC20 required fewer punctures and reduced the need for immunohistochemistry as it yielded better and larger microcores. Its ease of insertion into the target lesion makes it a good option to obtain satisfactory microcore specimens in difficult positions, such as the transduodenal route.

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.

Compliance with the Current NCCN Guidelines and Its Critical Role in Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVES

Since 2019, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has recommended genetic testing for patients diagnosed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma that includes universal germline testing and tumor gene profiling for metastatic, locally advanced, or recurrent disease. However, testing compliance with this guideline has not yet been published in the English literature.

METHODS

A quality assurance/quality improvement retrospective review was done to identify patients diagnosed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma from January 2019 to February 2021 to include the patient's clinical status and genetic test results.

RESULTS

There were 20 patient cases identified with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. A total of 11 cases had molecular tumor gene profiling and microsatellite instability/mismatch repair (MSI/MMR) testing performed and 1 case had only MSI/MMR testing by immunohistochemistry performed. Only 3 patients of the 20 in total received germline testing.

CONCLUSION

There was a significant number of patients for whom tumor gene profiling or germline testing had never been attempted as per recommended NCCN guidelines.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology in diagnosing intra-abdominal lesions

Objectives:

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology (EUS-FNAC) is an effective method to acquire tissue from the mucosal, submucosal, and peri-intestinal structure with the pancreas being the most common organ to be targeted. This study is aimed to evaluate the role of EUS-FNAC in pancreatic lesions as well as other gastrointestinal (GI) structures including lymph nodes, upper GI tract, liver, and spleen.

Material and Methods:

A total of 71 cases were taken in which EUS FNAC was performed over 19 months (2018–July 2019). The details analysis of the cytological features was performed in all these cases along with the clinical outcome. The diagnostic efficacy of the EUS-FNAC was evaluated in these cases.

Results:

Out of 71 cases, 36 (50.7%) were male. The most common site being the pancreas 45 (60%) followed by intra-abdominal lymph nodes in 13(17.3%) cases and stomach 7 (9.3%). The neoplastic aspirate was noted in 38 (50.7%) cases. Among malignant lesion, adenocarcinoma was the most common; however, uncommon malignancies such as metastatic malignant melanoma and acinar cell carcinoma were also noted. Malignant lesion in pancreas includes adenocarcinoma (n = 11, 24.4%) followed by neuroendocrine tumor (n = 7, 15.6%). Tuberculosis was one of the common benign lesions to be reported.

Conclusion:

EUS-FNAC is an effective tool in the diagnosis of GI lesion particularly in the pancreas where it can avoid unnecessary surgical intervention in advanced malignancies. It can effectively obtain samples for molecular markers for pancreatic cancers. Nonetheless, diagnosing tuberculosis in inaccessible lymph nodes with its help is a lifesaving approach especially in developing countries.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition for splenic lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

At present, it is difficult and risky to diagnose splenic lesions by conventional needle biopsy using computed tomography (CT) or ultrasound (US). Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition is increasingly being used as a new technique to determine the tissue diagnosis of splenic lesions. Therefore, our goal was to determine the efficacy and safety of EUS-guided tissue acquisition for splenic lesions.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the pooled sensitivity and specificity of EUS-guided tissue acquisition for the diagnosis of splenic lesions using Metadisc. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Questionnaire, a quality assessment tool, was used to scrutinize the quality of the studies.

RESULTS

Six eligible studies between January 2000 and June 2022 were identified, and a total number of 62 patients (aged range from 19 to 84) were enrolled. One patient was excluded because of insufficient specimens. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of included studies were 0.85 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.73-0.93] and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.46-0.95), respectively. The pooled positive likelihood ratio (LR) was 2.38 (95% CI, 1.24-4.57), the pooled negative LR was 0.31 (95% CI, 0.17-0.55), the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 8.67 (95% CI, 2.80-26.82), the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was 0.8100 (Standard Error 0.0813).

CONCLUSION

EUS-guided tissue acquisition is a safe technique with high sensitivity in the diagnosis of splenic lesions. However, because of the small sample sizes, more studies with more cases are needed to further validate these results.

Pancreatic/peripancreatic neurogenic tumor; little known masses not to be missed

BACKGROUND

Retroperitoneal neurogenic tumors are extremely rare pathological entities; therefore, few clinical features and natural courses, especially originating from the pancreatic/peripancreatic regions, have been reported. This study aimed to investigate the clinicopathological features of pancreatic and peripancreatic neurogenic tumors and assess the diagnostic value of computed tomography (CT) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB).

METHODS

Between 2006 and 2018, patients who were diagnosed with neurogenic tumors were included. In total, 90 histologically confirmed cases of neurogenic tumors located in the pancreatic/peripancreatic regions were selected for analysis.

RESULTS

The mean age was 49.2 ± 13.1 years. There were no differences in sex distribution of the tumors. Schwannomas (44.4%) and paragangliomas (41.1%) were the most common neurogenic tumors. The sensitivity of CT was 62.2% in 90 cases. EUS-FNB was performed in 30 cases and the sensitivity of it was 83.3%. The diagnosis of neurogenic tumors with EUS-FNB or CT was not significantly associated with tumor location and size. Surgical resection was performed in 78 cases. Of the 12 patients who did not undergo surgery, 10 cases were followed-up without any increase in tumor size.

CONCLUSIONS

Through the present study, we verified radiological, pathological, and clinical aspects of the pancreatic/peripancreatic neurogenic tumors which little known before, therefore, this study can serve as the basis for research to present an optimal diagnosis and treatment of neurogenic tumors. In addition, EUS-FNB is useful in the diagnosis of pancreatic/peripancreatic neurogenic tumors with relatively high sensitivity and can help establish therapeutic plans before the surgery.

Lymphoid Enhancer Binding Factor 1 (LEF1) and Paired Box Gene 8 (PAX8): A Limited Immunohistochemistry Panel to Distinguish Solid Pseudopapillary Neoplasms and Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

Solid pseudopapillary neoplasms (SPNs) and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs) are distinctive entities. However, due to overlapping morphologies, distinguishing them remains a diagnostic challenge. Our study investigates the utility of immunohistochemistry for nuclear lymphoid enhancer binding factor 1 (LEF1) and paired box gene 8 (PAX8) in differentiating these 2 entities. LEF1 and PAX8 immunohistochemistry were performed on fine-needle aspiration cell blocks and surgical resection specimens diagnosed as SPN or PanNET at our institution from January 2007 to August 2016. Eight SPN and 25 PanNET cell blocks and 17 SPN and 34 PanNET surgical resection specimens were examined. On cell blocks, positive staining for LEF1 had high frequency, sensitivity, and specificity for SPN (88%, 88%, and 88%) as did positive staining for PAX8 for PanNET (76%, 76%, and 75%). The findings on surgical resection specimens were consistent with those from cell blocks (LEF1+ in SPN: 100%, 100%, and 97%; PAX8+ in PanNET: 59%, 59%, and 100%). A combined LEF1+/PAX8- phenotype showed high sensitivity and specificity for SPN (cell block: 63% and 100%; surgical specimen: 100% and 98%) as did a LEF1-/PAX8+ phenotype for PanNET (cell block: 64% and 100%; surgical specimen: 59% and 100%). SPN and PanNET exhibit opposite immunophenotypic profiles with LEF1+/PAX8- in SPN and LEF1-/PAX8+ in PanNET. The combination of these 2 stains provides an effective means of distinguishing these 2 entities.

Evaluation and Comparison of Performance Parameters and Impact of Telepathology and Operator Experience on Endobronchial and Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration

OBJECTIVES

Endobronchial ultrasound- and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EBUS-/EUS-FNA) are minimally invasive techniques of diagnosing and staging malignancies. The procedures are difficult to master, requiring specific feedback for optimizing yield.

METHODS

Over 2 years, EBUS-/EUS-FNA cases were gathered using the institutional pathology database. Patient and specimen characteristics were collected from the pathology database and electronic medical record.

RESULTS

In 2 years, 789 unique FNA specimens were collected (356 EBUS and 433 EUS specimens). The cohort and each subgroup had excellent performance, which was enhanced by telepathology. The discrepancy rate was satisfactorily low. Hematolymphoid neoplasms are overrepresented in discrepant EBUS cases. The malignancy rates of cytology diagnostic categories were comparable to the literature.

CONCLUSIONS

Using diagnostic yield and concordance results allow for comprehensive evaluation of the entire process of EBUS-/EUS-FNAs. This study's findings can influence patient management, training methods, and interpretation of results, while also acting as a model for others to investigate their own sources of inadequacy, discrepancy, and training gaps.

Use of suction during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions with a Franseen-tip needle: a pilot comparative trial

Background and study aims  The utility of suction during endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle biopsy (FNB) using Franseen-tip needle remains unclear and has not been evaluated in randomized trials. We designed a randomized crossover trial to compare the diagnostic yield during EUS-FNB using a 22G Franseen-tip needle, with and without standard suction. Patients and methods  Consecutive patients undergoing EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions were recruited. A minimum of two passes were performed for each case: one with 20-mL syringe suction (S+) and another without (S-). The order of passes was randomized and the pathologist blinded. The endpoints were the diagnostic yield and the impact of blood contamination in the diagnosis. Results  Fifty consecutive patients were enrolled. The overall diagnostic accuracy was 84 %. A diagnosis of malignancy was obtained in 70 samples: 36 in the S+group and 34 in the S-group. A statistically significant difference was seen in the diagnostic accuracy (S+: 78 % vs. S-: 72 %, P  < 0.01) and blood contamination (S+: 68 %; S-: 44 %, P  < 0.01). The sensitivity, specificity, negative likelihood ratio and positive likelihood ratio for S+vs. S-samples were 76.6 % vs. 73.9 %, 100 % vs. 100 % and 0.23 vs. 0.26, NA vs NA, respectively. A negative impact of blood contamination in the overall diagnostic yield wasn't seen, even in samples where suction was used (OR 0.36, P  = 0.15) Conclusions  We found a higher diagnostic yield with the use of suction. It was associated with a higher degree of sample blood contamination that did not affect the diagnostic performance.

Transabdominal ultrasound-guided pancreatic biopsy: a neglected but safe, effective and inexpensive procedure that needs to be re-juvinalized

BACKGROUND

For solid pancreatic masses, ultrasound endoscopic fine-needle biopsy is suggested as the front-line investigation for tissue achievement, notwithstanding the optimal performance of transabdominal ultrasound (TUS)-guided biopsy.

PURPOSE

To reassess the efficacy and effectiveness of TUS-guided sampling and to determine the factors predictive of accurate histology.

METHODS

In total, 142 patients with an indication for a TUS-guided biopsy of a pancreatic mass were analyzed. A single pass of an 18-gauge Biomol needle was carried out by the Menghini technique. The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the procedure in terms of correctly diagnosing an inflammatory or neoplastic lesion were determined. The patients' characteristics, the size and location of the mass, and the sonographers' experience in performing TUS were recorded.

RESULTS

The sampling was unsuccessful in 24 cases, owing to the deep localization of lesions (57%), bloating (33%), or low patient compliance (10%). The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the 118 successful biopsies were 81%, 79%, and 100%, respectively. A biopsy core was obtained in 90 of the 118 patients (76%) in whom the procedure was attempted. In the multivariate analysis, lesion size (≤ 20 mm vs. > 20 mm) (OR = 5.3 [1.7-17.0]) and operator experience (OR = 4.4 [1.6-12.1]) predicted the acquisition of adequate samples. With an expert sonographer, the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 87%, 85%, and 100%, respectively. Two adverse events were registered: mild abdominal pain and a hypotensive crisis.

CONCLUSIONS

The present investigation highlights the optimal performance of a TUS-guided biopsy of a pancreatic mass. Because of its simplicity and safety, the procedure needs to be included among the recommended investigative options.

Optimizing small liver biopsy specimens: a combined cytopathology and surgical pathology perspective

Both fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and core needle biopsy (CNB) are widely used to obtain liver biopsy specimens, particularly from mass lesions. However, the advantages and disadvantages of FNA versus CNB in terms of appropriate use, diagnostic yield, complications, and whether or not specimens should be handled by cytopathologists, surgical pathologists, or both remain subjects of controversy. This review addresses the issues of sample adequacy, appropriate use of each technique and complications, and challenges regarding the diagnosis of both hepatic tumors and non-neoplastic liver disease.

Diagnostic utility of cytology smears and cell block in adrenal lesions

BACKGROUND

Cytology of the adrenal gland is a less performed technique even in tertiary care centres; yet cytological evaluation is an important diagnostic tool for assessment of adrenal lesions. Our objective was to evaluate the diagnostic utility of FNAC smears and cellblock with immunohistochemistry (IHC) in lesions of the adrenal.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We had a total of 50 cases over a period of 2 years where both FNAC smears and cellblocks were taken. The smears and cellblocks were examined for adequacy. They were subsequently categorised into four groups: unsatisfactory, benign, suspicious of malignancy and malignant. The diagnostic accuracy of FNAC smears and cellblock with IHC were evaluated and compared, taking histopathology, wherever available, as the gold standard, RESULT: We had 50 cases with age ranging from 6 to 53 years with a median of 7.5 years. Of these, 54% were cytologically malignant and neuroblastoma was the commonest lesion. Histopathology was available in 23 cases only, where the diagnostic accuracy was evaluated. The sensitivity and specificity of FNAC smear was 100% and 85.71%, respectively whereas the sensitivity and specificity of cellblock with IHC was 100% and 92.86%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Cellblock together with IHC provides a higher degree of specificity, reduces the unsatisfactory rate and improves the diagnostic accuracy in lesions of the adrenal gland. Immunohistochemistry is an important adjunctive tool.

Stylet slow-pull vs. standard suction technique for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy in pancreatic solid lesions using 20 Gauge Procore™ needle: A multicenter randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Standard suction and slow-pull techniques have been utilized during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic solid lesions, but the correct sampling technique remains unclear. New needles designed to obtain samples suitable for histological evaluation have become available. We performed a study comparing the two sampling methods during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) in patients with pancreatic solid lesions.

METHODS

We performed EUS-FNB with a 20 Gauge FNB needle using slow-pull or standard suction techniques in a prospective, randomized, multicenter study. The primary aim was bloodiness of the collected specimens. Secondary aims were technical success and performance of the two techniques.

RESULTS

110 patients were included (55 per group). No difference in blood contamination was observed (slow-pull 80% vs. suction 74%, p = 0.917). Technical success was 95% (96% vs. 94%, p = 0315). Sensitivity (96% vs. 93%), specificity (100% vs. 100%), positive likelihood ratio (NA), negative likelihood ratio (0.04 vs. 0.07), diagnostic accuracy (96 vs. 93%) did not differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNB with slow-pull and standard suction techniques are comparable in terms of blood contamination providing similar high diagnostic sensitivity and accuracy in pancreatic solid lesions. The use of the new generation FNB needle allows to reach such high level of diagnostic adequacy regardless of the technique utilized.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of solid mass lesions of the pancreas: A retrospective comparison study of fine-needle aspiration and fine-needle biopsy

BACKGROUND

Although endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) has emerged as an alternative to fine-needle aspiration (FNA) for the sampling of solid pancreatic mass lesions, it remains unclear which method is more effective. We compared the diagnostic yields of FNA, FNB, and combined FNA/FNB at a tertiary care institution.

METHODS

Specimens from EUS-FNA (04/2014-08/2017) and EUS-FNB (10/2015-08/2017) with SharkCore needle of pancreatic solid mass lesions were retrieved. Clinical, radiologic, and pathologic data was recorded. Pathology results of malignancy/neoplasms with uncertain malignant potential were considered as true positive. The "negative" cases included were with ≥6 months of follow-up. Nondiagnostic cases showed unremarkable pancreatic tissue, nonpancreatic elements, atypia, or features suspicious for malignancy. Diagnostic yield was defined as percentage of lesions sampled in which a benign or malignant tissue diagnosis, as defined above, was obtained. Statistical comparisons were performed using Fisher's exact test and univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 76 FNA only cases, 88 FNB only cases, and 40 combined FNA/FNB cases. Diagnostic yields were 70% (FNA), 70% (FNB), and 83% (FNA/FNB), which were not statistically different. Increase in lesion size and presence of ROSE were significantly associated with a diagnostic outcome on both univariable and multivariable analysis, unlike the number of passes.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrate that for solid pancreatic lesions, the diagnostic yields of FNA, FNB, and combined FNA and FNB are comparable. Presence of ROSE and increasing lesion size increased the diagnostic yield while the number of passes had no significant impact.

Concordance, intra- and inter-observer agreements between light microscopy and whole slide imaging for samples acquired by EUS in pancreatic solid lesions

BACKGROUND

No study has compared the performance of light microscopy (LM) and whole slide imaging (WSI) for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) histological acquired tissue samples from pancreatic solid lesions (PSLs). We evaluated the concordance between LM and WSI and the inter- and intra-observer agreements among pathologists on PSLs EUS acquired samples.

METHODS

LM and WSI from 60 patients with PSLs were evaluated by five expert pathologists to define: diagnostic classification, presence of a core, number and percentage of lesional cells. Washout period between evaluations was 3 months. Time of the procedures was also assessed.

RESULTS

Forty-eight cell-block and 12 biopsy samples were evaluated. A high concordance between LM and WSI was found. Inter- and intra-observer agreements for diagnostic classification were substantial and complete, respectively. For all the other parameters, the inter-observer agreement was usually higher for LM. For the intra-observer, a substantial agreement was reached regarding the presence of tissue core and the number and the percentage of malignant cells. Median time for performing LM was significantly shorter than for WSI (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

LM and WSI of cell-block and biopsy samples acquired by EUS in PSLs were highly concordant, with a substantial inter-observer and a complete intra-observer agreements regarding diagnostic classification.

Role of Ancillary Testing on Endoscopic US-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Samples from Cystic Pancreatic Neoplasms

Pancreatic cysts are increasingly detected on imaging studies. Accurate determination of the cyst type is important to provide appropriate care for the patients. It is also very clear that not one single modality can provide adequate diagnostic information. A multidisciplinary approach is the key to the diagnosis of pancreatic cysts. In this setting, the role of ancillary testing, which includes biochemical testing (carcinoembryonic antigen and amylase levels in the cyst), molecular testing (e.g., KRAS, GNAS, VHL, and CTNB1), and/or immunohistochemical tests are very important to obtain an accurate diagnosis. This review will discuss helpful ancillary tests in common pancreatic cyst neoplasms and how to approach the diagnosis of pancreatic cysts.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration and Biopsy in Gastrointestinal Subepithelial Tumors

The incidence of asymptomatic and incidentally found upper gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors (SETs) is increasing with the implementation of national cancer screening and the development of high-resolution endoscopy in Korea. However, endoscopy alone cannot be used to determine whether SETs are benign or malignant. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is used to further characterize these lesions through the examination of their layered structure, internal echogenicity, size, and relationship to the extramural structure. These provide additional information on whether the lesion is benign or malignant. Nevertheless, the sensitivity and specificity of EUS alone in predicting malignancy is unsatisfactory. Recent guidelines have recommended deciding the timing of EUS-fine needle aspiration and biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) for SETs based on tumor size, malignant features on endoscopy, and high-risk features on EUS. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA/B is reportedly influenced by factors including needle size, number of needle passes, use of suction, use of a stylet in the needle assembly, fanning technique, availability of an on-site cytopathologist, and experience of the endosonographer. Therefore, according to the characteristics of the SETs, various subsequent methods and techniques should be appropriately employed to improve the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA/B.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Liver Biopsy Using a Core Needle for Hepatic Solid Mass

Background/Aims

This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) using a core needle for hepatic solid masses (HSMs). Additionally, the study aimed to assess factors that influence the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB for HSMs.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent EUS-FNB for the pathological diagnosis of HSMs was conducted between January 2013 and July 2017. The procedure had been performed using core needles of different calibers. The assessed variables were mass size, puncture route, needle type, and the number of needle passes.

Results

Fifty-eight patients underwent EUS-FNB for the pathologic evaluation of HSMs with a mean mass size of 21.4±9.2 mm. EUS-FNB was performed with either a 20-G (n=14), 22-G (n=29) or a 25-G core needle (n=15). The diagnostic accuracy for this procedure was 89.7%, but both specimen adequacy for histology and available immunohistochemistry stain were 91.4%. The sensitivity and specificity of EUS-FNB were 89.7% and 100%, respectively. There was one case involving bleeding as a complication, which was controlled with endoscopic hemostasis. According to the multivariate analysis, no variable was independently associated with a correct final diagnosis.

Conclusions

EUS-FNB with core biopsy needle is a safe and highly accurate diagnostic option for assessing HSMs. There were no variable factors associated with diagnostic accuracy.

High diagnostic adequacy and accuracy of the new 20G procore needle for EUS-guided tissue acquisition: Results of a large multicentre retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy has become the standard for tissue sampling. A new 20G ProCore™ (PC) needle has been developed to overcome the limitations of tissue acquisition of the smaller needles (22G, 25G) and the rigidity of the larger one (19G). The aim of this study is to assess the performance of the 20G PC needle.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent EUS-guided tissue acquisition with the 20G PC needle of pancreatic and extra-pancreatic mass lesions were retrospectively identified at three Italian centers (Bologna, Fermo, and Palermo). Diagnostic adequacy, accuracy, and tissue core acquisition were the outcome measures. All the cases were performed without rapid on-site evaluation.

RESULTS

A total of 384 patients with pancreatic (62.2%) and extra-pancreatic lesions were included in the study. For pancreatic lesions, adequacy, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 92.4%, 91.5%, 90.8%, and 100%, respectively, with a number needed to misdiagnose (NNM) of 11.8. The tissue core was obtained in 72% of cases. Transduodenal approach was performed in 150 pancreatic lesions; adequacy, accuracy, and tissue core acquisition were 88.7%, 90%, and 66%, respectively (NNM 10). For extrapancreatic lesions, adequacy, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and tissue core sampling were 95.3%, 95.3%, 92.6%, 100%, and 84.5% (NNM 21.3).

CONCLUSIONS

The 20G PC needle showed high diagnostic adequacy and accuracy, regardless the access route.

EUS-FNB with or without on-site evaluation for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions (FROSENOR): Protocol for a multicenter randomized non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) of cytological specimensacquired with EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) represents the most accurate available technique to reach a definitive diagnosis in patients with pancreatic solid masses. Recently, needles with high histological yield have been developed for EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB), with which the need for ROSE can be potentially overcome.

AIMS

The primary aim is to compare the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB with or without ROSE. The main endpoint will be measured against the gold standard diagnosis (surgical pathology whenever available or diagnostic work-up in agreement with a clinical course of at least six months). Secondary endpoints include: (a) safety; (b) presence of tissue core; (c) quality of specimens; (d) time of the sampling procedure. Reliability of macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) by endosonographers will be also assessed.

METHODS

FROSENOR is an international randomized non-inferiority ongoing study at sixteen centers in four continents. Eight hundred patients will be randomized in two arms (EUS-FNB + ROSE vs. EUS-FNB alone) and outcomes compared. Sample size has been calculated in order to demonstrate the non-inferiority of FNB alone. Randomization and data collection will be performed online.

DISCUSSION

This study will ascertain if ROSE is still needed when performing EUS-FNB of solid pancreatic lesions.

Cross-sectional Imaging of Gallbladder Carcinoma: An Update

Gallbladder Carcinoma (GBCA) is the most common biliary tract malignancy. As the disease is often diagnosed clinically in an advanced stage, the survival rates are dismal. Imaging studies allow for an early diagnosis of malignancy, though the findings may be indistinguishable from non-malignant disease processes affecting the gallbladder. Attempts have been made to make a specific diagnosis of GBCA at an early stage on imaging studies. Ultrasonography (US) is the most commonly employed technique for gallbladder evaluation. Gallbladder wall thickening is the most common finding of early GBCA and in this context, US is non-specific. Recently, contrast enhanced ultrasound has been shown to be effective in differentiating benign from malignant disease. Multidetector computed tomography represents the most robust imaging technique in evaluation of GBCA. It provides relatively sensitive evaluation of mural thickening, though it is not entirely specific and issues in differentiating GBCA from xanthogranulomatous cholecystitis do arise. Due to its superior soft tissue resolution, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) provides excellent delineation of gallbladder and biliary tree involvement. When coupled with functional MRI techniques, such as diffusion-weighted and perfusion imaging, it provides a useful problem solving tool for interrogating the malignant potential of nonspecific gallbladder lesions and detection of metastases. Positron emission tomography has a role in detection of distant metastases and following patients following treatment for malignancy. We review the current role of various imaging modalities in evaluating patients with GBCA.

22-Gauge biopsy needles have a better histological diagnostic yield in the discrimination of specific pancreatic solid neoplasms

BACKGROUND

To overcome the limitations of using cytological specimen alone for the diagnosis of challenging pancreatic lesions, biopsy needles have been developed to procure histological specimens during EUS, especially for the discrimination of several specific pancreatic tumors requiring adequate histological samples. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided 22-gauge (G) fine needle aspiration (FNA) needles and 22G fine needle biopsy (FNB) needles for sampling pancreatic masses.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of all EUS-guided sampling performed between November 2012 and April 2016. 422 cases sampled with a 22G FNA needle (N = 254) or a 22G FNB needle (N = 168) were recruited for this study. The specimen quality analyses, technical characteristics, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPVs), and negative predictive values (NPVs) for the pancreatic masses were reviewed and compared.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the procurement of adequate histological specimens (75.0% vs. 79.5%; p = .277) or the presence of diagnostic histological specimens (71.3% vs. 77.4%; p = .155) between FNA and FNB groups, respectively. There were also no significant differences in the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPVs, or NPVs of the cytological, histological, and overall analyses for FNA and FNB groups in the diagnosis of pancreatic malignancy. However, 22G biopsy needles demonstrated a better histological diagnostic yield in the discrimination of pancreatic adenocarcinoma and non-adenocarcinoma pancreatic neoplasms than 22G FNA needles (69.8% vs. 57.9%, p = .033).

CONCLUSIONS

22G FNB needle demonstrated a better histological diagnostic yield in the differentiation between pancreatic adenocarcinoma and non-adenocarcinoma pancreatic neoplasms.

It is necessary to exam bottom and top slide smears of EUS-FNA for pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite many reports on the diagnostic yield of cytology from endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), inter-slide differences are unknown. This prospective study aimed to compare diagnostic yield and cellular characteristics of bottom slides (BS) and top slides (TS) from EUS-FNA cytology performed without an on-site cytopathologist.

METHODS

In patients with suspected pancreatic cancer on previous imaging explorations, a single endoscopist performed EUS-FNA and obtained 2 sets of cytology slide (8 BS and 8 TS), 1 cellblock slide, and 1 biopsy slide. Both slide sets were randomly assigned. A cytopathologist with more than 10 years of expertise in pancreatic cytopathology blindly inspected and compared two slide sets.

RESULTS

In total, 73 specimens [42 head (57.5%), 16 body (21.9%), and 15 tail (20.5%)] were acquired for final analysis. Seventy-one cases were finally diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. The sensitivity and specificity of BS were 80.3% and 100.0%; and of TS 78.9% and 100.0%, respectively. In analyzing inter-slide difference, 66 cases (90.4%) showed consistent results between BS and TS. However, seven (9.6%) were positive only in one slide sets (4 BS and 3 TS). The proportions of specimens more than moderate and high cellularity were 75.3% and 60.3% in both slide sets (P> 0.99), and the proportion of artifact-free sets were 50.7%, and 52.1% for the BS and TS, respectively (P= 0.869).

CONCLUSIONS

Although BS and TS exhibited highly consistent diagnostic yields in cytologic smears from EUS-FNA, the proportion of inter-slide discordance is clinically considerable. Both slide sets need to be examined if there is no on-site cytopathologist.

Endoscopic ultrasound appearance of pancreatic serotonin-staining neuroendocrine neoplasms

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

The pancreatic localization of serotonin-staining neuroendocrine neoplasms is extremely rare. This is a retrospective study aimed at analyzing the endoscopic ultrasound appearance of pancreatic serotoninoma.

METHODS

Between 2010 and 2016, all consecutive patients with histologically proven pancreatic serotoninoma who had undergone endoscopic ultrasound were enrolled.

RESULTS

Eight patients (six F, median age 68.5 years) had a diagnosis of pancreatic serotoninoma and underwent endoscopic ultrasound examinations. Median diameter of the lesion was ten mm. The nodule echotexture was hypoechoic in seven out of eight cases. The most frequent localization was the pancreatic neck (four); in three cases, the tumor was located in the pancreatic head and in one in the body. In seven cases the tumor caused a main pancreatic duct dilation; in three cases also the secondary ducts were dilated. In one case a dilation of the common bile duct was observed. At contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound no one showed the typical contrast-enhancement. Elastography (available in two patients) showed a rigid pattern of the lesion.

CONCLUSIONS

From this case series a specific endoscopic ultrasound appearance resulted for pancreatic serotoninoma, different from other types of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm, but it is difficult to differentiate it from a pancreatic adenocarcinoma or an intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm.

Histologic retrieval rate of a newly designed side-bevelled 20G needle for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic lesions

Background

Innovative approaches to improve diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) have focused on needle design with development of fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles with microcore-acquisition technology. Recently, a 20-gauge (20G) antegrade-cutting-side-bevelled biopsy needle (ProCore®) was developed for EUS-TA, but data about its diagnostic performance and histological capability are scant.

Objectives

We assessed the diagnostic performance and histologic retrieval rate of a new 20G antegrade-cutting-side-bevelled biopsy needle compared with a 22G reverse-side-bevelled needle for EUS sampling of solid pancreatic lesions.

Patients and methods

A retrospective analysis of 238 consecutively collected patients who underwent EUS-TA using a 20G or a 22G ProCore® needle, without rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), was conducted at two centres.Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were calculated. Histologic tissue retrieval was evaluated applying a scoring system for each case.

Results

Sensitivity and specificity were estimated as 98.4-100% in the 20G-, and 94.9-100% in the 22G-needle groups, respectively (p > 0.99). The 20G procured more histologic-grade tissues (92.6% vs 49.5%, p < 0.0001) achieved by a lower number of passes (2.64 vs 3.44, p < 0.0001) compared to the 22G.

Conclusions

Both side-bevelled FNB needles achieved a high diagnostic sensitivity. The 20G-side-bevelled needle obtained a significantly higher microcore retrieval rate.

Pancreatic Cytology

The diagnostic approach to pancreaticobiliary disease requires a multidisciplinary team in which the cytopathologist plays a crucial role. Fine-needle aspiration, obtained by endoscopic ultrasound, is the diagnostic test of choice for pancreatic lesions. Preoperative clinical management depends on many factors, many of which rely on accurate cytologic assessment. Pancreaticobiliary cytology is wrought with diagnostic pitfalls. Clinical history, imaging studies, cytology samples, and ancillary tests, including immunohistochemistry, biochemical analysis, and genetic sequencing, are integral to forming a complete diagnosis and guiding optimal patient management. This article reviews clinical aspects and the diagnostic work-up of commonly encountered diagnostic entities within the field of pancreatic cytology.

Performance of a new histology needle for EUS-guided fine needle biopsy: A retrospective multicenter study

OBJECTIVE

Procurement of tissue core biopsy may overcome some of the limitations of EUS-FNA. We aimed at assessing the safety, core procurement yield and diagnostic accuracy of two novel available histology needles.

METHODS

Data from consecutive patients with solid lesions who underwent EUS-FNB using the 25G-22G SharkCore™ needles were retrieved from 4 tertiary-care centers database.

RESULTS

146 patients (mean age 64 ± 12 years; M/F, 76/68) with 156 lesions (114 pancreatic) were identified. In 83 cases the 22G needle was used. 3.6 ± 1.2 passes per lesion were performed, without any major complications. A core biopsy was procured in 89.1% of cases. Considering malignant vs. non-malignant disease, the sensitivity, specificity, negative likelihood ratio, positive likelihood ratio, and diagnostic accuracy were 90.2% (95% CI, 83.7-94.3), 100% (95% CI, 87.2-100), 0.099 (95% CI, 0.058-0.170), 60.4 (95% CI, 3.86-947.4), and 92.3% (95% CI, 88.1-96.5). Procurement yield was significantly higher for the 22G (95.2% vs. 82.2%, p = 0.011), despite the fact that more needle passes were performed with the 25G needle (3.8 ± 1.3 vs. 3.4 ± 1.0, p = 0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNB using the 25G-22G SharkCore™ needles is able to reach a very good procurement yield and diagnostic accuracy. The 22G-size needle showed superior core procurement and diagnostic capabilities. Large prospective studies are warranted to further evaluate the use of these types of needles.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided brush/fine-needle aspiration cytology: A 15-month study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has become increasingly popular for the diagnosis and staging of gastrointestinal diseases and peri-gastrointestinal lesions. The application of FNA/Brush has dramatically expanded the clinical utility of EUS.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy, study the spectrum of lesions encountered in EUS-FNAC/brush cytology of gastrointestinal and peri-gastrointestinal lesions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Total of 124 patients during the period from August 2015 to November 2016 was included in the study. Routine staining was done.

RESULTS

A total of 124 cases were studied with 86% (107 cases) being satisfactory for evaluation. M:F ratio was 1:1.03, mean age of 50.5 years. The most common site was common bile duct (CBD) (37%) followed by lymph node (21%), pancreas (17.7%), esophagus (17%), stomach (3.5%), liver (1.8%), gallbladder (1%), and spleen (1%). In total, 53.4% lesions were benign, in 6.5% atypical cells were seen, 12.1% were suspicious for malignancy, and 28% cases were positive for malignancy. Follow-up was available in 102 cases with cyto-histopathological concordance rate of 90%.

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNA/Brush is a reliable, sensitive, specific and minimally invasive way to establish a diagnosis. It can be utilized as a pre-operative procedure for the management of many intra-abdominal lesions and prevent unnecessary invasive procedures.

EUS-guided reverse bevel fine-needle biopsy sampling and open tip fine-needle aspiration in solid pancreatic lesions - a prospective, comparative study

OBJECTIVES

Different diagnostic entities can present as solid pancreatic lesions (SPL). This study aimed to explore the utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided reverse bevel fine-needle biopsy sampling (EUS-FNB) in SPLs.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In 2012-2015, consecutive patients with SPLs were prospectively included in a tertiary center setting and subjected to dual needle sampling with a 22 gauge reverse bevel biopsy needle and a conventional 25 gauge open tip aspiration needle (EUS-FNA). The outcome measures were the diagnostic accuracy of sampling, calculated for each modality separately and for the modalities combined (EUS-FNA + FNB), and the adverse event rate related to sampling.

RESULTS

In 68 unique study subjects, the most common diagnostic entities were pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor, PNET, (34%), pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, PDAC, (32%), pancreatitis (15%) and metastasis (6%). The overall diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB was not significantly different from that of EUS-FNA, (69% vs. 78%, p = .31). EUS-FNA + FNB, compared with EUS-FNA alone, had a higher sensitivity for tumors other than PDAC (89% vs. 69%, p = .02) but not for PDACs (95% vs. 85%, p = .5). No adverse event was recorded after the study dual-needle sampling procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition performed with a 22 gauge reverse bevel biopsy needle is safe but not superior to conventional fine-needle aspiration performed with a 25 gauge open tip needle in diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions. However, the performance of both these modalities may facilitate the diagnostic work-up in selected patients, such as cases suspicious for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and metastases. NCT02360839.

Diagnostic accuracies of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with distinct negative pressure suction techniques in solid lesions: A retrospective study

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is highly accurate in obtaining specific diagnoses for various diseases. The present study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic yields, accuracies and sampling adequacies, of slow-pull, 5 ml suction and 10 ml suction techniques in EUS-FNA of solid lesions. The present study was a retrospective comparative study, which was performed in tertiary academic centers, recognized for their expertise in EUS and EUS-guided FNA. The present study involved 149 patients who underwent EUS-FNA of solid masses. A total of 34 (22.8%), 37 (24.8%) and 78 (52.4%) patients underwent EUS-FNA with slow-pull, 5 ml suction and 10 ml suction techniques, respectively. The EUS-FNA cytology and histology results were compared with those from the gold standard of surgical histopathology [hematoxylin-eosin staining; immunohistochemical test of cluster of differentiation (CD) 79a, CD20 and flow cytometry test] or long-term clinical follow-up. The present retrospective comparative study demonstrated that the diagnostic yields and accuracies of EUS-FNA with slow-pull (86.1%) were significantly superior to those achieved with 5 ml suction (83.3%) or 10 ml suction (69.9%; P<0.0001; χ2 test). Consistently, 86.5% (32/37) of the samples obtained from the 5 ml suction group were adequate for histological diagnosis. By contrast, 70.6 (24/34) and 85.9% (67/78) of samples from the slow-pull and 10 ml suction groups were adequate for histological diagnosis, respectively. The samples obtained using 10 ml suction contained more blood compared with those obtained via slow-pull and 5 ml suction (P=0.0056; χ2 test). No complications were noted in any of the three groups. The samples that were obtained for histopathological diagnosis using 5 ml suction were superior to those obtained using slow-pull or 10 ml suction. Additional multi-central prospective studies in which EUS-FNA is performed with variable negative pressures are required to improve the defining of the diagnostic roles of those techniques.

The presence of rapid on-site evaluation did not increase the adequacy and diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic lesions with core needle

BACKGROUND

Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) improves the adequacy and accuracy of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, although it is not routinely widely available. Evidence suggested that core needles might overcome the absence of ROSE. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of ROSE on the adequacy and accuracy of EUS-guided tissue acquisition with core needles in patients with pancreatic solid lesions.

METHODS

Patients who underwent EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic mass lesions were retrospectively identified at three tertiary referral centers and those performed with the core needle were included. Adequacy, defined as the rate of cases in which a tissue specimen for proper examination was achieved, with and without ROSE was the primary outcome measure. The diagnostic accuracy and tissue core acquisition were the secondary outcome measures.

RESULTS

A total of 333 patients with pancreatic solid mass lesions were included in the study; 140 cases sampled with ROSE and 193 cases without ROSE. The adequacy was 92.1 % in the group sampled with ROSE and 88.1 % in the group without ROSE (p = 0.227). In the ROSE group sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 90.7, 100 and 92.1 %, respectively. In the group without ROSE, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 87.2, 100, and 88.1 %, respectively. No difference for all these figures was observed between the two groups. The tissue core was available in 61.4 and 53.4 % of cases with and without ROSE, respectively (p = 0.143).

CONCLUSION

In the absence of ROSE, EUS-based tissue acquisition with Core needle should be considered since it achieves comparable tissue sampling adequacy and accuracy.

Tissue diagnosis of GI subepithelial tumor only through Trucut biopsy under a forward-viewing endoscope: applicability as newer diagnostic modality

BACKGROUND

Trucut biopsy (TCB) has been proposed to overcome the limitations of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration for the pathologic diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal (GI) subepithelial tumor (SET); however, it can be difficult to perform because the Trucut biopsy needle is very stiff. Although technical failures have been reported with the use of TCB, recently the forward-viewing echoendoscope showed a high diagnostic accuracy. We hypothesized that TCB under a conventional forward-viewing endoscope can be applied with higher yield of tissue diagnosis.

METHODS

To evaluate the feasibility of TCB under a forward-looking endoscopy without cumbersome EUS guidance, we introduced a 19-gauge TCB needle into the working channel of a conventional upper endoscope in 27 patients with GI SET to make tissue diagnosis. Prospectively collected data were analyzed, including technical success rate, pathologic result, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients with GI SET (18 esophageal tumors and nine gastric tumors) underwent TCB under a forward-looking endoscope. All procedures were performed safely without any TCB-related complications. Subsequently, histopathology examination revealed gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) in three cases and leiomyomas in 21 cases. Histologic assessment was completed in 24 out of 27 patients (88.9 %) because tissue obtained from three patients, whose tumors were located in the stomach, was not sufficient for the pathologic diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

TCB using a conventional forward-viewing endoscope without EUS guidance provided an excellent pathologic diagnosis of upper GI SET.

Assessment of Factors Affecting the Usefulness and Diagnostic Yield of Core Biopsy Needles with a Side Hole in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration

Background/Aims

A barbed puncture needle with a side hole was recently developed to improve sample quality and quantity in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). In this study, we retrospectively assessed the usefulness of this puncture needle.

Methods

Factors affecting diagnostic yield, safety, and diagnostic accuracy were investigated in 76 patients who consecutively underwent EUS-FNA for neoplastic lesions at our hospital between January and December 2013.

Results

The procedure was successful in all cases; the rates of sample collection and determination of the correct diagnosis were 92.1% and 89.5%, respectively. The mean number of needle passes required for diagnosis was 1.1. Complications included mild intraluminal bleeding in two patients (2.6%). Multivariate analysis revealed that lesion size (≤20 mm) was significantly associated with a decreased chance of determining the correct diagnosis.

Conclusions

Core biopsy needles with a side hole are safe and provide a satisfactory diagnostic yield. However, the side hole may potentially reduce the rate of making the correct diagnosis in small lesions.

Contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography for assessment of lymph node metastases in pancreatobiliary carcinoma

AIM: To assess the usefulness of contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography (CH-EUS) for lymph node metastasis in pancreatobiliary carcinoma.

METHODS: All patients suspected of pancreatobiliary carcinoma with visible lymph nodes after standard EUS between June, 2009 and January, 2012 were enrolled. In the primary analysis, patients with successful EUS-fine needle aspiration (FNA) were included. The lymph nodes were assessed by several standard EUS variables (short and long axis lengths, shape, edge characteristic and echogenicity), color Doppler EUS variable [central intranodal blood vessel (CIV) presence] and CH-EUS variable (heterogeneous/homogeneous enhancement patterns). The diagnostic accuracy relative to EUS-FNA was calculated. In the second analysis, N-stage diagnostic accuracy of CH-EUS was compared with EUS-FNA in patients who underwent surgical resection.

RESULTS: One hundred and nine patients (143 lymph nodes) fulfilled the criteria. The short axis cut-off ≥ 13 mm predicted malignancy with a sensitivity and specificity of 72% and 85%, respectively. These values were 72% and 63% for the long axis cut-off ≥ 20 mm, 62% and 75% for the round shape variable, 81% and 30% for the sharp edge variable, 66% and 61% for the hypoechogenicity variable, 70% and 72% for the CIV-absent variable, and 83% and 91% for the heterogeneous CH-EUS-enhancement variable, respectively. CH-EUS was more accurate than standard and color Doppler EUS, except the short axis cut-off. Notably, three patients excluded because of EUS-FNA failure were correctly N-staged by CH-EUS.

CONCLUSION: CH-EUS complements standard and color Doppler EUS and EUS-FNA for assessment of lymph node metastases.

Snail transcript levels in diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma with fine-needle aspirate

Expression of the transcription factor Snail that mediates epithelial-mesenchymal transition is correlated with poor prognosis in many tumour types. The aim of this study is to determine, as a proof of principle, whether Snail messenger RNA (mRNA) could be detected in fine-needle aspirate (FNA) biopsies of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and could accurately differentiate malignant from benign pancreatic tissues. We also investigate the expression of Snail mRNA and its clinical significance in PDAC. FNA (22- or 25-gauge needle) samples were obtained from patients from June 1999 to June 2010. FNA samples that were either benign or chronic pancreatitis or confirmed as PDAC were included in this study. Snail mRNA was detected by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). The associations of Snail mRNA expression with various clinicopathological parameters was analysed in addition to the relation between its expression and patient survival. Levels of Snail mRNA were increased in tumour samples in comparison to benign and chronic pancreatitis. Transcript copy numbers for Snail were 0.7 ± 0.21 for tumour, 0.16 ± 0.09 for benign (P = 0.002) and 0.23 ± 0.12 for chronic pancreatitis (P = 0.024). Snail expression was found to be associated significantly with lymph node metastasis (P = 0.001), perineural invasion (P = 0.038) and elevated preoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level (P = 0.043). Snail mRNA was increased in patients with poor outcome compared with those who remained alive and well. Snail mRNA levels can aid in the pathological evaluation of suspicious cases and may become a valuable asset in obtaining a definitive diagnosis of PDAC. The strong association between Snail expression and lymph node metastasis suggests that Snail mRNA can be used as an adjunct to lymph node positivity to predict survival in pancreatic cancer.

Accuracy and inter-observer agreement of the Procore™ 25 gauge needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue core biopsy

BACKGROUND

Scanty data on the performance of the new 25-gauge Procore™ biopsy needle are available.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) using the 25G Procore™ were retrospectively retrieved. All samples were independently reviewed by 3 pathologists for the following: histological, cytological or no specimen, neoplasia, diagnostic or non-diagnostic. Diagnostic accuracy and inter-rater concordance among pathologists were calculated.

RESULTS

94 patients underwent EUS-FNB of 101 sites (69 solid masses, 25 lymph nodes, 5 wall thickening). Forty-one biopsies (40.5%) were classified as histological samples by at least two pathologists, 29 as cytological (28.7%), 31 had no sample (30.7%). Good and almost perfect agreements among pathologists in defining cytological vs. histological samples (k 0.82; 95% CI: 0.74-0.90), diagnostic vs. non-diagnostic (k 0.95; 95% CI: 0.85-1.00) and neoplastic vs. non-neoplastic (k 0.94; 95% CI: 0.83-1.00). According to consensus rating, 61 cases were diagnostic samples (60.4%). Histological samples were more likely to lead to a correct diagnosis (OR, 4.1; 95% P=0.027), while neoplastic lesions were less likely to be correctly classified than benign (OR, 0.11; P=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNB with the Procore™ 25G needle provided samples for histological examination in only 40% of the cases, with 31% of inadequate specimens, despite excellent results in term of inter-observer variability.

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.

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

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

Comparison of 22G reverse-beveled versus standard needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) using standard needles has a high diagnostic value in the evaluation of solid pancreatic masses. Fenestrated needles have been developed to improve the quality of EUS-guided tissue sampling by providing core biopsies (FNB).

METHODS

Patients with solid pancreatic masses of >2 cm were prospectively included in our study and randomized to receive EUS sampling, using either a standard 22G FNA or a 22G Procore® FNB needle. The main study endpoint was the number of needle passes required to obtain a diagnosis in more than 90% of cases.

RESULTS

We included 100 patients (male = 63, female = 37; mean age = 68.4 years) in our study. We found that 88% of the lesions were malignant, with a mean size of 32 mm. A sample adequate for diagnosis was obtained in more than 90% of cases after the second needle pass in the FNB group, versus the third needle pass in the FNA group. Slide cellularity and presence of tissue microfragments were significantly higher in the FNB group. Sensitivity for the diagnosis of malignancy was 88.4% versus 97.8% for the EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB group, respectively, while specificity for both techniques was 100%. No complications were recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the accuracy of both needle types for proving malignancy was similar, a lower number of passes was required with the FNB needles to achieve the same contributive sample rate as with the FNA needles. FNB also improved the histopathological quality of specimens, suggesting an overall superiority of FNB sampling.

Initial experience with endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of renal masses: indications, applications and limitations

CONTEXT

Tissue sampling of renal masses is traditionally performed via the percutaneous approach or laparoscopicaly. The utility of endoscopic ultrasound to biopsy renal lesions it remains unclear and few cases have been reported.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the feasibility and outcome of endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration of renal tumors.

METHODS

Consecutive subjects undergoing attempted endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration of a kidney mass after evaluation with computerized tomography or magnetic resonance.

RESULTS

Ten procedures were performed in nine male patients (median age 54.7 years) on the right (n = 4) and left kidney (n = 4) and bilaterally (n = 1). Kidney masses (median diameter 55 mm ; range 13-160 mm) were located in the upper pole (n = 3), the lower pole (n = 2) and the mesorenal region (n = 3). In two cases, the mass involved more than one kidney region. Surgical resection confirmed renal cell carcinoma in six patients in whom pre-operative endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration demonstrated renal cell carcinoma. No complications were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration appears as a safe and feasible procedure with good results and minimal morbidity.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Yields and Utility of Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided 19-Gauge Trucut Biopsy versus 22-Gauge Fine Needle Aspiration for Diagnosing Gastric Subepithelial Tumors

Background/Aims

To evaluate the yields and utility of 19-gauge (G) Trucut biopsy (TCB) versus 22 G fine needle aspiration (FNA) for diagnosing gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs).

Methods

We retrieved data for 152 patients with a gastric SET larger than 2 cm who had undergone endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided 19 G TCB (n=90) or 22 G FNA (n=62). Relevant clinical, tumor-specific, and EUS procedural information was reviewed retrospectively.

Results

A specific diagnosis was made for 76 gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) and 51 non-GIST SETs. The diagnostic yield of TCB was greater than that of FNA (77.8% vs. 38.7%, p<0.001). The percentage of non-diagnostic specimens (suspicious and insufficient) was significantly lower in the TCB group (6.7% and 15.5%, respectively) than in the FNA group (22.6% and 38.7%, respectively; both p<0.001). TCB accurately diagnosed 90.9% of GISTs and 81.1% of non-GIST SETs, whereas FNA accurately diagnosed 68.8% of GISTs and 14.3% of non-GIST SETs. There were nine technical failures with TCB, and the rate of adverse events did not differ between the groups (TCB vs. FNA, 3.3% vs. 8.1%; p=0.27).

Conclusions

Nineteen-gauge TCB is safe and highly valuable for diagnosing gastric SETs larger than 2 cm if technical failure can be avoided.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of the adrenal glands: analysis of 21 patients

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) cytology of adrenal masses helps in etiological diagnosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA of adrenal masses in cases where other imaging methods failed and/or were not feasible.

METHODS

Twenty-one consecutive patients with adrenal masses, in whom adrenal FNA was performed because conventional imaging modalities failed and/or were not feasible, were prospectively evaluated over a period of 3 years.

RESULTS

Of the 21 patients (mean age, 56±12.2 years; male:female ratio, 2:1), 12 had pyrexia of unknown origin and the other nine underwent evaluation for metastasis. The median lesion size was 2.4×1.6 cm. Ten patients were diagnosed with tuberculosis (shown by the presence of caseating granulomas [n=10] and acid-fast bacilli [n=4]). Two patients had EUS-FNA results suggestive of histoplasmosis. The other patients had metastatic lung carcinoma (n=6), hepatocellular carcinoma (n=1), and adrenal lipoma (n=1) and adrenal myelolipoma (n=1). EUS results were not suggestive of any particular etiology. No procedure-related adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNA is a safe and effective method for evaluating adrenal masses, and it yields diagnosis in cases where tissue diagnosis is impossible or has failed using conventional imaging modalities.