Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) versus macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions: a paired comparative analysis using newer-generation fine needle biopsy needles

Comparison of standard vs auxiliary (contrast or elastography) endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration/biopsy in solid pancreatic lesions: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) is the most common modality for tissue acquisition from pancreatic masses. Despite high specificity, sensitivity remains less than 90%. Auxiliary techniques like elastography and contrast-enhanced EUS may guide tissue acquisition from viable tumor tissue and improve the diagnostic outcomes theoretically. However, data regarding the same have shown conflicting results.

AIM

To compare the diagnostic outcomes of auxiliary-EUS-FNA/B to standard EUS-FNA/B for pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

The electronic databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus were searched from inception to February 2024 for all relevant studies comparing diagnostic outcomes of auxiliary-EUS-FNA/B to standard EUS-FNA/B for pancreatic lesions. A bivariate hierarchical model was used to perform the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies were identified. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver-operated curve (AUROC) for standard EUS-FNA/B were 0.82 (95%CI: 0.79-0.85), 1.00 (95%CI: 0.96-1.00), and 0.97 (95%CI: 0.95-0.98), respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUROC for EUS-FNA/B with auxiliary techniques were 0.86 (95%CI: 0.83-0.89), 1.00 (95%CI: 0.94-1.00), and 0.96 (95%CI: 0.94-0.98), respectively. Comparing the two diagnostic modalities, sensitivity [Risk ratio (RR): 1.04, 95%CI: 0.99-1.09], specificity (RR: 1.00, 95%CI: 0.99-1.01), and diagnostic accuracy (RR: 1.03, 95%CI: 0.98-1.09) were comparable.

CONCLUSION

Analysis of the currently available literature did not show any additional advantage of EUS-FNA/B with auxiliary techniques for pancreatic solid lesions over standard EUS-FNA/B. Further randomized studies are required to demonstrate the benefit of auxiliary techniques before they can be recommended for routine practice.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical and Technology Review

This Technical and Technology Review from the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) represents an update of the previous document on the technical aspects of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology, including the available types of needle, technical aspects of tissue sampling, new devices, and specimen handling and processing. Among the most important new recommendations are:ESGE recommends end-cutting fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles over reverse-bevel FNB or fine-needle aspiration (FNA) needles for tissue sampling of solid pancreatic lesions; FNA may still have a role when rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) is available.ESGE recommends EUS-FNB or mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) equally for tissue sampling of subepithelial lesions ≥20 mm in size. MIAB could represent the first choice for smaller lesions (<20 mm) if proper expertise is available.ESGE does not recommend the use of antibiotic prophylaxis before EUS-guided tissue sampling of solid masses and EUS-FNA of pancreatic cystic lesions.

EUS FNAC without rapid on-site evaluation is comparable to EUS FNB with macroscopic on-site evaluation in evaluation of intra-abdominal masses

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS TA) has become the mainstay for tissue diagnosis of abdominal mass lesions. Two widely used and accepted methods for obtaining diagnostic material, namely fine needle aspiration cytology (EUS FNAC) and needle core biopsy (EUS FNB), have distinct advantages and disadvantages. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of EUS FNAC without on-site pathology and EUS FNB taken within the same endoscopic session in evaluation of intra-abdominal masses.

METHODS

In this prospective observational study, we included patients undergoing EUS FNAC and EUS FNB for the diagnosis of solid intra-abdominal masses. Sample size was calculated based on the available literature. Location, origin, dimensions of the intra-abdominal masses and number of passes taken were recorded. EUS-guided FNAC followed by EUS-guided FNB was done back-to-back during the same endoscopic session. FNAC smears were prepared and air dried and alcohol-fixed slides were prepared. Adequacy of the FNB specimen was judged visually. The diagnostic accuracy of FNA and FNB specimens was then calculated based on the final diagnosis and compared.

RESULTS

Of the 58 patients included, 50% of patients were females with a mean age of 53.91 ± 17.16 years. Nineteen pancreatic masses (32.7%), three gastric mass lesions (5.1%), one adrenal mass (1.7%), one liver mass (1.7%), three gallbladder masses (5.1%) and 31 lymph nodal masses (53.4%) were sampled. With EUS FNB, malignancy was diagnosed in 38/58 (65.5%), benign diseases in 19/58 (32.7%) and 1/58 (1.7%) was inconclusive. Number of passes was more in the EUS FNAC group compared to EUS FNB, but not statistically significant. Sensitivity and specificity of EUS FNAC without rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) were found to be 92.4% and 100%, respectively. Diagnostic accuracy of EUS FNAC was 93.1% and when compared with EUS FNB with macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE), no statistically significant difference was noted.

CONCLUSION

EUS FNAC and EUS FNB are comparable for the diagnosis of intra-abdominal masses in terms of diagnostic accuracy, sample adequacy, number of passes and safety. In resource-constraint settings, either EUS FNAC or EUS FNB alone may be sufficient for diagnosis with EUS FNB being preferred in select cases where maintained tissue architecture is needed.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy using macroscopic on-site evaluation technique reduces the number passes yet maintains a high diagnostic accuracy: A randomized study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Although rapid on-site cytological evaluation (ROSE) for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) may increase diagnostic yield, it is not widely available. Macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) is an alternative modality although it is not standardized for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB). We evaluated diagnostic performance of MOSE compared with conventional technique of EUS-TA using core biopsy needle.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing EUS-FNA for solid lesions were randomized to MOSE or conventional arms. The primary and secondary outcome measures were diagnostic accuracy, diagnostic yield, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and the number of passes, respectively. The optimum parameters for macroscopic visible core (MVC, i.e., length, number) by MOSE to achieve accurate diagnosis were evaluated.

RESULTS

Ninety-six patients (48 conventional and 48 MOSE) were enrolled. Mean lesion size was larger in MOSE arm (32.67 ± 7.22 vs 29.31 ± 6.98 mm, P = 0.023). Diagnostic accuracy (95.8% vs 91.6%), diagnostic yield (97.9% vs 95.8%), procedure duration, and adverse events of the two methods were similar. Median number of passes with MOSE was less (2 vs 3 P = 0.000). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve showed that with MOSE, obtaining a total MVC length of 11.5 mm had 93.3% sensitivity, and 2.5 MVC cores (each 4 mm) had 86.7% sensitivity for malignancy diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNB with MOSE, a simple reliable technique, can achieve a high and comparable diagnostic accuracy with lesser number of passes. Obtaining longer length and greater number of MVC increase the sensitivity to diagnose malignancy with MOSE.

Role of macroscopic on-site evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy: Results of a multicentric prospective study

BACKGROUND

The concept of macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) was introduced in 2015 when the endoscopist observed better diagnostic yield when the macroscopically visible core on MOSE was superior to 4 mm. Recent studies suggest that MOSE by the endoscopist may be an excellent alternative to rapid on-site evaluation, and some classifications have been published. Few studies have assessed the adequacy of histologic cores in MOSE during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNA/FNB).

AIM

To evaluate the performance of MOSE during EUS-FNA/FNB.

METHODS

This multicentric prospective study was conducted in 16 centers in 3 countries (Egypt, Iraq, and Morocco) and included 1108 patients with pancreatic, biliary, or gastrointestinal pathology who were referred for EUS examination. We prospectively analyzed the MOSE in 1008 patients with available histopathological reports according to 2 classifications to determine the adequacy of the histological core samples. Data management and analysis were performed using a Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 27.

RESULTS

A total of 1074 solid lesions were biopsied in 1008 patients with available cytopathological reports. Mean age was 59 years, and 509 patients (50.5%) were male. The mean lesion size was 38 mm. The most frequently utilized needles were FNB-Franseen (74.5%) and 22 G (93.4%), with a median of 2 passes. According to 2 classifications, 618 non-bloody cores (61.3%) and 964 good samples (95.6%) were adequate for histological evaluation. The overall diagnostic yield of cytopathology was 95.5%. The cytological examination confirmed the diagnosis of malignancy in 861 patients (85.4%), while 45 samples (4.5%) were inconclusive. Post-procedural adverse events occurred in 33 patients (3.3%). Statistical analysis showed a difference between needle types (P = 0.035) with a high sensitivity of FNB (97%). The analysis of the relationship between the MOSE-score and the final diagnosis showed a significant difference between the different scores of the MOSE (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

MOSE is a simple method that allows endoscopists to increase needle passes to improve sample quality. There is significantly higher FNB sensitivity and cytopathology diagnostic yield with good MOSE cores.

Cost of lung cancer diagnosis: cost differences between national health system and private sector

Introduction: Lung cancer is still diagnosed at an advanced stage due to lack of early disease symptoms. Areas covered: We have techniques and equipment for rapid on site evaluation of pulmonary lesions. However, with new technology or a combination of technologies in the diagnostic suite the cost of biopsy is rising. Expert opinion: The cost of diagnostic equipment and tools differ between the national health system and private sector. This is due to the economic crisis that our country entered in 2008. The costs for every procedure for lung cancer has not been updated for more than 15 years, and therefore in several cases the reimbursement for the hospitals is lower for both national and private sector.

[Challenges of cytopathological pancreas diagnostics]

The cytologic diagnostics of solid and cystic pancreatic lesions with endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is an integral part of the clinical workup and the decision of a surgical versus a conservative approach. Cystic lesions are increasingly being diagnosed due to improved imaging and represent numerous neoplastic as well as non-neoplastic epithelial and non-epithelial entities, which differ in biological behavior and prognosis. In particular, the differentiation of mucinous and non-mucinous cysts is significant for further clinical management. Regressive cellular changes, gastrointestinal contaminants, and overlapping morphologic changes of reactively altered ductal epithelial cells and cells of well-differentiated neoplasms and preneoplasms are special challenges of cytological diagnostics. For a uniform cytological classification of findings, an internationally developed seven-level classification system has been published and co-published by the World Health Organization (WHO). This classification system takes into account both morphological findings and further procedures on cytological material such as next-generation sequencing and immunocytochemistry and is based on the WHO classification for pancreatic tumors. Against this background, important cytologic diagnostic criteria of various solid and cystic lesions relevant in clinical practice are presented in this article, considering diagnostic possibilities and pitfalls as well as differential diagnoses.