How to improve the success of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration cytology in the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions

Comparison of specimen quality among the standard suction, slow-pull, and wet suction techniques for EUS-FNA: A multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial

Background and Objectives

Standard suction technique (SST), slow-pull technique (SPT), and wet suction technique (WEST) of EUS-FNA are designed to improve the diagnostic yields of solid and solid-cystic lesions. We conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomized crossover trial to compare SST, SPT, and WEST on specimen quality and diagnostic accuracy using a 22G needle.

Methods

Patients with solid or solid-cystic lesions referred for EUS-FNA at four tertiary hospitals from December 2017 to August 2019 were considered eligible. All lesions were sampled using a 22G needle by the three techniques performed consecutively in a randomized order. The primary outcome was quality of the specimen acquired by each technique regarding blood contamination, tissue integrity and cellularity for diagnosis, graded on a predefined scale. The secondary outcomes were the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA and the incidence of adverse events. ClinicalTrial. gov registration number: NCT03567863.

Results

A total of 300 patients (mean age, 60.6 years, 188 men) were enrolled. WEST was superior (mean score 4.02 ± 1.51) over SST (3.67 ± 1.57, P = 0.018), but comparable to SPT (3.83 ± 1.55, P = 0.370) in overall specimen quality evaluation. WEST produced better tissue integrity (1.42 ± 0.74) and higher cellularity (1.32 ± 0.80) than SST and SPT. SPT (1.43 ± 0.69) was superior to SST (1.27 ± 0.72, P = 0.004) and WEST (1.28 ± 0.71, P = 0.006) in avoiding blood contamination. WEST achieved a diagnostic accuracy of 74.7%, higher than SST (64.4%, P = 0.007) and SPT (65.0%, P = 0.012). One bleeding event occurred with a pancreatic lesion.

Conclusions

WEST was comparable to SPT and superior to SST in the overall quality of the specimen and achieved highest diagnostic yield.

A Blood-Based Multi Marker Assay Supports the Differential Diagnosis of Early-Stage Pancreatic Cancer

The most frequent malignancy of the pancreas is the pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Despite many efforts PDAC has still a dismal prognosis. Biomarkers for early disease stage diagnosis as a prerequisite for a potentially curative treatment are still missing. Novel blood-based markers may help to overcome this limitation.

Methods: Prior to surgery plasma levels of thrombospondin-2 (THBS2), which was recently published as a novel biomarker, and CA19-9 from 52 patients with histologically proven PDAC were determined, circulating cell-free (cfDNA) was quantified. 15 patients with side-branch IPMNs without worrisome features and 32 patients with chronic pancreatitis served for comparison. Logit (logistic regression) models were used to test the performance of single biomarkers and biomarker combinations.

Results: CA19-9 and THBS2 alone showed comparable c-statistics of 0.80 and 0.73, respectively, improving to 0.87 when combining these two markers. The c-statistic was further increased to 0.94 when combining CA19-9 and THBS2 with cfDNA quantification. This marker combination performed best for all PDAC stages but also for PDACs grouped by stage. The greatest improvement over CA19-9 was seen in the group of stage I PDAC, from 0.69 to 0.90 for the three marker combination.

Conclusion:These data establish the combination of CA19-9, THBS2 and cfDNA as a composite liquid biomarker for non-invasive diagnosis of early-stage PDAC.

Short article: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of portal vein thrombosis in patients with chronic liver disease and suspicion of hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Differentiation between benign and malignant portal vein thrombosis (PVT) in the setting of a hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is of paramount importance. Histological analysis is usually not carried out because of potential severe side effects of the percutaneous approach. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) may be safer and may guide the clinical management of patients with HCC.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the feasibility of the EUS-FNA in a series of patients with HCC and PVT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A chart review of patients with PVT was performed from 2014 to 2016 in three tertiary care hospitals of Spain. Patients with chronic liver disease and PVT with a suspicion of HCC referred for EUS-FNA were included. The impact of the EUS-FNA was assessed by comparing staging following the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer algorithm (BCLC) before and after EUS-FNA.

RESULTS

Of 104 patients with PVT and chronic liver disease, 23 were considered candidates for EUS-FNA. Eight patients were referred for EUS-FNA. The technique was feasible in seven patients and FNA was positive in six patients. No side effects were reported. EUS-FNA upstaged six out of seven (85.7%) patients: one patient BCLC stage B, two patients BCLC stage A, and three patients in whom the HCC was not diagnosed before EUS-FNA of the PVT. A benign PVT was found in the explant of the only patient with a negative PVT.

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNA is a valuable technique in selected patients with chronic liver disease with PVT. It is feasible, safe, and may alter the clinical management in these patients.

Evaluation of 22G fine-needle aspiration (FNA) versus fine-needle biopsy (FNB) for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: a prospective comparison study

Background

To compare the diagnostic yield and safety of 22G endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) in the diagnosis of pancreatic solid lesions.

Methods

Between April 2014 and September 2015, 36 patients with pancreatic solid lesions were included for endoscopic ultrasound test. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: EUS-FNA (n = 18) and EUS-FNB (n = 18). Each nidus was punctured three times (15 ~ 20 insertions for each puncture) with a 22G needle. The core specimens were analyzed, and the diagnostic yields of FNA and FNB were evaluated.

Results

The procedure success rate was 100% with no complications. Cytological and histological examinations found that the diagnostic yield of FNB and FNA were both 83.3%. To get a definitive diagnosis, FNB needed fewer punctures than FNA (1.11 vs. 1.83; P  <  0.05).

Conclusions

22G EUS-FNB is a safe and effective way to diagnose pancreatic solid lesions. FNB required a lower number of needle passes to achieve a diagnosis compared with FNA.

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

Background and Objectives:

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

Materials and Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusion:

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

Diagnostic ability of EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid lesions with conventional 22-gauge needle using the slow pull technique: a prospective study

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) using the slow pull technique (SP-FNA) has recently attracted attention as an effective tissue acquisition technique. However, efficacy of SP-FNA with a 22-gauge conventional needle remains unclear. The aim of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic ability of SP-FNA with a 22-gauge needle.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients with a pancreatic solid lesion were prospectively enrolled in this study. SP-FNA was performed at two needle passes with a 22-gauge needle. One dedicated pathologist evaluated the obtained samples in terms of quantity (Grade 0: scant; Grade 1: inadequate; Grade 2: adequate), quality (Grade 0: poor; Grade 1: moderate; Grade 2: good), and blood contamination (Grade 0: significant; Grade 1: moderate; Grade 2: low), and provided a pathological diagnosis. Additional EUS-FNA was performed by applying suction (SA-FNA). The evaluation points were as follows: diagnostic accuracy of SP-FNA compared with that of SA-FNA, and the quantity, quality, and blood contamination level of SP-FNA-obtained samples.

RESULTS

We enrolled 40 cases. The diagnostic accuracy of SP-FNA was 90% (36/40). There was no significant difference in the accuracy between SP-FNA and SA-FNA (90% vs. 90%, p = 1.000). The samples obtained using SP-FNA were assessed as Grade 2 for quantity in 29 cases (73%), quality in 31 (78%), and blood contamination in 25 (63%).

CONCLUSIONS

Adequate, high-quality, and unsubstantially blood-contaminated samples could be obtained using SP-FNA. The diagnostic ability of SP-FNA was 90%, which appeared to be similar to that of SA-FNA.

Post-brushing and fine-needle aspiration biopsy follow-up and treatment options for patients with pancreatobiliary lesions: The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology Guidelines

The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology (PSC) has developed a set of guidelines for pancreatobiliary cytology including indications for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) biopsy, techniques of EUS-FNA, terminology and nomenclature for pancreatobiliary cytology, ancillary testing and post-procedure management. All documents are based on the expertise of the authors, a review of the literature and discussions of the draft document at several national and international meetings over an 18 month period and synthesis of online comments of the draft document on the PSC web site (www.papsociety.org). This document selectively presents the results of these discussions and focuses on the follow-up and treatment options for patients after procedures performed for obtaining cytology samples for the evaluation of biliary strictures and solid and cystic masses in the pancreas. These recommendations follow the six-tiered terminology and nomenclature scheme proposed by committee III.

Randomized controlled trial comparing stylet-free endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with 22-G and 25-G needles

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Previous studies comparing endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) results with different gauge needles have all been carried out with the stylet in place and show no clear advantage to the larger 22-G needle. Similar data for stylet-free EUS-FNA (SF-EUS-FNA) are unavailable. The aim of the present study was to determine whether diagnostic yield and specimen adequacy is superior with the 22-G needle as compared to the 25-G needle.

METHODS

All patients ≥ 18 years referred for solid-lesion EUS-FNA were eligible. Patients with suspected diagnosis of lymphoma, gastrointestinal stromal tumor, sarcoidosis, significant coagulopathy (international normalized ratio > 1.5 or platelets < 50000/mm(3)), use of clopidogrel within 7 days of EUS, and pregnancy were excluded. The two needles were compared regarding diagnostic yield, sample adequacy, bloodiness, ease of puncture, visibility, number of passes, failures, and complications.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty consecutive patients were included and 126 lesions were sampled. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for the 22-G SF-EUS-FNA were 83%, 100%, 100% and 56%, respectively, and for the 25-G SF-EUS-FNA were 88.8%, 100%, 100% and 76.5%, respectively (P=NS). There were no significant differences between the 22-G and the 25-G FNA needles in sample adequacy, bloodiness, ease of puncture, FNA failure, visibility, number of passes and complications; and no significant differences between either needle were found in relation to lesion site.

CONCLUSION

For SF-EUS-FNA, the larger 22-G needle offers no advantage over the smaller 25-G needle.

Guidelines for pancreaticobiliary cytology from the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology: A review

The newest installment on state-of-the-art standards of practice in cytopathology from the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology (PSC) focuses on the pancreaticobiliary system. Similar to the National Cancer Institute recommendations for aspiration cytology of the thyroid, the PSC guidelines for pancreaticobiliary cytology addresses indications, techniques, terminology and nomenclature, ancillary studies, and postprocedure management. Each committee was composed of a multidisciplinary group of experts in diagnosing, managing, and treating patients with pancreaticobiliary disease. Draft documents were posted on an interactive Web-based forum hosted by the PSC Web site (www.papsociety.org) and the topics of terminology, ancillary testing, and management were presented at national and international meetings over an 18-month period for discussion and feedback from practicing pathologists around the world. This review provides a synopsis of these guidelines.

Tips to overcome technical challenges in EUS-guided tissue acquisition

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

Pitfalls in EUS FNA

Although endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is a safe and accurate procedure, the diagnostic yield varies. Factors contributing to the diagnostic accuracy of EUS FNA include endosonographer and cytopathologist experience, EUS image recognition, accurate FNA targeting of the lesion, proper specimen collection and handling, use of ancillary techniques, and accurate cytologic interpretation. Errors in performance or judgment made before, during, or after the procedure may affect the results of the EUS FNA. The authors discuss the potential pitfalls of EUS FNA and methods to avoid their occurrence to optimize the diagnostic yield, efficiency, and safety of the procedure.

Linitis-like squamous esophageal cancer diagnosed by endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology: report of two cases

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology (EUS-FNA) may provide full-thickness biopsies, adequate for cytology and histology. In the present case report, we describe the first cases of a rare well-differentiated squamous esophageal carcinoma (verrucous esophageal cancer), finally diagnosed by EUS-FNA using a large FNA needle after several upper endoscopies with biopsies negative for malignancy. In this report, we highlight the usefulness of this procedure and EUS features in the diagnosis of suspicious esophageal lesions with negative endoscopic biopsies for malignancy.

Rapid on-site evaluation for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy of the pancreas decreases the incidence of repeat biopsy procedures

BACKGROUND

Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) biopsy of the pancreas provides immediate feedback regarding cellular adequacy to aid in obtaining a definitive diagnosis and has the potential to avoid repeat procedures. The objective of the current study was to measure the impact of ROSE service on the incidence of repeat EUS FNA biopsy procedures.

METHODS

Over a consecutive 3-year period, the pathology database at Washington University Medical Center was searched for patients with both an initial and subsequent EUS FNA biopsy demonstrating a solid lesion of the pancreas. These were divided temporally between the time before and after the introduction of ROSE service. Reports were reviewed and results were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 379 patients underwent ROSE service and 377 patients did not. The percentage of repeat non-ROSE EUS FNA cases was 5.8% and the percentage of repeat ROSE EUS FNA cases was 2.9%. The use of the ROSE service was found to decrease the number of repeat procedures by approximately 50% (P = .024). For those patients who underwent a repeat EUS-FNA procedure, the ROSE service provided a higher rate of definitive diagnosis among patients undergoing repeat procedures (67%) versus the non-ROSE cohort (27%).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of ROSE for EUS-FNA biopsy of the pancreas was found to result in fewer patients undergoing repeat procedures. Patients who required a repeat procedure with the use of ROSE had a higher percentage of definitive diagnostic categorization on the repeat biopsy. Initial use of ROSE for EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions was found to decrease the number of patients who required a repeat procedure.

Rapid on-site evaluation of EUS-FNA by cytopathologist: an experience of a tertiary hospital

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided-fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the preferred modality nowadays for the cytological diagnosis of various mediastinal and gastrointestinal lesions. Onsite cytopathology interpretation is not available in most centers. The objective of this study is to assess whether rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) by cytopathologist of the tissue samples improves the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA. This study is a retrospective review of all 646 patients undergoing EUS-FNA between January 2009 and October 2012 in our hospital. Patients in group I had cytology slides prepared by an endoscopy nurse. Patients in group II had cytology slides prepared, stained and assessed for adequacy of tissue sampling by a cytopathologist onsite. The adequacy of the samples and the final cytopathological diagnosis (definitely positive, definitely negative, inconclusive, or inadequate) was compared between the two groups. A total of 425 EUS-FNA procedures were performed in 375 patients in group I and 271 EUS-FNA procedures in 271 patients in group II. The mean of needle passes in group I was 3.12 passes per patient and 3.24 passes in group II. The difference in the number of needle passes was not statistically significant (P = 0.30). The final diagnosis was definite in 64.8% in group I compared with 97.7 % in group II (P = 0.001). The percentage of inconclusive and inadequate diagnoses was 5.6% and 29.3%, respectively in group I and 0% and 2.3% in group II (P = 0.001). In conclusion, ROSE by cytopathologist and interpretation significantly improves the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA.