Endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNA of pelvic lesions: A large single-center experience

The Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Aspiration of Pelvic Lesions: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a potentially valuable tool for the diagnosis of pelvic lesions. The aim of this meta‑analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of pelvic lesions.

METHODS

We performed a computerized search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Science Citation Index, through March 2023. The main outcome measures examined in the meta-analysis were sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy.

RESULTS

We evaluated 22 trials that used surgical pathology or imaging follow-up results as the reference standard. The studies comprised 844 patients. The cumulative sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy were 94%, 100%, 100%, 89%, and 96%, respectively. In the subgroup analysis, the prospective studies revealed the cumulative sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy were 91%, 100%, 100%, 85%, and 93%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, we provide evidence that EUS-FNA is a qualitative diagnostic technique with high sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and accuracy. However, its NPV is slightly low, which does not exclude the risk of a missed diagnosis, and more randomized controlled trials or prospective studies are still needed in the future. EUS-FNA is effective and feasible for pelvic space-occupying lesions. This technique has high clinical application value for pelvic lesions.

Risk of adverse events associated with upper and lower endoscopic ultrasound: a population-based cohort study

Background and study aim  Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) enables diagnostic evaluation and therapeutic interventions but is associated with adverse events. We conducted a population-based cohort study to determine the risk of adverse events for upper and lower EUS with and without fine-needle aspiration (FNA). Patients and methods  All adults who underwent EUS and resided in Calgary in 2007-2013 were included. Endoscopy and provincial databases were used to identify EUS procedures, unplanned emergency department visits, and hospital admissions within 30 days of the procedures, which were then characterized through formal chart review. Adverse events were defined a priori and classified as definitely, possibly, or not related to EUS. The primary outcome was 30-day risk of adverse events classified as definitely or possibly related to EUS. Univariable and multivariable analyses were conducted with risk factors known to be associated with EUS adverse events. Results  2895 patients underwent 3552 EUS procedures: 3034 (85 %) upper EUS, of which 710 (23 %) included FNA, and 518 (15 %) lower EUS, of which 23 (4 %) involved FNA. Overall, 69 procedures (2 %) involved an adverse event that was either definitely or possibly related to EUS, with 33 (1 %) requiring hospitalization. None of the adverse events required intensive care or resulted in death. On multivariable analysis, only FNA was associated with increased risk of adverse events (odds ratio 6.43, 95 % confidence interval 3.92-10.55; P  < 0.001). Conclusion  Upper and lower EUS were generally safe but FNA substantially increased the risk of adverse events. EUS-related complications requiring hospitalization were rare.

Rectal ultrasound with fine needle aspiration: an underutilized modality for delineating and diagnosing perirectal, presacral, and pelvic lesions

Background and study aims  The merits of rectal ultrasound for rectal cancer staging are well documented. Conventional approaches to accessing perirectal and presacral lesions entail computed tomography guidance via a transgluteal approach or frank surgical exploration. We report on the safety and efficacy of performing rectal ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration (RUS-FNA) for evaluating perirectal, presacral, and pelvic abnormalities. Patients and methods  Patients who underwent RUS-FNA of perirectal, presacral, or pelvic lesions between August 2005 and September 2016 were identified using an institutional database. Subjects were all individuals treated at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, United States. Patient demographics and imaging characteristics were noted. Procedural details included lesion size, location, echo appearance, and technical information. Patients were given antibiotics prior to FNA attempt and for 3 days after. Diagnostic yield, clinical utility, and complications were noted. Results  Twenty-seven patients met criteria during the specified study time period. The cohort consisted of 12 males (44.4 %) and 15 females (55.5 %). RUS-FNA was diagnostic in 24 patients (88.8 %) and obviated the need for surgery in 14 patients (51.9 %). There were four complications (14.8 %): two perirectal and two presacral abscesses. Conclusion  While the diagnostic yield of RUS-FNA is high and the potential to affect clinical decision-making is substantial, risk of complication is not negligible. RUS-FNA should only be performed if the result will substantially alter clinical management, and the decision to perform RUS-FNA should be made with close consultation between the endosonographer, surgeon, and/or medical or radiation oncologist.