Clinical impact of K-ras mutation analysis in EUS-guided FNA specimens from pancreatic masses

K-ras gene mutation analysis to diagnosis pancreatic adenocarcinoma from endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition; a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) has high sensitivity for the pathological diagnosis of pancreatic masses, but also a high false-negative rate. K-ras gene mutations occur in over 75 % of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDAC), and this meta-analysis evaluated the utility of detecting K-ras gene mutations from EUS-TA specimens for the diagnosis of PDAC.

METHODS

Relevant studies in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched. Meta-analysis was performed on data from the selected studies using a bivariate model to provide pooled values of sensitivity, specificity, and their 95 % confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 1521 patients (from 10 eligible studies) who underwent EUS-TA with K-ras gene mutation analysis for diagnosis of pancreatic solid masses. The pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were 76.6 % (95 % CI, 70.9-81.5 %) and 97.0 % (95 % CI, 94.0-98.5 %), respectively, for pathological diagnosis, 75.9 % (95 % CI 69.5-81.4 %) and 95.3 % (95 % CI, 92.3-97.2 %) for K-ras gene mutation analysis, and 88.7 % (95 % CI 87.1-91.7 %) and 94.9 % (95 % CI, 91.5-97.0 %) for pathological diagnosis in combination with K-ras gene mutation analysis. The sensitivity for diagnosis of PDAC was significantly higher for pathological diagnosis in combination with K-ras gene mutation analysis than for pathological diagnosis or K-ras gene mutation analysis alone (both, p < 0.001). There was no difference in specificity between pathological diagnosis in combination with K-ras gene mutation analysis and both either (p = 0.234, 0.945, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

K-ras gene mutation analysis in combination with to pathological diagnosis of EUS-TA increases the accuracy of differential diagnosis of PDAC.

Tissue processing of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration specimens from solid pancreatic lesions

Now that tissue cores can be obtained using fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles, the ways tissues are handled for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) are changing. Direct smear, touch smear of core tissues, and centrifugation have been used for cytological examinations, and liquid-based cytology (LBC), which allows immunostaining and genetic tests that use residual samples, is emerging as an alternative. We emphasize that liquid cytology (Cytospin™ cytology and LBC) is still important, because it enables the diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) when cancerous cells are scarce in specimens. Cell blocks are being replaced by core tissues obtained via FNB needles. Recent reports indicate that rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) is not necessary when FNB needles are used, and macroscopic on-site evaluation is used to evaluate specimen adequacy. Macroscopic findings of specimens are helpful in the diagnostic workup and for clarifying specimen-handling methods. In addition to the red strings and white cores observed in PDAC, mixed red and white strings, gray tissues, and gelatinous tissues are observed. Gray (necrotic) tissues and gelatinous (mucus) tissues are more suitable than histology for cell block or cytological processing. Tumor cells in neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are numerous in red strings but cannot be observed macroscopically. ROSE might thus be necessary for lesions that may be NETs. Core tissues can be used for genetic tests, such as those used for KRAS mutations and comprehensive genomic profiling. Cytological materials, including slides and LBC specimens, can also be genetic test materials.

KRAS Mutation Testing on Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration Samples Improves the Diagnostic Accuracy of Pancreatic Cancer

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) cytology was one of the investigations for pancreatic masses. While the specificity approached 100%, its sensitivity remained low because of high rate of indeterminate and false-negative results. Meanwhile, KRAS gene was frequently mutated in up to 90% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and its precursor lesions. This study aimed to determine whether KRAS mutation analysis could improve the diagnostic sensitivity in EUS-FNA samples for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

The EUS-FNA samples from patients with a pancreatic mass obtained between January 2016 and December 2017 were reviewed retrospectively. The cytology results were classified as malignant, suspicious for malignancy, atypical, negative for malignancy, and nondiagnostic. KRAS mutation testing was performed using polymerase chain reaction followed by Sanger sequencing.

RESULTS

A total of 126 EUS-FNA specimens were reviewed. The overall sensitivity and specificity by cytology alone were 29% and 100%, respectively. When KRAS mutation testing was performed in cases with indeterminate and negative cytology, the sensitivity increased to 74.2%, and the specificity remained at 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

KRAS mutation analysis, especially when performed in cytologically indeterminate cases, improves the diagnostic accuracy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. This may reduce the need to repeat invasive EUS-FNA for diagnosis.

Diagnostic and Prognostic Values of KRAS Mutations on EUS-FNA Specimens and Circulating Tumor DNA in Patients With Pancreatic Cancer

INTRODUCTION

The ability of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) to differentiate pancreatic cancer from other benign pancreatic lesions is unsatisfactory. This study explored the diagnostic value of KRAS gene mutations and plasma circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in patients with pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

The prospective cohort study comprised 149 consecutive patients with solid pancreatic lesions who underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). KRAS subtype mutations were analyzed by digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) in EUS-FNA histopathology tissue samples, and blood samples were sent for plasma ctDNA analysis. The final diagnosis was based on surgical resection pathology or follow-up for at least 2 years.

RESULTS

Adding KRAS mutation ddPCR increased the sensitivity and accuracy of EUS-FNA from 71.4% to 91.6% (P < 0.001) and 75.8% to 88.6% (P < 0.001), respectively. By comparison, the sensitivities of circulating biomarkers ctDNA and CA19-9 were only 35.2% and 71.2%. The area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of EUS-FNA and KRAS ddPCR combination was >0.90 for distinguishing pancreatic cancer from benign lesions, whereas the AUC of EUS-FNA and CA19-9 combination was 0.83. The median survival time was significantly shorter in patients with G12D KRAS mutations than that in patients with other mutations (180 vs 240 days, P < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

FNA tissue sample KRAS mutation analysis in tissues significantly improves the diagnostic accuracy of cyto/histopathological evaluation in EUS-FNA samples. The combination of EUS-FNA and tissue sample KRAS ddPCR provided a more accurate method for pancreatic cancer diagnosis, superior to the combination of EUS-FNA and CA19-9/ctDNA. G12D KRAS mutations in pancreatic cancer were independently associated with poor overall survival.

Plectin in Cancer: From Biomarker to Therapeutic Target

The cytolinker and scaffolding protein, plectin, has emerged as a potent driver of malignant hallmarks in many human cancers due to its involvement in various cellular activities contributing to tumorigenesis, including cancer cell proliferation, adhesion, migration, invasion, and signal transduction. Evidence shows that beyond plectin's diverse protein interactome, its cancer-specific mislocalization to the cell surface enables its function as a potent oncoprotein. As such, therapeutic targeting of plectin, its protein interactors, and, in particular, cancer-specific plectin (CSP) presents an attractive opportunity to impede carcinogenesis directly. Here, we report on plectin's differential gene and protein expression in cancer, explore its mutational profile, and discuss the current understanding of plectin's and CSP's biological function in cancer. Moreover, we review the landscape of plectin as a prognostic marker, diagnostic biomarker, and target for imaging and therapeutic modalities. We highlight how, beyond their respective biological importance, plectin's common overexpression in cancer and CSP's cancer-specific bioavailability underscore their potential as high-value druggable targets. We discuss how recent evidence of the potent anti-cancer effects of CSP therapeutic targeting opens the door for cell-surface mislocalized proteins as novel therapeutic targets.

Diagnostic value of IMP3 and p53 immunohistochemical staining in EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration for solid pancreatic tumors

We previously identified insulin-like growth factor-II messenger ribonucleic acid-binding protein 3 (IMP3) as a valuable marker to distinguish malignant from benign lesions in pancreatic solid masses. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the usefulness of IMP3 and p53 immunohistochemical staining in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) samples for pancreatic solid masses. The study recruited 90 consecutive patients with pancreatic masses, including 62 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDACs), 11 benign tumors, and 17 other tumors, who underwent EUS-FNA, and conducted IMP3 and p53 immunohistochemical staining. The main outcome measurement was improved diagnostic utility using IMP3 and p53 immunohistochemical staining. IMP3 and p53 expressions were detected in 60.8% and 49.4% of malignant lesions, 69.4% and 58.1% of PDACs, and 0% of benign lesions, respectively. In PDAC and benign tumors, the use of IMP3 and/or p53 immunostaining increased the sensitivity of cytohistological analysis from 88.7 to 93.5%, although the difference was not statistically significant. The sensitivity of histological analysis combined with that of IMP3 staining was 91.9%, which was significantly greater than that of histology alone (80.6%). The use of IMP3 and p53 immunohistochemical staining did not significantly improve the sensitivity of cytohistological analysis; however, IMP3 staining may be helpful for the histological analysis of malignant pancreatic tumors.

Impact of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition on Decision-Making in Precision Medicine for Pancreatic Cancer: Beyond Diagnosis

Precision medicine in cancer treatment refers to targeted therapy based on the evaluation of biomarkers. Although precision medicine for pancreatic cancer (PC) remains challenging, novel biomarker-based therapies, such as pembrolizumab, olaparib, and entrectinib, have been emerging. Most commonly, endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) had been used for the diagnosis of PC until now. However, advances in EUS-TA devices and biomarker testing, especially next-generation sequencing, have opened up the possibility of sequencing of various genes even in limited amounts of tissue samples obtained by EUS-TA, and identifying potential genetic alterations as therapeutic targets. Precision medicine benefits only a small population of patients with PC, but biomarker-based therapy has shown promising results in patients who once had no treatment options. Now, the role of EUS-TA has extended beyond diagnosis into decision-making regarding the treatment of PC. In this review, we mainly discuss tissue sampling by EUS-TA for biomarker testing and the current status of precision medicine for PC.

Molecular alterations in pancreatic tumors

Genetic alterations in pancreatic tumors can usually be classified in: (1) Mutational activation of oncogenes; (2) Inactivation of tumor suppressor genes; and (3) Inactivation of genome maintenance genes controlling the repair of DNA damage. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration has improved pre-operative diagnosis, but the management of patients with a pancreatic lesion is still challenging. Molecular testing could help mainly in solving these “inconclusive” specimens. The introduction of multi-gene analysis approaches, such as next-generation sequencing, has provided a lot of useful information on the molecular characterization of pancreatic tumors. Different types of pancreatic tumors (e.g., pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms, solid pseudopapillary tumors) are characterized by specific molecular alterations. The aim of this review is to summarize the main molecular alterations found in pancreatic tumors.

Randomized controlled trial comparing a conventional needle and a novel needle for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided histology of peripancreatic masses

INTRODUCTION

Cytological study of samples obtained by Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) allows for recognition of clear signs of malignant transformation. However, certain neoplasms can be difficult to diagnose without histological analysis. Recently, a novel EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) needle was developed to increase tissue acquisition. This study set out to investigate the usefulness of this novel EUS-FNB needle (NEFN) in terms of obtaining a proper histology compared with a conventional EUS-FNA needle (CEFN).

METHODS

This investigation was a prospective, single-blind, randomized study in a single academic hospital. Primary outcome was the acquisition rate of an appropriate and sufficient specimen for histologic assessment. Secondary outcomes were diagnostic yield of peripancreatic masses using a CEFN and a NEFN. Furthermore, we assessed the feasibility of determining K-ras mutation status according to needle type.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 56 consecutive patients. Technical success rates were 96.6% (28/29) for the CEFN and 100% (27/27) for the NEFN (P = 1.000). No complications occurred during or after the procedure in either needle group. An adequate sample for cytologic diagnosis was obtained in 89.7% (26/29) of patients in the CEFN group vs 96.3% (26/27) of patients in the NEFN group (P = .612). For histologic diagnosis, a sample with a biopsy adequacy score of 2 or more was obtained in 41.4% (12/29) of CEFN-acquired samples vs 88.9% (24/27) of NEFN-acquired samples (P < .001). K-ras mutation analysis using histologic specimens was possible in 13 (44.8%) CEFN-acquired samples and 25 (92.6%) of NEFN-acquired samples. This difference was significant (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study suggests that the NEFN is an effective and reliable alternative compared to a CEFN in terms of tissue acquisition rate and quality of histologic sampling.

Evaluation of Local Recurrence of Pancreatic Cancer by KRAS Mutation Analysis Using Washes from Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The sensitivity of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for diagnosing the recurrence of pancreatic cancer is usually low because of difficulties in obtaining adequate samples for pathological examinations. We evaluated the efficacy of highly sensitive KRAS mutation analysis using EUS-FNA washes to detect cancer recurrence.

METHODS

Nineteen consecutive patients with suspected pancreatic cancer recurrence after surgical resection were enrolled. All underwent EUS-FNA, and samples were obtained for pathological examination. After the first session, the inside of the FNA needle was washed with saline for DNA extraction. KRAS mutations were examined using digital droplet PCR (dPCR).

RESULTS

The median needle puncture number used to obtain adequate pathological samples was two (range 1-6). In ten patients pathologically diagnosed with malignant pancreatic cancer, nine patients tested positive for a KRAS mutation. All patients who were not diagnosed with a malignant pancreatic cancer tested negative for a KRAS mutation. About half of surgically resected primary cancers (9/19) showed double KRAS mutations (G12V and G12D); however, all but one wash sample showed a single KRAS mutation, G12D. After including one patient who showed a malignant recurrence during follow-up, the sensitivities of a pathological diagnosis and KRAS analysis to detect recurrence were 90.9% and 81.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

KRAS mutation analysis of needle wash samples using dPCR is a new methodology for the diagnosis of the local recurrence of pancreatic cancer. The diagnostic ability of dPCR with a one-time needle wash sample was comparable to a pathological diagnosis with multiple samplings.

Next-generation sequencing of residual cytologic fixative preserved DNA from pancreatic lesions: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a sensitive and specific tool in the risk stratification of pancreatic lesions, including cysts. The sensitivity and specificity of EUS-FNA has been shown to improve when cytology is combined with next-generation sequencing (NGS). Ideally, fresh cyst fluid is used for NGS. In this pilot study, we explore the possibility of sequencing DNA derived from residual alcohol-fixed pancreatic aspirates.

METHODS

Residual cytologic fixatives (n = 42) from 39 patients who underwent EUS-FNA for pancreatic lesions were collected along with demographics, imaging, and laboratory studies. Samples were designated as nonneoplastic/nonmucinous benign (NB), mucinous cyst (MC), pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), or well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (NET) on the basis of cytopathologic evaluation and sequenced on the Oncomine platform (ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, Massachusetts).

RESULTS

Ten of 14 (71.4%) MCs exhibited clinically significant variants, including KRAS, GNAS, and TP53. Ten of 15 (66.7%) PDACs had KRAS alterations, and 9 of 15 (60%) showed variants in TP53. No variants were detected in any NETs. Only 1 of 9 (11.1%) NB aspirates showed variants in KRAS and MAP2K. Sequencing of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue revealed variants identical to those detected in fixative-derived DNA in 4 of 5 cases (80%).

CONCLUSION

Residual DNA from alcohol-fixed aspirates are an underutilized source for NGS. Sequencing residual fixative-derived DNA has the potential to be integrated into the workup of pancreatic aspirates, possibly impacting management.

A novel sensitive detection method for DNA methylation in circulating free DNA of pancreatic cancer

Despite recent advances in clinical treatment, pancreatic cancer remains a highly lethal malignancy. In order to improve the survival rate of patients with pancreatic cancer, the development of non-invasive diagnostic methods using effective biomarkers is urgently needed. Here, we developed a highly sensitive method to detect DNA methylation in cell-free (cf)DNA samples based on the enrichment of methyl-CpG binding (MBD) protein coupled with a digital PCR method (MBD–ddPCR). Five DNA methylation markers for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer were identified through DNA methylation microarray analysis in 37 pancreatic cancers. The sensitivity and specificity of the five markers were validated in another independent cohort of pancreatic cancers (100% and 100%, respectively; n = 46) as well as in The Cancer Genome Atlas data set (96% and 90%, respectively; n = 137). MBD–ddPCR analysis revealed that DNA methylation in at least one of the five markers was detected in 23 (49%) samples of cfDNA from 47 patients with pancreatic cancer. Further, a combination of DNA methylation markers and the KRAS mutation status improved the diagnostic capability of this method (sensitivity and specificity, 68% and 86%, respectively). Genome-wide MBD-sequencing analysis in cancer tissues and corresponding cfDNA revealed that more than 80% of methylated regions were overlapping; DNA methylation profiles of cancerous tissues and cfDNA significantly correlated with each other (R = 0.97). Our data indicate that newly developed MBD–ddPCR is a sensitive method to detect cfDNA methylation and that using five marker genes plus KRAS mutations may be useful for the detection of pancreatic cancers.

Features of chronic pancreatitis by endoscopic ultrasound influence the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of small pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIM

In chronic pancreatitis (CP) patients, diagnosis of small pancreatic lesions by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is challenging. Thus, the aim of the present study was to investigate whether CP influences the diagnostic ability of EUS-FNA for pancreatic lesions ≤10 mm.

METHODS

One hundred and seventeen patients who underwent EUS-FNA for pancreatic lesions ≤10 mm in size were enrolled. Patients were classified into two groups based on features of CP observed by EUS (EUS-CP features) in accordance with the Rosemont classification. The CP group was defined as cases consistent with CP or suggestive of CP, and the non-CP group was defined as cases indeterminate for CP or normal. Factors influencing the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA and CP status in pancreatic tumors were also investigated.

RESULTS

Diagnostic ability of EUS-FNA (overall cases, non-CP vs CP) had sensitivity (80.4%, 96.7% vs 57.1%; P < 0.001), specificity (100%, 100% vs 100%; P > 0.05), and accuracy (91.5%, 98.6% vs 80.4%; P = 0.001). In multivariate analysis of factors influencing the accuracy of EUS-FNA, CP significantly lowered the accuracy (P = 0.048; odds ratio [OR] = 9.21). Among pancreatic cancer patients, the number of CP patients was significantly higher than the number of patients with benign lesions (P = 0.023). In multivariate analysis, lobularity without honeycombing was more frequently observed in cases of pancreatic cancer (P = 0.018; OR, 12.65).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNA offers high accuracy for small pancreatic lesions ≤10 mm. However, in cases with CP, the diagnostic ability of EUS-FNA is significantly reduced.

Role of oncogenic KRAS in the diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is predicted to be the second most common cause of death within the next 10 years. The prognosis for this disease is poor despite diagnostic progress and new chemotherapeutic regimens. The oncogenic KRAS mutation is the major event in pancreatic cancer; it confers permanent activation of the KRAS protein, which acts as a molecular switch to activate various intracellular signalling pathways and transcription factors inducing cell proliferation, migration, transformation and survival. Several laboratory methods have been developed to detect KRAS mutations in biological samples, including digital droplet PCR (which displays high sensitivity). Clinical studies have revealed that a KRAS mutation assay in fine-needle aspiration material combined with cytopathology increases the sensitivity, accuracy and negative predictive value of cytopathology for a positive diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. In addition, the presence of KRAS mutations in serum and plasma (liquid biopsies) correlates with a worse prognosis. The presence of mutated KRAS can also have therapeutic implications, whether at the gene level per se, during its post-translational maturation, interaction with nucleotides and after activation of the various oncogenic signals. Further pharmacokinetic and toxicological studies on new molecules are required, especially small synthetic molecules, before they can be used in the therapeutic arsenal for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Addition of analysis of KRAS mutation or immunohistochemistry with MUC1 and carcinoembryonic antigen improves the diagnostic performance of fine needle aspiration cytology for the diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC) is a health problem because of high lethality, increasing incidence and the absence of an early diagnosis. Biopsy by fine needle aspiration guided by endoscopic ultrasound has allowed obtaining tissue for cytopathological analysis, but there are several problems with their interpretation. We aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of the cytopathological analysis with the addition of either an immunohistochemical (IHC) panel or the KRAS mutation for the diagnosis of PAC.

METHODS

We evaluated 62 pancreatic lesions by fine needle aspiration guided by endoscopic ultrasound, applying an IHC panel with mucin (MUC)-1, MUC4, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and p53. All cases also had a KRAS mutation determination. Three cytopathologists blinded to clinical data and the KRAS status reviewed the cytology independently. We calculated diagnostic performances for the cytology alone, cytology+IHC and cytology+KRAS to show the best method to diagnose PAC.

RESULTS

From 62 samples, 50 (80.6%) were PAC and 12 benign lesions. The cytopathological analysis correctly interpreted 26 malignant and 12 non-neoplastic cases (sensitivity 52%, specificity 100% and diagnostic accuracy 61.3%). The KRAS mutation was present in 88% of PAC. The cytology+ KRAS mutation increased the sensitivity by 10% and the diagnostic accuracy by 8%. The sensitivity increased by 2% adding either MUC1 or CEA to the cytology, and the diagnostic accuracy by 10 or 18%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The addition of IHC either with CEA or MUC1 improved the diagnostic performance of the cytology alone to diagnose PAC. The cytology + IHC evaluation was superior to the cytology + KRAS mutation to diagnose PAC.

New Era of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition: Next-Generation Sequencing by Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Sampling for Pancreatic Cancer

Pancreatic cancer is a lethal cancer with an increasing incidence. Despite improvements in chemotherapy, patients with pancreatic cancer continue to face poor prognoses. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) is the primary method for obtaining tissue samples of pancreatic cancer. Due to advancements in next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies, multiple parallel sequencing can be applied to EUS-TA samples. Genomic biomarkers for therapeutic stratification in pancreatic cancer are still lacking, however, NGS can unveil potential predictive genomic biomarkers of treatment response. Thus, the importance of NGS using EUS-TA samples is becoming recognized. In this review, we discuss the recent advances in EUS-TA application for NGS of pancreatic cancer.

A Diagnostically Challenging Case of Autoimmune Pancreatitis Due to Contamination of the Pathological Specimen with Early Gastric Cancer

A 73-year-old man with worsened diabetes underwent abdominal computed tomography and was diagnosed with localized enlargement of the pancreatic tail. Based on the suspicion of autoimmune pancreatitis, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) was performed. A cytologic examination showed findings suggestive of adenocarcinoma. Due to discrepancies between the imaging and pathological findings, esophagogastroduodenoscopy was performed. An extensive early gastric cancer lesion was detected in the posterior wall of the gastric corpus. It was therefore likely that puncturing through the tumor resulted in the contamination with cancer tissue. The possibility of a concomitant malignancy should be considered in EUS-FNA, and thorough examinations should be conducted.

Early pancreatic cancer - The role of endoscopic ultrasound with or without tissue acquisition in diagnosis and staging

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is one of the deadliest cancers with a 5-year overall survival of less than 6%. Due to its insidious clinical course and unspecific symptoms, the diagnosis is usually late, with only 15-20% patients presenting with potentially curable disease. It is, therefore, extremely important to identify patients with PC at early stages of the disease when tumors may be amenable to surgical resection. For unresectable and borderline resectable PC it is consensual to perform a biopsy to have a cyto/histological confirmation of malignancy before treatment. However, for patients presenting with promptly resectable disease, the role of biopsy is more debatable. There are, in the literature, arguments both for and against the usefulness of a preoperative biopsy. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is an important technique assisting in the diagnosis and staging of PC. EUS-guided tissue acquisition is a well-established tool to demonstrate the malignant nature of a pancreatic lesion. This review focuses on the role of EUS in the diagnosis and staging of PC, and highlights the controversy related to the role of EUS-guided tissue acquisition in the preoperative assessment of patients presenting with promptly resectable tumors (early PC).

A quarter century of EUS-FNA: Progress, milestones, and future directions

Tissue acquisition using EUS has considerably evolved since the first EUS-FNA was reported 25 years ago. Its introduction was an important breakthrough in the endoscopic field. EUS-FNA has now become a part of the diagnostic and staging algorithm for the evaluation of benign and malignant diseases of the gastrointestinal tract and of the organs in its proximity, including lung diseases. This review aims to present the history of EUS-FNA development and to provide a perspective on the recent developments in procedural techniques and needle technologies that have significantly extended the role of EUS and its clinical applications. There is a bright future ahead for EUS-FNA in the years to come as extensive research is conducted in this field and various technologies are continuously implemented into clinical practice.

Prospective histological evaluation of a 20G core trap with a forward-cutting bevel needle for EUS-FNA of pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has been established as a method to obtain tissues of various organs. To obtain sufficient tissue has clinical impact to facilitate the diagnosis by clinical pathologists, the assessment and subtyping of various neoplasms, and for further immunohistochemical investigations of tumor type. Recently, a novel 20G core trap with a forward-cutting beveled FNA needle (ProC-F) has become available. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the feasibility and diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA for pancreatic lesions using this needle.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

In this study, the first puncture was performed using the ProC-F. Only tissue obtained with the first puncture using the ProC-F was used to evaluate diagnostic yield of ProC-F. The second puncture was performed using a 22G standard FNA needle using the same technique as for the first puncture. Second puncture was performed if the endosonographer did not feel that sufficient tissue had not been obtained by first puncture.

RESULTS

Fifty-three consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNA for pancreatic lesions were prospectively enrolled. The technical success rate of EUS-FNA using the ProC-F was 98.1% (52/53). The rate of adequate tissue obtained by ProC-F was 96.2% (50/52). On the other hand, the rate of adequate tissue obtained by the standard needle was 71.1%. The sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), and accuracy of the ProC-F and the standard needle were 92.5, 100, 100, 76.9, and 94.0%, and 85.2, 100, 100, 55.6, and 87.5%, respectively. Diagnostic yield of ProC-F about sensitivity (P = 0.027), NPV (P = 0.035), and accuracy (P = 0.004) was significantly higher than of standard needle. Adverse events were not seen in any patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Although only tissue obtained by the first puncture was evaluated, the rate of adequate tissue and the histologic diagnostic yield for pancreatic lesions were extremely high using the ProC-F.

FNA smears of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma are superior to formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue as a source of DNA: Comparison of targeted KRAS amplification and genotyping in matched preresection and postresection samples

BACKGROUND

The current study was conducted to compare DNA yield, including normalization to nuclear area, DNA amplification functionality, and detection of KRAS mutations between matched fine-needle aspiration (FNA) specimens and pancreatic resections diagnostic of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

A retrospective sample of 30 matched single FNA smears and macrodissected formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) curls (2 5-μm curls) were compared by measuring the following: nuclear area (via digital image analysis), DNA yield (via NanoDrop spectrophotometry and Quantus fluorometry), and polymerase chain reaction threshold cycles for KRAS amplifications. Variants in KRAS codons 12/13 and 61 were detected by fluorescent melt curve analyses, followed by Sanger DNA sequencing.

RESULTS

Despite a similar nuclear area, FNA smears yielded greater DNA per nuclear area via 2 DNA quantification methods. KRAS codon 12 mutations were detected in 23 of 30 FNA specimens (77%) compared with 17 of 30 matched FFPE specimens (57%), for a concordance rate of 74%. No KRAS codon 13 or 61 mutations were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

FNA specimens are a more optimal source of DNA, and represent an important resource in the preresection and postresection molecular analysis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Cancer Cytopathol 2017;125:838-47. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Endoscopic Ultrasonography with Fine-needle Aspiration: New Techniques for Interpretation of Endoscopic Ultrasonography Cytology and Histology Specimens

Significant advances have been made in the last few years in the technologies for sampling pancreatic masses, and in the understanding of the biology of pancreatic cancer. Better and more targeted treatments are likely to become available. Because most pancreatic cancers are likely to remain unresectable at diagnosis, high-quality, high-cellularity specimens are essential. A tailored approach that considers indication, location, and treatment possibilities needs to be taken before embarking on a pancreatic biopsy. Because the demand from oncologists and patients for increasingly personalized therapy is likely to grow, optimal sampling beyond diagnostic accuracy is likely to become increasingly critical.

Team work and cytopathology molecular diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is expected to become the second leading cause of cancer-associated death in the next decade or so. It is widely accepted that tumorigenesis is linked to specific alterations in key genes and pancreatic neoplasms are some of the best characterized at the genomic level. Recent whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing analyses confirmed that PDAC is frequently characterized by mutations in a set of four genes among others: KRAS, TP53, CDKN2A/p16, and SMAD4. Sequencing, for example, is the preferable technique available for detecting KRAS mutations, whereas in situ immunochemistry is the main approach for detecting TP53 gene alteration. Nevertheless, the diagnosis of PDAC is still a clinical challenge, involving adequate acquisition of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and specific pathological assessment from tissue architecture to specific biomolecular tests. The aim of the present review is to provide a complete overview of the current knowledge of the biology of pancreatic cancer as detected by the latest biomolecular techniques and, moreover, to propose a paradigm for strict teamwork collaboration in order to improve the correct use of diagnostic sources.

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided tissue acquisition: How to achieve excellence

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition is a basic forte of an endosonographer. The multiple skills required to accomplish successful results include not only the puncture itself, but also proper lesion identification, correct puncture sequence, collaboration with the pathologist onsite or remotely, proper handling of the specimens, choosing one or more of cytology, cell-block, and/or tissue core preparation and, last, deciding the immunohistochemistry (IHC) panels and ancillary tests which may be needed for the current case. Error in any of these decisions may lead to incomplete or inconclusive information from the procedure, even if the aspirate is 'adequate.' In the present review, we will describe the technical aspects of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, current needles available and how to choose between them, and how to appropriately handle the specimen. We will also discuss the optimal approach to common targets including lymph nodes, pancreatic masses, pancreatic cysts, and subepithelial lesions.

Imaging modalities for characterising focal pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Additional K-ras mutation analysis and Plectin-1 staining improve the diagnostic accuracy of pancreatic solid mass in EUS-guided fine needle aspiration

Background

One of the major genetic alterations in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the point mutation of K-ras gene. Plectin-1 was also recently identified as PDAC specific biomarker. The aim of this study was to investigate the improvement of diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) by using additional K-ras mutation analysis and Plectin-1 staining in patients with pancreatic mass.

Methods

A total of 85 study patients with pancreatic mass underwent EUS-FNA and the final diagnoses were as follows; PDACs: 70 patients, pancreas neuroendocrine tumor: 4, metastasis to pancreas: 5, autoimmune pancreatitis: 3, chronic pancreatitis: 1, tuberculous lymphadenitis: 1, pseudocyst: 1.

Results

Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of pathologic diagnosis in EUS-FNA specimen were 81%, 80% and 79% accordingly. When we combine K-ras gene mutation analysis with histological assessment, we could get the following results for sensitivity, specificity and accuracy; cytology and K-ras mutation analysis: 93%, 87%, and 92%, cytology, K-ras mutation analysis, and Plectin-1 staining: 96%, 93%, and 95%.

Conclusions

Triple combinations of the techniques; cytology, K-ras gene mutation analysis, Plectin-1 staining could increase accuracy in diagnosis of PDACs. Further investigation of using minimal specimens from EUS-FNA may give us insight to understand the biological behavior of PDAC.

Digital PCR Improves Mutation Analysis in Pancreas Fine Needle Aspiration Biopsy Specimens

Applications of precision oncology strategies rely on accurate tumor genotyping from clinically available specimens. Fine needle aspirations (FNA) are frequently obtained in cancer management and often represent the only source of tumor tissues for patients with metastatic or locally advanced diseases. However, FNAs obtained from pancreas ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are often limited in cellularity and/or tumor cell purity, precluding accurate tumor genotyping in many cases. Digital PCR (dPCR) is a technology with exceptional sensitivity and low DNA template requirement, characteristics that are necessary for analyzing PDAC FNA samples. In the current study, we sought to evaluate dPCR as a mutation analysis tool for pancreas FNA specimens. To this end, we analyzed alterations in the KRAS gene in pancreas FNAs using dPCR. The sensitivity of dPCR mutation analysis was first determined using serial dilution cell spiking studies. Single-cell laser-microdissection (LMD) was then utilized to identify the minimal number of tumor cells needed for mutation detection. Lastly, dPCR mutation analysis was performed on 44 pancreas FNAs (34 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) and 10 fresh (non-fixed)), including samples highly limited in cellularity (100 cells) and tumor cell purity (1%). We found dPCR to detect mutations with allele frequencies as low as 0.17%. Additionally, a single tumor cell could be detected within an abundance of normal cells. Using clinical FNA samples, dPCR mutation analysis was successful in all preoperative FNA biopsies tested, and its accuracy was confirmed via comparison with resected tumor specimens. Moreover, dPCR revealed additional KRAS mutations representing minor subclones within a tumor that were not detected by the current clinical gold standard method of Sanger sequencing. In conclusion, dPCR performs sensitive and accurate mutation analysis in pancreas FNAs, detecting not only the dominant mutation subtype, but also the additional rare mutation subtypes representing tumor heterogeneity.

KRAS mutation analysis by next-generation sequencing in endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling for solid liver masses

BACKGROUND AND AIM

KRAS mutation analysis may provide ancillary diagnostic yield in an endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided histopathological evaluation. We evaluated the clinical impact of KRAS mutation analysis with cytological and histological evaluations in EUS-guided tissue sampling, using a core biopsy needle for solid liver masses.

METHODS

EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) using a core biopsy needle was performed in patients with primary or metastatic liver masses that were suspected malignancies. KRAS mutations were analyzed in all specimens obtained. The peptide nucleic acid (PNA)-mediated polymerase chain reaction (PCR) clamping method was compared with a next-generation sequencing (NGS) method for detecting KRAS mutations.

RESULTS

EUS-FNB with a core biopsy needle was performed in 28 patients with solid liver masses located in the liver's left lobe. The diagnostic accuracies for malignancy of on-site cytology, cytology using Papanicolaou staining, and histology including immunohistochemical stains were 82.1%, 85.7%, and 89.3%, respectively. KRAS gene mutations were observed in 14.3% of patients by the PNA-PCR clamping method. The NGS method detected more KRAS mutations than the PNA-PCR clamping method: in 25% of patients. Adding the results of KRAS mutation analysis to the cytohistopathological evaluation, the overall diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided tissue sampling was 96.4%.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-guided tissue sampling for solid liver masses in the left lobe provided high diagnostic accuracy from cytological and histological evaluations. KRAS mutation analysis provided additional diagnostic yield in patients with inconclusive cytohistopathological results from EUS-guided tissue sampling. The NGS method detected additional KRAS mutations in patients with negative PNA-mediated PCR clamping test results.

Targeted next generation sequencing of endoscopic ultrasound acquired cytology from ampullary and pancreatic adenocarcinoma has the potential to aid patient stratification for optimal therapy selection

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Less than 10% of registered drug intervention trials for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) include a biomarker stratification strategy. The ability to identify distinct mutation subsets via endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration (EUS FNA) molecular cytology could greatly aid clinical trial patient stratification and offer predictive markers. We identified chemotherapy treatment naïve ampullary adenocarcinoma and PDAC patients who underwent EUS FNA to assess multigene mutational frequency and diversity with a surgical resection concordance assessment, where available.

METHODS

Following strict cytology smear screening criteria, targeted next generation sequencing (NGS) using a 160 cancer gene panel was performed.

RESULTS

Complete sequencing was achieved in 29 patients, whereby 83 pathogenic alterations were identified in 21 genes. Cytology genotyping revealed that the majority of mutations were identified in KRAS (93%), TP53 (72%), SMAD4 (31%), and GNAS (10%). There was 100% concordance for the following pathogenic alterations: KRAS, TP53, SMAD4, KMT2D, NOTCH2, MSH2, RB1, SMARCA4, PPP2R1A, PIK3R1, SCL7A8, ATM, and FANCD2. Absolute multigene mutational concordance was 83%. Incremental cytology smear mutations in GRIN2A, GATA3 and KDM6A were identified despite re-examination of raw sequence reads in the corresponding resection specimens.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS FNA cytology genotyping using a 160 cancer gene NGS panel revealed a broad spectrum of pathogenic alterations. The fidelity of cytology genotyping to that of paired surgical resection specimens suggests that EUS FNA represents a suitable surrogate and may complement the conventional stratification criteria in decision making for therapies and may guide future biomarker driven therapeutic development.

Specific MAPK-Associated MicroRNAs in Serum Differentiate Pancreatic Cancer from Autoimmune Pancreatitis

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is difficult to distinguish from autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) because of their clinical and radiological similarities, and therefore simple and minimally invasive surrogate markers for differential diagnosis would be useful. In our previous studies, we identified four microRNAs (miRNAs)–miR-7, miR-34a, miR-181d, and miR-193b –as MAPK-associated microRNAs whose expression was altered significantly with upregulation of the MAPK signaling pathway. Recently it has been reported that these miRNAs could be used as biomarkers in serum samples for accurate diagnosis of pancreatic lesions. The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether these MAPK-associated miRNAs in serum could be used as biomarkers for differentiating PDAC from AIP. We enrolled 69 patients with PDAC, 26 with intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) and 15 with AIP. The expression of MAPK-associated miRNAs in serum was measured by quantitative real-time PCR. The 2^-ΔCT method was used to quantify the expression of miRNAs, and the data were normalized using spiked-in synthetic cel-miR-39. Patients with PDAC or IPMN showed significantly higher amounts of serum MAPK-associated miRNAs than those with AIP (p<0.009 for miR-7, p<0.002 for miR-34a, p<0.001 for miR-181d, p<0.002 for miR-193b). ROC curve analysis demonstrated that these miRNAs had an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.723–0.882 for differentiation between PDAC or IPMN from AIP. Furthermore, serum miR-181d was significantly associated with the presence of metastasis in patients with PDA (p = 0.014). Serum MAPK-associated miRNAs could be novel noninvasive biomarkers for differentiation between PDAC or IPMN and AIP.

Comparing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) versus fine needle biopsy (FNB) in the diagnosis of solid lesions: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2016;17:198. [PMID: 27071386 PMCID: PMC4830051 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-016-1316-2]

Background

Linear endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) allows the visualization, identification, and characterization of the extent of lesions of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and adjacent structures. EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) facilitates a more accurate diagnosis of mediastinal, intra-abdominal, and pancreatic lesions through the collection of the cytological material under direct visualization. Recent reports suggest that histological samples can be obtained by EUS-FNA with a reverse, bevel-tipped needle (the ProCore needle) to collect the core samples (fine needle biopsy, FNB), thereby adding a new dimension to the diagnostic usefulness of this technique. Certain neoplasms, such as lymphoma and stromal tumors, can be assessed by EUS-FNB to confirm the diagnosis. Here, we aimed to carry out a prospective, multicenter, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial to compare EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA.

Methods/design

A total of 408 patients will be enrolled from five endoscopic centers. Patients will be divided into two groups: (1) group A, which is the EUS regular needle group (EUS-FNA) and (2) group B, which is the EUS ProCore needle group (EUS-FNB). Patients in group A will be examined with a 22G EchoTip Ultra needle, and patients in group B, with a 22G EchoTip ProCore needle. For all included patients, four EUS-guided passes will be made in each lesion. In the first and second pass, a slow-pull suction method of the stylet will be done. The third and fourth pass will use manual suction of 5 cc. The primary objective is to compare the diagnostic yield of malignancy by EUS-FNA versus EUS-FNB.

Discussion

The trial will compare samples obtained by EUS-FNA versus EUS-FNB for the diagnostic yield of solid lesions. The efficacy of these two sampling methods will be assessed on various lesions, which may provide insights into developing practice guidelines for their future indications.

Trial registration

Clinical Trials.gov, NCT02327065.

Role of emerging molecular markers in pancreatic cyst fluid

Cystic lesions of the pancreas (CLPs) are increasingly diagnosed due to the growing utilization of cross-sectional imaging modalities. The differentiation between true cysts (epithelial tumors) and nonepithelial lesions (such as pseudocysts) relies on clinical and imaging characteristics, but more reliably obtained by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle aspiration. Due to their malignant potential, some of the true pancreatic cysts require further assessment and periodic follow-up. Therefore, it is important to establish a solid diagnosis at the time of detection of the various types of pancreatic cysts. Due to the limitations of cytology and biochemical markers in accurately classifying cyst pathology, the search for specific molecular markers associated with each type of cyst is ongoing. In this chapter, we will review some of the emerging molecular markers in pancreatic cystic fluid and their potential impact on endosonography and pancreatic cyst management.

Efficacy of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor grading

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for grading pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs).

METHODS: A total of 22 patients were diagnosed with PNET by EUS-FNA between October 2001 and December 2013 at Fukushima Medical University Hospital. Among these cases, we targeted 10 PNET patients who were evaluated according to the World Health Organization (WHO) 2010 classification. Surgery was performed in eight patients, and chemotherapy was performed in two patients due to multiple liver metastases．Specimens obtained by EUS-FNA were first stained with hematoxylin and eosin and then stained with chromogranin, synaptophysin, CD56, and Ki-67. The specimens were graded by the Ki-67 index according to the WHO 2010 classification. Specimens obtained by surgery were graded by the Ki-67 index and mitotic count (WHO 2010 classification). For the eight specimens obtained by EUS-FNA, the Ki-67 index results were compared with those obtained by surgery. In the two cases treated with chemotherapy, the effects and prognoses were evaluated.

RESULTS: The sampling rate for histological diagnosis by EUS-FNA was 100%. No adverse effects were observed. The concordance rate between specimens obtained by EUS-FNA and surgery was 87.5% (7/8). For the two cases treated with chemotherapy, case 1 received somatostatin analog therapy and transcatheter arterial infusion (TAI) targeting multiple liver metastases. Subsequent treatment consisted of everolimus. During chemotherapy, the primary tumor remained unconfirmed, although the multiple liver metastases diminished dramatically. Case 2 was classified as neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) according to the Ki-67 index of a specimen obtained by EUS-FNA; therefore, cisplatin and irinotecan therapy was started. However, severe adverse effects, including renal failure and diarrhea, were observed, and the therapy regimen was changed to cisplatin and etoposide. TAI targeting multiple liver metastases was performed. Although the liver metastases diminished, the primary tumor remained unconfirmed. These chemotherapy regimens had immediate effects for both unresectable neuroendocrine tumor (NET) and NEC cases. These two subjects are still alive.

CONCLUSION: EUS-FNA was effective for PNET diagnosis and Ki-67 index grading for WHO 2010 classification, enabling informed decisions on unresectable PNET treatment by identifying NET or NEC.

Impact of TP53 codon 72 and MDM2 SNP 309 polymorphisms in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of TP53 (codon 72, rs1042522) and MDM2 promoter (SNP 309, rs2279744) have been associated with risk for various human cancers. However, studies analyzing these polymorphisms in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are lacking. We investigated TP53 codon 72 and MDM2 SNP 309 polymorphisms in 32 patients with PDAC, 16 patients with chronic pancreatitis (CP), and 32 normal controls, using formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue. We also examined TP53 and MDM2 protein immunohistochemistry (IHC) to assess the involvement of these differences in malignant transformation and disease progression. TP53 Pro/Pro genotype was significantly more frequent in PDAC patients than in controls (65.6 vs. 15.6%, p < 0.001) and no significant difference was found between CP patients (37.5%) and controls. In MDM2 SNP 309, there were no significant differences among the three groups. Based on the Kaplan-Meier analysis, overall survival was significantly shorter in MDM2 G/G genotypes compared with other genotypes (G/T and T/T) (359 vs. 911 days, p = 0.016) whereas no significant differences in TP53 genotypes were observed (638 vs. 752 days, p = 0.471). Although TP53 IHC was frequent in PDAC patients (53.1%), TP53 and MDM2 protein expression was not correlated with polymorphisms. Our study demonstrated TP53 codon 72 polymorphism is potentially a genetic predisposing factor while MDM2 SNP 309 polymorphism might be useful in predicting survival outcome.

Impact of inconclusive endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration results in the management and outcome of patients with solid pancreatic masses

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) can be inconclusive in diagnosing solid pancreatic masses. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the impact of an inconclusive EUS-FNA in the management of patients with solid pancreatic masses.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of a prospective database of patients with solid pancreatic masses referred for EUS-FNA between December 2011 and December 2013. Consecutive patients with inconclusive initial EUS-FNA were included. Demographic, clinical, procedural and outcome data were analyzed.

RESULTS

Over the study period, 387 patients underwent EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic masses, of which 38 patients had inconclusive cytology. Of the 38 patients, 18 were categorized as atypical, two were categorized as indeterminate or suspicious for malignancy, and 18 were categorized as benign process. Subsequently, 24 (63.2%) patients achieved cytopathological diagnosis by repeat EUS-FNA (8), transcutaneous FNA (4) and surgery (12). Repeat EUS-FNA were done a median of 13 days after the index examination and resulted in conclusive diagnosis in 72.7% of cases. Five patients undergoing surgery were confirmed to have benign lesions. In 14 (36.8%) patients not receiving a positive cytopathological diagnosis, 11 were eventually confirmed to be malignant based on clinical outcome and imaging evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Inconclusive EUS-FNA could lead to unnecessary surgical procedures in patients with resectable solid pancreatic masses if no cytopathological diagnosis is obtained through either repeat or alternative diagnostic modalities. Repeat EUS-FNA provided a conclusive diagnosis in a majority of cases, and therefore should be strongly considered ahead of other modalities.

Does the WHO 2010 classification of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms accurately characterize pancreatic neuroendocrine carcinomas?

BACKGROUND

The WHO classified pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms in 2010 as G1, G2, and neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC), according to the Ki67 labeling index (LI). However, the clinical behavior of NEC is still not fully studied. We aimed to clarify the clinicopathological and molecular characteristics of NECs.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated the clinicopathological characteristics, KRAS mutation status, treatment response, and the overall survival of eleven pNEC patients diagnosed between 2001 and 2014 according to the WHO 2010. We subclassified WHO-NECs into well-differentiated NEC (WDNEC) and poorly differentiated NEC (PDNEC). The latter was further subdivided into large-cell and small-cell subtypes.

RESULTS

The median Ki67 LI was 69.1% (range 40-95%). Eleven WHO-NECs were subclassified into 4 WDNECs and 7 PDNECs. The latter was further separated into 3 large-cell and 4 small-cell subtypes. Comparisons of WDNEC vs. PDNEC revealed the following traits: hypervascularity on CT, 50% (2/4) vs. 0% (0/7) (P = 0.109); median Ki67 LI, 46.3% (40-53%) vs. 85% (54-95%) (P = 0.001); Rb immunopositivity, 100% (4/4) vs. 14% (1/7) (P = 0.015); KRAS mutations, 0% (0/4) vs. 86% (6/7) (P = 0.015); response rates to platinum-based chemotherapy, 0% (0/2) vs. 100% (4/4) (P = 0.067), and median survival, 227 vs. 186 days (P = 0.227).

CONCLUSIONS

The WHO-NEC category may be composed of heterogeneous disease entities, namely WDNEC and PDNEC. These subgroups tended to exhibit differing profiles of Ki67 LI, Rb immunopositivity and KRAS mutation, and distinct response to chemotherapy. Further studies for the reevaluation of the current WHO 2010 classification are warranted.

Role of endoscopic ultrasound in the molecular diagnosis of pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma remains one of the most deadly types of tumor. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a safe, cost-effective, and accurate technique for evaluating and staging pancreatic tumors. However, EUS-FNA may be inconclusive or doubtful in up to 20% of cases. This review underlines the clinical interest of the molecular analysis of samples obtained by EUS-FNA in assessing diagnosis or prognosis of pancreatic cancer, especially in locally advanced tumors. On EUS-FNA materials DNA, mRNA and miRNA can be extracted, amplified, quantified and subjected to methylation assay. Kras mutation assay, improves diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. When facing to clinical and radiological presentations of pseudo-tumorous chronic pancreatitis, wild-type Kras is evocative of benignity. Conversely, in front of a pancreatic mass suspected of malignancy, a mutated Kras is highly evocative of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. This strategy can reduce false-negative diagnoses, avoids the delay of making decisions and reduces loss of surgical resectability. Similar approaches are conducted using analysis of miRNA expression as well as Mucin or markers of invasion (S100P, S100A6, PLAT or PLAU). Beyond the diagnosis approach, the prediction of response to treatment can be also investigated form biomarkers expression within EUS-FNA materials.

K-ras mutational status in cytohistological tissue as a molecular marker for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background. More clinically meaningful diagnostic tests are needed in pancreatic cancer (PC). K-ras mutations are the most frequently acquired genetic alteration. Methods. Original research articles involving the diagnostic accuracy of K-ras mutation detection in PC were selected. Data were presented as forest plots and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve analysis was used to summarize the overall test performance. Results. We assessed 19 studies from 16 published articles. The reports were divided into three groups according to the process used to obtain the test material. The summary estimates for detecting K-ras status using an invasive method (fine needle aspiration (FNA), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), or surgery) were better than cytology: the pooled sensitivity was 77% (95% confidence interval (CI): 74–80%) versus 54% (95% CI: 47–61%); specificity was 88% (95% CI: 85–91%) versus 91% (95% CI: 83–96%); and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 20.26 (11.40–36.03) versus 7.52 (95% CI: 2.80–20.18), respectively. When two procedures were combined, the diagnostic accuracy was markedly improved. Conclusions. The analysis of K-ras mutations in pancreatic tissue has a promising diagnostic significance in PC. Further valuable studies are needed.

Utility of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration for peri-arterial soft tissue cuffs without identifiable pancreas mass on CT and EUS: a prospective comparative study

Pancreatic cancer may present as a peri-arterial soft tissue cuff (PSTC) around the superior mesenteric artery or celiac axis without an identifiable pancreatic mass. We evaluated the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in patients with a PSTC without definite pancreas involvement and those with a typical pancreatic mass. The patients who underwent EUS-FNA of a PSTC without pancreatic involvement were prospectively enrolled. The patients who underwent EUS-FNA for a pancreatic mass were recruited as a control group. A total of 224 patients underwent 247 EUS-FNAs. Among the 13 patients with a PSTC, 11 were positive for malignancy as determined by EUS-FNA, with 5 diagnosed after the first session and 6 after the second session. The diagnostic yield of PSTCs by EUS-FNA was significantly lower than that for typical pancreatic masses (65% vs. 87%, p = 0.02). An on-site cytopathologist and repeated EUS-FNA are recommended to improve the diagnostic accuracy of this disease entity.

Applications of endoscopic ultrasound in pancreatic cancer

Since the introduction of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), EUS has assumed a growing role in the diagnosis and management of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The objective of this review is to discuss the various applications of EUS and EUS-FNA in PDAC. Initially, its use for detection, diagnosis and staging will be described. EUS and EUS-FNA are highly accurate modalities for detection and diagnosis of PDAC, this high accuracy, however, is decreased in specific situations particularly in the presence of chronic pancreatitis. Novel techniques such as contrast-enhanced EUS, elastography and analysis of DNA markers such as k-ras mutation analysis in FNA samples are in progress and might improve the accuracy of EUS in the detection of PDAC in this setting and will be addressed. EUS and EUS-FNA have recently evolved from a diagnostic to a therapeutic technique in the management of PDAC. Significant developments in therapeutic EUS have occurred including advances in celiac plexus interventions with direct injection of ganglia and improved pain control, EUS-guided fiducial and brachytherapy seed placement, fine-needle injection of intra-tumoral agents and advances in EUS-guided biliary drainage. The future role of EUS and EUS in management of PDAC is still emerging.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration: from the past to the future

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a technique which allows the study of cells obtained through aspiration in different locations near the gastrointestinal tract. EUS-FNA is used to acquire tissue from mucosal/submucosal tumors, as well as peri-intestinal structures including lymph nodes, pancreas, adrenal gland, gallbladder, bile duct, liver, kidney, lung, etc. The pancreas and lymph nodes are still the most common organs targeted in EUS-FNA. The overall accuracy of EUS is superior to computed tomography scan and magnetic resonance imaging for detecting pancreatic lesions. In most cases it is possible to avoid unnecessary surgical interventions in advanced pancreatic cancer, and EUS is considered the preferred method for loco-regional staging of pancreatic cancer. FNA improved the sensitivity and specificity compared to EUS imaging alone in detection of malignant lymph nodes. The negative predictive value of EUS-FNA is relatively low. The presence of a cytopathologist during EUS-FNA improves the diagnostic yield, decreasing unsatisfactory samples or need for additional passes, and consequently the procedural time. The size of the needle is another factor that could modify the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA. Even though the EUS-FNA technique started in early nineteen's, there are many remarkable progresses culminating nowadays with the discovery and performance of needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy. Last, but not least, identification and quantification of potential molecular markers for pancreatic cancer on cellular samples obtained by EUS-FNA could be a promising approach for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses.

Osteopontin splice variant as a potential marker for metastatic disease in pancreatic adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Osteopontin (OPN) is a phosphoprotein that activates pathways that induce cancer cell survival and metastasis. Our aim was to examine the expression pattern of OPN splice variants a, b, and c in fine-needle aspirates and to determine their correlation with stage-adjusted pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) survival.

METHODS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) was performed in patients with solid pancreatic masses. The tissue was collected and analyzed for the expression of OPN isoforms by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. Survival curves of stages and overexpression of OPN splice variants (a, b, c) were estimated according to the Kaplan-Meier and the log-rank test.

RESULTS

EUS-FNA was performed in 46 patients with solid pancreatic lesions (40 PDA and 6 chronic pancreatitis). OPNa was highly expressed in 39/40 (98%), OPNb in 24/40 (60%), while OPNc was present in 10/40 (25%) of PDA samples. The median survival was lower in patients whose fine-needle aspiration (FNA) samples expressed OPNb than those without (406 days vs 749 days, P = 0.049). There was no significant difference in survival in patients with OPNc. Cox proportional hazard model demonstrated that OPNb expression had a trend toward decrease overall survival (P = 0.06), with these patients having a hazard of death three times higher than those without. OPNc was found to significantly correlate with metastatic disease (P = 0.009) in PDA patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data show for the first time that in FNA samples, there is a strong association between OPNc and presence of metastasis in PDA, and OPNb and poor survival.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle tissue acquisition: Where we stand in 2013?

Since its introduction, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided fine needle aspiration and fine needle biopsy have become an indispensable tool for the diagnosis of lesions within the gastrointestinal tract and surrounding organs. It has proved to be an effective diagnostic method with high accuracy and low complication rates. Several factors can influence the accuracy and the diagnostic yield of this procedure including experience of the endosonographer, availability of onsite cytopathology services, the method of cytopathology preparation, the location and physical characteristics of the lesion, sampling techniques and the type and size of the needle used. In this review we will outline the recent studies evaluating EUS-guided tissue acquisition and will provide practical recommendations to maximize tissue yield.

Future directions in EUS-guided tissue acquisition

Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration is considered the technique of choice for acquisition of tissue in and around the digestive tract. The emergence of selective, targeted therapies, directed toward a particular molecular characteristic of an individual patient's tumor is driving the need for biomarker identification and testing in several cancer types. The technique needs improvement to provide more material, in fewer passes, with more flexible, sharp, and clearly echovisible needles, and with a similar safety. Another trend is the avoidance of tissue acquisition, or a more targeted puncture with the help of ancillary techniques, such as optical biopsies with needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy, contrast-enhanced ultrasonography, and elastography.

The role of K-ras gene mutation analysis in EUS-guided FNA cytology specimens for the differential diagnosis of pancreatic solid masses: a meta-analysis of prospective studies

BACKGROUND

Differential diagnosis of pancreatic solid masses with EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) is still challenging in about 15% of cases. Mutation of the K-ras gene is present in over 75% of pancreatic adenocarcinomas (PADC).

OBJECTIVE

To assess the accuracy of K-ras gene mutation analysis for diagnosing PADC.

DESIGN

We systematically searched the electronic databases for relevant studies published. Data from selected studies underwent meta-analysis by use of a bivariate model providing a pooled value for sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, and summary receiver operating characteristic curve.

SETTING

Meta-analysis of 8 prospective studies.

PATIENTS

Total of 931 patients undergoing EUS-FNA for diagnosis of pancreatic solid masses.

INTERVENTION

K-ras mutation analysis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Diagnostic accuracy of K-ras mutation analysis and of combined diagnostic strategy by using EUS-FNA and K-ras mutation analysis in the diagnosis of PADC.

RESULTS

The pooled sensitivity of EUS-FNA for the differential diagnosis of PADC was 80.6%, and the specificity was 97%. Estimated sensitivity and specificity were 76.8% and 93.3% for K-ras gene analysis, respectively, and 88.7% and 92% for combined EUS-FNA plus K-ras mutation analysis. Overall, K-ras mutation testing applied to cases that were inconclusive by EUS-FNA reduced the false-negative rate by 55.6%, with a false-positive rate of 10.7%. Not repeating EUS-FNA in cases in which mutation testing of the K-ras gene is inconclusive would reduce the repeat-biopsy rate from 12.5% to 6.8%.

LIMITATIONS

Small number of studies and between-study heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

K-ras mutation analysis can be useful in the diagnostic work-up of pancreatic masses, in particular when tissue obtained by EUS-FNA is insufficient, and the diagnosis inconclusive.

Prognostic value of K-ras mutation status and subtypes in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration specimens from patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Although recent reports indicate that K-ras mutation status is a biomarker that acts as a prognostic factor, only a few analyses of K-ras mutation subtypes have been published. In addition, there are no reports that analyze overall survival and prognostic factors according to K-ras mutation status and subtypes in only unresectable pancreatic cancer (PC) determined from tissues obtained by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 242 patients who were diagnosed as having unresectable PC with available histological diagnosis. Clinical data collected included sex, age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9, primary tumor location, stage (local or metastatic) according to TNM staging, first-line chemotherapy, K-ras mutation status and subtypes (G12D, G12V, and G12R), and overall survival. We analyzed the negative prognostic factors for reduced overall survival in unresectable PC patients using these data.

RESULTS

From multivariate analysis, CA19-9 ≥1000 U/ml (hazard ratio [HR] 1.78, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.28-2.46, P < 0.01), metastatic stage (HR 2.26, 95 % CI 1.58-3.24, P < 0.01), and mutant-K-ras (HR 1.76, 95 % CI 1.03-3.01, P = 0.04) were negative prognostic factors, indicating a reduced survival. Among the patients who had K-ras mutation subtypes, CA19-9 ≥1000 U/ml (HR 1.65, 95 % CI 1.12-2.37, P < 0.01), metastatic stage (HR 2.12, 95 % CI 1.44-3.14, P < 0.01), and the presence of the G12D or G12R mutations (HR 1.60, 95 % CI 1.11-2.28) were negative prognostic factors for overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

K-ras mutation status and subtypes may be associated with survival duration in pancreatic cancer patients.

Multiple metastatic leiomyosarcoma of the pancreas: a first case report and review of the literature

A 60-year-old woman was referred to our hospital with swelling of the right leg. After surgery, leiomyosarcoma of the right leg was diagnosed. Computed tomography showed two hypovascular masses in the pancreatic body and tail that were heterogeneously enhanced compared with the pancreatic parenchyma. On endoscopic ultrasonography, the tumors in the pancreatic body and tail both exhibited regular margins and were visualized as well-circumscribed masses with uneven interiors. Distal pancreatectomy was performed under a presumptive diagnosis of metastatic pancreatic leiomyosarcoma diagnosed based on the findings of EUS-FNA. On laparotomy, peritoneal washing cytology yielded negative results, and no dissemination was observed. Ultimately, metastatic pancreatic leiomyosarcoma was histologically diagnosed.