EUS-guided tissue sampling: comparison of "dual sampling" (Trucut biopsy plus FNA) with "sequential sampling" (Trucut biopsy and then FNA as required)

UK and Ireland Joint Advisory Group (JAG) consensus statements for training and certification in diagnostic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

International endoscopy societies vary in their approach for credentialing individuals in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) to enable independent practice; however, there is no consensus in this or its implementation. In 2019, the Joint Advisory Group on GI Endoscopy (JAG) commissioned a working group to examine the evidence relating to this process for EUS. The aim of this was to develop evidence-based recommendations for EUS training and certification in the UK.

METHODS

Under the oversight of the JAG quality assurance team, a modified Delphi process was conducted which included major stakeholders from the UK and Ireland. A formal literature review was made, initial questions for study were proposed and recommendations for training and certification in EUS were formulated after a rigorous assessment using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool and subjected to electronic voting to identify accepted statements. These were peer reviewed by JAG and relevant stakeholder societies before consensus on the final EUS certification pathway was achieved.

RESULTS

39 initial questions were proposed of which 33 were deemed worthy of assessment and finally formed the key recommendations. The statements covered four key domains, such as: definition of competence (13 statements), acquisition of competence (10), assessment of competence (5) and postcertification mentorship (5). Key recommendations include: (1) minimum of 250 hands-on cases before an assessment for competency can be made, (2) attendance at the JAG basic EUS course, (3) completing a minimum of one formative direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS) every 10 cases to allow the learning curve in EUS training to be adequately studied, (4) competent performance in summative DOPS assessments and (5) a period of mentorship over a 12-month period is recommended as minimum to support and mentor new service providers.

CONCLUSIONS

An evidence-based certification pathway has been commissioned by JAG to support and quality assure EUS training. This will form the basis to improve quality of training and safety standards in EUS in the UK and Ireland.

Diagnostic value of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration with rapid on-site evaluation performed by endoscopists in solid pancreatic lesions: A prospective, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the most established diagnostic method for pancreatic tissue. Rapid on-site evaluation by a trained endoscopist (self-ROSE) can improve the diagnostic accuracy. This research is aimed to analyze the application value of self-ROSE for EUS-FNA in solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

A total of 194 consecutive patients with solid pancreatic lesions in Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to EUS-FNA with or without self-ROSE in this single-center randomized controlled trial. Before initiating self-ROSE, the endoscopist underwent training for pancreatic cytologic sample adequacy assessment and cytopathological diagnosis of EUS-FNA in pathology department for 1 month. Some parts of the slides of EUS-FNA were air dried, stained on-site with BASO Liu's reagent, and on-site evaluated in self-ROSE group. Between the two groups, the diagnostic performance of EUS-FNA was analyzed, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy, with a comparison of the number of needle passes and the complication rates.

RESULTS

The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 94.8%, 94.4%, 100%, 100%, and 58.3% in the self-ROSE group, respectively, and 70.1%, 65.1%, 100%, 100%, and 32.6% in the non-self-ROSE group. The diagnostic accuracy (P < 0.001) and sensitivity (P < 0.001) were both significantly increased during EUS-FNA in the self-ROSE group compared to the non-self-ROSE group. The rate of cytologic sample adequacy was 100% in self-ROSE group and 80.4% in non-self-ROSE group. The number of passes were 3.38 ± 1.00 in self-ROSE group and 3.22 ± 0.89 in non-self-ROSE group (P = 0.228). No complications were found in both. There was acceptable consistency between endoscopist and pathologist in the cytopathological diagnosis (kappa = 0.666, P < 0.05) and in the sample adequacy rate (kappa = 1.000, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrated that self-ROSE is valuable for EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions and is an important choice to routinely increase the accuracy of EUS-FNA in centers without ROSE assessment.

Comparison of the reverse bevel versus Franseen type endoscopic ultrasound needle

BACKGROUND

Reverse bevel (RB) needle is widely used for endoscopic ultrasound fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). A 3-plane symmetrical needle with Franseen geometry (FG) has recently become available.

AIM

To compare the clinical efficacy of FG to that of RB needle.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of all adult patients who underwent EUS-FNB for solid and mixed lesions either with 22G RB needle or 22G FG needle between January 2016 and February 2019 was undertaken. All cytology slides were reviewed by an independent gastrointestinal cytopathologist blinded to the needle used and the initial cytology report. The primary and secondary outcomes were to assess the sample adequacy using Euro-cytology criteria and the number of cell clusters, respectively.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twenty six procedures were included in the study. RB needle was used in 128 procedures and FG needle in 98 procedures. The baseline characteristics of both groups were comparable. On multivariable analysis, FG needle (P = 0.02) and location of the lesion (P < 0.01) were independently associated with adequate tissue. Further, the use of FG needle (P = 0.04) and the size of the lesion (P = 0.02) were independently associated with acquisition of increased number of cell clusters.

CONCLUSION

FG needle is superior to RB needle in acquiring adequate tissue and attaining higher number of cell clusters for solid and mixed lesions.

EUS-guided tissue acquisition in chronic pancreatitis: Differential diagnosis between pancreatic cancer and pseudotumoral masses using EUS-FNA or core biopsy

Background and Objective:

EUS-FNA sensitivity for malignancy in parenchymal masses of patients with concurrent chronic pancreatitis (CP) has been reported to be unsatisfactory. The aim of the present study was to directly compare the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA and EUS-fine-needle biopsy (FNB) in differentiating between inflammatory masses and malignancies in the setting of CP.

Methods:

We performed a retrospective analysis of prospective, multicentric databases of all patients with pancreatic masses and clinico-radiological-endosonographic features of CP who underwent EUS-FNA or FNB.

Results:

Among 1124 patients with CP, 210 patients (60% males, mean age: 62.7 years) with CP and pancreatic masses met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled. In the FNA group (110 patients), a correct diagnosis was obtained in all but 18 cases (diagnostic accuracy 83.6%, sensitivity 69.5%, specificity 100%, positive predictive value [PPV] 100%, and negative predictive value [NPV] 73.9%); by contrast, among 100 patients undergoing FNB, a correct diagnosis was obtained in all but seven cases (diagnostic accuracy 93%, sensitivity 86.8%, specificity 100%, PPV 100%, and NPV 87%) (P = 0.03, 0.03, 1, 1, and 0.07, respectively). At binary logistic regression, focal pancreatitis (odds of event occurrence [OR]: 4.9; P < 0.001), higher Ca19-9 (OR: 2.3; P = 0.02), and FNB (OR: 2.5; P < 0.01) were the only independent factors associated with a correct diagnosis.

Conclusion:

EUS-FNB is effective in the differential diagnosis between pseudotumoral masses and solid neoplasms in CP, showing higher diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity than EUS-FNA. EUS-FNB should be considered the preferred diagnostic technique for diagnosing cancer in the setting of CP.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration vs fine-needle biopsy for the diagnosis of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) as a method of obtaining preoperative diagnosis of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs) has been reported in several series. Fine-needle biopsies (FNB) are increasingly employed to obtain core specimens during EUS. However, the differences in efficacy between these sampling methods in the diagnosis of PanNETs still needs to be defined. Patients and methods  Over a 13-year period, all patients who underwent EUS-guided tissue sampling of suspicious pancreatic lesions with clinical, endoscopic and pathologic details were entered into an electronic database. Lesions underwent EUS-FNA or FNB sampling, or a combination of the two. The accuracy and safety of different EUS-guided sampling methods for confirmed PanNETs were investigated. Results  A total of 91 patients (M/F: 42/49, median age: 57 years), who underwent 102 EUS procedures had a final diagnosis of PanNET. Both EUS-guided sampling modalities were used in 28 procedures, EUS-FNA alone was used in 61 cases, while EUS-FNB alone in 13 cases. Diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB alone, including the inadequate specimens, was 77.5 % (95 %CI: 68.9 - 86.2 %) and 85.4 % (95 %CI: 74.6 - 96.2 %), respectively. The combination of both sampling modalities established the diagnosis in 96.4 % of cases (27/28) (95 %CI: 89.6 - 100 %), significantly superior to EUS-FNA alone ( P  = 0.023). Diagnostic sensitivity among the adequate samples for EUS-FNA, EUS-FNB and for the combination of the two methods was 88.4 % (95 %CI: 80.9 - 96.0 %), 94.3 % (95 %CI: 86.6 - 100 %) and 100 % (95 %CI: 100 - 100 %). There was one reported complication, a post-FNA bleeding, treated conservatively. Conclusions  EUS-FNB improves diagnostic sensitivity and confers additional information to cytological assessment of PanNETs.

Recent advancement in EUS-guided fine needle sampling

EUS-guided tissue acquisition technique plays an essential role for evaluation of gastrointestinal tumors. Several components affect the yield of EUS-guided tissue acquisition outcomes such as sampling techniques, use of ROSE (rapid onsite evaluation), training and experience, and needle designs. In this review we discuss advancement in EUS-guided fine needle sampling.

Performance measures for ERCP and endoscopic ultrasound: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key and one minor performance measures for EUS and ERCP, for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at center and endoscopist level: 1: Adequate antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP (key performance measure, at least 90 %); 2: Antibiotic prophylaxis before EUS-guided puncture of cystic lesions (key performance measure, at least 95 %); 3: Bile duct cannulation rate (key performance measure, at least 90 %); 4: Tissue sampling during EUS (key performance measure, at least 85 %); 5: Appropriate stent placement in patients with biliary obstruction below the hilum (key performance measure, at least 95 %); 6: Bile duct stone extraction (key performance measure, at least 90 %); 7: Post-ERCP pancreatitis (key performance measure, less than 10 %). 8: Adequate documentation of EUS landmarks (minor performance measure, at least 90 %).This present list of quality performance measures for ERCP and EUS recommended by ESGE should not be considered to be exhaustive: it might be extended in future to address further clinical and scientific issues.

Performance measures for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound: A European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key and one minor performance measures for EUS and ERCP, for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at centre and endoscopist level: 1 Adequate antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP (key performance measure, at least 90%); 2 antibiotic prophylaxis before EUS-guided puncture of cystic lesions (key performance measure, at least 95%); 3 bile duct cannulation rate (key performance measure, at least 90%); 4 tissue sampling during EUS (key performance measure, at least 85%); 5 appropriate stent placement in patients with biliary obstruction below the hilum (key performance measure, at least 95%); 6 bile duct stone extraction (key performance measure, at least 90%); 7 post-ERCP pancreatitis (key performance measure, less than 10%); and 8 adequate documentation of EUS landmarks (minor performance measure, at least 90%). This present list of quality performance measures for ERCP and EUS recommended by the ESGE should not be considered to be exhaustive; it might be extended in future to address further clinical and scientific issues.

Pathological and Molecular Aspects to Improve Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration From Solid Pancreatic Lesions

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has been applied to pancreatic lesions since the 1990s, and its use is now widespread. Improvements in endoscopic devices and sampling techniques have resulted in excellent diagnostic ability for solid pancreatic lesions. However, clinical improvements alone are not responsible for it; pathological aspects have also played important roles. Rapid on-site evaluation minimizes endoscopic procedures, although its value at improving the diagnostic ratio is still debated. Diagnostic efficacy differs by sample preparations (direct smear, cytospin, liquid-based cytology, cell block, and biopsy) and by staining methods (Papanicoloau, Diff-Quik, hematoxylin-eosin, and Giemsa). Several immunocytochemistry protocols aid in diagnosing epithelial components with cytological atypia and in differentiating various tumor types. One cytopathology diagnostic system is telecytology, which uses transmitted digital images and enables real-time diagnosis of EUS-FNA samples by expert cytologists at remote locations. However, EUS-FNA samples are useful for more than just diagnoses, as molecular analysis of these samples allows the identification of prognostic markers, such as genetic alterations in K-ras and EGFR. Expression of drug-metabolizing enzymes, human equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1, correlates with the response to gemcitabine-based chemotherapy. These pathology efforts have enhanced the diagnostic efficacy of EUS-FNA, thereby leading to better outcomes for patients with pancreatic diseases.

EUS-FNA using 22G nitinol or ProCore needles without on-site cytopathology

Objectives

The project is aimed to compare the tissue sampling rate and the diagnostic accuracy rate of EUS-FNA using 22G nitinol and reverse bevel-tipped needles.

Subjects and Methods

This was a prospective, randomized, crossover study in a tertiary academic hospital. All consecutive adult patients undergoing EUS-guided FNA for lesions > 2 cm were recruited. Patients fulfilling the inclusion and exclusion criteria underwent EUS-guided FNA using both needles in sequence. They were randomized on a 1:1 basis to determine whether EUS-FNA would be performed first using the 22G reverse bevel-tipped (ProCore) needle followed by the nitinol needle or vice versa. The patients and the pathologists were blinded to the type of needle used.

Results

Forty patients with suspected malignant neoplasms were recruited to the study. No significant differences were found in the diagnostic yield (76.9% vs. 84.6%, P = 0.389), accuracy (71.8% vs. 84.6%, P = 0.170), sensitivity (77.8% vs. 86.1%, P = 0.358), specificity (100% vs. 100%, P = 1), positive predictive value (100% vs. 100%, P = 1), and negative predictive value (20.0% vs. 28.6%, P = 1). The percentage of obtained tissue for histological assessment was also similar (41.0% vs. 46.2%, P = 0.648). In terms of the quantity of tissue obtained with the needles, a larger proportion of patients in the nitinol group obtained more tissue for assessment (P = 0.003).

Conclusion

The tissue-sampling rate and the diagnostic accuracy of the new 22G ProCore needle were comparable to the conventional 22G FNA needle in the absence of an on-site cytopathologist.

22G versus 25G biopsy needles for EUS-guided tissue sampling of solid pancreatic masses: a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

No comparative study of 22-gauge biopsy needles (PC22) and 25-gauge biopsy needles (PC25) has been conducted. We prospectively compared the diagnostic accuracy of PC22 and PC25 in patients with pancreatic and peripancreatic solid masses.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized noninferiority clinical study from January 2013 to May 2014 at Samsung Medical Center. A cytological and histological specimen of each pass was analyzed separately by an experienced pathologist. The primary outcome was to assess the diagnostic accuracy using the PC22 or PC25. Secondary outcomes included the optimal number of passes for adequate diagnosis, core specimen yield, sample adequacy, and complication rates.

RESULTS

Diagnostic accuracy of combining cytology with histology in three cumulative passes was 97.1% (100/103) for the PC22 and 91.3% (94/103) for the PC25 group. Thus, noninferiority of PC25 to PC22 was not shown with a 10% noninferiority margin (difference, -5.8%; 95% CI, -12.1 to -0.5%). In a pairwise comparison with each needle type, two passes was non-inferior to three passes in the PC22 (96.1% vs. 97.1%; difference, -0.97%; 95% CI -6.63 to 4.69%) but noninferiority of two passes to three passes was not shown in the PC25 group (87.4% vs. 91.3%; difference, -3.88%; 95% CI, -13.5 to 5.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Non-inferiority of PC25 to PC22 diagnostic accuracy was not observed for solid pancreatic or peripancreatic masses without on-site cytology. PC22 may be a more ideal device because only two PC22 needle passes was sufficient to establish an adequate diagnosis, whereas PC25 required three or more needle passes.

Primary pancreatic lymphoma: what we need to know

Hodgkin's lymphoma is a group of malignant lymphoid which involve various organs including gastrointestinal tract. Stomach and small intestine are commonly involved more; however, pancreas can be primarily involved as well. The secondary involvement of pancreas caused by Hodgkin's lymphoma is more prevalent than the primarily involvement (1 .25-2.2% vs. <1%). Primary pancreatic lymphomas (PPLs) consist of 1-2% of all lymphoma outside nods. The symptoms and findings of PPL imaging can be akin to that of pancreas adenocarcinoma and differentiating them is difficult without examining the tissue sample. The prognosis and treatment of PPL are different from those of adenocarcinoma and due to the superior prognosis of PPL compared to pancreas adenocarcinoma, the proper diagnosis of the disease is important.

Comparison of the diagnostic performance of 2 core biopsy needles for EUS-guided tissue acquisition from solid pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

A new core biopsy needle with a novel tip, opposing bevel, and sheath design has recently been introduced for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB). The diagnostic utility of this needle for differentiating solid pancreatic masses is currently unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance and yield for tissue acquisition from solid pancreatic lesions of the opposing bevel needle with those of a reverse bevel EUS-FNB needle.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with solid pancreatic masses undergoing EUS-FNB using the opposing bevel (n = 101) and the reverse bevel (n = 100) core biopsy needles were included in the study. Final diagnosis was based on positive histology or at least 12 months of follow-up in cases with a negative biopsy. The primary outcome was the diagnostic performance of the 2 needles for malignant pancreatic masses. A secondary outcome was the diagnostic yield.

RESULTS

Compared with the reverse bevel needle, using strict criteria the opposing bevel needle provided significantly higher sensitivity (71.1% vs 90.1%; P = .0006) and overall accuracy (74% vs 92%; I = 0.0006) for discriminating malignant from benign solid pancreatic masses. The proportion of samples classified as adequate for histologic analysis was 87% for the reverse bevel needle versus 99% for the opposing bevel needle (p = 0.002) Multivariate analysis controlling the needle gauge and site did not show any significant difference in accuracy and sensitivity between the 2 groups. There were no adverse events in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

In this first, large, single-center preliminary cohort study, an EUS core biopsy needle with a novel tip, opposing bevel, and sheath design afforded substantially superior tissue yield and diagnostic performance compared with a reverse-bevel needle. If replicated by randomized controlled trials, our findings suggest that similarly designed needles could become the standard of care for EUS-guided tissue acquisition from solid pancreatic masses.

Is there a difference between 19G core biopsy needle and 22G core biopsy needle in diagnosing the correct etiology? - A meta-analysis and systematic review

AIM

To compare the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) 19G core biopsies and 22G core biopsies in diagnosing the correct etiology for a solid mass.

METHODS

Articles were searched in Medline, PubMed, and Ovid journals. Pooling was conducted by both fixed and random effects models.

RESULTS

Initial search identified 4460 reference articles for 19G and 22G, of these 670 relevant articles were selected and reviewed. Data was extracted from 6 studies for 19G (n = 289) and 16 studies for 22G (n = 592) which met the inclusion criteria. EUS 19G core biopsies had a pooled sensitivity of 91.6% (95%CI: 87.1-95.0) and pooled specificity of 95.9% (95%CI: 88.6-99.2), whereas EUS 22G had a pooled sensitivity of 83.3% (95%CI: 79.7-86.6) and pooled specificity of 64.3% (95%CI: 54.7-73.1). The positive likelihood ratio of EUS 19G core biopsies was 9.08 (95%CI: 1.12-73.66) and EUS 22G core biopsies was 1.99 (95%CI: 1.09-3.66). The negative likelihood ratio of EUS 19G core biopsies was 0.12 (95%CI: 0.07-0.24) and EUS 22G core biopsies was 0.25 (95%CI: 0.14-0.41). The diagnostic odds ratio was 84.74 (95%CI: 18.31-392.26) for 19G core biopsies and 10.55 (95% CI: 3.29-33.87) for 22G needles.

CONCLUSION

EUS 19G core biopsies have an excellent diagnostic value and seem to be better than EUS 22G biopsies in detecting the correct etiology for a solid mass.

EUS-guided fine needle biopsy sampling using a novel fork-tip needle: a case-control study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (FNB) sampling and FNA are important methods for obtaining core tissues and cytologic aspirates. To improve the specimen quality for pathologic evaluation, a novel EUS-FNB Shark Core (SC) needle has been designed to acquire core tissue during EUS procedures. We compared the histology yield of EUS-FNB sampling using the SC needle (EUS-FNB-SC) to EUS-FNA in patients who had solid pancreatic and nonpancreatic lesions.

METHODS

This was a retrospective case-control study design. Between July 2012 and July 2015 all patients who had EUS-FNB-SC and EUS-FNA were reviewed through a hospital EUS database. Consecutive samples from EUS-FNB-SCs were matched in a 1:3 ratio by lesion site (eg, pancreatic head) and needle gauge (ie, 19 gauge, 22 gauge, 25 gauge) to recent random samples of EUS-FNA. The procedures were performed with rapid onsite evaluation. For study purposes specimen slides were evaluated by 2 cytopathologists for histologic yield using a standard scoring system (0 = no material, 1-2 = cytologic, 3-5 = histologic). The main objectives were to assess the histologic yield of the samples and compare the median number of passes required to obtain core tissue by using EUS-FNB-SC and EUS-FNA needles.

RESULTS

Of the 156 patients included in study, 25% patients (n = 39) were in the EUS-FNB-SC group and 75% (n = 117) in the EUS-FNA group. According to standard scoring criteria for histology, the median histology score for EUS-FNA was 2 (sufficient for cytology but not histology) and for EUS-FNB-SC was 4 (sufficient for adequate histology). Ninety-five percent of the specimens obtained from the EUS-FNB-SC group were of sufficient size for histologic screening, compared with 59% from the EUS-FNA group (P = .01). The median number of passes required to achieve a sample was significantly lower in the EUS-FNB-SC group compared with the EUS-FNA group (2 passes vs 4 passes, P = .001). There was significant difference in the median number of passes to all lesion sites and needle gauges.

CONCLUSIONS

The histology yield was significantly higher using the EUS-FNB-SC needle compared with the EUS-FNA needle. Additionally, fewer passes were required to obtain histology cores when using EUS-FNB-SC.

Initial experience with a novel EUS-guided core biopsy needle (SharkCore): results of a large North American multicenter study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The ability to safely and effectively obtain sufficient tissue for pathologic evaluation by using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guidance remains a challenge. Novel designs in EUS needles may provide for improved ability to obtain such core biopsies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of core biopsy specimens obtained using a novel EUS needle specifically designed to obtain core biopsies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Multicenter retrospective review of all EUS-guided fine-needle biopsies obtained using a novel biopsy needle (SharkCore FNB needle, Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland). Data regarding patient demographics, lesion type/location, technical parameters, and diagnostic yield was obtained.

RESULTS

A total of 250 lesions were biopsied in 226 patients (Median age 66 years; 113 (50 %) male). Median size of all lesions (mm): 26 (2 - 150). Overall, a cytologic diagnosis was rendered in 81 % specimens with a median number of 3 passes. When rapid onsite cytologic evaluation (ROSE) was used, cytologic diagnostic yield was 126/149 (85 %) with a median number of 3 passes; without ROSE, cytologic diagnostic yield was 31/45 (69 %, P = 0.03) with a median number of 3 passes. Overall, a pathologic diagnosis was rendered in 130/147 (88 %) specimens with a median number of 2 passes. Pathologic diagnostic yield for specific lesion types: pancreas 70/81 (86 %), subepithelial lesion 13/15 (87 %), lymph node 26/28 (93 %). Ten patients (10/226, 4 %) experienced adverse events: 4 acute pancreatitis, 5 pain, 1 fever/cholangitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial experience with a novel EUS core biopsy needle demonstrates excellent pathologic diagnostic yield with a minimum number of passes.

An expanded training program for endosonographers improved self-diagnosed accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology of the pancreas

OBJECTIVE

Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) of cytologic adequacy improves the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). However, on-site advice from a cytotechnologist or cytopathologist is not always available during EUS-FNA. To enhance endosonographers' ability to assess the adequacy of EUS-FNA specimens, we designed an intensive, 2-h interactive training program. The aim of this study was to determine the usefulness of the program.

METHODS

Four cytological pictures were selected by a trained cytotechnologist and board-certified cytopathologist from each of the seven patients who underwent EUS-FNA for pancreatic mass in Okayama University Hospital. In total, 28 pictures were used in this study. Twenty endosonographers and 14 cytologists with different levels of EUS-FNA experience evaluated cytological pictures independently before and after the training program.

RESULTS

Endosonographers' skill in evaluating the adequacy of EUS-FNA specimens was significantly improved after the completion of the training program (p < 0.001). In contrast, almost all cytologists correctly judged the adequacy of the specimens before taking the training program.

CONCLUSIONS

This intensive, 2-h interactive training program is useful for endosonographers and capable of improving ROSE of EUS-FNA specimens.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration: How to obtain a core biopsy?

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration has emerged as the procedure of choice to obtain samples to reach a definitive diagnosis of lesions of the gastrointestinal tract and of adjacent organs. The obtainment of a tissue core biopsy presents several advantages that can substantially contribute to the widespread diffusion of EUS utilization in the community and in countries where cytology expertise may be difficult to be achieved. This article will review the EUS-guided fine needle biopsy techniques developed so far, the clinical results, their limitations as well as their future perspective.

Comparison of 22-gauge aspiration needle with 22-gauge biopsy needle in endoscopic ultrasonography-guided subepithelial tumor sampling

OBJECTIVE. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) may facilitate tissue sampling for histopathological diagnosis of subepithelial tumors (SETs) in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. However, immunohistochemistry is not always feasible using EUS-FNA samples due to the low quality of specimens often obtained by aspiration. This study aimed to compare the use of 22-gauge (G) EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) with 22G EUS-FNA for core sampling used for histopathological examination, including immunohistochemistry, in patients with GI SETs. METHODS. Twenty-eight patients with GI SETs ≥2 cm in size were prospectively enrolled at five university hospitals in Korea between January and June 2013. They were randomized to undergo either EUS-FNB or EUS-FNA. RESULTS. A total of 22 patients was finally analyzed in this study: 10 and 12 patients underwent EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB, respectively. Compared to the EUS-FNA group, the EUS-FNB group had a significantly lower median number of needle passes to obtain macroscopically optimal core samples (4 vs. 2, p = 0.025); higher yield rates of macroscopically and histologically optimal core samples with three needle passes (30% vs. 92%, p = 0.006; 20% vs. 75%, p = 0.010, respectively); and a higher diagnostic sufficiency rate (20% vs. 75%, p = 0.010). No technical difficulties were encountered in either group. CONCLUSIONS. This study shows that EUS-FNB has a better ability to obtain histological core samples and a higher diagnostic sufficiency rate than EUS-FNA and that EUS-FNB is a feasible, safe, and preferable modality for adequate core sampling for histopathological diagnosis of GI SETs.

Clinical approach to the patient with a solid pancreatic mass

Diagnosis and clinical work-up of a solid pancreatic mass is a challenging problem. Patients' history, laboratory parameters, computed tomography magnetic resonance imaging, and endosonography are the cornerstones in diagnosis. Biopsy is indicated in selected patients. The main goal of surgical indication is to select patients with suspected malignancy who are resectable, but avoid unnecessary resections. About 5 % of patients resected due to suspicion of malignancy finally present with a benign histology. Autoimmune pancreatitis is the most frequent cause of such unnecessary resections.

Complication rate of endosonography (endobronchial and endoscopic ultrasound): a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Endosonography [endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration and endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS)-guided transbronchial needle aspiration] is increasingly used for lung cancer staging and the assessment of sarcoidosis. Serious adverse events (SAE) have been reported in case reports, but the true incidence of complications is yet unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the rate of SAE related to endosonography and to investigate associated risk factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane libraries were searched for eligible references up to April 2012 and these included studies reporting on linear EUS or EBUS for the analysis of mediastinal/hilar nodal or central intrapulmonary lesions. Case series describing complications were excluded. Reported complications were classified into SAE or minor adverse events (AE).

RESULTS

190 studies met the inclusion criteria. Information on follow-up was missing in half of the studies. In 16,181 patients, 23 SAE (0.14%) and 35 AE (0.22%) were reported. No mortality was observed. SAE were more frequent in patients investigated with EUS (0.30%) than in those investigated with EBUS (0.05%). Infectious SAE were most prevalent (0.07%) and predominantly occurred in patients with cystic lesions and sarcoidosis. In lung cancer patients, complications were rare.

DISCUSSION

Endosonography for intrathoracic nodal assessment seems safe for lung cancer patients and mortality has not been reported. For cystic lesions and sarcoidosis, there may be a small, but nonnegligible risk of infectious complications. The true incidence of SAE might be higher as accurate documentation of complications is missing in most studies.

Beyond cytology: why and when does the oncologist require core tissue?

There are 2 main reasons why oncologists may require additional tissue and a histologic section in addition to cytopathology from FNA specimens: improved diagnostic accuracy and molecular characterization of tumors. Rather than mutually exclusive diagnostic procedures, EUS-FNA and EUS-CNB must be viewed as supplementary techniques and both approaches should be incorporated as essential tools in the current endoscopic armamentarium.

Techniques for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy

Although endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the method of choice to obtain samples to reach definitive diagnosis of lesions of the gastrointestinal tract and of adjacent organs, it cannot fully characterize certain neoplasms. The lack of cytology expertise has hindered the dissemination of EUS, limiting its widespread use. The obtainment of a tissue specimen through EUS fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) may overcome the limitations of EUS-FNA. EUS-FNB is expected to move the practice of EUS from cytology to histology, expanding the use of EUS and facilitating targeted therapies and monitoring of treatment response in a more biologically driven manner.

Technical Advances in Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-Guided Tissue Acquisition for Pancreatic Cancers: How Can We Get the Best Results with EUS-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration?

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is one of the least invasive and most effective modality in diagnosing pancreatic adenocarcinoma in solid pancreatic lesions, with a higher diagnostic accuracy than cystic tumors. EUS-FNA has been shown to detect tumors less than 3 mm, due to high spatial resolution allowing the detection of very small lesions and vascular invasion, particularly in the pancreatic head and neck, which may not be detected on transverse computed tomography. Furthermore, this minimally invasive procedure is often ideal in the endoscopic procurement of tissue in patients with unresectable tumors. While EUS-FNA has been increasingly used as a diagnostic tool, most studies have collectively looked at all primary pancreatic solid lesions, including lymphomas and pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms, whereas very few studies have examined the diagnostic utility of EUS-FNA of pancreatic ductal carcinoma only. As with any novel and advanced endoscopic procedure that may incorporate several practices and approaches, endoscopists have adopted diverse techniques to improve the tissue procurement practice and increase diagnostic accuracy. In this article, we present a review of literature to date and discuss currently practiced EUS-FNA technique, including indications, technical details, equipment, patient selection, and diagnostic accuracy.

The presence of a cytopathologist increases the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration cytology for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

A meta-analysis has not been previously performed to evaluate critically the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of solely pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and address factors that have an impact on variability of accuracy. The aim of this study was to determine whether the presence of a cytopathologist, variability of the reference standard and other sources of heterogeneity significantly impacts diagnostic accuracy.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search to identify studies, in which the pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios for a positive or negative test (LR+, LR-) and summary receiver-operating curves (SROC) could be determined for EUS-FNA of the pancreas for ductal adenocarcinoma using clinical follow-up, and/or surgical biopsy or excision as the reference standard.

RESULTS

We included 34 distinct studies (3644 patients) in which EUS-FNA for a solid pancreatic mass was evaluated. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for EUS-FNA for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma was 88.6% [95% confidence interval (CI): 87.2-89.9] and 99.3% (95% CI: 98.7-99.7), respectively. The LR+ and LR- were 33.46 (95% CI: 20.76-53.91) and 0.11 (95% CI: 0.08-0.16), respectively. The meta-regression model showed rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) (P = 0.001) remained a significant determinant of EUS-FNA accuracy after correcting for study population number and reference standard.

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNA is an effective modality for diagnosing pancreatic ductal adencarcinoma in solid pancreatic lesions, with an increased diagnostic accuracy when using on-site cytopathology evaluation.

A prospective, comparative trial to optimize sampling techniques in EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses

BACKGROUND

There is no standardization of the use of suction during puncturing of a target in pancreatic EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA). It is also debatable whether expressing aspirates from the needle by the traditional method of reinserting the stylet is more effective than by air flushing, which is easier and safer.

OBJECTIVE

To optimize sampling techniques in pancreatic EUS-FNA.

DESIGN

Prospective, comparative trial.

SETTING

Tertiary-care referral center.

PATIENTS

Eighty-one consecutive patients with solid pancreatic masses.

INTERVENTION

Four punctures were performed for each mass in random order by a 2 × 2 factorial design. Sample quality and diagnostic yield were compared between samples with suction (S+) versus no suction (S-) and expressed by reinserting the stylet (RS) versus air flushing (AF).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Sample quality by the number of diagnostic samples, cellularity, bloodiness, and air-drying artifact; diagnostic yield by accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity.

RESULTS

The number of diagnostic samples (72.8% vs 58.6%; P = .001), cellularity (odds ratio [OR] 2.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37-3.30; P < .001), bloodiness (OR 1.46; CI, 1.28-1.68; P < .001), accuracy (85.2% vs 75.9%; P = .004), and sensitivity (82.4% vs 72.1%; P = .005) were higher in S+ than in S-. Bloodiness was lower in AF than in RS (OR 1.16; CI, 1.03-1.30; P = .017).

LIMITATIONS

Single-center trial, 2 kinds of needle gauges, and no immediate cytopathology evaluation.

CONCLUSION

Puncturing with suction and expressing by air flushing may be used preferentially in pancreatic EUS-FNA because they were more effective and convenient techniques. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01354795.).

Rapid on-site evaluation by endosonographer during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for pancreatic solid masses

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is an established diagnostic method for patients with suspected pancreatic ductal carcinoma. Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) has been reported to improve the accuracy. However, an on-site cytopathologist is not routinely available in many institutions. One of the solutions may be ROSE by endosonographer. The aim was to examine whether diagnostic accuracy increases through ROSE by endosonographer using our cytological criteria.

METHODS

Patients who underwent EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic masses from January 2006 to August 2009 (n = 53, period 1) and September 2009 to April 2011 (n = 85, period 2) were retrospectively identified. Before initiating ROSE at the start of period 2, two endosonographers underwent training for cytological interpretation, which was focused on four cytological features of pancreatic ductal carcinoma: anisonucleosis, nuclear membrane irregularity, overlapping, and enlargement. During EUS-FNA in period 2, endosonographers classified the Diff-Quik smears under three atypical grades and evaluated the adequacy. All diagnoses were made by one pathologist without knowledge of clinical information.

RESULTS

The rate of "inconclusive" diagnoses, interpreted as "suspicious," "atypical," and "inadequate for diagnosis" was reduced from 26.4% in period 1 to 8.2% in period 2 (P = 0.004). Moreover, diagnostic accuracy was increased from 69.2% in period 1 to 91.8% in period 2 (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This cytological grading system used in ROSE by endosonographers is invaluable for the diagnosis of pancreatic solid masses.

Rapid on-site evaluation increases endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration adequacy for pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND

Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) has the potential to improve adequacy rates and affect other outcomes; however, there have been few comparative studies to assess the impact of ROSE in the setting of ultrasound-guided endoscopic fine-needle aspiration cytology for pancreatic lesions.

AIMS

To determine whether ROSE improves adequacy rates of endoscopic fine-needle aspiration cytology for pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting a head-to-head comparison of adequacy or diagnostic accuracy (with ROSE vs. without ROSE) at a single site.

RESULTS

ROSE was associated with a statistically significant (p < 0.001) improvement in the adequacy rate (average 10 %, 95 % CI: 5-24 %). The impact of ROSE depends on the per-pass adequacy rate without ROSE. ROSE had no impact on diagnostic yield (p < 0.76).

CONCLUSIONS

ROSE is associated with an improvement in adequacy rates when implemented at sites where the per-case adequacy rate without ROSE is low (<90 %). It is unclear whether the type of assessor (pathologist vs. non-pathologist) has a significant impact on the success rate of ROSE. ROSE has no impact on diagnostic yield. Studies should employ head-to-head comparisons of cohorts with and without ROSE at a single location.

Pancreatic Tuberculosis Diagnosed with Endoscopic Ultrasound–Guided Fine Needle Aspiration

Pancreatic tuberculosis is very rare, especially in immunocompetent patients, and represents a diagnostic challenge. The clinical features in patients with pancreatic tuberculosis are usually nonspecific, and the radiologic features may mimic pancreatic malignancy or pancreatitis. We describe four cases with pancreatic tuberculosis mimicking carcinoma or pancreatic cyst on imaging. None of these patients was immunocompromised. Endoscopic ultrasound–guided fine needle aspiration demonstrated necrotizing granulomatous inflammation in these cases and acid-fast bacilli in two of them. We suggest that pancreatic tuberculosis should be included in the differential diagnosis of a pancreatic cystic or solid-cystic mass, especially in patients from a region where tuberculosis is endemic.

EUS-guided fine needle aspiration and trucut needle biopsy for examination of rectal and perirectal lesions

OBJECTIVE

Few studies have assessed the diagnostic efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and/or trucut biopsy (TCB) in patients with rectal and perirectal lesions. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic utility of EUS-FNA and/or TCB in patients with rectal and perirectal lesions. We also assessed their influence on the management and clinical course of these patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We performed EUS-FNA and/or TCB in 11 consecutive patients (4 men and 7 women, 33-69 years) with rectal and perirectal lesions for whom conventional diagnostic tools could not provide definitive diagnoses. Patients with definite intraluminal cancer were excluded.

RESULTS

The 11 patients underwent 12 procedures, with 9 being EUS-FNA alone and 3 being EUS-FNA and TCB. Seven patients had rectal lesions and four had perirectal lesions. Initial EUS-FNA and/or TCB established a diagnosis of malignancy in five patients and of benign lesions in four. EUS-FNA plus TCB confirmed malignant lymphoma after diagnostic failure of initial EUS-FNA in one patient. In one other patient with suspicious secondary linitis plastica, EUS-FNA could not establish a definitive diagnosis. Correct diagnoses were obtained in 10 out of 11 patients who underwent EUS-FNA and/or TCB. EUS-FNA and/or TCB changed clinical courses, which included avoidance of unnecessary surgeries, having a chance of anal sphincter-saving surgeries, and timely administration of chemotherapy. No serious complications related to the use of EUS-FNA or TCB were evident.

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNA and/or TCB are useful in the diagnostic evaluation of and appropriate therapeutic plan in patients with rectal and perirectal lesions.

Feasibility and yield of a new EUS histology needle: results from a multicenter, pooled, cohort study

BACKGROUND

EUS-guided FNA is an efficacious technique for sampling intraintestinal and extraintestinal mass lesions. However, cytology has limitations to its final yield and accuracy, which may be overcome if histological specimens are provided to the pathologist.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate feasibility, yield, and diagnostic accuracy of a newly developed 19-gauge, fine-needle biopsy (FNB) device.

DESIGN

Multicenter, pooled, cohort study.

SETTING

Five medical centers.

PATIENTS

This study involved 109 consecutive patients with 114 intraintestinal or extraintestinal mass lesions and/or peri-intestinal lymph nodes.

INTERVENTION

EUS-guided FNB (EUS-FNB) with a newly developed, 19-gauge, FNB device.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Percentage of cases in which pathologists classified the sample quality as optimal for histological evaluation and the overall diagnostic accuracy compared with a composite criterion-standard diagnosis.

RESULTS

We evaluated 114 lesions (mean [± standard deviation] size 35.1 ± 18.7 mm; 84 malignant [73.7%] and 30 [26.3%] benign). EUS-FNB was technically feasible in 112 lesions (98.24%). Sample quality was adequate for full histological assessment in 102 lesions (89.47%). In 98 cases (85.96%), diagnosis proved to be correct according to criterion-standard diagnosis. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and overall accuracy for diagnosis of malignancy were 90.2%, 100%, 100%, 78.9%, and 92.9%, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

Use of a surrogate criterion-standard diagnosis, including clinical follow-up when no surgical specimens were available, mainly in benign diagnoses.

CONCLUSION

Performing an EUS-FNB with a new 19-gauge histology needle is feasible for histopathology diagnosis of intraintestinal and extraintestinal mass lesions, offering the possibility of obtaining a core sample for histological evaluation in the majority of cases, with an overall diagnostic accuracy of over 85%.

Suspected oesophageal cancer in a 33 year old lady

A previously healthy 33 year old lady presented with acute dysphagia with endoscopic and CT features of oesophageal carcinoma. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) revealed a large subcarinal lymph node compressing at the mid-oesophagus. Fine-needle aspiration (FNA) showed a single well-formed epithelioid granuloma with no evidence of malignancy. Molecular analysis showed the aspirate to be positive for Mycobacterium tuberculosis. She continues to improve with standard anti-TB medication without surgery.This is a rare case of acute dysphagia secondary to primary tuberculous mediastinal lymphadenopathy. EUS and FNA have completely altered the clinical management of this lady.

Reliable gene expression measurements from fine needle aspirates of pancreatic tumors: effect of amplicon length and quality assessment

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Biomarker use for pancreatic cancer diagnosis has been impaired by a lack of samples suitable for reliable quantitative RT-PCR (qRT-PCR). Fine needle aspirates (FNAs) from pancreatic masses were studied to define potential causes of RNA degradation and develop methods for accurately measuring gene expression.

METHODS

Samples from 32 patients were studied. RNA degradation was assessed by using a multiplex PCR assay for varying lengths of glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase, and effects on qRT-PCR were determined by using a 150-bp and a 80-bp amplicon for RPS6. Potential causes of and methods to circumvent RNA degradation were studied by using FNAs from a pancreatic cancer xenograft.

RESULTS

RNA extracted from pancreatic mass FNAs was extensively degraded. Fragmentation was related to needle bore diameter and could not be overcome by alterations in aspiration technique. Multiplex PCR for glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase could distinguish samples that were suitable for qRT-PCR. The use of short PCR amplicons (<100 bp) provided reliable gene expression analysis from FNAs. When appropriate samples were used, the assay was highly reproducible for gene copy number with minimal (0.0003 or about 0.7% of total) variance.

CONCLUSIONS

The degraded properties of endoscopic FNAs markedly affect the accuracy of gene expression measurements. Our novel approach to designate specimens "informative" for qRT-PCR allowed accurate molecular assessment for the diagnosis of pancreatic diseases.

The prospective randomized, controlled trial of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration using 22G and 19G aspiration needles for solid pancreatic or peripancreatic masses

OBJECTIVES

A large-caliber needle such as a 19-gauge needle may help overcome the limitations of a 22-gauge needle by acquiring a larger amount of tissue sample. However, there has been no well-designed comparative study for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) with a 19-gauge aspiration needle. We conducted this study to compare the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA using a 19-gauge aspiration needle with that using a 22-gauge aspiration needle in patients with solid pancreatic/peripancreatic mass.

METHODS

From March 2007 to April 2008, a total of 117 patients (60 in a 19-gauge needle group and 57 in a 22-gauge needle group) with solid pancreatic/peripancreatic mass were included. EUS-FNA was performed using the standard technique without an on-site cytopathologist. A single, blinded cytopathologist retrospectively evaluated each set of slides.

RESULTS

The diagnostic accuracy by intention-to-treat analysis was not significantly different (19G: 86.7% vs. 22G: 78.9%, P=0.268). However, the diagnostic accuracy by per-protocol analysis, excluding technical failures, was significantly higher in the 19-gauge needle group (94.5% vs. 78.9%, P=0.015). In the treatment-received group that included crossover cases, although the diagnostic accuracy in all cases was not significantly different (86.1% vs. 76.9%, P=0.164), that of body/tail lesion (95.0% vs. 76.7%, P=0.031) and technically successful cases (93.9% vs. 78.1%, P=0.006) were significantly higher in the 19-gauge needle group. On sample quality analysis, the amount of cellular material obtained was significantly higher in the 19-gauge needle group (P=0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNA with a 19-gauge aspiration needle may be a valuable method for the diagnosis of pancreatic/peripancreatic masses when an on-site cytopathologist is not available.

Interventional endoscopic ultrasound: Therapeutic capability and potential

The linear echoendoscope, introduced in the 1990s, opened the era of interventional endoscopic ultrasound (IEUS). The linear echoendoscope enabled EUS guided Fine Needle Aspiration (EUS-FNA) allowing the path of the needle to be traced during the puncture process. After EUS-FNA, other interventional procedures were introduced in clinical practice. Tissue acquisition was the first EUS-guided interventional procedure and its higher diagnostic quality has undoubtedly been established. After EUS-FNA, Celiac plexus neurolysis (CPN) and block (CPB), pancreatic pseudocyst drainage, abdominal and mediastinal collections/abscesses drainage, and in selected cases, pancreatic and biliary ductal system drainage, were introduced in clinical practice. EUS-guided fine needle injection with local delivery of antitumor agents is considered a promising modality. We have reviewed published data on EUS guided interventional procedures with the object of summarizing the diagnostic capability of endoscopic ultrasound and elaborates in detail its therapeutic capability and potential.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy and trucut biopsy in gastroenterology - An overview

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biopsies are reliable, safe and effective techniques in obtaining samples for cytological or histological examinations either as a primary procedure or in cases where other biopsy techniques have failed. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNA), as well as endoscopic ultrasound-guided trucut biopsy (EUS-TCB), has proven to be of significant value in the diagnostic evaluation of benign and malignant diseases, as well as in staging of the malignant tumours of the gastrointestinal tract and of adjacent organs. The diagnostic yield of EUS-guided biopsies depends on site, size and characteristics of target tissues as well as technical and procedural factors (type of needle, biopsy technique and material processing). Other weighting factors include expertise, training and interaction between the endosonographer and cytopathologist. Rapid on-site cytological evaluation has proven to be successful in optimising the diagnostic efficiency of EUS-FNA. A sensible alternative is to collect specimens for histological and immunohistochemical investigations in addition to the cytological smears. EUS-FNA using a 22-gauge needle is successful in harvesting core biopsies in approximately three out of four cases. Therefore, the use of 19-gauge needles for EUS-FNA or EUS-TCB may only be necessary in selected cases. The reproducibility of cytopathological diagnosis among pathologists with special experience in assessing material obtained by EUS-guided biopsies is very high. False-positive diagnosis of malignancy in EUS-guided biopsy is rare. False-negative diagnosis appears with variable frequency depending on the target tissue, technical factors and expertise of the endosonographer and cytopathologist. There are numerous challenges and pitfalls in the differential diagnostic classification of benign and malignant lesions. These problems are related to the characteristics of samples obtained by EUS-guided biopsy, as well as to the multiple diagnoses with similar or overlapping cytological or histological characteristics. The high prognostic and therapeutic relevance of the cytopathological diagnoses resulting from EUS-guided biopsy calls for a shared responsibility of an endosonographer and a cytopathologist.

Comparison of EUS-guided FNA and Trucut biopsy for diagnosing and staging abdominal and mediastinal neoplasms

The objective of this study was to evaluate endoscopic ultrasound Trucut biopsy (TCB) specimens and compare these findings to fine needle aspiration (FNA) specimens for the diagnosis of neoplasia. FNA and TCB specimens were reviewed in blinded fashion by a cytopathologist from patients (N = 93) who had EUS-guided FNA and TCB specimens collected between July 2000 and January 2005. Specimens were categorized as nondiagnostic, negative, suspicious for stromal neoplasm, suspicious for malignancy, positive for stromal neoplasm, or positive for malignancy. Standard final diagnosis based on clinical and/or pathologic follow-up was available for 86 of 93 patients. The final diagnoses comprised malignancy (n = 55), stromal neoplasm (n = 19), and benign findings (n = 12). The combination of FNA and TCB results combined were significantly (P < 0.001) more sensitive that FNA alone for the detection of both malignancy (78% vs. 55%) and stromal neoplasia (79% vs. 19%) without a significant change in overall specificity (92% vs. 100%, P = 1.00). A positive FNA specimen with a negative/nondiagnostic TCB result was established in seven patients with malignancy. A positive TCB diagnosis with a negative/nondiagnostic FNA result was noted in five patients with malignancy. A suspicious FNA result was upgraded to positive in conjunction with TCB specimen evaluation in eight patients with malignancy. The results of this study suggest that TCB is a useful adjunctive technique when used in tandem with FNA for malignancy and stromal neoplasia detection. Additional data are needed to firmly establish practice guidelines for the use of EUS-guided TCB specimens in clinical practice.

EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: high yield of 2 passes with combined histologic-cytologic analysis

BACKGROUND

EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) is an established tissue-acquisition technique, with most studies concentrating on cytologic analyses of specimens, with only few data existing on histologic assessment.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the sensitivity of a combined analysis of histologic followed by cytologic tissue diagnosis.

DESIGN

A retrospective 3-center study.

METHODS

In consecutive patients undergoing FNA of solid pancreatic masses, core specimens were harvested for histology; residual tissue was examined cytologically. Only unequivocally positive results were regarded as malignant. Criterion standards were positive results from EUS-FNA or other histologic findings, or, if negative, clinical follow-up data (minimum 12 months).

RESULTS

Among 192 patients (110 men; mean age 63 years) with mostly pancreatic-head masses (72.4%), overall, adequate tissue was obtained in 98.9% of all cases, with a mean of 1.88 needle passes and an overall sensitivity of 82.9% (95% CI, 76.0%-88.5%). Histology and subsequent cytology provided adequate tissue and sensitivities of 86.5% and 60%, and 92.7% and 68.1%, respectively. Excluding cases with inadequate specimens, sensitivities rose by 4% to 10%. Histology showed a trend for superiority over cytology only in characterizing nonadenocarcinoma tumor types. No differences in sensitivity were found between the centers involved.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective design, different processing of cytologic specimens.

CONCLUSIONS

At EUS-FNA in pancreatic masses, combined histologic-cytologic analysis achieved a sensitivity of more than 80%, despite a low number of needle passes and may thus save time. Histology alone did not reach higher sensitivity than cytology. In particular situations, eg, rare tumors, histology may still be required.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in diagnosis of pancreatic and peripancreatic lesions: a single center experience in Korea

Background/Aims

Although endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has been introduced and its use has been increasing in Korea, there have not been many reports about its performance. The aim of this study was to assess the utility of EUS-FNA without on-site cytopathologist in establishing the diagnosis of solid pancreatic and peripancreatic masses from a single institution in Korea.

Methods

Medical records of 139 patients who underwent EUS-FNA for pancreatic and peripancreatic solid mass in the year 2007, were retrospectively reviewed. By comparing cytopathologic diagnosis of FNA with final diagnosis, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were determined, and factors influencing the accuracy as well as complications were analyzed.

Results

One hundred twenty out of 139 cases had final diagnosis of malignancy. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of EUS-FNA were 82%, 89%, and 83%, respectively, and positive and negative predictive values were 100% and 46%, respectively. As for factors influencing the accuracy of FNA, lesion size was marginally significant (p-value 0.08) by multivariate analysis.

Conclusions

EUS-FNA performed without on-site cytopathologist was found to be accurate and safe, and thus EUS-FNA should be a part of the standard management algorithm for pancreatic and peripancreatic mass.

A guide for the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal stromal cell tumors

Gastrointestinal stromal cell tumors (GISTs) are the most common mesenchymal neoplasm of the gastrointestinal tract and are frequently detected on routine endoscopy. Although only approximately 10-30% of GISTs are clinically malignant, all may have some degree of malignant potential. Preoperative determination of malignancy risk can be estimated from tumor size and location, but reliable histopathologic criteria are not currently available. Given such biological uncertainty, accurate diagnosis is essential to differentiate these lesions from other truly benign, subepithelial tumors. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration has emerged as an important procedure to secure a tissue diagnosis of a GIST. When encountering GISTs, gastroenterologists are faced with challenging management decisions, especially in the face of small, incidentally discovered lesions. The majority of localized GISTs are managed via surgical resection, although a select few may be observed using serial endoscopic ultrasound examinations. This Review provides a general overview of GISTs, with an emphasis on their endoscopic diagnosis, the management of localized disease, and the management of incidentally discovered GISTs.