Fine Needle Aspiration Of Pancreatic Masses Research Articles

Evaluation of the diagnostic efficacy of liquid-based cytology obtained via percutaneous ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic masses: a large tertiary center's 8-year experience.

There were limited data on the diagnostic efficacy of liquid-based cytology (LBC) for pancreatic tissues acquired by percutaneous ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (US-FNA). This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of LBC acquired via percutaneous US-FNA for pancreatic tumors compared with LBC combined with smear cytology (SC). A retrospective database search (January 2014 and February 2022) was performed for patients who underwent percutaneous US-FNA with both LBC and SC. Clinical and pathological data were collected from 298 patients; eventually, 251 cases met the inclusion criteria. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were compared. Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) was not available in all cases. Based on the pancreaticobiliary cytology guidelines published by the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology, 224 (89.2%), 13 (5.2%) and 14 (5.6%) cases were diagnosed as malignant, pre-malignant and benign lesions, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of the LBC + SC (88.5%) was better than that of LBC (87.3%) but without statistical significance (P = 0.125). The SEN, SPE, PPV and NPV were 87.5%, 85.2%, 98.0% and 45.1%, respectively, in the LBC group and 88.8%, 85.2%, 98.0% and 47.9%, respectively, in the LBC + SC group. According to univariate and multivariate analyses, there were no factors have significant association with the diagnostic sensitivity of LBC. LBC obtained via percutaneous US-FNA provides good diagnostic value for pancreatic lesions and there was no significant difference between the diagnostic accuracy of LBC and LBC + SC when ROSE was unavailable.

Effectiveness of Menghini-Type Needles for Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration of Pancreatic Masses.

Cutting needles are thought to be effective as biopsy needles. A few types of cutting needles are available for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), and the Menghini-type needle is an end-type cutting needle. A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare the results of EUS-FNA using a Menghini-type needle (needle M) versus a conventional needle (needle S). The main eligibility criteria were as follows: patients with a pancreatic mass referred for EUS-FNA, ≥ 20years old, and a performance status < 4. The primary outcome was the sample quality. The secondary outcomes were factors associated with the sample quality, diagnostic accuracy, and adverse events. A total of 97 patients were enrolled in this study. The sample quality for total puncture with needle M (92.8%) was significantly higher than that with needle S (81.4%) (p = 0.0305). The tumor size (p = 0.033) and type of needle (p = 0.031) were significant factors associated with adequate tissue collection in univariate and multivariate analyses (odds ratio [OR] 2.71; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-6.54; p = 0.027 for tumor size, and OR 2.93; 95% CI 1.23-8.21; p = 0.0153 for type of needle). The diagnostic accuracy of each needle was 88.7% (86/97) with needle M and 73.2% (71/97) with needle S. Adverse events occurred in 2 of the 97 patients (0.02%). A Menghini-type needle was able to obtain core tissue for histology more effectively than a conventional aspiration needle. UMIN registration number of 000020668.

Contrast-Enhanced Harmonic Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration versus Standard Fine-Needle Aspiration in Pancreatic Masses: A Propensity Score Analysis.

Background: Whether endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) contrast-enhanced fine-needle aspiration (CH-EUS-FNA) determines superior results in comparison to standard EUS-FNA in tissue acquisition of pancreatic masses remains unclear. The aim of this study was to compare these two techniques on a series of patients with solid pancreatic lesions. Methods: 362 patients underwent EUS-FNA (2008–2019), after the propensity score matching of two groups were compared; 103 treated with CH-EUS-FNA (group 1) and 103 with standard EUS-FNA (group 2). The primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and sample adequacy. Results: Diagnostic sensitivity was 87.6% in group 1 and 80% in group 2 (p = 0.18). The negative predictive value was 56% in group 1 and 41.5% in group 2 (p = 0.06). The specificity and positive predictive values were 100% for both groups. Diagnostic accuracy was 89.3% and 82.5%, respectively (p = 0.40). Sample adequacy was 94.1% in group 1 and 91.2% in group 2 (p = 0.42). The rate of adequate core histologic samples was 33% and 28.1%, respectively (p = 0.44), and the number of needle passes to obtain adequate samples were 2.4 ± 0.6 and 2.7 ± 0.8, respectively (p = 0.76). These findings were confirmed in subgroup analyses, conducted according to lesion size and contrast enhancement pattern. Conclusions: CH-EUS-FNA does not appear to be superior to standard EUS-FNA in patients with pancreatic masses.

Evaluating the Minimal Specimens From Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration in Pancreatic Masses

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has become one of the most useful diagnostic modalities for the diagnosis of pancreatic mass. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of analyzing the minimal specimens obtained by EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of solid masses of pancreas.This study consisted of retrospective and prospective analyses. The retrospective study was performed on 116 patients who underwent EUS-FNA of solid masses for cytological smear, histological analysis, and combined analysis including immunohistochemical (IHC) staining. In the prospective study, 79 patients were enrolled to evaluate the quality and accuracy of EUS-FNA histological analysis and feasibility of IHC staining.The final diagnoses of all patients included pancreatic cancer (n = 126), nonpancreatic cancer (n = 21), other neoplasm (n = 27), and benign lesions (n = 21). In our retrospective study, the combined analysis was more sensitive than cytological analysis alone (P < 0.01). The overall sensitivity of cytology, histology, and combined analysis was 69.8%, 67.2%, and 81.8%, respectively. In the prospective analysis, 64.2% of all punctures were helpful for determining the diagnosis and 40.7% provided sufficient tissue for IHC staining. Histological analysis was helpful for diagnosis in 74.7% of patients. IHC staining was necessary for a definite diagnosis in 11.4% of patients, especially in the cases of nonmalignant pancreatic mass.Histological analysis and IHC study of EUS-FNA specimens was useful for the accurate diagnosis of pancreatic and peripancreatic lesions. Combined analysis showed significantly higher sensitivity than cytology alone because IHC staining was helpful for a diagnosis in some patients.

Current status on the diagnosis and evaluation of pancreatic tumor in Asia with particular emphasis on the role of endoscopic ultrasound

In Asia, the incidence of pancreatic cancer in some countries has been increasing. Owing to most cases being diagnosed late, prognosis for pancreatic cancer remains dismal. It is clear that the future for pancreatic cancer lies in early detection. While the possible presence of pancreatic masses is often first raised by non-invasive abdominal imaging, such as computerized tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, smaller lesions and locoregional lymph node metastases are often not detectable by these means. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) offers a higher sensitivity (93-100%) for detection of small potentially curable pancreatic masses than other existing imaging modalities. It is also recommended for the evaluation of portal vein confluence, portal vein, celiac axis, and superior mesentric artery origin, and exclusion of resectability. Due to the closer proximity of EUS to the target structure, and lower rate of needle tract seeding, EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic mass is considered the most suitable tissue acquisition technique. Lastly, EUS also enables the performance of endoscopic interventions. Its performance can be further enhanced with newer techniques, including contrast-enhanced ultrasound and elastrography. It is anticipated that in the near future, molecular technologies may make it possible to detect microscopic amounts of cancer in tissue or blood, predict relapse and survival after therapy, as well as determine optimal therapy.

Mo1481 Diagnostic Efficacy of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration of Pancreatic Masses Using the Cell Block Method Without Rapid on-Site Cytology

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has been shown to be efficient for diagnosis of pancreatic masses. Only with the smear method, however, its diagnostic efficacy may vary greatly depending on the level of proficiency of the cytopathologists. On the other hand, the cell block (CB) method allows cytological and/or histological evaluation with hematoxylin and eosin (HE) staining and with immunostaining for serial sections if necessary. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses using the CB method without rapid on-site cytology.

Does Cytotechnician Training Influence the Accuracy of EUS-Guided Fine-needle Aspiration of Pancreatic Masses?

Does Cytotechnician Training Influence the Accuracy of EUS-Guided Fine-needle Aspiration of Pancreatic Masses?

Best Practices in Endoscopic Ultrasound–Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration

Over the past 2 decades, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration has evolved to become an indispensable tool for tissue acquisition in patients with gastrointestinal tumors. The technique is useful for biopsy of mucosal and submucosal lesions in which prior endoscopic biopsies have been nondiagnostic; to sample peri-intestinal structures such as lymph nodes; and to sample masses in the pancreas, liver, adrenal glands, gallbladder, and bile duct. Also, with the advent of neoadjuvant therapies for diseases such as pancreatic cancer, most patients require a tissue diagnosis before initiating treatment. This review provides a perspective on technical issues that are key for best practices in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration.

Does cytotechnician training influence the accuracy of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic masses?

Background/aimThe presence of on-site cytopathologists improves the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of pancreatic masses; however, on-site cytopathologists are not available to all endoscopic units. We hypothesized that experienced cytotechnicians can accurately assess whether an on-site pancreatic mass fine needle aspiration specimen is adequate. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of formal cytotechnician training on the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses. MethodsSingle-centre, prospective study. The cytotechnician made an on-site assessment of specimen adequacy with immediate evaluation of smears over a 12-month period (pre-training period) then over another 12-month period (post-training period), with a year's intermediate training when the cytopathologist and the cytotechnician worked together in the room. The gold standard used to establish the final diagnosis was based on a non-equivocal fine needle aspiration biopsy reviewed by the same expert cytopathologist. The main outcome measurements were the cytotechnician diagnostic accuracy before and after the training period. ResultsA total of 107 patients were enrolled in the pre-training period. Cytotechnician in-room adequacy was 68.2% (73/107). The diagnostic accuracy was 74.8%. The adequacy for the blind-review pathologist was 93.4% (100/107), significantly higher (p=0.008) than the cytotechnician's results. During the post-training period, 95 EUS-FNA were performed and reviewed. Cytotechnician in-room adequacy was 87.4% (83/95). The diagnostic accuracy was 90.5%. The adequacy for the blinded pathologist was 95.8% (91/95), not significantly different from the cytotechnician (p=0.23). ConclusionsAn adequate training period with an expert pathologist significantly improves the cytotechnician skill in terms of judging adequacy and diagnostic accuracy.

Preparation technique for cytologic study of EUS-guided FNA samples when onsite cytopathologist is absent: Cell block, smear, or both?

176 Background: Smearing EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) samples, with or without cell block, is most commonly performed for cytologic study in centers without onsite cytology. The diagnostic yield of such technique is often low (35%-50%) and may be related to loss of diagnostic material during the smearing process. Cell block technique captures not only aspirated cells but also small tissue fragments, improving diagnostic yield and enabling additional ancillary studies. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic yield of cell block alone against conventional smear (±cell block) technique in the EUS-guided FNA evaluation of pancreatic solid mass without onsite cytological assessment. Methods: Data on the diagnostic yield of cell block alone technique performed over the last 12 months were prospectively collected and were compared to the yield of conventional smear ± cell block technique. A positive diagnostic yield was defined by the presence of adenocarcinoma and/or FNA findings consistent with the final surgical diagnosis. Results: Data were available for 96 patients, of which 66 had cell block alone and 30 had smear +/-cell block preparation. The diagnostic yield of cell block alone was significantly higher that that of smear +/- cell block (53/66 vs 13/30; P=0.003). The addition of cell block after smearing did not improve the diagnostic yield (smear: 42% vs. both: 45%, p=0.88). Of patients who had smear +/-cell block, the diagnostic yield was significantly higher when the smearing was performed by cytopathologist as compared to that by nurse (10/16 vs. 3/14, p=0.02). There was a direct relationship between the rate of diagnostic yield and the number of FNA passes performed. The yield was highest when 4 or more FNA passes was performed (85%) as compared to that of 3 passes (63%, p=0.049) and 2 or less passes (38%, p&lt;0.0001). Conclusions: In the absence of onsite cytology services, the diagnostic yield from cell block alone was high (80%) and was superior to smear technique whether cell block was added to the evaluation of smears. In order to obtain adequate tissue material to maximise the diagnostic yield EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic mass, at least 4 FNA passes should be performed. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Clinical utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in pancreatic masses using a 25-gauge needle system: a multicenter experience

Background and Aims: EUS-FNA is now performed routinely in many advanced endoscopy centers and has enhanced the ability to diagnose pancreatic masses. However, there is uncertainty about which needle size is the most optimal for EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses. All of the early published data on this topic is based on the use of 22-gauge or 19-gauge EUS FNA needles. It is postulated that a smaller caliber needle might provide more accurate results and have less complications. We aimed to evaluate our experience in diagnosing pancreatic masses with EUS FNA using a 25-gauge disposable needle system.

EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of the pancreas: Evaluation of pancreatitis as a complication

Background: EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration is rapidly becoming the procedure of choice for the diagnostic evaluation of pancreatic masses. Acute pancreatitis has been reported after EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of the pancreas. This study evaluated the effect of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration on the pancreas by serial measurement of amylase and lipase levels and determining the frequency of acute pancreatitis after EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic masses. Methods: In 100 consecutive patients referred for EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of a pancreatic mass, amylase and lipase levels were determined immediately before and within 2 hours after the procedure. Additionally, patients were questioned as to the occurrence of symptoms of acute pancreatitis within 48 hours after EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration. Results: For 2 of 100 patients (2%) there was clinical and biochemical evidence of acute pancreatitis after EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration. Both patients had a history of recent pancreatitis. In addition, there was a significant increase in postprocedure lipase levels ( p = 0.40) compared with amylase levels in this patient subset. Conclusion: The frequency of acute pancreatitis after EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of the pancreas was 2% in this study. A history of recent pancreatitis appears to be a potential risk factor. Amylase and lipase levels can be elevated after EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration and in most cases have no clinical significance. (Gastrointest Endosc 2002;56:864-7.)