Detection of pancreatic metastases by EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration

BACKGROUND: Metastases to the pancreas are usually found incidentally. Tissue diagnosis is imperative because imaging alone is incapable of differentiating them from primary pancreatic tumors. This study tested whether it is possible to differentiate metastases from other focal pancreatic lesions by using EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for cytodiagnosis. METHODS: One hundred fourteen consecutive patients (mean age 61 years) with focal pancreatic masses, detected on CT, underwent EUS-FNA by using a linear-array echoendoscope and 22-gauge needles. RESULTS: Adequate specimens were obtained from 112 lesions. Carcinomas were identified in 68 cases (60.7%), 56 (50%) of pancreatic origin and 12 (10.7%) from distant primary tumors. The metastases were all located in the head and body of the pancreas and measured 1.8 to 4.0 cm. The echo-texture was heterogeneous or hypoechoic in all cases and resembled that of primary tumors. Six of the 12 patients with metastatic disease had a prior diagnosis of cancer (breast, 3; renal cell, 2; salivary gland, 1), 4 of them with a recurrence and 2 with a second carcinoma metastasizing to the pancreas. Six patients without a prior diagnosis of cancer had metastases from renal cell, colonic, ovarian, and esophageal carcinomas; one metastasis was from an unknown primary and another was from a malignant lymphoma. These findings influenced the therapeutic strategy in 8 patients who underwent nonsurgical palliation. There were no complications. CONCLUSIONS: Pancreatic metastasis is an important cause of focal pancreatic lesions, but the EUS features are not diagnostic. Simultaneous EUS-FNA allows cytodiagnosis and can have a decisive influence on the selection of appropriate therapeutic strategies.     

Comparison between EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology and EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy histology for the evaluation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

Background/objectivesStudies comparing EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) with EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for the evaluation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) are lacking. We aimed at comparing EUS-FNA with EUS-FNB in terms of Ki-67 proliferative index (PI) estimation capability, cellularity of the samples, and reliability of Ki-67 PI/tumor grading compared with surgical specimens.MethodsPatients diagnosed with pNETs on EUS and/or surgical specimens were retrospectively identified. Specimens were re-evaluated to assess Ki-67 PI feasibility, sample cellularity by manual counting, and determination of Ki-67 PI value. Outcomes in the EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB groups were compared. Kendall rank test was used for Ki-67 PI correlation between EUS and surgical specimens. Subgroup analysis including small (≤20 mm), non-functioning pNETs was performed.ResultsThree-hundred samples from 292 lesions were evaluated: 69 EUS-FNA cytology and 231 EUS-FNB histology. Ki-67 PI feasibility was similar for EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB (91.3% vs. 95.7%, p = 0.15), while EUS-FNB performed significantly better in the subgroup of 179 small pNETs (88.2% vs. 96.1%, p = 0.04). Rate of poor cellulated (<500 cells) specimens was equal between EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB. A significant correlation for Ki-67 PI values between EUS and 92 correspondent surgical specimens was found in both groups, but it was stronger with EUS-FNB (tau = 0.626, p < 0.0001 vs. tau = 0.452, p = 0.031). Correct grading estimation was comparable between the two groups (p = 0.482).ConclusionOur study showed stronger correlation for Ki-67 values between EUS-FNB and surgical specimens, and that EUS-FNB outperformed EUS-FNA in the evaluation of small pNETs. EUS-FNB should become standard of care for grading assessment of suspected pNETs.     

Diagnosis of recurrent rectal carcinoma by EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic mucosal resection has become a popular alternative for the treatment of early-stage neoplasia of the gastrointestinal tract. However, there are still no data on the frequency of bacteremia associated with this form of treatment. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study of 21 men and 17 women undergoing endoscopic mucosal resection with a cap-fitted panendoscope for upper gastrointestinal lesions. Blood cultures were performed before, 10 minutes after, and 4 hours after the procedure for both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. RESULTS: Blood culture at baseline was negative in all the patients. Two of 38 patients (5.3 %) had positive blood culture at 10 minutes after the procedure. The isolated microorganisms were Streptococcus salivarius and Corynebacterium species. All patients had negative blood cultures 4 hours later. None of these 38 patients had any symptoms or signs associated with infection. CONCLUSIONS: Bacteremia associated with endoscopic mucosal resection is infrequent and transient.     

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.     

EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration combined with flow cytometry and immunocytochemistry in the diagnosis of lymphoma

BACKGROUND: Limited information is available regarding the use of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in the diagnosis of lymphoproliferative disorders. The aim of this study was to evaluate the yield of this technique in the primary diagnosis of lymphoma. METHODS: The records were reviewed of 38 consecutive patients with GI lesions and/or enlarged lymph nodes identified on imaging studies that raised a suspicion of lymphoma who underwent EUS-FNA of lymph nodes or the gut wall. Final diagnosis was based on clinical follow-up, imaging studies, or surgical findings. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients with lymphoma and 15 patients with benign disease or reactive lymphadenopathy were identified. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of EUS-FNA cytology with flow cytometry/immunocytochemistry (FC/IC) for the diagnosis of lymphoma were, respectively, 74%, 93%, and 81%. When comparing patients who had EUS-FNA with FC/IC versus those who had EUS-FNA without FC/IC, sensitivity was 86% versus 44% (p = 0.04), specificity was 100% versus 90% (not significant), and accuracy was 89% versus 68% (not significant). CONCLUSION: EUS-FNA can provide cytology specimens diagnostic for lymphoma. Selective use of FC/IC in patients with suspected lymphoma improves the yield of EUS-FNA and may guide diagnostic evaluation and treatment decisions.     

Factors predicting the number of EUS-guided fine-needle passes for diagnosis of pancreatic malignancies

BACKGROUND: The factors that affect the number of needle passes needed to diagnose pancreatic malignancies using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) -guided fine-needle aspiration are unknown. METHODS: Patient and endosonographic data were prospectively recorded on 121 consecutive patients with pancreatic malignancy. Of these, 110 underwent EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration. A cytopathologist was in attendance for all aspiration procedures. RESULTS: Initial EUS detected a pancreatic mass in 96% of cases; 23% of these were not seen by computed tomography. EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration was performed in 109 of 110 (99%) patients, including 95 masses, 7 lymph nodes, and 7 hepatic metastases. EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration provided a cytologic diagnosis of malignancy in 104 of 110 (95%). Only tumor differentiation and the site of aspiration affected the number of passes. CONCLUSIONS: With the participation of a cytopathologist, EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration can diagnose pancreatic malignancies with a high degree of accuracy. Only the aspiration site (mass versus node/liver metastasis) can be used to direct the number of passes if a cytopathologist is not present. Without a cytopathologist in attendance, 5 to 6 passes should be made for pancreatic masses and 2 to 3 for liver metastases or lymph nodes; however, this approach will be associated with a 10% to 15% reduction in definitive cytologic diagnoses, extra procedure time, increased risk and additional needles.     

内镜超声引导下细针穿刺抽吸术对胰腺癌的诊断价值

目的探讨内镜超声引导下细针穿刺抽吸术（EUS-FNA）对胰腺占位性病变特别是胰腺癌的诊断价值。方法对2005年后经B超、CT、MRI等影像学诊断和（或）临床疑诊胰腺癌的37例患者,在EUS引导下对病变作细针穿刺抽吸活检（FNA）,对于囊实性病变同时抽取囊液化验淀粉酶及肿瘤标志物等指标。结果EUS-FNA检出胰腺导管细胞癌16例,转移性肾细胞癌1例,可疑癌5例,异型细胞6例,正常胰腺组织6例,非胰腺成分3例。随访至2008年7月时,已证实胰腺癌25例,良性10例（慢性胰腺炎4例,囊腺瘤4例,假性囊肿2例）,尚有2例无法确诊。EUS-FNA诊断胰腺癌的敏感性为80．0％（95％CI：59．0-93．0）,特异性为100．0％（95％CI：60．0—100．0）,阳性预测值为100．0％（95％CI：80．0-100．0）,阴性预测值为55．6％（95％CI：27．0-79．0）。6例病变获取囊液进行淀粉酶、肿瘤标志物分析。本组EUS-FNA术后无严重并发症发生。结论EUS-FNA是一项安全有效的操作,对于胰腺占位性病变尤其是胰腺癌的诊断具有重要的意义。     

Presence of intratumoral anechoic foci predicts an increased number of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration passes required for the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND AND AIM: For reduction in cost, time and risk of complications, the number of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) passes should be minimized. Previous studies have shown that tumor differentiation and site of aspiration will affect the number of passes in patients with pancreatic cancer. There have been no reports that EUS features of pancreatic malignancies per se will influence the number of passes. Our aim was to prospectively assess various factors that would affect the number of passes in patients with pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Between May 2003 and December 2004, 41 patients with presumed pancreatic cancer were studied. EUS-guided FNA was performed with an Olympus GF-UC2000P echoendoscope and a 22-gauge needle. On-site assessment of the specimen by a cytopathologist was available during the procedure. RESULTS: Adenocarcinomas were confirmed in 25 patients. Pancreatic adenocarcinomas with intratumoral anechoic foci required a higher number of diagnostic passes than those without anechoic change (3.40 vs 2.27, P < 0.05). An average of 4.00 FNA passes for diagnosing a well-differentiated adenocarcinoma was also significantly higher than the 2.40 diagnostic passes for a moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma and the 2.00 passes for a poorly differentiated one (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The existence of intratumoral anechoic foci was not a rare finding under detailed EUS investigation of pancreatic cancer. Both the existence of intratumoral anechoic foci and the differentiation of the cancer are significant predictive factors for the number of diagnostic EUS-FNA passes.     

EUS with EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration as the first endoscopic test for the evaluation of obstructive jaundice

BACKGROUND: This study assesses the cost savings associated with using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) before endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for evaluating patients with suspected obstructive jaundice. METHODS: One hundred forty-seven patients with obstructive jaundice of unknown or possibly neoplastic origin had EUS as their first endoscopic procedure. With knowledge of the final diagnosis and actual management for each patient, their probable evaluation and outcomes and their additional costs were reassessed assuming that ERCP would have been performed as the first endoscopic procedure. Also calculated were the additional costs incurred if EUS were unavailable for use after ERCP and had to be replaced by computed tomography or other procedures. RESULTS: The final diagnoses in these patients included malignancies (65%), choledocholithiasis or cholecystitis (18%), "medical jaundice" (11%), and miscellaneous benign conditions (6%). Fifty-four percent had EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration but only 53% required ERCP after EUS. An EUS-first approach saved an estimated $1007 to $1313/patient, but the cost was $2200 more if EUS was unavailable for use after ERCP. Significant savings persisted through sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Performing EUS with EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration as the first endoscopic procedure in patients suspected to have obstructive jaundice can obviate the need for about 50% of ERCPs, helps direct subsequent therapeutic ERCP, and can substantially reduce costs in these patients.     

Rapid on-site evaluation of endoscopic-ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration diagnosis of pancreatic masses

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become an essential tool for the study of pancreatic diseases. Specifically, EUS plays a pivotal role evaluating patients with a known or suspected pancreatic mass. In this setting, differential diagnosis remains a clinical challenge. EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (FNB) have been proven to be safe and useful tools in this setting. EUS-guided FNA and FNB, by obtaining cytological and/or histological samples, are able to diagnose pancreatic lesions with high sensitivity and specificity. In this context, several methodological features, trying to increase the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided FNA and FNB, have been evaluated. In this review, we focus on the role of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE). From data reported in the literature, ROSE may increase diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA specimens by 10%-30%, and thus, diagnostic accuracy. However, we should point out that many recent studies have reported adequacy rates of > 90% without ROSE, indicating that, perhaps, at high-volume centers, ROSE may not be indispensable to achieve excellent results. The use of ROSE can be considered important during the learning curve of EUS-FNA, and also in hospital with diagnostic accuracy rates < 90%.     

超声内镜下细针穿刺活检术对胰腺囊性病变的诊断价值

目的 探讨超声内镜引导下细针穿刺活检术(EUS-FNA)及细胞块对胰腺囊性病变的诊断价值.方法 回顾性分析2010年1月至2012年12月行传统影像学检查(CT、MRI、B超)、EUS-FNA的15例胰腺囊性病变的临床资料,其中8例行液基细胞学(LBC)、细胞块检查.同时,比较4种检查技术在胰腺囊性病变中的诊断价值.结果 假性囊肿7例,黏液性囊腺瘤2例,胰腺导管内乳头状黏液瘤(IPMN)1例,胰腺癌3例,囊腺癌2例.传统影像学、EUS-FNA、LBC、细胞块的诊断正确率为53.3％、86.7％、75.0％、100.0％,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).EUS-FNA较单纯传统影像学的灵敏度、特异度、约登指数均高(86.7％、75.0％、0.62与53.3％、58.3％、0.12),细胞块较LBC灵敏度高(100.0％与75.0％).结论 EUS-FNA及细胞块可提高诊断胰腺囊性病变的准确率.     

Diagnosis of pancreatic tumors by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration

AIM: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fi ne-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for pancreatic solid tumors larger or smaller than 3 cm, and cystic lesions. METHODS: From January/1997 to December/2006, 611 patients with pancreatic tumors were subjected to EUS-FNA. The fi nal diagnosis was obtained either by surgery (356 cases) or after a mean clinical follow-up of 11.8 mo in the remaining patients. RESULTS: There were 405 solid tumors, 189 cystic lesions and 17 mixed. Pancreatic specimens for cytological assessment were successfully obtained by EUS-FNA in 595 (97.4/) cases. There were 352 (57.6/) malignancies and 259 (42.4/) benign tumors. Among the malignancies, pancreatic adenocarcinomas accounted for 67/ of the lesions. Overall, the sensitivity, specifi city, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of EUS-FNA were, respectively, 78.4/, 99.2/, 99.3/, 77.2/ and 87.2/. Specif ically for solid tumors, the same parameters for neoplasms larger and smaller than 3 cm were, respectively, 78.8/ vs 82.4/, 100/ vs 98.4/, 100/ vs 99/, 54.8/ vs 74.1/ and 83.1/ vs 87.8/. For cystic lesions, the values were, respectively, 72.2/, 99.3/, 97.5/, 91/ and 92.2/. CONCLUSION: EUS-FNA can be used to sample pancreatic tumors in most patients. Even though the negative predictive value is inadequate for large solid tumors, the results are rather good for small solid tumors, especially concerning the sensitivity, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy. Among all pancreatic lesions, EUS-FNA for cystic lesions canreveal the best negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy, both higher than 90/.     

Usefulness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer

Background Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNAB) has come into widespread use, mainly in Western countries, as an efficient and safe method for the cytologic or histologic diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. However, it still has received relatively little attention in Japan. To evaluate the clinical status of EUS-FNAB in Japan, we retrospectively analyzed the results with regard to the ability of EUS-FNAB to diagnose pancreatic cancer, as well as its safety. Methods A total of 52 patients (37 male, 15 female; mean age, 62.5 years; range, 33–85 years) with focal pancreatic lesions underwent EUS-FNAB at our group of hospitals in one region of Japan. Final diagnosis was confirmed by histologic examination of surgical specimens or clinical follow-up. Results The final diagnoses were malignant tumors in 32 patients and benign ones in 20. Insertion of the needle into the lesion was successful in 50 of the 52 patients (96.2%). Adequate specimens were obtained by EUS-FNAB from 47 of the 50 pancreatic lesions (94.0%). With five false-negative and no false-positive results, the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 89.4%, 82.1%, 100%, 100%, and 79.2%, respectively. No complications occurred. Conclusions EUS-FNAB is an efficient and safe method for the histologic diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. It should be considered as one of the indispensable modalities for the histological diagnosis of pancreatic cancer in Japan, as it is in Western countries.