EUS-guided fine needle aspiration in mediastinal lymphadenopathy of unknown etiology

BACKGROUND: EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has significantly expanded the diagnostic capability of GI EUS. FNA technology can also be helpful in the diagnosis of non-GI disorders. The role of EUS-guided FNA in the diagnosis of mediastinal lymphadenopathy of unknown etiology has not been described. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and impact on subsequent evaluation and therapy of EUS-FNA in mediastinal lymphadenopathy of unknown cause. METHODS: Sixty-two patients (40 men, 22 woman; mean age 56 years, range 16-91 years) with mediastinal lymphadenopathy of unknown etiology underwent EUS-FNA at 6 tertiary referral centers. Presenting symptoms included the following: dysphagia, 6 patients; night sweats, 14; cough, 8; chest pain, 10; odynophagia, 10; fever, 6; weight loss, 8; and asymptomatic/abnormal radiograph, 12. A final diagnosis by EUS-FNA, surgery, autopsy, or long-term follow-up was available for all patients. EUS-FNA results were classified under 3 disease categories: (1) benign/infectious; (2) malignant pulmonary; and (3) malignant mediastinal (e.g., lymphoma, metastatic malignancy). Four EUS features were used as criteria for lymph node metastases: size greater than 1 cm, round shape, sharp border, and homogeneous/hypoechoic echo pattern. RESULTS: Final diagnoses included benign/infectious lymph nodes, 26; malignant pulmonary, 24; and malignant mediastinal, 12. EUS-FNA established a tissue diagnosis in 56 of 62 patients (90%). EUS criteria for malignant lymph nodes were more frequently present in malignant pulmonary (mean 2.6 features) and malignant mediastinal (mean 2.8) than benign/infectious (mean 1.9) lymph nodes. EUS results influenced subsequent evaluation in 87% and therapy in 87% of patients. There was no complication of EUS-FNA. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNA in patients with mediastinal lymphadenopathy is safe and guides subsequent therapy in the great majority of cases. Transesophageal EUS-FNA of mediastinal lymph nodes provides minimally invasive tissue sampling, obviating the need for mediastinoscopy or bronchoscopy.     

Role of transesophageal endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration in the diagnosis of lung cancer

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Bronchoscopic methods fail to diagnose lung cancer in up to 30% of patients. We studied the role of transesophageal endosonography (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA; EUS-FNA) in such patients. DESIGN: Prospective study. The final diagnosis was confirmed by cytology, histology, or clinical follow-up. SETTING: University hospital. PATIENTS: Thirty-five patients (30 male and 5 female; mean age, 60.9 years; range, 34 to 88 years) with suspected lung cancer in whom bronchoscopic methods failed. Patients with a known diagnosis, recurrence of lung cancer, or mediastinal metastasis from an extrathoracic primary were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: EUS and guided FNA of mediastinal lymph nodes. RESULTS: The procedure was uneventful, and material was adequate in all. The final diagnosis by EUS-FNA was malignancy in 25 patients (11 adenocarcinoma, 10 small cell, 3 squamous cell, and 1 lymphoma) and benign disease in 9 patients (5 inflammatory, 2 sarcoidosis, and 2 anthracosis). Another patient with a benign result had signet-ring cell carcinoma diagnosed on pleural fluid cytology (probably false-negative in EUS-FNA). The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive and negative predictive values were 96, 100, 97, 100, and 90%, respectively. There were no complications. Reviewing the EUS morphology, the nodes were predominantly located in levels 7 and 8 of American Thoracic Society mediastinal lymph node mapping (subcarinal and paraesophageal region). In seven patients, the punctured nodes were < 1 cm (four malignant and three benign), which are difficult to sample by other methods. The malignant nodes had a hypoechoic, homogenous echotexture. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNA is a safe, reliable, and accurate method to establish the diagnosis of suspected lung cancer when bronchoscopic methods fail, especially in the presence of small nodes.     

Accuracy of EUS criteria and primary tumor site for identification of mediastinal lymph node metastasis from non-small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND: EUS with FNA is useful for staging non-small-cell lung cancer. However, benign mediastinal adenopathy is common. The aims of this study were to identify clinical factors, especially primary tumor location, and EUS lymph nodal characteristics predictive of aortopulmonary window and subcarinal lymph node metastases of non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: Patients with known or suspected non-small-cell lung cancer underwent EUS staging at which EUS-FNA was performed for all identified mediastinal lymph nodes. Clinical characteristics, primary tumor data, EUS findings, and histopathology were reviewed. Exact tests were performed for both aortopulmonary window and subcarinal lymph nodes to identify factors predictive of malignant cytology. RESULTS: Ninety-two patients with non-small-cell lung cancer were included. Fifty-one had aortopulmonary window, and 73 had subcarinal lymph nodes on EUS. The EUS with FNA specimens were interpreted as suspicious or diagnostic for malignancy for 9 aortopulmonary window and 9 subcarinal lymph nodes. When comparing benign vs. malignant EUS with FNA findings for aortopulmonary window and subcarinal lymph nodes, only lymph node size of 1 cm or greater and sharp lymph nodal edges were associated with malignancy in lymph nodes at both sites, whereas primary tumor site, lymph node shape, and echogenicity were associated with malignant subcarinal nodes. When 4 classic lymph nodal features of malignancy were evaluated, the presence of 3 or more typical features had positive and negative predictive values of, respectively, 41% and 96%. CONCLUSIONS: Although tumor location and EUS lymph nodal characteristics are associated with malignant involvement of lymph nodes, the accuracy of these predictors does not obviate the need for cytologic evaluation. EUS with FNA should be performed for all lymph nodes when an abnormal finding will alter management.     

Malignant mediastinal lymphadenopathy detected by staging EUS in patients with pancreaticobiliary cancer

BACKGROUND: In patients with pancreatic cancer, the presence of malignant mediastinal lymphadenopathy (MML) would preclude definitive resection. A recent study suggested routine evaluation for mediastinal lymph-node metastases in all patients being evaluated for pancreaticobiliary masses. In our practice, we routinely assess for mediastinal lymph-node metastases in all patients undergoing EUS for pancreaticobiliary cancer. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the presence of MML by EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) in 160 consecutive patients with a definite diagnosis of pancreaticobiliary cancer (pancreatic and periampullary cancers) who underwent EUS-FNA by a single operator from 2000 to 2004. Lymph nodes that were round and hypoechoic with sharp margins were considered suspicious and were sampled by FNA. RESULTS: Of the 160 patients included in this study, 78 had peripancreatic lymph nodes (49%: 95% CI[41%, 58%]), 25 had celiac lymph nodes (16%: 95% CI[10%, 22%]), and 14 patients had mediastinal lymph nodes (9%: 95% CI[4%, 13%]) that were suspicious for malignancy by morphologic criteria. In 8 of 14 patients with suspicious mediastinal lymph nodes, FNA documented MML in 5%: 95% CI[2%, 8%]. Only one of these 8 patients with MML had other sites of documented distant metastases by CT and/or positron emission tomography scans. However, 7 of 8 patients had locally advanced cancers. CONCLUSIONS: MML is detected by staging EUS-FNA in 5% of patients with pancreaticobiliary cancer. Because of its important implications, endosonographers should routinely assess for MML in patients who undergo staging EUS for pancreaticobiliary malignancy.     

Diagnosing sarcoidosis using endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration

STUDY OBJECTIVES: The ability to diagnose sarcoidosis cytologically has been reported previously, but the method is rarely used. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is a sensitive technique for detecting mediastinal lymph nodes, which in addition provides an opportunity to carry out guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) cytology. We report herein on the use of EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of sarcoidosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Nineteen patients with suspected sarcoidosis were investigated using EUS-FNA with a linear echoendoscope and a 22-gauge Hancke-Vilman needle. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: In all 19 patients, EUS revealed enlarged mediastinal lymph nodes (mean size, 2.4 cm), located subcarinally (n = 15), in the aortopulmonary window (n = 12), or in the lower posterior mediastinum (n = 5). The nodes had an isoechoic or hypoechoic appearance, with atypical vessels in five cases. The amount of aspirate obtained using EUS-FNA was adequate in all patients, and contained blood in excess of normal in some, indicating a high degree of vascularity. Cytology demonstrated epithelioid cell granuloma formation, suggesting sarcoidosis. Mycobacterial cultures were negative in all of the patients except one, in whom the final diagnosis was tuberculosis. The specificity and sensitivity of EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of sarcoidosis were 94% and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: EUS of mediastinal lymph nodes in sarcoidosis reveals certain characteristic features. However, it is not capable of differentiating the lesions from tuberculosis or malignancy. EUS-FNA is a safe and sensitive method of aspirating material for cytology and mycobacterial cultures. We believe it will provide a useful alternative in the diagnosis of sarcoidosis.     

The utility and the safety of EUS-guided FNA in the evaluation of duplication cysts

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of a foregut duplication cyst is of great clinical impact. A definitive diagnosis of a foregut duplication cyst can avert the need for major thoracic surgery in the otherwise asymptomatic individual. This study sought to evaluate the safety and the utility of EUS and EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) in the diagnosis of foregut duplication cysts. METHODS: Over a period of 4 years, 4771 patients underwent EUS for various indications at two EUS referral centers. EUS findings were consistent with a mediastinal cyst in 30 cases. EUS-FNA was performed in 22 patients. A definitive diagnosis was established based on cytology, surgical pathology, and/or clinical follow-up. FNA was done with 22-gauge needles and antibiotic prophylaxis. RESULTS: The appearance of cyst contents on EUS ranged from completely anechoic (23 cases) to hypoechoic (7 cases). Hypoechoic cystic lesions contained echogenic foci. All anechoic lesions were confirmed as benign duplication cysts based on cytology, pathology, and clinical follow-up. Hypoechoic cystic lesions were confirmed to be benign duplication cysts in 4 cases. Three cases proved to be malignant or granulomatous necrotizing lymph nodes. No periprocedural complications occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Variation exists in the EUS appearance of benign mediastinal cysts. EUS-FNA of mediastinal cysts with smaller-gauge needles, and antibiotic prophylaxis appears safe and can provide a definitive diagnosis in atypical mediastinal cystic lesions.     

Predictors of malignancy and recommended follow-up for patients with negative endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of suspected pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND:

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with fine-needle aspiration (FNA) can characterize and diagnose pancreatic lesions as malignant, but cannot definitively rule out the presence of malignancy. Outcome data regarding the length of follow-up in patients with negative or nondiagnostic EUS-FNA of pancreatic lesions are not well-established.

OBJECTIVE:

To determine the long-term outcome and provide follow-up guidance for patients with negative EUS-FNA diagnosis of suspected pancreatic lesions based on imaging predictors.

METHODS:

A retrospective review of patients undergoing EUS-FNA for suspected pancreatic lesions, but with negative or nondiagnostic FNA results was conducted at a tertiary care referral medical centre. Patient demographics, EUS imaging characteristics and follow-up data were examined.

RESULTS:

Seventeen of 55 patients (30.9%) with negative/nondiagnostic FNA were subsequently diagnosed with pancreatic malignancy. The risk of cancer was significantly higher for patients who had associated lymph nodes on EUS (P<0.001) and vascular involvement on EUS (P=0.001). The mean time to diagnosis in the group with false-negative EUS-FNA diagnosis was 66 days. The true-negative EUS-FNA patients were followed for a mean of 403 days after negative EUS-FNA results without the development of malignancy.

CONCLUSION:

For patients undergoing EUS-FNA for a suspected pancreatic lesion, a negative or nondiagnostic FNA does not provide conclusive evidence for the absence of cancer. Patients for whom vascular invasion and lymphadenopathy are detected on EUS are more likely to have a true malignant lesion and should be followed closely. When a patient has been monitored for six months or more with no cancer being diagnosed, there appears to be much less chance that a pancreatic malignancy is present.     

Can endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration predict response to chemoradiation in non-small cell lung cancer? A pilot study

BACKGROUND: Accurate prediction of pathologic response to chemoradiation (CHEMO-XRT) has a significant impact on the treatment of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and mediastinal lymph node (LN) metastasis (N2 disease). Objective: This pilot study evaluates the ability of EUS-FNA to predict pathologic response in LN following CHEMO-XRT in NSCLC patients with N2 disease. Patients and METHODS: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on patients with NSCLC and biopsy-proven N2 disease who underwent restaging by EUS following CHEMO-XRT. At restaging, FNA was performed on the same LN, if present, or any other visible LN in the posterior mediastinum. Response to therapy (N0 disease) was defined by either absence of mediastinal LN or residual disease on FNA. Those staged N0 by EUS underwent tumor resection with complete LN dissection. RESULTS: Fourteen patients met the criteria for evaluation. Restaging by EUS suggested disease response in 7 patients and residual disease in 6; tissue yield was unsatisfactory in 1 patient. Eleven of 14 patients in whom mediastinal LN were seen at restaging by EUS underwent FNA: the aspirate was benign in 4, residual disease was found in 6, and an inadequate sample was obtained in 1 patient. In 3 patients no mediastinal LN were evident at EUS. Final diagnosis on the 7 patients in whom EUS suggested N0 disease was established at surgery: EUS was true negative in 6 and false negative in 1. Of the 6 patients with residual disease, 5 underwent palliative CHEMO-XRT and 1 underwent extended tumor resection. The patient in whom tissue sampling was inadequate was found to have residual disease at surgery. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA for predicting mediastinal response to preoperative CHEMO-XRT was 86%. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNA appears to qualify as an accurate, safe and minimally invasive diagnostic technique for restaging of mediastinal LN after CHEMO-XRT in NSCLC patients. Given this promising preliminary data, a prospective evaluation is justified.     

Routine vs. selective EUS-guided FNA approach for preoperative nodal staging of esophageal carcinoma

BACKGROUND: EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) is the most accurate method for lymph-node staging of esophageal carcinoma; however, it may not be necessary when EUS features are present that strongly suggest a benign or a malignant origin. AIMS: (1) To identify a combination of EUS criteria that have a sufficient sensitivity and specificity to preclude the need for EUS-FNA and (2) to assess the cost savings derived from a selective EUS-FNA approach. METHODS: A total of 144 patients with esophageal carcinoma were prospectively evaluated with EUS. Accuracy of standard (hypoechoic, smooth border, round, or width > 5 mm) and modified (4 standard plus EUS identified celiac lymph nodes, >5 lymph nodes, or EUS T3/4 tumor) criteria were compared (receiver operating characteristic curves). Resource utilization of two diagnostic strategies, routine (all patients with lymph nodes) and selective EUS-FNA (FNA only in those patients in whom the number of EUS malignant criteria provides a sensitivity and a specificity <100%), were compared. RESULTS: Modified EUS criteria for lymph-node staging were more accurate than standard criteria (area under the curve 0.88 vs. 0.78, respectively). No criterion alone was predictive of malignancy; sensitivity and specificity reached 100% when a cutoff value of >1 and >6 modified criteria were used, respectively. The EUS-FNA selective approach may avoid performing FNA in 61 patients (42%). CONCLUSIONS: Modified EUS lymph-node criteria are more accurate than standard criteria. A selective EUS-FNA approach reduced the cost by avoiding EUS-FNA in 42% of patients with esophageal carcinoma. These results require confirmation in future studies.     

EUS-guided FNA of regional lymph nodes in patients with unresectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma

BACKGROUND: The clinical impact of EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) in regional lymph-node staging in patients with unresectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma before liver transplantation has yet to be determined. OBJECTIVES: To determine the frequency of regional lymph-node detection, identify EUS features predictive of benign or malignant lymph nodes, compare EUS lymph-node detection rates to CT/magnetic resonance imaging and exploratory laparotomy, and evaluate the impact of EUS-FNA on patient selection for liver transplantation. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. SETTING: Tertiary referral EUS unit. PATIENTS: Clinical, radiographic, EUS, cytologic, and surgical data of 47 patients with unresectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma before liver transplantation were evaluated. INTERVENTIONS: EUS-FNA. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Lymph-node morphology and echo features. RESULTS: EUS identified lymph nodes in all patients. FNA of 70 lymph nodes identified metastases in 9 nodes of 8 patients (17%), who were then precluded from transplantation before a staging laparotomy. Identified lymph nodes, irrespective of malignant involvement, were typically oval and geographic in shape, of mixed echogenicity, with a hypoechoic border. There were no morphologic criteria or echo features to correlate with nodal malignancy. The EUS finding of absent regional lymph-node metastases was confirmed in 20 of 22 by a subsequent exploratory staging laparotomy. LIMITATIONS: Single institution, retrospective analysis. CONCLUSIONS: EUS identified lymph nodes in all patients, and confirmation of malignant lymph nodes detected by FNA precluded 17% of patients from transplantation. EUS-FNA of visualized lymph nodes irrespective of appearance is advised because morphology and echo features do not predict malignant involvement.     

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for non-small cell lung cancer staging: A systematic review and metaanalysis

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is a minimally invasive alternative technique for mediastinal staging of non-small cell lung cancer. A metaanalysis was performed to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA for staging mediastinal lymph nodes (N2/N3 disease) in patients with lung cancer. METHODS: Relevant studies were identified using Medline (1966 to November 2005), CINAHL, and citation indexing. Included studies used histology or adequate clinical follow-up (> 6 months) as the "gold standard," and provided sufficient data for calculating sensitivity and specificity. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves metaanalysis was performed to estimate the pooled sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: In 18 eligible studies, EUS-FNA identified 83% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 78 to 87%) with positive mediastinal lymph nodes (pooled sensitivity) and 97% of patients (95% CI, 96 to 98%) with negative mediastinal lymph nodes (pooled specificity). In eight studies that were limited to patients who had abnormal mediastinal lymph nodes seen on CT scans, the sensitivity was 90% (95% CI, 84 to 94%) and the specificity was 97% (95% CI, 95 to 98%). In patients without abnormal mediastinal lymph nodes seen on CT scans (four studies), the pooled sensitivity was 58% (95% CI, 39 to 75%). Minor complications were reported in 10 cases (0.8%). There were no major complications. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNA is a safe modality for the invasive staging of lung cancer that is highly sensitive when used to confirm metastasis to mediastinal lymph nodes seen on CT scans. In addition, among lung cancer patients with normal mediastinal adenopathy seen on CT scans, despite lower sensitivity, it has the potential to prevent unnecessary surgery in a large proportion of cases missed by CT scanning.     

EUS-FNA and FDG-PET are complementary procedures in the diagnosis of enlarged mediastinal lymph nodes

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Transoesophageal endosonography with fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and 2-deoxy-2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) are now standard diagnostic procedures of the mediastinum. Our aim was to compare their value in the assessment of enlarged mediastinal lymph nodes detected by computed tomography. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty consecutive patients with a suspicion of cancer or a history of pulmonary, digestive, urogenital or mammary neoplasia and presenting with supracentimetric lymph nodes on computed tomography underwent whole body FDG-PET and EUS-FNA. Final diagnosis of malignancy was obtained by cytology, surgery or long-term follow-up. RESULTS: EUS-FNA showed a sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for detection of malignancy of 793, 100 and 85%, respectively. The biopsy material was adequate for cytological examination in 37 patients. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of PET were 100, 54.5 and 87.5%, respectively. FDG-PET correctly diagnosed the primary site in 27 patients, and showed additional unknown extrathoracic metastatic sites in 15 patients. The five false positive results observed with FDG-PET consisted in a final diagnosis of sarcoidosis, tuberculosis, anthracosilicosis and reactive lymph nodes, respectively. The association of FDG-PET and EUS-FNA avoided more invasive procedures (mediastinoscopies or staging surgery) in 34 patients. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNA and FDG-PET are complementary diagnostic procedures combining the high sensitivity of FDG-PET and the high specificity of EUS-FNA to accurately diagnose malignancy in enlarged mediastinal lymph nodes identified by CTscan. The combination of the two procedures in selected cases with pulmonary cancer or extra-thoracic tumours avoided more invasive diagnostic and surgical procedures.     

Endoscopic ultrasound： It＇s accuracy in evaluating mediastinal lymphadenopathy？ A meta-analysis and systematic review

AIM：To evaluate the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound （EUS）, EUS-fine needle aspiration （FNA） in evaluating mediastinal lymphadenopathy.
METHODS：Only EUS and EUS-FNA studies confirmed by surgery or with appropriate follow-up were selected. Articles were searched in Medline, Pubmed, and Cochrane control trial registry. Only studies from which a 2 × 2 table could be constructed for true positive, false negative, false positive and true negative values were included. Two reviewers independently searched and extracted data. The differences were resolved by mutual agreement. Meta-analysis for the accuracy of EUS was analyzed by calculating pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratios. Pooling was conducted by both Mantel-Haenszel method （fixed effects model） and DerSimonian Laird method （random effects model）. The heterogeneity of studies was tested using Cochran＇s Q test based upon inverse variance weights.
RESULTS：Data was extracted from 76 studies （n = 9310） which met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 44 studies used EUS alone and 32 studies used EUS-FNA. FNA improved the sensitivity of EUS from 84.7% （95% CI：82.9-86.4） to 88.0% （95% CI：85.8-90.0）. With FNA, the specificity of EUS improved from 84.6% （95% CI：83.2-85.9） to 96.4% （95% CI：95.3-97.4）. The P forchi-squared heterogeneity for all the pooled accuracy estimates was 〉 0.10.
CONCLUSION：EUS is highly sensitive and specific for the evaluation of mediastinal lymphadenopathy and FNA substantially improves this. EUS with FNA should be the diagnostic test of choice for evaluating mediastinal lymphadenopathy.     

Impact of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration on lymph node staging in patients with esophageal carcinoma

BACKGROUND: Preoperative identification of lymph node metastases associated with esophageal carcinoma may influence treatment. EUS is the most accurate method for locoregional staging of these tumors. The impact of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) on lymph node staging in esophageal carcinoma is unclear. METHODS: From May 1996 to May 1999, 74 patients with esophageal carcinoma underwent preoperative EUS. After October 1998 EUS-guided FNA was performed on nonperitumoral lymph nodes greater than 5 mm in width. The results of EUS with and without FNA were retrospectively reviewed and compared. Final diagnosis was based on surgical results or EUS-guided FNA malignant cytology. Ten of the 74 patients had to be excluded for lack of lymph node stage confirmation. Final diagnosis was obtained in the remaining 64 patients (33 from the EUS only group and 31 from the EUS-FNA group). RESULTS: The results of EUS versus EUS-FNA for lymph node staging were sensitivity 63% versus 93% (p = 0.01), specificity 81% versus 100% (not significant), and accuracy 70% versus 93% (p = 0.02), respectively. Complications comprised 1 patient who developed self-limited bleeding after dilation that did not preclude completion of the EUS (1%, 95% CI [0%, 7%]). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNA is more sensitive and accurate than EUS alone for preoperative staging of locoregional and celiac lymph nodes associated with esophageal carcinoma. EUS-FNA of nonperitumoral lymph nodes in patients with esophageal carcinoma is safe and should be routinely performed when treatment decisions will be affected by nodal stage.     

Contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography for assessment of lymph node metastases in pancreatobiliary carcinoma

AIM: To assess the usefulness of contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography(CH-EUS) for lymph node metastasis in pancreatobiliary carcinoma.METHODS: All patients suspected of pancreatobiliary carcinoma with visible lymph nodes after standard EUS between June, 2009 and January, 2012 were enrolled.In the primary analysis, patients with successful EUSfine needle aspiration(FNA) were included. The lymph nodes were assessed by several standard EUS variables(short and long axis lengths, shape, edge characteristic and echogenicity), color Doppler EUS variable [central intranodal blood vessel(CIV) presence] and CH-EUS variable(heterogeneous/homogeneous enhancement patterns). The diagnostic accuracy relative to EUSFNA was calculated. In the second analysis, N-stage diagnostic accuracy of CH-EUS was compared with EUS-FNA in patients who underwent surgical resection.RESULTS: One hundred and nine patients(143 lymph nodes) fulfilled the criteria. The short axis cutoff ≥ 13 mm predicted malignancy with a sensitivity and specificity of 72% and 85%, respectively. These values were 72% and 63% for the long axis cut-off ≥ 20 mm, 62% and 75% for the round shape variable, 81% and 30% for the sharp edge variable, 66% and 61% for the hypoechogenicity variable, 70% and 72% for the CIV-absent variable, and 83% and 91% for the heterogeneous CH-EUS-enhancement variable, respectively. CH-EUS was more accurate than standard and color Doppler EUS, except the short axis cut-off. Notably, three patients excluded because of EUS-FNA failure were correctly N-staged by CH-EUS.CONCLUSION: CH-EUS complements standard and color Doppler EUS and EUS-FNA for assessment of lymph node metastases.     

Prospective study of a Trucut needle for performing EUS-guided biopsy with EUS-guided FNA rescue

BACKGROUND: EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) is an accurate technique for sampling extraintestinal masses and lymph nodes. The use of a Trucut needle to perform EUS-guided biopsy (EUS-TCB) may improve the results or simplify the procedure. To date, few studies have prospectively assessed the performance and the safety of EUS-TCB. METHODS: Patients with a known or a suspected malignancy referred for a diagnostic and/or staging EUS examination were enrolled in a prospective study. EUS-guided biopsy was performed first with a 19-gauge Trucut needle. If the Trucut failed to obtain an adequate sample or when the "in room" touch preparation was benign, EUS-FNA was performed with a standard 22-gauge FNA needle. The objective of the study was to assess the yield of detection of malignancy and the safety of EUS-TCB in patients with known or suspected malignancies and to investigate if EUS-FNA has a role for rescue in cases of Trucut failure. OBSERVATIONS: Thirty-nine lesions underwent EUS-TCB in 30 patients. Sufficient follow-up was available for all patients. By using EUS-TCB, we were able to obtain a sample for diagnosis in all but 3 patients (one pancreatic mass and two lymph nodes) in which technical problems arose. In these patients, the diagnosis was obtained in two cases by EUS-FNA and in the other one by EUS-TCB from the primary pancreatic tumor. The yield of detection of malignancy for EUS-TCB was 84%. No complications were recorded in any patients at 1 and 7 days of follow-up. The sample size is limited to generalize conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-TCB is a safe and an accurate procedure to obtain a histologic diagnosis in patients with known or suspected malignancies. EUS-FNA can serve as a rescue technique in cases of Trucut failure.     

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for the diagnosis of sarcoidosis.

The objective of the current study was to assess the yield of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) for the diagnosis of sarcoidosis in a large patient group. Bronchoscopy with transbronchial lung biopsy (TBLB) is nondiagnostic in 30% of patients with suspected sarcoidosis and has a risk of pneumothorax and haemoptysis. In order to obtain a diagnosis, mediastinoscopy is often performed as the next diagnostic procedure. EUS-FNA provides a nonsurgical alternative for the demonstration of noncaseating granulomas by aspirating mediastinal lymph nodes from the oesophagus. In total, 51 patients with suspected sarcoidosis stage I and II underwent EUS-FNA. Thirty-six patients (71%) previously underwent a nondiagnostic bronchoscopy. All patients were clinically followed (median 18 months) and surgical-pathological verification occurred in those patients with EUS aspirates that contained unrepresentative material. EUS-FNA demonstrated noncaseating granulomas without necrosis in 41 of 50 patients (82%) with the final diagnosis of sarcoidosis. Specific ultrasound features of clustered, well-demarcated iso-echoic lymph nodes were observed in 64% of patients with sarcoidosis. No complications occurred. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration has a high yield in diagnosing sarcoidosis and qualifies as the next diagnostic step after a nondiagnostic bronchoscopy. The current authors expect that endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration will reduce the number of mediastinoscopies for the diagnosis of sarcoidosis dramatically.     

Impact of EUS-guided FNA of enlarged mediastinal lymph nodes on subsequent thoracic surgery rates

BACKGROUND: A histopathologic diagnosis of metastasis in enlarged mediastinal lymph nodes usually results in non-surgical management. Cytologic specimens obtained by EUS-guided FNA can be used to detect malignancy in posterior mediastinal lymph nodes. The purpose of this study was to determine the rate of thoracic surgery after EUS-guided FNA of enlarged mediastinal lymph nodes. METHODS: A prospective observational study of patients with enlarged posterior mediastinal lymphadenopathy who were referred for EUS-guided FNA. All patients were candidates for mediastinoscopy. Patients were followed for 12 months to determine the subsequent rate of mediastinoscopy or thoracotomy and the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided FNA. RESULTS: Evaluation of cytologic specimens obtained by EUS-guided FNA revealed malignancy in 23 of 59 (39%) patients. The overall rate of surgery was 22% (13/59): 95% CI[0.12, 0.35]. The surgery rate for patients with a positive cytologic result was 4% (1/23) compared with 33% (12/36) for those with a negative result (p=0.009). Of patients with CT findings of a peripheral lung mass plus mediastinal lymphadenopathy, 22 of 26 (42%) underwent surgery after EUS-guided FNA, compared with two of 33 (6%) of those with mediastinal lymphadenopathy alone (p=0.0009). For cytologic evaluation of specimens obtained by EUS-guided FNA, the overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for the diagnosis of malignant lymphadenopathy were 96%, 100%, and 98%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Few patients who undergo EUS-guided FNA of enlarged posterior mediastinal lymph nodes require subsequent thoracic surgery.     

Mediastinal adenopathy: finding the answer with endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS FNA) is a relatively new imaging modality that has been reported to be useful for mediastinal nodal staging of lung cancer and for the evaluation of mediastinal adenopathy of unknown cause. However, the technique is not commonly used in Australia. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients who had mediastinal EUS FNA was undertaken. Of a total of 787 patients who had undergone endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) studies from November 1999 to March 2004, 27 patients were identified to have had mediastinal EUS FNA. Details were recorded including study indication, history of malignancy, source of referral, prior attempts for tissue diagnosis, EUS and EUS FNA findings, complications, surgical pathology if available and clinical outcome after diagnosis. RESULTS: Mediastinal EUS FNA was performed on an outpatient basis and no complications were recorded. Diagnostic material was obtained from all patients with a mean number of three passes. Nodal stations sampled included left paratracheal, subcarinal, aortopulmonary window and inferior mediastinum. Indications for the studies included mediastinal adenopathy of uncertain cause (17), lung cancer staging (7) and gastrointestinal cancer staging (3). EUS FNA confirmed malignancy in 16/27 patients, sarcoidosis in three patients, tuberculosis in one patient and seven patients were deemed to have reactive adenopathy. Primary cytopathological diagnosis of malignancy was determined by EUS FNA in nine patients. CONCLUSIONS: EUS FNA is a safe, efficient and effective modality for mediastinal staging of lung cancer and for the diagnosis of mediastinal adenopathy of uncertain origin. EUS FNA has the potential to significantly impact on patient management, avoiding more invasive procedures as well as unnecessary operations.     

Diagnosis of benign cysts of the mediastinum: the role and risks of EUS and FNA

BACKGROUND: Benign mediastinal cysts, which account for approximately 20% of mediastinal masses, may be diagnostic challenges. Information regarding the use of EUS and EUS-guided FNA in this setting is limited. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the value and potential risks of EUS and EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of mediastinal foregut cysts. METHODS: The EUS database of a single tertiary referral center was reviewed for the diagnosis of benign mediastinal cysts. Twenty patients were identified who underwent 23 EUS examinations for suspected mediastinal cysts (n = 4), for follow-up of a known cyst (n = 3), or for a mediastinal mass of unknown origin (n = 16). RESULTS: In 19 patients, the definite diagnosis of a mediastinal cyst was established by EUS. Twelve cysts appeared anechoic, 6 were hypoechoic, and one anechoic cyst contained small echoic foci. CT (n = 17) or magnetic resonance imaging (n = 1) was performed in 18 cases; only 4 of these were diagnostic of a cyst. In 3 cases, the cyst contents were aspirated by EUS-FNA. In a fourth case, a solid-appearing duplication cyst, misdiagnosed by EUS, was sampled with FNA and core biopsy. This patient developed severe sepsis secondary to mediastinitis 4 days later. Thoracotomy revealed an infected bronchogenic cyst. CONCLUSIONS: EUS provides a minimally invasive approach to the diagnosis of benign mediastinal cysts and may be more accurate than CT or other imaging modalities. Aspiration of suspected cysts should be undertaken with caution, given the risk of infection.