Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration in the diagnosis of mediastinal masses of unknown origin

OBJECTIVES: The ability of endosonography to diagnose a variety of gastrointestinal pathology has been significantly advanced with the introduction of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) biopsy. EUS-FNA technology can also be applied to the evaluation of non-GI disorders. The role of EUS-FNA to establish the diagnosis of unexplained mediastinal masses has not been previously described. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy, impact on subsequent workup, and role of EUS-FNA in treating mediastinal masses of unknown cause. METHODS: A total of 26 patients (15 men and 11 women, mean age 61 yr, range 39-77 yr) underwent EUS-FNA in patients presenting with unexplained mediastinal masses at four tertiary referral centers. Presenting symptoms included: chest pain (10 patients), dysphagia (eight), cough (seven), fever (six), night sweats (three), and no symptoms/abnormal x-ray (five patients). Five of 26 patients had prior history of cancer (three lung, one tracheal, and one esophageal). RESULTS: Final diagnosis using EUS-FNA, surgery, autopsy, other diagnostic study, or long-term follow-up was available in all patients. EUS-FNA results were classified under three disease categories: 1) infectious, 2) benign/ inflammatory, and 3) malignant. Final diagnosis included infectious in five patents, benign/inflammatory in nine, and malignant in 12. EUS-FNA was successful in 21 of 26 patients (81%) for all disease categories (infectious 60%, benign/inflammatory 78%, and malignant 92%). EUS-FNA was successful in directing subsequent workup in 77% (20 of 26) and therapy in 73% (19 of 26). Mean EUS-FNA passes for adequate tissue sampling was lower of nonmalignant disease categories (3.0 and 3.4) versus malignant disease (4.4). No complications were seen during the course of this study. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNA in patients presenting with idiopathic mediastinal masses establishes the diagnosis in the vast majority of cases, particularly for those with malignant disease. The emergence of transesophageal EUS-FNA of the mediastinum provides the ability to alter subsequent workup and therapy, obviating the need for more invasive diagnostic studies such as thoracotomy.     

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.     

A descriptive analysis of EUS-FNA for mediastinal lymphadenopathy: an emphasis on clinical impact and false negative results

OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has been shown to accurately diagnose mediastinal lymph node pathology. We investigated the clinical impact of EUS-FNA in the management of patients with mediastinal lymphadenopathy, and determined the nature and clinical consequences of false negative results. METHODS: We analyzed a cohort of patients who were found to have mediastinal lymph nodes by EUS and underwent FNA. The diagnostic standard included FNA cytology, histopathology, and clinical follow-up. RESULTS: Sixty EUS-FNAs of mediastinal lymph nodes were performed on 59 patients (mean age 61 years old, 74.5% men) over a 24-month period. Prior to EUS, 20 (34%) patients had known malignancy. The most frequent indication for EUS was failed diagnosis by bronchoscopy (54%). EUS-FNA of lymph nodes showed malignant cells in 38%. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA was 84%. Among the 47 patients who were available for follow-up, EUS-FNA provided new information by changing the clinical diagnosis, and subsequently changed the management in 18 (38%) patients. The false negative rate was 20% (95% exact CI, 8.4-31.6%). Two of the 7 false negative cases received empiric chemoradiation without tissue diagnosis, and 4 received palliative treatment for advanced malignancy. CONCLUSION: The most common indication for EUS-FNA of the mediastinum in our institution is nondiagnostic transbronchial FNA. EUS-FNA is a valuable diagnostic method for sampling mediastinal lymph nodes and affecting management. False negative results do not appear to delay appropriate treatment or adversely affect clinical outcome.     

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided Trucut biopsy adds significant information to EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration in selected patients: a prospective study

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided Trucut biopsy (EUS-TCB) has recently emerged as a method that seeks to overcome the limitations of EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) by providing a core-tissue specimen needed to increase the yield and accuracy of the diagnosis. The aim of our study was to evaluate whether EUS-TCB adds any information to EUS-FNA in selected patients and to assess the diagnostic yield, overall accuracy and complications of EUS-TCB as compared with EUS-FNA. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study prospectively included 30 patients who had undergone both procedures. RESULTS: The yield of adequate tissue harvesting was similar for EUS-FNA and EUS-TCB (96.4% versus 89.3%, p=NS), with the same number of passes done. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA was also similar to that of EUS-TCB for the diagnosis of malignant mediastinal masses (73.7% versus 68.4%, p=NS). However, the accuracy for obtaining a specific diagnosis was significantly lower for EUS-FNA compared with EUS-TCB (5.3% and 68.4%, p<0.005). EUS-TCB did not appear to help as a rescue procedure in mediastinal tumours, after a false negative result of EUS-FNA. All cases of submucosal tumours were correctly classified by EUS-TCB as gastrointestinal stromal cell tumours (GISTs) or leiomyomas, while EUS-FNA raised only a suspicion of mesenchymal tumour. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-TCB was certainly useful when immunohistochemistry was needed, for example in submucosal tumours and lymphoma, as well as to confirm and characterize the primary or metastatic origin of mediastinal masses. The information provided by EUS-FNA and EUS-TCB is complementary, especially in selected cases where a complete histological diagnosis has an important impact on the clinical management.     

EUS-guided fine needle aspiration of idiopathic abdominal masses

BACKGROUND: EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has significantly increased the diagnostic capability of EUS. FNA can also be helpful in the diagnosis of non-GI disorders. The role of EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of idiopathic abdominal masses has not been determined. This study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA of abdominal masses of unknown cause and its impact on subsequent evaluation and therapy. METHODS: Thirty-four patients from 5 tertiary referral centers (21 women, 13 men; mean age 54 years, range 27-72 years) with idiopathic abdominal masses underwent EUS-FNA. Presenting symptoms included the following: pain (29 patients), weight loss (15), altered bowel habits (7), nausea/vomiting (6), abnormal liver function tests (4), palpable mass (4), and urinary retention (1). Four patients had a history of intra-abdominal cancer (2 cervical, 1 ovarian, 1 colon). A final diagnosis by EUS-FNA, surgery, autopsy, or long-term follow-up was available in all patients. Abdominal masses were classified into 3 disease categories: infectious, benign/inflammatory, and malignant. RESULTS: Final diagnosis included infectious (5), benign/inflammatory (6), and malignant (23) abdominal mass. Overall, EUS-FNA established a tissue diagnosis in 29 of 34 patients (85%) in all 3 categories (infectious, 80%; benign/inflammatory, 67%; malignant, 91%). EUS-FNA was instrumental in directing subsequent evaluation in 29 patients (85%) and therapy in 26 (77%). The number of fine needle passes for adequate tissue sampling was lower for nonmalignant (2.2-3.2) versus malignant diseases (4.6). One complication occurred (perirectal abscess) and was treated successfully with antibiotics. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNA of idiopathic abdominal masses is safe and accurate and helps to guide subsequent evaluation and therapy in the majority of patients. The most common and promising area seems to be EUS-FNA of malignant abdominal masses. Transluminal EUS-FNA provides minimally invasive tissue sampling and obviates the need for exploratory laparotomy.     

The utility of EUS-guided FNA in the diagnosis of metastatic breast cancer to the esophagus and the mediastinum

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer can metastasize to the esophagus and the mediastinum. EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) is being used increasingly as a less invasive alternative to mediastinoscopy for procuring a tissue diagnosis of mediastinal disease and may be useful for the diagnosis of breast cancer metastatic to the esophagus and the mediastinum. METHODS: Twelve women (age range 54-82 years) with a history of breast cancer presented with dysphagia or other symptoms between 1 and 15 years after initial diagnosis and treatment. CT and endoscopy with biopsies suggested a mediastinal mass or lymphadenopathy with extrinsic esophageal compression but failed to provide a tissue diagnosis. EUS-FNA was performed for diagnosis. RESULTS: Cytologic evaluation of specimens obtained by EUS-FNA confirmed breast cancer metastases in 11 of 12 patients (91%). Recurrent disease was found in intramural masses and periesophageal lymph nodes. No complication resulted from any EUS-FNA procedure. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNA is safe and effective for the diagnosis of breast cancer metastases to the esophagus and the mediastinum. EUS-FNA may be useful as a first-line method of evaluation when breast cancer metastasis to the esophagus and the mediastinum is suspected.     

内镜超声引导下细针穿刺抽吸术在纵隔病变诊断中的应用

目的 初步探讨内镜超声引导下细针穿刺抽吸术(EUS-FNA)在纵隔肿大淋巴结、纵隔不明原因占位定性诊断及肺癌N分期中的应用价值.方法 应用22 G穿刺针对61例患者经食管行EUS.FNA,穿刺物均行病理及细胞学检查.结果 EUS·FNA诊断阳性率为93.4%(57/61),细胞学及病理诊断阳性率分别为85.2%(52/61)和83.6%(51/61).100.0%(26/26)临床疑诊肺癌纵隔淋巴结转移而经支气管镜等检查未能提供病理或细胞学证据者均通过EUS-FNA得到诊断,其中21例诊断为肺癌、5例排除肺癌诊断为良性疾病;86.4%(19/22)纵隔不明原因占位明确定性;85.7%(6/7)有恶性肿瘤病史影像学检查疑诊纵隔淋巴结转移者,EUS-FNA病理及细胞学结果 支持转移;6例经支气管镜检查已获得明确病理细胞学诊断的肺癌病例但影像学提示纵隔淋巴结肿大,为明确N分期行EUS-FNA,结果 均为阳性,改变了原计划治疗方案.本组无一例EUS-FNA相关并发症发生.结论 对于明确纵隔肿大淋巴结、纵隔不明原因占位定性诊断及肺癌N分期,EUS-FNA是一种较为安全、有效的诊断方法.     

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.     

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.     

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided Trucut biopsy adds significant information to EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration in selected patients: A prospective study

Objective. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided Trucut biopsy (EUS-TCB) has recently emerged as a method that seeks to overcome the limitations of EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) by providing a core-tissue specimen needed to increase the yield and accuracy of the diagnosis. The aim of our study was to evaluate whether EUS-TCB adds any information to EUS-FNA in selected patients and to assess the diagnostic yield, overall accuracy and complications of EUS-TCB as compared with EUS-FNA. Material and methods. The study prospectively included 30 patients who had undergone both procedures. Results. The yield of adequate tissue harvesting was similar for EUS-FNA and EUS-TCB (96.4% versus 89.3%, p=NS), with the same number of passes done. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA was also similar to that of EUS-TCB for the diagnosis of malignant mediastinal masses (73.7% versus 68.4%, p=NS). However, the accuracy for obtaining a specific diagnosis was significantly lower for EUS-FNA compared with EUS-TCB (5.3% and 68.4%, p<0.005). EUS-TCB did not appear to help as a rescue procedure in mediastinal tumours, after a false negative result of EUS-FNA. All cases of submucosal tumours were correctly classified by EUS-TCB as gastrointestinal stromal cell tumours (GISTs) or leiomyomas, while EUS-FNA raised only a suspicion of mesenchymal tumour. Conclusions. EUS-TCB was certainly useful when immunohistochemistry was needed, for example in submucosal tumours and lymphoma, as well as to confirm and characterize the primary or metastatic origin of mediastinal masses. The information provided by EUS-FNA and EUS-TCB is complementary, especially in selected cases where a complete histological diagnosis has an important impact on the clinical management.     

Rescue Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-Guided Trucut Biopsy Following Suboptimal EUS-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration for Mediastinal Lesions

Background/Aims

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and Trucut biopsy (TCB) are sensitive techniques for diagnosing mediastinal lesions, but it is unclear how either one or both should be used to obtain a pathologic diagnosis. The objective of our study was to evaluate whether EUS-TCB impacts the diagnosis of mediastinal lesions after the initial on-site review of EUS-FNA specimen suggests a suboptimal result.

Methods

We enrolled consecutive patients with mediastinal lesions who underwent EUS-TCB during the same procedure if the initial EUS-FNA demonstrated an inadequate FNA sample or suggested that histopathology was required for diagnosis. Diagnostic accuracies between procedures were compared as the main outcome.

Results

Twenty-seven patients (14 men; median age, 56 years; range, 19 to 82 years) underwent EUS-FNA and EUS-TCB to evaluate a mediastinal lymphadenopathy or mass (n=17), to determine the cancer stage (n=3) or to exclude tumor recurrence or metastasis (n=7). The overall diagnostic accuracies of EUS-FNA and EUS-TCB were 78% and 67%, respectively (p=0.375). The combined diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA plus EUS-TCB was 82%. In six patients with nondiagnostic EUS-FNA, EUS-TCB provided a final diagnosis in one patient (17%).

Conclusions

In the current series of patients with mediastinal masses or adenopathy, the administration of EUS-TCB following suboptimal results for the on-site cytology review did not increase the diagnostic yield.     

Does onsite cytotechnology evaluation improve the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy?

BACKGROUND:

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the preferred modality for the cytological diagnosis of various cancers. Onsite cytopathology interpretation is not available in most centres.

OBJECTIVE:

To assess whether the the adequacy of tissue sampling assessed by an onsite cytotechnologist improves the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA.

METHODS:

The present study is a retrospective review of all patients undergoing solid mass EUS-FNA between September 2005 and August 2007. Patients in group I (September 2005 to August 2006) had cytology slides prepared by an endoscopy nurse. Patients in group II (September 2006 to August 2007) had cytology slides prepared, stained and assessed for adequacy of tissue sampling by a cytotechnologist in the endoscopy suite. The final cytopathological diagnosis (definitely positive, definitely negative or inconclusive) was compared between the two groups.

RESULTS:

A total of 49 EUS-FNA procedures were performed in 47 patients in group I and 60 EUS-FNA procedures in 55 patients in group II. Pancreatic masses were the most common target site in both groups. The total number of needle passes was 105 in group I (mean 2.14 passes per patient; range one to five needle passes) and 158 in group II (mean 2.63 passes per patient; range one to four needle passes). The difference in the number of needle passes was not statistically significant between groups. The final diagnosis was definite in 53% in group I compared with 77% in group II (P=0.01). The percentage of inconclusive diagnoses was 47% in group I and 23% in group II (P=0.001).

CONCLUSION:

Onsite cytotechnologist interpretation of adequacy of tissue sampling significantly improves the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA. This appears to be independent of the total number of needle passes undertaken for tissue sampling.     

Diagnosis of mediastinal cysts: the role and safety of EUS–FNA with 19-gauge needle: a retrospective cohort study

BackgroundMediastinal cysts are uncommon, and their diagnosis remains a clinical challenge, especially for patients with a solid mass on computed tomography (CT). Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is considered a valuable method to differentiate mediastinal cysts and EUS-fine needle aspiration (FNA) is a strategy for obtaining specimens from the cysts for cytological diagnosis. This study aims to evaluate the safety and utility of EUS-FNA for diagnosis of mediastinal cysts.MethodsThis was a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent EUS-FNA with 19-gauge needle at Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital and were further diagnosed with mediastinal cysts confirmed by cytological and surgical pathological results between January 2016 and December 2020. Safety was estimated by the incidence of reported adverse events (AEs). Patients were followed for 48 hours and 1 week after the EUS-FNA procedure to evaluate AEs.ResultsA total of 20 patients were diagnosed with mediastinal cysts using EUS-FNA, yet only 5 were diagnosed by CT. There were 15 patients diagnosed with bronchogenic cyst, 4 with enteric cyst, and 1 with pericardial cyst. The EUS appearance of cyst content varied, ranging from anechoic (4 cases) to hypoechoic (16 cases). AEs occurred in 2/20 (10%) patients after the EUS-FNA indicating an acceptable low rate of AEs. For all anechoic cysts that underwent complete FNA drainage, 3 patients had good prognosis, whereas 1 experienced recurrence. For 16 patients with hypoechoic cysts, adequate tissue was obtained for cytological examination. No patient developed an infection-related complication.ConclusionsFor the diagnosis of mediastinal cysts, EUS-FNA was more accurate than CT. The EUS-FNA of mediastinal cysts is safe with an acceptable low rate of AEs when antibiotic prophylaxis is used postoperatively. Cysts containing free-flowing fluid can be achieved with complete needle drainage by a single pass with a 19-gauge needle.     

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.     

The accuracy of EUS-FNA in assessing mediastinal lymphadenopathy and staging patients with NSCLC.

Optimal management of nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) depends on tissue diagnosis and accurate staging. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is minimally invasive and provides cytological confirmation of malignant mediastinal disease. The aim was to assess the accuracy of EUS-FNA in cases of enlarged mediastinal lymphadenopathy (LN) of unknown aetiology and in the staging of NSCLC. A total of 52 consecutive patients with stage I-IIIb NSCLC or enlarged mediastinal LN of unknown aetiology underwent EUS-FNA. Negative results were confirmed with a surgical procedure: mediastinoscopy, video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) or lobectomy with systematic mediastinal lymph node dissection. In total, 34 patients had EUS-FNA performed for diagnosis, whilst the remaining 18 had EUS-FNA for staging. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy (95% confidence interval) were 93% (77-99), 100% (78-100), 100% (87-100), 88% (63-99) and 95% (84-99), respectively. When EUS-FNA was used in patients with NSCLC, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy were 92% (73-99), 100% (69-100), 100% (85-100), 83% (51-98) and 94% (80-99), respectively. For mediastinal LN of unknown aetiology, no malignant disease was missed. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration is an accurate tool for assessing mediastinal lymph node involvement in nonsmall cell lung cancer and in the diagnosis of unexplained mediastinal lymphadenopathy. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration is a minimally invasive procedure that can be used as an adjunct or alternative to mediastinoscopy.     

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.     

Nonsurgical staging of the mediastinum: EBUS and EUS

A tissue diagnosis is frequently needed for accurate lung cancer staging of mediastinal nodes as well as the assessment of mediastinal masses. Noninvasive imaging techniques such as computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron-emission tomography (PET), and PET-CT provide some answers but no tissue diagnosis. Transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA), a safe procedure that is performed during routine bronchoscopy, has a high impact on patient management. Unfortunately, TBNA remains underused in current daily practice, mainly due to the lack of real-time needle visualization. The introduction of echo-endoscopes has overcome this problem. Endobronchial ultrasound-guided TBNA (EBUS-TBNA) allows real-time controlled tissue sampling of paratracheal, subcarinal, and hilar lymph nodes. Mediastinal lymph nodes located adjacent to the esophagus can be assessed by esophageal ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). Owing to the complementary reach of EBUS-TBNA and EUS-FNA in assessing different regions of the mediastinum, recent studies suggest that complete and accurate mediastinal staging can be achieved by the combination of both procedures. It is expected that implementation of minimally invasive endoscopic methods of EBUS-TBNA and EUS-FNA will reduce the need for surgical staging of lung cancer significantly.     

EUS-guided FNA immediately after unrevealing transbronchial needle aspiration in the evaluation of mediastinal lymphadenopathy: a prospective study

BACKGROUND: Transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA) and EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) are minimally invasive diagnostic approaches to mediastinal lymphadenopathy. Rapid on-site cytopathologic evaluation (ROSE) may facilitate the decision whether to proceed to a second procedure in the same session. The aim of this study was to determine the utility of TBNA with ROSE, combined with the option for immediate EUS-FNA in a single-session approach to mediastinal lymphadenopathy. METHODS: We prospectively recruited 20 patients (12 men; mean age 66.7 +/- 10.2 years) with mediastinal lymphadenopathy on CT who required cytopathologic evaluation. Bronchoscopy was first performed with TBNA and ROSE. If this was unrevealing, EUS-FNA was performed immediately afterward with ROSE. All procedures were performed with the patient under local anesthesia and sedation. RESULTS: TBNA specimens were deemed adequate on-site in 13 patients, and EUS-FNA was performed in the remaining 7 patients. TBNA with ROSE was falsely negative in one patient. The diagnostic yield for TBNA and EUS-FNA alone was 65% and 86%, respectively. This single-session approach provided a yield of 90%, with no complications. The final diagnoses were 12 non-small-cell lung cancer, two small-cell lung cancer, one metastatic adenocarcinoma, two sarcoidosis, one tuberculosis, one lymphoma, and one with no definitive diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Combining TBNA with the option for EUS-FNA immediately after unrevealing TBNA gave a yield approaching that of mediastinoscopy and, therefore, may reduce the need for invasive mediastinal sampling. This single-session endoscopic approach was safe, required only local anesthesia and sedation, was convenient, and obviated the need for patients to return for a second procedure.     

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy of patients with suspected pancreatic cancer: diagnostic accuracy and acute and 30-day complications

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in patients with suspected pancreatic cancer, and to assess immediate, acute, and 30-day complications related to EUS-FNA. METHODS: All patients with suspected pancreatic cancer were prospectively evaluated. A single gastroenterologist performed all EUS-FNAs in the presence of a cytopathologist. Immediate complications were evaluated in all patients. An experienced nurse called patients 24-72 h and 30 days after the procedure. Reference standard for the classification of the final diagnosis included: surgery (n = 48), clinical or imaging follow-up (n = 63), or death from the disease (n = 47). RESULTS: A total of 158 patients (mean age 62.3 yr) underwent EUS-FNA during the study period. The mean tumor size was 32 x 26 mm. The median number of passes was three (range one to 10). Of these patients, 44% had at least one failed attempt at tissue diagnosis before EUS-FNA. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of EUS-FNA in solid pancreatic masses were 84.3%, 97%, 99%, 64%, and 84%, respectively. Immediate self-limited complications occurred in 10 of the 158 EUS-FNAs (6.3%). Of 90 patients contacted at 24-72 h, 78 patients (87%) responded. Of the 90 patients, 20 (22%) reported at least one symptom, all of which were minor except in three cases (one self-limited acute pancreatitis and two emergency room visits, one of which led to admission). In all, 83 patients were contacted at 30 days, and 82% responded. No additional or continued complications were reported. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNA is highly accurate in identifying patients with suspected pancreatic cancer, especially when other modalities have failed. Major complications after EUS-FNA are rare, and minor complications are similar to those reported for upper endoscopy. It seems that follow-up at 1 wk might capture all of the adverse events related to EUS-FNA.     

EUS-guided FNA combined with flow cytometry in the diagnoses of suspected or recurrent intrathoracic or retroperitoneal lymphoma

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on the combined use of EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) and flow cytometry (FC) in the diagnosis of lymphoma. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of EUS-FNA combined with FC in the diagnosis of primary or recurrent lymphoma. METHODS: This study was a retrospective analysis of a prospective collection of data over a 3-year period. Over 3 years, 29 patients with lesions (n=31) suspicious for lymphoma underwent EUS-FNA and FC. RESULTS: Of the 29 patients, 10 patients had lymphoma and 17 patients had nonlymphoma lesions; for two patients, final diagnosis was indeterminate because of insufficient material for FC. The lymphoma cases included non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (n=6, including 3 recurrences), mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphoma (n=2), a non-GI lymphoma with mediastinal lymphadenopathy (n=1), and an uncharacterized lymphoma (n=1). Of the 31 lesions, 8 were true positive, 18 were true negative, and 3 were false negative; for two lesions, we could not determine the final diagnosis. No false-positive results were encountered. The sensitivity, the specificity, and the accuracy of EUS-FNA combined with FC for diagnosing lymphoma were 72.7%: 95% CI [43.3%, 90.3%], 100%: 95% CI [82.4%, 100.0%], and 89.7%: 95% CI [73.6%, 96.4%], respectively. Limitations to this study include a short duration of follow-up and a lack of a surgical criterion standard. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNA in combination with FC allows the diagnosis of primary suspected or recurrent lymphoma. It also is an adjunct in staging MALT lymphoma and could direct clinicians toward further investigative procedures.