Preoperative diagnosis of extrapancreatic neural invasion in pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Pancreatic cancer recurs in most patients after resection with curative intent. Recurrence is particularly common in patients with extrapancreatic neural invasion (EPNI), the presence of which correlates with poor prognosis. Macroscopic EPNI may be detected with conventional noninvasive imaging and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) imaging, but microscopic EPNI has required postoperative pathologic examination of surgical specimens. We report the preoperative diagnosis of cancer infiltration into celiac ganglia. We hypothesized that microscopic pancreatic cancer metastasis to neural ganglia can be detected by EUS-guided biopsy examination. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients with pancreatic cancer undergoing EUS in whom celiac ganglia were sampled to exclude malignant infiltration. RESULTS: Six patients with pancreatic cancer underwent EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration or trucut biopsy examination of presumed celiac ganglia. Metastatic cancer was found in ganglia of 2 patients. Specimen review identified adenocarcinoma and neural tissue in the absence of lymphocytes. At laparoscopy, 1 of the 2 patients with positive celiac biopsy specimens also had several unexpected peritoneal metastatic deposits. The other patient was considered to have locally advanced unresectable disease. Both patients are receiving supportive care. CONCLUSIONS: EPNI may be shown preoperatively in patients with pancreatic cancer using EUS-guided sampling of celiac ganglia. A preoperative diagnosis of EPNI has the potential to improve staging accuracy and patient outcomes.     

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.     

ERCP or EUS for tissue diagnosis of biliary strictures? A prospective comparative study

BACKGROUND: The accuracy of ERCP-based brush cytology or forceps biopsy for tissue diagnosis is relatively low (usually not exceeding 70%). By contrast, reported accuracy rates for EUS-guided FNA of pancreatobiliary masses are over 80%. This prospective study compared these two modalities for the first time in the diagnosis of indeterminate biliary strictures and pancreatic tumors. METHODS: Fifty consecutive patients (29 men, 21 women; mean age 62.1 years) with obstructive jaundice in whom a tissue diagnosis was required were included. During ERCP, intraductal specimens were obtained with a forceps and with two different types of brush (conventional and spiral suction) in random order. During EUS, only visible mass lesions or localized bile duct wall thickening were aspirated (22-gauge needle), with at least two passes yielding material sufficient for assessment. A cytopathologist was not present in the procedure room to evaluate specimen adequacy. The reference methods were surgery, other biopsy results, follow-up until death, or the conclusion of the study (mean follow-up 20 months). RESULTS: The final diagnoses were malignancy, 28 (16 pancreatic, 12 biliary), and benign biliary stricture, 22. Sensitivity and specificity for ERCP-guided biopsy were 36% and 100%, respectively; for ERCP-guided cytology (when using conventional and spiral suction brushes), 46% and 100%, respectively; and for EUS-guided FNA, 43% and 100%, respectively. If the punctured lesions are considered (n=28) alone, the sensitivity of EUS-guided FNA was 75%. In general, sensitivity was better for ERCP-based techniques in the subgroup biliary tumor (ERCP 75% vs. EUS 25%), whereas EUS-guided biopsy was superior for pancreatic mass (EUS 60% vs. ERCP 38%). CONCLUSIONS: For biliary strictures, combined ERCP- and EUS-guided tissue acquisition seems to be the best approach to tissue diagnosis. From a clinical standpoint, it appears reasonable, when a tissue diagnosis is required, to start with ERCP if biliary malignancy is suspected and with EUS when a pancreatic tumor is thought to be the cause of a biliary stricture.     

Concise review on the comparative efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration vs core biopsy in pancreatic masses,upper and lower gastrointestinal submucosal tumors

Endoscopic ultrasound(EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration with or without biopsy(FNA/FNB) are the primary diagnostic tools for gastrointestinal submucosal tumors. EUS-guided fine needle aspiration(EUS-FNA) is considered a first line diagnostic method for the characterization of pancreatic and upper gastrointestinal lesions, since it allows for the direct visualization of the collection of specimens for cytopathologic analysis. EUSFNA is most effective and accurate when immediate cytologic assessment is permitted by the presence of a cytopathologist on site. Unfortunately, the accuracy and thus the diagnostic yield of collected specimens suffer without this immediate analysis. Recently, a EUS-FNB needle capable of obtaining core samples(fine needle biopsy, FNB) has been developed and has shown promising results. This new tool adds a new dimension to the diagnostic and therapeutic utility of this technique. The aim of the present review is to compare the efficacy of EUS-FNA to that afforded by EUS-FNB in the characterization of pancreatic masses and of upper and lower gastrointestinal submucosal tumors.     

EUS-FNB with or without on-site evaluation for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions (FROSENOR): Protocol for a multicenter randomized non-inferiority trial

BackgroundRapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) of cytological specimensacquired with EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) represents the most accurate available technique to reach a definitive diagnosis in patients with pancreatic solid masses. Recently, needles with high histological yield have been developed for EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB), with which the need for ROSE can be potentially overcome.AimsThe primary aim is to compare the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB with or without ROSE. The main endpoint will be measured against the gold standard diagnosis (surgical pathology whenever available or diagnostic work-up in agreement with a clinical course of at least six months). Secondary endpoints include: (a) safety; (b) presence of tissue core; (c) quality of specimens; (d) time of the sampling procedure. Reliability of macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) by endosonographers will be also assessed.MethodsFROSENOR is an international randomized non-inferiority ongoing study at sixteen centers in four continents. Eight hundred patients will be randomized in two arms (EUS-FNB + ROSE vs. EUS-FNB alone) and outcomes compared. Sample size has been calculated in order to demonstrate the non-inferiority of FNB alone. Randomization and data collection will be performed online.DiscussionThis study will ascertain if ROSE is still needed when performing EUS-FNB of solid pancreatic lesions.     

EUS-guided FNA diagnostic yield of malignancy in solid pancreatic masses: a benchmark for quality performance measurement

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic yield of EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) of solid pancreatic masses is a potential benchmark for EUS-FNA quality, because the majority of EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic masses should be diagnostic for malignancy. OBJECTIVES: To determine the cytologic diagnostic rate of malignancy in EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic masses and to determine if variability exists among endoscopists and centers. DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective study. PATIENTS: EUS centers provided cytology reports for all EUS-FNAs of solid, noncystic, >or=10-mm-diameter, solid pancreatic masses during a 1-year period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: Cytology diagnostic of pancreatic malignancy. RESULTS: A total of 1075 patients underwent EUS-FNA at 21 centers (81% academic) with 41 endoscopists. The median number of EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic masses performed during the year per center was 46 (range, 4-177) and per endoscopist was 19 (range, 1-97). The mean mass dimensions were 32 x 27 mm, with 73% located in the head. The mean number of passes was 3.5. Of the centers, 90% used immediate cytologic evaluation. The overall diagnostic rate of malignancy was 71%, 95% confidence interval 0.69%-0.74%, with 5% suspicious for malignancy, 6% atypical cells, and 18% negative for malignancy. The median diagnostic rate per center was 78% (range, 39%-93%; 1st quartile, 61%) and per endoscopist was 75% (range, 0%-100%; 1st quartile, 52%). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study, participation bias, and varying chronic pancreatitis prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: (1) EUS-FNA cytology was diagnostic of malignancy in 71% of solid pancreatic masses and (2) endoscopists with a final cytologic diagnosis rate of malignancy for EUS-FNA of solid masses that was less than 52% were in the lowest quartile and should evaluate reasons for their low yield.     

EUS-FNA of recurrent postoperative extraluminal and metastatic malignancy

BACKGROUND: EUS-guided FNA is safe and accurate for the diagnosis of benign or malignant neoplasia and lymphadenopathy; however, its role in the diagnosis of recurrent malignancy is not well described. METHODS: A prospectively updated EUS-guided FNA cytology database was used to identify patients in whom a diagnosis of postoperative, recurrent, extraluminal, or metastatic malignancy was made over a 5-year period. Only patients with a positive EUS-guided FNA were included in the analysis. All had undergone surgery for the primary malignancy and were in clinical and/or radiographic remission before the initial suspicion of tumor recurrence. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients underwent EUS-guided FNA of 21 lesions (19 masses, 2 lymph nodes) because of a suspicion of recurrent malignancy based on CT (n = 17) or EUS (n = 4) findings. Median time from the initial diagnosis to recurrence was 26 months (range 5-276 months). Lesions were located in the pancreas (9 patients), mediastinum (7), liver (3), perigastric region (1), and liver hilum (1). EUS-guided FNA (mean number of needle passes, 4.5; range 2-8) obtained diagnostic material for recurrent malignancy in all patients as follows: esophageal (6 patients), renal cell (6), pancreatic (2), breast (2), colon (2), bile duct (1), Ewing's sarcoma (1), and lung (1) cancer. No complication was encountered. Transgastric EUS-guided FNA (4 patients), distal, or transesophageal EUS-FNA (2) proximal to a surgical anastomosis was required to confirm recurrence in all 6 patients with esophageal cancer. The initial cytologic diagnosis of recurrent malignancy was made by EUS in 20 of 21 (95%) patients. One patient with recurrent breast cancer had CT-guided FNA of a right lung mass preceding EUS-guided FNA of an AP window lymph node. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-guided FNA can detect and safely diagnose recurrent malignancy in the mediastinum, retroperitoneum, and liver. When possible, correlation between EUS-guided FNA cytology and original tumor histopathology/cytology, or the use of immunostaining to confirm the diagnosis, is recommended.     

Initial experience with EUS-guided trucut needle biopsies of perigastric organs

BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were to determine the feasibility, safety, and yield of a 19-gauge EUS-guided-trucut needle for obtaining biopsy specimens of perigastric organs. METHODS: The study was performed in swine under general anesthesia. EUS-guided trucut needle biopsy specimens were obtained from the spleen, liver, pancreas body, and left kidney. Biopsy specimens were assessed for size, fragmentation, and representation of the target organ. OBSERVATIONS: Twenty-eight biopsy specimens were obtained from the 4 target organs with two needles. Median biopsy length was 6 mm (spleen), 4 mm (liver), 6 mm (left kidney), and 2 mm (pancreas body). Of all the specimens, 75% to 100% had tissue representative of the target organ. EUS visualization of the needle was excellent and no complications were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the trucut needle under EUS guidance to obtain biopsy specimens of perigastric organs appears safe and yields specimens that are representative of the target organ sampled. Further study of the utility and safety of this needle in humans is warranted.     

Detection and tumor staging of malignancy in cystic, intraductal, and solid tumors of the pancreas by EUS

BACKGROUND: EUS can provide detailed imaging of pancreatic malignancies and direct fine needle aspiration (FNA) of pancreatic masses. The ability of EUS to detect and stage malignancy in cystic and intraductal lesions has not been investigated. Our aim was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of EUS imaging and FNA in detecting and staging of malignancy in solid, cystic, and intraductal lesions of the pancreas. METHODS: The records of 96 patients (46 solid, 26 cystic, 24 intraductal lesions) who underwent EUS followed by surgical exploration over a 3-year period were reviewed. The accuracy of EUS for detecting and staging malignancy was calculated based on the results of surgery and histology. RESULTS: EUS-guided FNA provided evidence of malignancy in solid, cystic, and ductal lesions with sensitivities of 59.5%, 50%, and 60%, respectively. The accuracy of staging by EUS was significantly less for intraductal lesions (47%), compared with cystic (100%) and solid lesions (85%) (p < 0. 05). CONCLUSIONS: EUS can be used to detect malignancy in cystic and intraductal tumors of the pancreas.     

Diagnostic efficacy of three suction techniques for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions: protocol for a multicenter randomized cross-over clinical trial

BackgroundHow suction technique affects endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) remains unclear. A standardized protocol is currently lacking, with most previous studies being restricted to EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). The research related to EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is sparse.AimsThe aim of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy, cellularity, tissue acquisition, blood contamination and adverse event rate of three common suction techniques (standard suction, slow-pull, and wet suction) used for EUS-FNB of solid pancreatic masses.MethodsThis is a multicenter single-blind randomized cross-over superiority trial. A total of 300 patients with suspected pancreatic malignancy will be enrolled from digestive endoscopic centers at five large tertiary hospitals in China. All three suction techniques will be performed on each patient using a 25G ProCore needle, with the sequence of suction techniques determined by randomization. Cytological and histological specimens obtained with each of the three techniques will be assessed independently. Outcomes among the three suction techniques will be compared.DiscussionTo the best of our knowledge, this is the largest multicenter randomized cross-over trial designed to determine the optimal suction technique for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses. This study may contribute to standardizing the suction technique for EUS-FNB.     

Influence of EUS training and pathology interpretation on accuracy of EUS-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic masses

BACKGROUND: Identification, staging, and fine needle aspiration of pancreatic mass lesions are probably the most technically demanding EUS skills. This study evaluated the effect of formal training on the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of pancreatic masses and the source of the variability in diagnostic accuracy between initial and later procedures. METHODS: Sixty-five patients with pancreatic masses underwent EUS-FNA between April 1998 (introduction of EUS-FNA) and August 1999, 20 of whom were examined by 3 endosonographers without prior experience with EUS-FNA. The initial experience of these 3 endosonographers (April to December 1998; group A patients), which included a formal training period of 2 months, and their later experience (January to August 1999; group B patients) were evaluated. Final diagnoses were determined by surgical pathology or clinical follow-up. All EUS-FNA samples were reviewed by 4 blinded pathologists to determine the contribution of pathologist interpretation to varying EUS-FNA accuracy. RESULTS: After a short training period, there was a significant improvement in EUS-FNA accuracy (33% vs. 91%; p = 0.004). After pathology review, good agreement was identified between original FNA interpretation and that on review (kappa = 0.78; 95% CI [0.5, 1.0]). There were differences between the mean cellularity score (2.8 vs. 1.8, p = 0.01) and mean number of passes (5.1 vs. 2.8, not significant) for correct versus incorrect FNA specimens. CONCLUSION: Significant improvements in EUS-FNA accuracy can be achieved with a short period of mentored training. EUS-FNA errors during the initial learning phase are primarily due to inadequate specimens. Interpretation of pancreatic EUS-FNA specimens remained consistent before and after training.     

Intraductal papillary mucinous tumors of the pancreas: the preoperative value of cytologic and histopathologic diagnosis

BACKGROUND: The preoperative diagnosis of intraductal papillary mucinous tumors of the pancreas must be as certain as possible because removal of a large portion of the pancreas or even total pancreatectomy may be necessary. The value of cytologic and histopathologic analysis of specimens obtained by preoperative endoscopic investigations is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the value of such analyses of specimens obtained by EUS-guided FNA and/or biopsy, or transpapillary biopsy specimens obtained during endoscopic retrograde pancreatography for the diagnosis of intraductal papillary mucinous tumors of the pancreas and for the detection of malignancy. METHODS: Between 1992 and 2001, 42 patients (22 men, 20 women; median age 64 years) underwent surgical resection for intraductal papillary mucinous tumors of the pancreas and had preoperative pancreatic tissue sampling. In the case of isolated dilatation of pancreatic ducts, pancreatic juice was obtained by EUS-guided FNA for cytologic analysis. In the presence of a solid lesion or main pancreatic duct stenosis, biopsy specimens were obtained by EUS-guided FNA biopsy or endoscopic retrograde pancreatography, which permitted histopathologic assessment. The accuracy of cytology and histopathology was evaluated for the following: (1) positive diagnosis of intraductal papillary mucinous tumors of the pancreas and (2) assessment of malignancy, by comparison with histopathologic examination of surgical resection specimens. RESULTS: Cytologic analysis was performed in 19 patients; it was positive in 4 (21%) and noninformative in 15 (79%). Histopathologic analysis was performed in 23 patients; it was positive in 21 (91%) and negative in 2 (9%). Histopathologic analysis yielded a positive result in 83% of patients who did not have extrusion of mucus from a patulous papilla. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of histopathologic analysis for the diagnosis of malignancy were, respectively, 44%, 100%, 100%, and 33%. When histopathologic analysis was positive, the tumor grade was similar to that determined by final histopathologic examination in 38% of patients, whereas the grade was underestimated in 62%. No complication occurred as a result of tissue sampling. CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of histopathologic analysis of EUS-guided FNA biopsy specimens or transpapillary biopsy specimens is 91% for the positive diagnosis of intraductal papillary mucinous tumors of the pancreas with a solid component, which is of particular interest as extrusion mucus from the papilla was absent in most patients. Histopathologic analysis of biopsy specimens of malignant intraductal papillary mucinous tumors of the pancreas often underestimates tumor grade. The result for cytologic analysis of juice obtained from dilated pancreatic ducts is disappointing.     

Percutaneous ultrasound and endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions: An analysis of 1074 lesions

Backgrounds: Percutaneous ultrasound (US) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided pancreatic biopsies are widely accepted in the diagnosis of pancreatic diseases. Studies comparing the diagnostic performance of US- and EUS-guided pancreatic biopsies are lacking. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic yields of US- and EUS-guided pancreatic biopsies and identify the risk factors for inconclusive biopsies. Methods: Of the 1074 solid pancreatic lesions diagnosed from January 2017 to February 2021 in our center, 275 underwent EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), and 799 underwent US-guided core needle biopsy (US-CNB/FNA). The outcomes were inconclusive pathological biopsy, diagnostic accuracy and the need for repeat biopsy. All of the included factors and diagnostic performances of both US-CNB/FNA and EUS-FNA were compared, and the independent predictors for the study outcomes were identified. Results: The diagnostic accuracy was 89.8% for EUS-FNA and 95.2% for US-CNB/FNA ( P = 0.001). Biopsy under EUS guidance [odds ratio (OR) = 1.808, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.083-3.019; P = 0.024], lesion size < 2 cm (OR = 2.069, 95% CI: 1.145-3.737; P = 0.016), hypoechoic appearance (OR = 0.274, 95% CI: 0.097-0.775; P = 0.015) and non-pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma carcinoma (PDAC) diagnosis (OR = 2.637, 95% CI: 1.563-4.449; P < 0.001) were identified as factors associated with inconclusive pathological biopsy. Hypoechoic appearance (OR = 0.236, 95% CI: 0.064-0.869; P = 0.030), lesions in the uncinate process of the pancreas (OR = 3.506, 95% CI: 1.831-6.713; P < 0.001) and non-PDAC diagnosis (OR = 2.622, 95% CI: 1.278-5.377; P = 0.009) were independent predictors for repeat biopsy. Biopsy under EUS guidance (OR = 2.024, 95% CI: 1.195-3.429; P = 0.009), lesions in the uncinate process of the pancreas (OR = 1.776, 95% CI: 1.014-3.108; P = 0.044) and hypoechoic appearance (OR = 0.127, 95% CI: 0.047-0.347; P < 0.001) were associated with diagnostic accuracy. Conclusions: Both percutaneous US- and EUS-guided biopsies of solid pancreatic lesions are safe and effective; though the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA is inferior to US-CNB/FNA. A tailored pancreatic biopsy should be considered a part of the management algorithm for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic disease.     

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.     

ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND GUIDED TRUCUT BIOPSY

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is sensitive for staging gastrointestinal malignancies and pancreatic lesions. EUS‐fine‐needle aspiration (EUS‐FNA) offers a diagnostic accuracy of about 60–90% for pancreatic tumors and > 90% for lymph nodes. There are several limitations of EUS‐FNA including the need for on‐site cytopathology review. In addition, accuracy of cytologic review is hampered by the presence of blood, benign epithelial cells, desmoplasia, and well‐differentiated tumors. Furthermore, the small biopsy sample and destruction of tissue architecture limits the diagnostic sensitivity for GISTs and lymphomas. Many of these problems can be overcome with use of EUS trucut biopsy (TCB) needles. These large caliber, cutting needles acquire larger tissue samples allowing preservation of tissue architecture and histologic examination. Our recently described experience with EUS‐TCB initially in swine and later humans demonstrated the safety for acquiring histologic tissue representative of the target organs sampled enabling accurate diagnosis. These studies suggested greater diagnostic accuracy of EUS‐TCB for submucosal mass lesions and lymphoma and potentially the need for fewer needle passes for solid pancreatic neoplasms. In this paper we will review the current TCB literature, device design and technique, help troubleshoot potential problems, and offer opinion as to the utility and role of this new device.     

Prospective comparative study of the EUS guided 25-gauge FNA needle with the 19-gauge Trucut needle and 22-gauge FNA needle in patients with solid pancreatic masses

Background and Study Aims:  The aim of this prospective study was to compare fine-needle aspiration guided by endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS-FNA) using 25-gauge and 22-gauge needles with the EUS-guided 19-gauge Trucut needle biopsy (EUS-TNB) in patients with solid pancreatic mass.
Patients and Methods:  Twenty-four consecutive patients with pancreatic mass underwent biopsies by both EUS-FNA and EUS-TNB. Three needles were compared with respect to technical success rate, tissue size obtained, overall diagnostic accuracy and accuracy for histological and cytological diagnosis.
Results:  The 25-gauge EUS-FNA was technically easier and obtained superior overall diagnostic accuracy than the 22-gauge and Trucut needles, especially in lesions of the pancreas head and uncinate process. Overall accuracy for the 25-gauge, 22-gauge and Trucut needle was 91.7%, 79.7% and 54.1%, respectively. Accuracy for cytological diagnosis irrespective the site of lesions with 25-gauge, 22-gauge and Trucut needles was 91.7%, 75.0%, and 45.8%, respectively. For uncinate masses, it was 100%, 33.3%, and 0.0%, respectively. These differences were significant. Among technically successful patients, the accuracy for histological diagnosis using the 25-gauge was significantly inferior ( P  < 0.05) to 22-gauge and Trucut needles and the rates were 45.8%, 78.9% and 83.3%.
Conclusions:  The 25-gauge FNA needle was significantly superior in terms of technical success rate and overall diagnostic accuracy, especially for the head and uncinate lesions, compared to the 22-gauge and Trucut needles and could be considered 'the best choice needle for cytological diagnosis' of solid pancreatic lesions. If histological diagnosis is required, the 22-gauge FNA needle and Trucut needle may be advantageous for use in head/uncinate and body/tail lesions, respectively.     

22-Gauge biopsy needles have a better histological diagnostic yield in the discrimination of specific pancreatic solid neoplasms

Background: To overcome the limitations of using cytological specimen alone for the diagnosis of challenging pancreatic lesions, biopsy needles have been developed to procure histological specimens during EUS, especially for the discrimination of several specific pancreatic tumors requiring adequate histological samples. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided 22-gauge (G) fine needle aspiration (FNA) needles and 22G fine needle biopsy (FNB) needles for sampling pancreatic masses.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of all EUS-guided sampling performed between November 2012 and April 2016. 422 cases sampled with a 22G FNA needle (N?=?254) or a 22G FNB needle (N?=?168) were recruited for this study. The specimen quality analyses, technical characteristics, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPVs), and negative predictive values (NPVs) for the pancreatic masses were reviewed and compared.

Results: There was no significant difference in the procurement of adequate histological specimens (75.0% vs. 79.5%; p?=?.277) or the presence of diagnostic histological specimens (71.3% vs. 77.4%; p?=?.155) between FNA and FNB groups, respectively. There were also no significant differences in the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPVs, or NPVs of the cytological, histological, and overall analyses for FNA and FNB groups in the diagnosis of pancreatic malignancy. However, 22G biopsy needles demonstrated a better histological diagnostic yield in the discrimination of pancreatic adenocarcinoma and non-adenocarcinoma pancreatic neoplasms than 22G FNA needles (69.8% vs. 57.9%, p?=?.033).

Conclusions: 22G FNB needle demonstrated a better histological diagnostic yield in the differentiation between pancreatic adenocarcinoma and non-adenocarcinoma pancreatic neoplasms.     

Role of cystic fluid in diagnosis of the pancreatic cystadenoma and cystadenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Early and accurate diagnosis of cystic neoplasm of the pancreas is difficult especially for the differentiation of benign or malignancy. In this study, we try to compare EUS-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy combined with measurement of the cyst fluid and serum levels of CEA, and CA19-9 for the preoperative diagnosis of pancreatic cystadenoma or cystadenocarcinoma. METHODOLOGY: Retrospective analysis was made on the clinical data of 37 patients with pancreatic cystadenoma and 48 patients with cystadenocarcinoma from 1998 to 2005. RESULTS: Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and CA19-9 of the cyst fluid and serum combined with EUS-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy was made. Examination of serum CEA, and CA19-9 resulted in 21.0+/-18.0, 2.7+/-1.7 U/L and 18.7+/-17.5, 269.0+/-182.0 U/L for cystadenoma and cystadenocarcinoma respectively (P<0.05). The sensitivity of cyst fluid combined with biopsy was higher than that of a single marker. However, the sensitivity and specificity of tumor markers of cystic fluid were much higher than that of the serum (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy combined with examination of cyst fluid level of CEA and CA19-9 will be a credible means for early diagnosis of pancreatic cystadenoma and cystadenocarcinoma.     

Pancreatic tissue sampling guided by EUS,CT/US,and surgery: a comparison of sensitivity and specificity

BACKGROUND: Needle aspiration of the pancreas is performed to differentiate pancreatic malignancy, focal chronic pancreatitis, and metastasis to the pancreas. Biopsies may be directed by using EUS, CT, US, or surgery. This study retrospectively compared the accuracy of EUS-guided, CT/US-guided, and surgical tissue sampling of the pancreas over a 5-year period. METHODS: The records of patients undergoing pancreatic tissue sampling were reviewed for a final clinical diagnosis based on the results of cytology, histology, and clinical history. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of each technique were calculated. RESULTS: One hundred forty-nine tissue samples (68 EUS-guided, 70 CT/US-guided, 11 surgical) from 128 patients were compared. There was no significant difference in accuracy rates for EUS (76.4%), CT/US (81.4%), and surgically guided (81.8%) specimens. EUS was used when masses were smaller (2.6 +/- 0.1 cm) as compared with CT/US (3.4 +/- 0.2 cm, p < 0.001) and surgery (2.9 +/- 0.4 cm, p = 0.49). In univariate analyses, factors associated with greater accuracy regardless of technique were as follows: (1) older age, (2) larger size of the mass, and (3) participation by a cytologist during the procedure. A subsequent multivariate logistic regression analysis, in which the examination of the effect of each factor controls for the effect of each of the other factors, found that only older age was a significant predictor of accuracy. CONCLUSION: EUS-guided tissue sampling of pancreatic masses is as accurate as CT/US-guided sampling and surgical biopsies.     

Comparison of 22-gauge standard fine needle versus core biopsy needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of suspected pancreatic cancer: a randomized crossover trial

Background: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is effective for tissue diagnosis of pancreatic mass. To improve diagnostic yield and drawbacks, 22-gauge (G) core biopsy (FNB) needle has been developed. This study aims to compare 22G FNA and FNB needles for EUS-guided sampling of suspected pancreatic cancer.

Methods: This is a randomized controlled crossover trial. A total of 60 patients with suspected unresectable pancreatic cancer referred for EUS-guided sampling were randomly assigned to two groups. Both groups had 22G FNA and FNB needles performed in a randomized order. The primary endpoint was the cytological, histological and overall diagnostic accuracy of pancreatic cancer.

Results: FNA and FNB needles reported similar level of diagnostic accuracy (FNA needle 95% vs. FNB needle 93.3%; p?=?.564), and it was not statistically different. However, cytological cellularity was significantly higher in the FNB needles compared to FNA needles (odds ratio 2.75, 95% confidence interval (CI)). There were no procedure-related complications in both needles.

Conclusions: The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided sampling for pancreatic cancer using 22G FNA is comparable to FNB needles. The cytological quality of specimen is better in the FNB needle.