Endoscopic ultrasound is highly accurate and directs management in patients with neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas

Preoperative localization of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors with traditional imaging fails in 40-60% of patients. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is highly sensitive in the detection of these tumors. Previous reports included relatively few patients or required the collaboration of multiple centers. We report the results of EUS evaluation of 82 patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. METHODS: We prospectively used EUS early in the diagnostic evaluation of patients with biochemical or clinical evidence of neuroendocrine tumors. Patients had surgical confirmation of tumor localization or clinical follow-up of >1 yr. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients underwent 91 examinations (cases). Thirty patients had multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 1. One hundred pancreatic tumors were visualized by EUS in 54 different patients. The remaining 28 patients had no pancreatic tumor or an extrapancreatic tumor. Surgical/pathological confirmation was obtained in 75 patients. The mean tumor diameter was 1.51 cm and 71% of the tumors were < or =2.0 cm in diameter. Of the 54 explorations with surgical confirmation of a pancreatic tumor, EUS correctly localized the tumor in 50 patients (93%). Twenty-nine insulinomas, 18 gastrinomas, as well as one glucagonoma, one carcinoid tumor, and one somatostatinoma were localized. The most common site for tumor localization was the pancreatic head (46 patients). Most tumors were hypoechoic, homogenous, and had distinct margins. EUS of the pancreas was correctly negative in 20 of 21 patients (specificity, 95%). EUS was more accurate than angiography with or without stimulation testing (secretin for gastrinoma, calcium for insulinoma), transcutaneous ultrasound, and CT in those patients undergoing further imaging procedures. EUS was not reliable in localizing extrapancreatic tumors. CONCLUSIONS: In this series, the largest single center experience reported to date, EUS had an overall sensitivity and accuracy of 93% for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Our results support the use of EUS as a primary diagnostic modality in the evaluation and management of patients with neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas.     

EUS for detection of the hepatocellular carcinoma: results of a prospective study

BACKGROUND: Early detection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and accurate determination of the number of lesions are critical in determining eligibility for liver transplantation or resection. Current diagnostic modalities (CT and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) often miss small lesions. OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of the EUS with CT for the detection of primary tumors of the liver. DESIGN: Prospective single-center study. SETTING: Academic medical center. PATIENTS: Subjects at high risk of HCC (hepatitis B, hepatitis C, or alcoholic cirrhosis) were enrolled. INTERVENTIONS: US, CT, MRI, and EUS examinations of the liver were performed. Liver lesions identified during EUS underwent EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA). RESULTS: Seventeen patients were enrolled in the study. Nine of these patients had liver tumors (HCC, 8; cholangiocarcinoma, 1). EUS-FNA established a tissue diagnosis in 8 of the 9 cases. The diagnostic accuracy of US, CT, MRI, and EUS/EUS-FNA were 38%, 69%, 92%, and 94%, respectively. EUS detected a significantly higher number of nodular lesions than US (P = .03), CT (P = .002), and MRI (P = .04). For HCC lesions, a trend was observed in favor of EUS for the detection of more lesions than US (8 vs 2; P = .06) and CT (20 vs 8; P = .06). No complications were observed as a result of EUS-FNA. LIMITATIONS: Small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNA is a safe and accurate test for the diagnosis of HCC. EUS increases the accuracy of intrahepatic staging of the HCC by delineation of lesions, which are missed by CT and MRI. We recommend EUS for suspected HCC, particularly in cases that are being considered for liver transplantation.     

EUS-guided FNA in the diagnosis of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors before surgery

BACKGROUND: The use of EUS for precise preoperative evaluation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors is well established; up to 80% of insulinomas can be localized. However, the EUS appearance of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors can be similar to that of benign peripancreatic lymph nodes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of EUS-guided FNA in this setting. METHODS: Thirty patients (18 women, 12 men) with 33 pancreatic/peripancreatic lesions confirmed by surgery underwent EUS-guided FNA between February 1997 and September 2002. Transabdominal US and CT were obtained in all patients before EUS. The diagnosis of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor was established based on morphologic appearance and immunohistochemical staining of cytologic and surgical specimens. RESULTS: EUS detected 32 of the 33 (96.9%) lesions (mean diameter 20 mm, range 5-97 mm). There was one complication (abdominal pain). For the 30 patients, the following diagnoses were made: functioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (16 patients), non-functioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (7), peripancreatic lymph node (5), inflammatory intrapancreatic nodule (1), and peripancreatic splenosis (1). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of EUS-guided FNA were 82.6%, 85.7%, 95%, 60%, and 83.3%, respectively. There was one false-positive diagnosis by EUS-guided FNA and 4 false-negative diagnoses. In two of the latter cases, EUS-guided FNA was unsuccessful. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-guided FNA is accurate and safe for the diagnosis of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor and may have a role in determining management strategy.     

Efficacy of endoscopic ultrasonography and endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration for the diagnosis and grading of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

Background and aim: Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) are histologically categorized according to the WHO 2010 classification by their mitotic index or Ki-67 index as G1, G2, or G3. The present study examined the efficacy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in the diagnosis and grading of pNET. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 61 pNETs in 51 patients who underwent EUS between January 2007 and June 2014. All lesions were pathologically diagnosed by surgical resection or EUS-FNA. We evaluated the detection rates of EUS for pNET and sensitivity of EUS-FNA, and compared the Ki-67 index between EUS-FNA samples and surgical specimens. EUS findings were compared between G1 and G2/G3 tumors. Results: EUS showed significantly higher sensitivity (96.7%) for identifying pNET than CT (85.2%), MRI (70.2%), and ultrasonography (75.5%). The sensitivity of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of pNET was 89.2%. The concordance rate of WHO classification between EUS-FNA and surgical specimens was 69.2% (9/13). The concordance rate was relatively high (87.5%, 5/6) in tumors?<20?mm but lower (57.1%; 4/7) in tumors?≥20?mm. Regarding EUS findings, G2/G3 tumors were more likely to be large (>20?mm), heterogeneous, and have main pancreatic duct (MPD) obstruction than G1 tumors. Multivariate analysis showed large diameter and MPD obstruction were significantly associated with G2/G3 tumors. Conclusions: EUS and EUS-FNA are highly sensitive and accurate diagnostic methods for pNET. Characteristic EUS findings such as large tumor size and MPD obstruction are suggestive of G2/G3 tumors and would be helpful for grading pNETs.     

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration and multidetector spiral CT in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is now established as a valuable imaging test for diagnosing and staging pancreatic cancer. But, with significant recent improvements in spiral CT scanners, particularly higher resolution and ability to reconstruct 3D images, spiral CT is now increasingly accepted as being better for pancreatic cancer staging. The debate continues, however, about the best diagnostic test or combination of tests in patients with suspected pancreatic cancer. Spiral CT is more readily available than EUS-FNA and, therefore, more frequently used. In this study, we evaluated the use of EUS-FNA in conjunction with spiral CT for suspected pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 81 consecutive patients who underwent EUS and EUS-FNA for clinical suspicion of a pancreatic cancer from November 2000 to November 2001. All patients had spiral CT with a multiphasic pancreatic protocol using multidetector spiral CT scanners. In all patients, EUS-FNA and spiral CT examinations were performed less than 3 wk apart. RESULTS: Overall, the accuracy of spiral CT, EUS, and EUS-FNA was 74% (n = 60/81, CI 63-83%), 94% (n = 76/81, CI 87-98%), and 88% (n = 73/81, CI 81-96%), respectively, for diagnosing pancreatic cancer. In patients without an identifiable mass on spiral CT, the diagnostic accuracy of EUS and EUS-FNA for pancreatic tumors was 92% (n = 23/25, CI 74-99%). Absence of a focal "mass" lesion on EUS reliably excluded pancreatic cancer irrespective of clinical presentation (NPV 100% n = 5/5, CI 48-100%). The negative predictive value of EUS-FNA was only 22% (n = 2/9, CI 3-60%) in patients with obstructive jaundice and biliary stricture. However, in patients without obstructive jaundice at initial presentation, EUS-FNA was highly accurate (accuracy 97%, n = 33/34, CI 85-100%) and was reliable for ruling out malignancy (NPV 89%, n = 8/9, CI 52-100%). Cytologic assessment of EUS-FNA specimens was 89% accurate for identifying malignancy in suspicious lesions visualized on EUS. CONCLUSIONS: The EUS with FNA can be a valuable adjunct to newer high-resolution multidetector spiral CT for diagnostic evaluation of patients with suspected pancreatic cancer.     

内镜超声引导下细针穿刺对胰腺占位病变的诊断价值

目的 通过超声内镜结合细针穿刺活检确定胰腺占位病变的性质，并评价该法对胰腺病变的诊断价值。方法 对经CT、MRI、体表腹部超声及内镜超声发现的23例胰腺局限性占位病变进行内镜超声检查，以明确病变大小、形态、位置，并观察有无淋巴结转移。在内镜超声引导下对病变行细针穿刺活检。结果 23例患者中，21例得到了充足的细胞量，15例得到组织块，12例最终确定为胰腺肿瘤的患者，经组织细胞学检查10例为阳性（其中胰腺癌8例；胰腺囊腺瘤癌1例；无功能神经内分泌肿瘤1例），敏感性为83％，特异性为100％。全部结果经手术（16例）及临床随访（7例）证实。无1例出现不良反应。结论 超声内镜结合细针穿刺是诊断胰腺病变安全、有效的方法。     

Utility of a repeated EUS at a tertiary-referral center

BACKGROUND: The utility of a repeated EUS by experts is not known. OBJECTIVE: To define the utility of a repeated EUS for the same indication. DESIGN: A retrospective case series. SETTING: Tertiary-referral hospital in Indianapolis, Indiana. PATIENTS: Consecutive subjects, with and without cancer, who, between January 2000 and September 2006, underwent an initial EUS elsewhere within 6 and 12 weeks of a repeated EUS at our hospital. INTERVENTIONS: A repeated EUS. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Clinical impact of a repeated EUS. RESULTS: Of 8936 EUS examinations, 73 repeated procedures (0.8%) were identified, and 24 were excluded. The 49 initial EUS procedures (26 men, median age 59 years) were done in Indiana (n = 44) or another state (n = 5) by one of 15 physicians in private practice (n = 48) or at a teaching hospital (n = 1). An EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) was performed during an initial EUS in 21 patients (no biopsy diagnostic for cancer) and was not attempted in 14 patients. The principle indication for a repeated EUS (n = 35) was for an EUS-FNA after the initial tissue sampling was benign, nondiagnostic, or not done. A second EUS had no clinical impact in 18 patients (37%). In the remaining 31 patients (63%), a repeated EUS provided a new or changed clinical diagnosis (n = 12), the initial diagnosis of primary pancreatic cancer (n = 5) or GI stromal tumor (GIST) (n = 1) after a previous nondiagnostic biopsy; or the initial diagnosis of primary (n = 4) or metastatic (n = 2) pancreatic cancer, metastatic esophageal cancer (n = 1), hilar cholangiocarcinoma (n = 1), GIST (n = 1), or pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (n = 1), or an initial aspiration of a pancreatic cyst (n = 3) after a previous EUS-FNA was not able to be performed. LIMITATIONS: A retrospective design; a small number of nonpancreatic indications. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, a repeated EUS at a tertiary-referral center had a clinical impact in 63% of patients when performed by experts for a similar clinical indication.     

EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic metastases: a multicenter experience

BACKGROUND: Metastatic lesions of the pancreas are a rare but important cause of focal pancreatic lesions. The purpose of this study is to describe the EUS features, cytologic diagnoses, and clinical impact of a cohort of patients with pancreatic metastases diagnosed by EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA). METHODS: Over a 6-year period, in a retrospective, multicenter study, patients had the diagnosis of pancreatic metastases confirmed with EUS-FNA. All examinations were performed by one of 5 experienced endosonographers. The EUS and the clinical findings of pancreatic metastases were compared with those of a cohort with primary pancreatic malignancy. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients with possible metastases were identified, and 13 were excluded because of diagnostic uncertainty. The remaining 24 underwent EUS-FNA (mean passes 4.1) of a pancreatic mass without complications. Diagnoses included metastases from primary kidney (10), skin (6), lung (4), colon (2), liver (1), and stomach (1) cancer. In 4 (17%), 16 (67%), and 24 (100%) patients, EUS-FNA provided the initial diagnosis of malignancy, tumor recurrence, and pancreatic metastases, respectively. Four (17%) metastases initially were discovered by EUS after negative (n = 3) or inconclusive (n = 1) CT scans. Compared with primary cancer, pancreatic metastases were more likely to have well-defined margins (46% vs. 4%) compared with irregular (94% vs. 54%; p < 0.0001) margins. No statistically significant difference between the two populations was noted for tumor size, echogenicity, consistency, location, lesion number, or number of FNA passes performed. CONCLUSIONS: Pancreatic metastases are an important cause of focal pancreatic lesions and may occasionally be discovered during EUS examination after previously negative or inconclusive CT. Use of immunocytochemistry, when available, may help to confirm a suspected diagnosis. These lesions are more likely to have well-defined EUS margins compared with primary pancreatic cancer.     

内镜超声检查术对胰腺肿瘤早期诊断的价值

目的探讨内镜超声检查术（EUS）、管内超声检查术（IDUS）及超声内镜引导下细针穿刺术（EUS-FNA）对胰腺肿瘤早期诊断的价值。方法回顾性分析和比较188例胰腺小占位病灶的EUS、IDUS、EUS—FNA及其他影像学检查结果。结果（1）EUS诊断小胰腺癌的准确率是95．6％（44／46）,优于B超58．6％（27／46）、CT77．4％（24／31）、MRI76．2％（16／21）及内镜逆行胰胆管造影术（ERCP）85．3％（29／34）。小胰腺癌EUS声像图主要表现为类圆形、边界清楚、边缘不规则的低回声肿块,内部回声多均匀。（2）25例胰腺小占位病灶行IDUS检查,其准确率是100．0％（25／25）,明显优于B超32．0％（8／25）、CT52．9％（9／17）及MRI57．9％（11／19）等检查。（3）18例胰腺小占位病灶行EUS—FNA,其准确率是66．7％（12／18）。（4）EUS诊断胰腺假性囊肿的准确率是100．0％（27／27）,明显优于13超52．0％（13／25）、CT66、7％（12／18）、MRI82．4％（14／17）及ERCP78．9％（15／19）;对胰腺囊性肿瘤分类鉴别诊断总的准确率是57．7％（15／26）,优于B超19．2％（5／26）、CT36．4％（8／22）、MRI37．5％（6／16）及ERCP50．0％（7／14）等检查。结论EUS、IDUS及EUS-FNA对胰腺肿瘤的早期诊断具有重要价值。     

Accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography in upper gastrointestinal submucosal lesions.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and consistency of the EUS findings with histopathologic examination. METHODS: EUS was performed in 90 patients with upper gastrointestinal tract submucosal tumors, followed in Turkiye Yuksek Ihtisas Hospital, Gastroenterology Clinic. Histopathological diagnosis and EUS findings of 25 of 90 patients were compared. RESULTS: 48.9% of the lesions were found to have arisen from muscularis propria, 33.3% from submucosa, 6.6% from mucosa and 10% from muscularis mucosae, and 1.2% from serosa of the 90 patients. In 25 patients histopathologic confirmation was done. 24% of 25 patients were leiomyoma, 20% polyp, 12% lipoma and the remainder were teratoma, carcinoid tumor, adenocarcinoma, polyp and leiomyosarcoma. EUS was successful in detecting all tumors. EUS diagnosis was consistent with histopathogical diagnosis in all patients with EUS findings as leiomyosarcoma (n=2) and polyp (n=6), in 46.2% of patients with EUS findings as leiomyoma, and in 50% of those with lipoma. CONCLUSIONS: EUS is an accurate means of evaluating and diagnosing submuocal lesions of the gastrointestinal tract.     

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.     

The utility of EUS and EUS-guided fine needle aspiration in detecting celiac lymph node metastasis in patients with esophageal cancer: a single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were to determine the utility of EUS and EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in the detection and confirmation of celiac lymph node metastasis in patients with esophageal cancer and to define EUS features predictive of celiac lymph node metastasis in these patients. METHODS: The records of 211 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent EUS staging were reviewed. The operating characteristics of EUS were determined in patients where either surgery, EUS-FNA of a celiac lymph node, or both were performed (n = 102). The association between selected variables and the presence of celiac lymph node metastasis was evaluated by univariate and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: EUS in 48 patients provided a true-positive diagnosis of celiac lymph node involvement, a false-positive and false-negative result, respectively, in 6 and 14 patients, and a true-negative diagnosis in 34 patients. The sensitivity of EUS in detecting celiac lymph node was 77% (95% CI [67, 88]), specificity 85% (95% CI [74, 96]), negative predictive value 71% (95% CI [58, 84]), and the positive predictive value 89% (95% CI [81, 97]). EUS-FNA was performed in 94% (51/54) of patients with celiac lymph nodes. The accuracy of EUS-FNA in detecting malignant celiac lymph nodes was 98% (95% CI [90, 100]). Advanced T-stage, the need for dilation, detection of peritumoral lymph nodes, and black race were associated with celiac lymph node involvement. In multivariable analysis, advanced T-stage was the strongest predictor of celiac lymph node involvement. CONCLUSION: EUS and EUS-FNA are highly accurate in detecting and confirming celiac lymph nodes metastasis. Depth of tumor invasion as assessed by EUS is a strong predictor of celiac lymph node metastasis in patients with esophageal cancer.     

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.     

EUS-guided FNA diagnosis of pancreatic endocrine tumors: new trends identified

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic endocrine tumors (PETs) are rare (1 per 100,000 population) and are thought to be functioning in up to 85% of cases and are generally less than 2 cm in size. By previous reports, 15% to 50% of PETs are nonfunctioning and are discovered either incidentally or by symptom evaluation from a mass effect. EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) has been shown to accurately diagnose PETs and to localize tumors for surgical resection. OBJECTIVE: To describe a single-center experience of EUS-FNA diagnosis of PETs and its impact on surgical management. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. PATIENTS: Patients with PETs diagnosed via EUS-FNA over a 4-year period were identified through the authors' EUS database. Clinical history, laboratory values, diagnostic studies, EUS findings, cytology, pathology, operative records, and surgical pathology records were reviewed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: Impact of definitive preoperative diagnosis of PET on surgical management. RESULTS: Forty-one patients were diagnosed by EUS-FNA with PET. Thirty-five PETs were nonfunctioning PET; 6 were functioning PET. The mean tumor sizes of functioning and nonfunctioning PETs were 19 mm and 28 mm, respectively. The majority of tumors were located in the pancreatic head. Surgery was performed in 78% of patients; of these, 34% were resected laparoscopipcally. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design and selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, nonfunctioning PETs were more commonly diagnosed compared with functioning PETs. In addition, the PETs were smaller than previously reported, likely because of increasing detection of incidental lesions through widespread use of abdominal imaging.     

Sensitivity of CT,MRI, and EUS-FNA/B in the preoperative workup of histologically proven left-sided pancreatic lesions

Background and objectivesLeft-sided pancreatic lesions are often treated surgically. Accurate diagnostic work-up is therefore essential to prevent futile major abdominal surgery. Large series focusing specifically on the preoperative work-up of left-sided pancreatic lesions are lacking. This surgical cohort analysis describes the sensitivity of CT, MRI, and EUS-FNA/B in the diagnostic work-up of left-sided pancreatic lesions.MethodsWe performed a post-hoc analysis of patients who underwent surgery for a left-sided pancreatic lesion between April 2010 and August 2017 and participated in the randomized CPR trial. Primary outcome was the sensitivity of CT, MRI, and EUS-FNA/B. Sensitivity was determined as the most likely diagnosis of each modality compared with the postoperative histopathological diagnosis. Additionally, the change in sensitivity of EUS versus EUS-FNA/B (i.e., cyst fluid analysis, and/or tissue acquisition) was measured.ResultsOverall, 181 patients were included (benign: 23%, premalignant: 27%, malignant: 50%). Most patients had solid lesions (65%). Preoperative imaging included CT (86%), MRI (41%), EUS (68%). Overall, CT and EUS-FNA/B reached a sensitivity of both 71%, compared with 66% for MRI. When EUS was combined with FNA/B, sensitivity rose from 64% to 71%. For solid lesions, CT reached the highest sensitivity (75%) when compared with MRI (70%) and EUS-FNA/B (69%). For cystic lesions, EUS-FNA/B reached the highest sensitivity (75%) when compared with CT and MRI (both 62%).ConclusionsCT is the most sensitive diagnostic modality for solid and EUS-FNA/B for cystic left-sided pancreatic lesions. EUS-FNA/B was associated with an increased sensitivity when compared to EUS alone.     

Esophageal endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration with an on-site cytopathologist: high accuracy for the diagnosis of mediastinal lymphadenopathy

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To analyze the accuracy of esophageal endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with real-time, guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) with an on-site cytopathologist in patients with (presumed) lung cancer presenting with mediastinal lymphadenopathy (ML) or a suspect left adrenal gland (LAG). DESIGN: A single-center prospective study. PATIENTS: Sixty-seven outpatients with (presumed) lung cancer with ML or a suspect LAG on either CT and/or positron emission tomography with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) scan. INTERVENTIONS: All patients underwent EUS-FNA under conscious sedation. A cytopathologist was present during all procedures. MEASUREMENTS: EUS with and without fine-needle aspiration (FNA) as compared to FDG-PET was evaluated for accuracy in diagnosing cancer, safety, and rate of avoidance for further surgery. RESULTS: Of 67 consecutive patients (56 men; median age, 64 years), malignant ML or LAG were found in 47 patients (70.1%). In 20 patients (29.9%) without EUS-FNA proof of malignancy, confirmation was obtained by surgical procedure in 13 patients (sarcoidosis [n = 5], infection [n = 1], lung cancer [n = 7]) or by clinical follow-up in 5 patients suggesting benign disease. Sixty-five patients were included in the calculation of test characteristics. With malignancy as an end point, the accuracy for EUS-FNA was 100%. This was better than EUS without FNA (accuracy, 75.4%; p < 0.001) or FDG-PET (accuracy, 75.0% [n = 28]; p = 0.0011). When using final histopathologic diagnosis as an end point, the accuracy of EUS-FNA was 92.3%, since EUS-FNA was unable to show noncaseating granulomas in those patients with sarcoidosis diagnosed after mediastinoscopy. Related to the presence of the in situ cytopathologist, there were no inconclusive samples. No adverse events were recorded, and 67.7% of surgical interventions were avoided following EUS-FNA. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy in this series of EUS-FNA with cytopathologist-assisted rapid on-site evaluation is high. The technique is safe and greatly reduces the number of surgical interventions.     

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy of suspected cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Despite advances in endoscopic techniques for sampling bile duct strictures, the diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma remains a challenge. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the yield of EUS-FNA and its impact on patient management for patients with suspected cholangiocarcinoma. METHODS: All patients undergoing EUS for the evaluation of suspected malignant biliary strictures were prospectively evaluated over a 23-month period. A single gastroenterologist performed all EUS-FNAs in the presence of a cytopathologist. Reference standard for final diagnosis included surgery, death from disease, and clinical and/or imaging follow-up. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients (mean age 67 years [SD +/- 11], 72% male) were evaluated. Most patients (91%) presented with obstructive jaundice, and all except 1 had nondiagnostic sampling of the biliary lesions either at ERCP (88%), percutaneous transhepatic cholangiogram (n = 2), and/or computed tomography-guided biopsy (n = 1). Sixty-seven percent (14/21) had no definitive mass seen on prior abdominal imaging studies. The mean tumor size by EUS was 19 mm x 16 mm with a median number of passes to diagnosis of 3 (range 1-7). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were 86%, 100%, 100%, 57%, and 88%, respectively. EUS-FNA had a positive impact on patient management in 84% of patients: preventing surgery for tissue diagnosis in patients with inoperable disease (n = 10), facilitating surgery in patients with unidentifiable cancer by other modalities (n = 8), and avoiding surgery in benign disease (n = 4). CONCLUSIONS: Given the apparent accuracy and safety of EUS with FNA for imaging bile duct mass lesions and for obtaining a tissue diagnosis in patients with suspected cholangiocarcinoma, this technology may represent a new approach to diagnosis especially when other methods fail. The ability to obtain a definite diagnosis has a significant impact on patient management.     

Endoscopic ultrasound as a first test for diagnosis and staging of lung cancer: a prospective study

RATIONALE: Multiple tests are required for the management of lung cancer. OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) was evaluated as a single test for the diagnosis and staging (thoracic and extrathoracic) of lung cancer. METHODS: Consecutive subjects with computed tomography (CT) findings of a lung mass were enrolled for EUS and results were compared with those from CT and positron emission tomography scans. RESULTS: Of 113 subjects with lung cancer, EUS was performed as a first test (after CT scan) for diagnosis in 93 (82%) of them. EUS-FNA established tissue diagnosis in 70% of cases. EUS-FNA, CT, and positron emission tomography detected metastases to the mediastinal lymph nodes with accuracies of 93, 81, and 83%, respectively. EUS-FNA was significantly better than CT at detecting distant metastases (accuracies of 97 and 89%, respectively; p = 0.02). Metastases to lymph nodes at the celiac axis (CLNs) were observed in 11% of cases. The diagnostic yields of EUS-FNA and CT for detection of metastases to the CLNs were 100 and 50%, respectively (p < 0.05). EUS was able to detect small metastases (less than 1 cm) often missed by CT. Metastasis to the CLNs was a predictor of poor survival of subjects with non-small cell lung cancer, irrespective of the size of the CLNs. Of 44 cases with resectable tumor on CT scan, EUS-FNA avoided thoracotomy in 14% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNA as a first test (after CT) has high diagnostic yield and accuracy for detecting lung cancer metastases to the mediastinum and distant sites. Metastasis to the CLNs is associated with poor prognosis. EUS-FNA is able to detect occult metastasis to the CLNs and thus avoids thoracotomy.     

A randomized comparison of EUS-guided FNA versus CT or US-guided FNA for the evaluation of pancreatic mass lesions

BACKGROUND: Diagnosing pancreatic cancer by EUS-FNA is a potentially appealing alternative to percutaneous biopsy. AIM: To compare EUS-FNA with CT or US-guided FNA for diagnosing pancreatic cancer. DESIGN: Single center, prospective, randomized, cross-over. SETTING: Duke University Medical Center. POPULATION: Eighty-four patients referred with suspicious solid pancreatic mass lesions randomized to CT/US-FNA (n = 43) or EUS-FNA (n = 41). INTERVENTION: Patients underwent an imaging procedure/FNA. If cytology was nondiagnostic, cross over to the other modality was offered. Final outcome was determined by clinical follow-up every 6 months for 2 years and/or surgical pathology for patients with negative FNA. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Sensitivity and accuracy of EUS-FNA versus CT/US-FNA for pancreatic cancer. RESULTS: There were 16 true positive (TP) by CT/US-FNA and 21 TP by EUS-FNA. Sixteen of the 20 CT/US-FNA negative patients crossed over to EUS-FNA; 12 underwent FNA, 4 had no mass at EUS. Seven of the 12 had positive EUS-FNA. Eight EUS-FNA negative crossed over to CT/US; 4 had no mass at CT/US, 3 remained true negative throughout follow-up, 1 had chronic pancreatitis at surgery. The sensitivity of CT/US-FNA and EUS-FNA for detecting malignancy was 62% and 84%, respectively. A comparison of the accuracy for CT/US-FNA and EUS-FNA was not statistically significant (P = .074, chi(2)). LIMITATIONS: Failure to meet target enrollment resulted in an inability to demonstrate a statistically significant difference between the 2 modalities. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNA is numerically (though not quite statistically) superior to CT/US-FNA for the diagnosis of pancreatic malignancy.     

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.