Ultrasound techniques in the evaluation of the mediastinum,part I: endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) and transcutaneous mediastinal ultrasound (TMUS), introduction into ultrasound techniques

Ultrasound imaging has gained importance in pulmonary medicine over the last decades including conventional transcutaneous ultrasound (TUS), endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS). Mediastinal lymph node staging affects the management of patients with both operable and inoperable lung cancer (e.g., surgery vs. combined chemoradiation therapy). Tissue sampling is often indicated for accurate nodal staging. Recent international lung cancer staging guidelines clearly state that endosonography (EUS and EBUS) should be the initial tissue sampling test over surgical staging. Mediastinal nodes can be sampled from the airways [EBUS combined with transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA)] or the esophagus [EUS fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA)]. EBUS and EUS have a complementary diagnostic yield and in combination virtually all mediastinal lymph nodes can be biopsied. Additionally endosonography has an excellent yield in assessing granulomas in patients suspected of sarcoidosis. The aim of this review, in two integrative parts, is to discuss the current role and future perspectives of all ultrasound techniques available for the evaluation of mediastinal lymphadenopathy and mediastinal staging of lung cancer. A specific emphasis will be on learning mediastinal endosonography. Part I is dealing with an introduction into ultrasound techniques, mediastinal lymph node anatomy and diagnostic reach of ultrasound techniques and part II with the clinical work up of neoplastic and inflammatory mediastinal lymphadenopathy using ultrasound techniques and how to learn mediastinal endosonography.     

Efficacy of endoscopic samplings during initial biliary drainage for cases of pancreatic head cancer: United diagnostic yields of multiple pathological samplings

Background/objectivesThe diagnostic ability of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has been fully studied; however, the efficacy of other endoscopic samplings (OESs) is less clear. The aim of this study was to examine the diagnostic efficacies of OESs for pancreatic head cancer (PHC).MethodsThe diagnostic efficacies of endoscopic samplings were retrospectively analyzed in 448 PHC cases and 63 cases of mass-forming pancreatitis (MFP) during initial transpapillary biliary drainage. The OESs included duodenal biopsy (118 PHCs and 50 MFPs), biliary biopsy (218 and 51) with cytology (368 and 53), and pancreatic duct biopsy (23 and 13) with cytology (56 and 43). EUS-FNA was conducted in a different session (149 and 62). Factors associated with OES sensitivity were analyzed. The sensitivity of biliary biopsy was compared between 1.95 mm and 1.8 mm forceps.ResultsCancer cells were confirmed in 87.9% of the EUS-FNA samplings and in 64.1% (268/418) obtained by combined OESs (average 1.7 OES types per case): 68.6% by duodenal biopsy, 59.6% by biliary biopsy, 32.6% by biliary cytology, 73.9% by pancreatic duct biopsy, and 33.9% by pancreatic duct cytology. No MFP cases revealed cancer by any sampling. OESs did not increase adverse events. Duodenal stenosis, serum bilirubin, tumor size, and pancreatic juice amounts were associated with OES sensitivity. Biliary biopsy had the same sensitivity with different forceps.ConclusionEUS-FNA was the most diagnostic protocol; however, OESs can be safely applied during the initial biliary drainage to reduce the demand for EUS-FNA while providing good diagnostic yields.     

Usefulness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for undiagnosed intra-abdominal lymphadenopathy

Background  The differentiation between benign and malignant abdominal lymph nodes is difficult, especially if no primary site is evident or if cancer resection was remote in time. The aim of this study was to evaluate the yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in patients with undiagnosed intra-abdominal lymphadenopathy. Methods  Fifty-seven consecutive patients with undiagnosed abdominal lymphadenopathy who were registered in our EUS-FNA database from January 1997 to December 2007 were reviewed. EUS-FNA was carried out using a 22-G needle. The final pathological diagnosis was based on the cytopathological, histological, and immunohistochemical (IHC) findings. Results  Adequate specimens were obtained in 93% cases. The final diagnoses included local recurrence of malignancy after resection (n = 16), lymphoma (n = 12), and benign/reactive changes (n = 17). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and overall accuracy of EUS-FNA were 94, 100, 100, 90 and 96%, respectively. In addition, it was also possible to classify lymphoma subtypes in 83% of cases. No complications occurred during the procedures. Conclusions  EUS-FNA is clinically very useful for establishing the diagnosis of abdominal lymphadenopathy of unknown cause and can provide sufficient tissue for IHC and subtyping of lymphomas.     

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.     

Comparison of cytologic preparation methods in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma

BackgroundThere are few studies about the diagnostic yield of cytologic preparation method of pancreatic samples obtained by Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of ThinPrep^® and smear method in diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.MethodsA total of 125 EUS-FNA procedures were performed between July 2010 and June 2015. Patients in group I (n = 36; July 2010 to June 2014) had cytology slides prepared by consecutive allocation of samples. Patients in group II (n = 12; July 2014 to June 2015) had cytology slides prepared by alternately allocation of samples.ResultsThere were 24 men and 24 women (median age: 67 years; range 39–84). The median size of lesions was 3.9 cm (range; 1.4–7.2 cm). The locations of the pancreatic cancer were 10 in head (20.8%), 21 in body (43.8%), and 17 in tail (35.4%). The ThinPrep^® method confirmed malignancy in 35 of 48 cases (72.9%). On the other hand, the smear method confirmed malignancy in 44 of 48 cases (91.7%). The diagnostic yield of smear method was statistically higher than liquid method (P = 0.012). Also, smear method is superior to liquid method in both consecutive and alternative allocation method. ThinPrep^® provided a correct diagnosis in one case where the smear method was incorrect.ConclusionsSmear method was a superior preparation method to liquid method in diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, even if splitting method was not used and variable allocation method was used.