Collaboration of community hospital endosonographers improves diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasonography guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic lesions

Abstract

Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition (TA) is the method of choice for establishing a pathological diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions. Data on quality and yield of EUS-guided TA performed in community hospitals are lacking. A study was performed to determine and improve the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided TA in a group of community hospitals.

Methods Following analysis of the last 20 EUS-guided TA procedures of solid pancreatic lesions performed in each of four community hospitals, a collaborative EUS interest group was formed and a prospective registry was started. During meetings of the interest group, feedback on results per center were provided and strategies for improvement were discussed.

Results In the BEFORE team formation cohort, 80 procedures were performed in 66 patients. In the AFTER team formation cohort, 133 procedures were performed in 125 patients. After team formation, the rate of adequate sample increased from 80 % (95 %CI [0.7 – 0.9]) to 95 % (95 %CI [0.9 – 1.0]) , diagnostic yield of malignancy improved from 28 % (95 %CI [0.2 – 0.4]) to 64 % (95 % CI [0.6 – 0.7]), and sensitivity of malignancy improved from 63 % (95 %CI [0.4 – 0.8]) to 84 % (95 %CI [0.8 – 0.9]). Multivariate regression analysis revealed team formation to be the only variable significantly associated with an increased rate of adequate sample.

Conclusions Formation of a regional EUS interest group with regular feedback on results per center, and discussions on methods and techniques used, significantly improved the outcome of EUS-guided TA procedures in patients with solid pancreatic lesions in community hospitals.

• References

• 1 Eltoum IA, Alston EA, Roberson J. Trends in pancreatic pathology practice before and after implementation of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration: an example of disruptive innovation effect?. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2012; 136: 447-453
• 2 Dumonceau JM, Deprez PH, Jenssen C. et al. Indications, results, and clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline – Updated January 2017. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 695-714
• 3 Hartwig W, Schneider L, Diener MK. et al. Preoperative tissue diagnosis for tumours of the pancreas. B J Surgery 2009; 96: 5-20
• 4 Hewitt MJ, McPhail MJ, Possamai L. et al. EUS-guided FNA for diagnosis of solid pancreatic neoplasms: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 319-331
• 5 Wani S, Wallace MB, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for EUS. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 67-80
• 6 Alatawi A, Beuvon F, Grabar S. et al. Comparison of 22G reverse-beveled versus standard needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions. United European Gastroenterol J 2015; 3: 343-352
• 7 Bang JY, Hebert-Magee S, Trevino J. et al. Randomized trial comparing the 22-gauge aspiration and 22-gauge biopsy needles for EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic mass lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 321-327
• 8 Fabbri C, Polifemo AM, Luigiano C. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration with 22- and 25-gauge needles in solid pancreatic masses: a prospective comparative study with randomisation of needle sequence. Dig Liver Dis 2011; 43: 647-652
• 9 Iglesias-Garcia J, Dominguez-Munoz JE, Abdulkader I. et al. Influence of on-site cytopathology evaluation on the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of solid pancreatic masses. Am J Gastroenterol 2011; 106: 1705-1710
• 10 Kamata K, Kitano M, Yasukawa S. et al. Histologic diagnosis of pancreatic masses using 25-gauge endoscopic ultrasound needles with and without a core trap: a multicenter randomized trial. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 632-638
• 11 Lee JK, Choi JH, Lee KH. et al. A prospective, comparative trial to optimize sampling techniques in EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 745-751
• 12 Mohamadnejad M, Mullady D, Early DS. et al. Increasing number of passes beyond 4 does not increase sensitivity of detection of pancreatic malignancy by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 15: 1071-1078 e1072
• 13 Park SW, Chung MJ, Lee SH. et al. Prospective study for comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition using 25- and 22-gauge core biopsy needles in solid pancreatic masses. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0154401
• 14 Tarantino I, Fabbri C, Di Mitri R. et al. Complications of endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration on pancreatic cystic lesions: final results from a large prospective multicenter study. Dig Liver Dis 2014; 46: 41-44
• 15 Wani S, Cote GA, Keswani R. et al. Learning curves for EUS by using cumulative sum analysis: implications for American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommendations for training. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 558-565
• 16 Wani S, Wallace MB, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for EUS. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 102-113
• 17 Savides TJ, Donohue M, Hunt G. et al. EUS-guided FNA diagnostic yield of malignancy in solid pancreatic masses: a benchmark for quality performance measurement. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 66: 277-282
• 18 James PD, Hegagi M, Antonova L. et al. Regional differences in use of endoscopic ultrasonography in Ontario: a population-based retrospective cohort study. CMAJ Open 2017; 5: E437-E443
• 19 Campbell I. Chi-squared and Fisher-Irwin tests of two-by-two tables with small sample recommendations. Stat Med 2007; 26: 3661-3675
• 20 Polkowski M, Jenssen C, Kaye P. et al. Technical aspects of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Guideline – March 2017. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 989-1006
• 21 Lee LS, Andersen DK, Ashida R. et al. EUS and related technologies for the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic disease: research gaps and opportunities-Summary of a National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases workshop. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 86: 768-778
• 22 Sedgwick P, Greenwood N. Understanding the Hawthorne effect. BMJ 2015; 351: h4672