Specialized clinical cytology may improve the results of EUS (endoscopic ultrasound)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) from pancreatic tumors

Background and study aims: A variety of factors (needle type, needle passes, tumor location, cytological assessment, etc.) may influence the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology (EUS-FNAC) from pancreatic tumors. Whereas most published studies report a diagnostic accuracy of > 80 % for EUS-FNAC, the results in routine settings are often considerably lower. This retrospective study aimed to define the effect of switching microscopic assessment from a standard pathology department to a highly specialized institute of cytology.

Patients and methods: A total of 63 patients underwent EUS-FNAC of solid or semisolid pancreatic masses. Specimens of the first consecutive 20 cases (Phase 1) were assessed by the local department of pathology. Then in Phase 2, involving another 43 subsequent cases, a specialized cytology laboratory examined all aspirates. All EUS-FNACs were performed in the same manner, using a 22-gauge needle. After cytological evaluation, all patients either underwent surgery or were followed up for at least 6 months.

Results: Of the tumors, 56 were solid and 7 semisolid; the mean size was 30 mm. Sensitivity (sens.), specificity (spec.), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of EUS-FNAC were 38.5 % (95 %CI [confidence interval] 13.9 – 68.4 %), 100 % (59.0 – 100 %), 100 % (47.8 – 100 %), and 46.7 % (21.3 – 73.4 %) during Phase 1 versus 91.4 % (95 %CI 76.9 – 98.2 %), 100 % (63.1 – 100 %), 100 % (89.1 – 100 %), and 72.7 % (39.0 – 94.0 %) during Phase 2.

Conclusion: These results emphasize the considerable impact of a dedicated cytological evaluation on the results of EUS-FNAC.

• 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, Polkowski M, Larghi A et al. Indications, results, and clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) clinical guideline. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 897-912
• 3 Itoi T, Itokawa F, Sofuni A et al. Puncture of solid pancreatic tumors guided by endoscopic ultrasonography: a pilot study series comparing Trucut and 19-gauge and 22-gauge aspiration needles. Endoscopy 2005; 37: 362-366
• 4 Moller K, Papanikolaou IS, Toermer T et al. EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: high yield of 2 passes with combined histologic-cytologic analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 60-69
• 5 Takahashi K, Yamao K, Okubo K et al. Differential diagnosis of pancreatic cancer and focal pancreatitis by using EUS-guided FNA. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 76-79
• 6 Iglesias-Garcia J, Dominguez-Munoz E, Lozano-Leon A et al. Impact of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy for diagnosis of pancreatic masses. World J Gastroenterol 2007; 13: 289-293
• 7 Varadarajulu S, Tamhane A, Eloubeidi MA. Yield of EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic masses in the presence or the absence of chronic pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 62: 728-736 ; quiz 751, 753
• 8 Eloubeidi MA, Varadarajulu S, Desai S et al. A prospective evaluation of an algorithm incorporating routine preoperative endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration in suspected pancreatic cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 2007; 11: 813-819
• 9 Hwang CY, Lee SS, Song TJ et al. Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in diagnosis of pancreatic and peripancreatic lesions: a single center experience in Korea. Gut Liver 2009; 3: 116-121
• 10 Fisher L, Segarajasingam DS, Stewart C et al. Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions: performance and outcomes. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 24: 90-96
• 11 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
• 12 Sakamoto H, Kitano M, Komaki T et al. 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. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 24: 384-390
• 13 Varadarajulu S, Bang JY, Hebert-Magee S. Assessment of the technical performance of the flexible 19-gauge EUS-FNA needle. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 336-343
• 14 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
• 15 Varadarajulu S, Fraig M, Schmulewitz N et al. Comparison of EUS-guided 19-gauge Trucut needle biopsy with EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration. Endoscopy 2004; 36: 397-401
• 16 Hartwig W, Schneider L, Diener MK et al. Preoperative tissue diagnosis for tumours of the pancreas. Br J Surg 2009; 96: 5-20
• 17 Yoshinaga S, Suzuki H, Oda I et al. Role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses. Dig Endosc 2011; 23: 29-33
• 18 Jenssen C, Dietrich CF. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy and trucut biopsy in gastroenterology – an overview. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2009; 23: 743-759
• 19 Eloubeidi MA, Varadarajulu S, Desai S et al. Value of repeat endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for suspected pancreatic cancer. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 23: 567-570
• 20 Tadic M, Kujundzic M, Stoos-Veic T et al. Role of repeated endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration in small solid pancreatic masses with previous indeterminate and negative cytological findings. Dig Dis 2008; 26: 377-382
• 21 Cherian PT, Mohan P, Douiri A et al. Role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic and peripancreatic lesions: is onsite cytopathology necessary?. HPB (Oxford) 2010; 12: 389-395
• 22 Uehara H, Ikezawa K, Kawada N et al. Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for suspected pancreatic malignancy in relation to the size of lesions. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011; 26: 1256-1261
• 23 Lin F, Staerkel G. Cytologic criteria for well differentiated adenocarcinoma of the pancreas in fine-needle aspiration biopsy specimens. Cancer 2003; 99: 44-50
• 24 Mitsuhashi T, Ghafari S, Chang CY et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of the pancreas: cytomorphological evaluation with emphasis on adequacy assessment, diagnostic criteria and contamination from the gastrointestinal tract. Cytopathology 2006; 17: 34-41
• 25 Petrone MC, Arcidiacono PG, Carrara S et al. Does cytotechnician training influence the accuracy of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic masses?. Dig Liver Dis 2012; 44: 311-314
• 26 Eloubeidi MA, Chen VK, Eltoum IA et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy of patients with suspected pancreatic cancer: diagnostic accuracy and acute and 30-day complications. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 2663-2668
• 27 Alsibai KD, Denis B, Bottlaender J et al. Impact of cytopathologist expert on diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic lesions in current clinical practice. A series of 106 endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspirations. Cytopathology 2006; 17: 18-26
• 28 Barreiros AP, Burmester E, Will U et al. Clinical procedures and outcomes of endoscopic fine needle biopsies (EUS-FNB): results of a German survey of the working group endoscopic ultrasound of the DEGUM. Ultraschall Med 2013; 34–WS_SL17_02
• 29 Pitman MB, Centerno BA, Ali SZ et al. Standardized terminology and nomenclature for pancreatobiliary cytology: the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology guidelines. Diagn Cytopathol 19.02.2014;