EUS-guided tissue sampling: comparison of ”dual sampling” (Trucut biopsy plus FNA) with ”sequential sampling” (Trucut biopsy and then FNA as required)

Background and study aims: Both endoscopic ultrasound- (EUS-) guided tissue sampling techniques, fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and Trucut biopsy, have advantages and limitations. The aim of this study was to develop a strategy of combining these two EUS-guided sampling techniques in order to maximize the diagnostic accuracy and minimize duplication.

Patients and methods: In this multicenter study we performed ”dual sampling” (i. e. with both FNA and Trucut biopsy) in 95 patients during phase 1 of the study and ”sequential sampling” (i. e. performing FNA only when Trucut biopsy tissue cores were macroscopically inadequate) in 72 patients during phase 2.

Results: During the study period, 167/401 patients referred for EUS-guided sampling were eligible for the study; only solid lesions were included. In 143/167 patients (86 %), sampling was performed via the transesophageal or transgastric routes. When the dual sampling strategy was used, an accurate diagnosis was achieved in 78/95 patients by FNA, compared with 85/95 by Trucut biopsy (P = 0.21). The combined accuracy of the dual sampling strategy was higher than FNA alone (88/95 vs. 78/95, P = 0.048), but was not significantly higher than Trucut biopsy alone (88/95 vs. 85/95, P = 0.61). Using the sequential sampling strategy, an accurate diagnosis was achieved in 66/72 patients (92 %) compared with 88/95 (93 %) for dual sampling (P = 1.0), and 8/72 patients (11 %) had to undergo FNA after Trucut biopsy failed to obtain an adequate sample. One patient with mediastinal tuberculosis developed a cold abscess following Trucut biopsy.

Conclusion: A sequential sampling strategy, in which EUS-guided Trucut biopsy is attempted first, and FNA performed only when Trucut biopsy fails to obtain a macroscopically adequate sample, achieves a diagnostic accuracy of 92 %, with 11 % of patients requiring both sampling procedures.

References

• 1 Wiersema M J, Hawes R H, Tao L C. et al . Endoscopic ultrasonography as an adjunct to fine needle aspiration cytology of the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1992;  38 35-39
• 2 Wiersema M J, Vilmann P, Giovannini M. et al . Endosonography-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy: diagnostic accuracy and complication assessment.  Gastroenterology. 1997;  112 1087-1095
• 3 Rösch T. Endoscopic ultrasonography [review].  Br J Surg. 1997;  84 1329-1331
• 4 Williams D B, Sahai A V, Aabacken L. et al . Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration biopsy: a large single centre experience.  Gut. 1999;  44 720-726
• 5 O’Toole D, Palazzo L, Arotcarena R. et al . Assessment of complications of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;  53 470-474
• 6 Layfield L J, Bentz J S, Gopez E V. Immediate on-site interpretation of fine-needle aspiration smears: a cost and compensation analysis.  Cancer. 2001;  93 319-322
• 7 Klapman J B, Logrono R, Dye C E, Waxman I. Clinical impact of on-site cytopathology interpretation on endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;  98 1289-1294
• 8 Chang K J, Nguyen P, Erickson R A. et al . The clinical utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic carcinoma.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1997;  45 387-393
• 9 Ribeiro A, Vazquez-Sequeiros E, Wiersema L M. et al . EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration combined with flow cytometry and immunocytochemistry in the diagnosis of lymphoma.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;  53 485-491
• 10 Rader A E, Avery A, Wait C L. et al . Fine-needle aspiration biopsy diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumours using morphology, immunocytochemistry, and mutational analysis of c-kit.  Cancer. 2001;  93 269-275
• 11 Stelow E B, Stanley M W, Bardales R H. et al . Intraductal papillary-mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas: the findings and limitations of cytologic samples obtained by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration.  Am J Clin Pathol. 2003;  120 398-404
• 12 Wiersema M J, Gatzimos K, Nisi R, Wiersema L M. Staging of non-Hodgkin’s gastric lymphoma with endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy and flow cytometry.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;  44 734-736
• 13 Wiersema M J, Levy M J, Harewood G C. et al . Initial experience with EUS-guided trucut needle biopsies of perigastric organs.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;  56 275-278
• 14 Larghi A, Verna E C, Stavropoulos S N. et al . EUS-guided trucut needle biopsies in patients with solid pancreatic masses: a prospective study.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;  59 185-190
• 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 Levy M J, Wiersema M J. EUS-guided Trucut biopsy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;  62 417-426
• 17 Wight C O, Zaitoun A M, Boulton-Jones J R. et al . Improving diagnostic yield of biliary brushings cytology for pancreatic cancer and cholangiocarcinoma.  Cytopathology. 2004;  15 87-92
• 18 Stelow E B, Bardales R H, Stanley M W. Pitfalls in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and how to avoid them.  Adv Anat Pathol. 2005;  12 62-73
• 19 Storch I, Jorda M, Thurer R. et al . Advantage of EUS Trucut biopsy combined with fine-needle aspiration without immediate on-site cytopathologic examination.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;  64 505-511
• 20 Wildi S M, Hoda R S, Fickling W. et al . Diagnosis of benign cysts of the mediastinum: the role and risks of EUS and FNA.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;  58 362-368
• 21 Annema J T, Veselic M, Versteegh M I, Rabe K F. Mediastinitis caused by EUS-FNA of a bronchogenic cyst.  Endoscopy. 2003;  35 791-793