Malignant cell contamination may lead to false-positive findings at endosonographic fine needle aspiration for tumor staging

Background and study aims: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of lymph nodes is used for staging of gastrointestinal malignancies. False-positive rates of 5 % – 7 % are not well understood. Elements of EUS examinations that contribute to false-positive cytological findings were investigated.

Patients and methods: 13 patients undergoing EUS staging of gastrointestinal luminal malignancy were consecutively enrolled together with 3 patients with extraluminal tumors (pancreas, lung) defined as controls. After EUS, cellular debris and fluid were collected from the FNA needle catheter, instrument channel, and endoscope tip for cytologic and histologic investigation.

Results: 6 of 13 patients (46 %) had malignant cells contaminating the FNA needle catheter, instrument channel, or endoscope tip. Malignant cells were present in the instrument channel in 5 cases (38 %), exterior tip of echoendoscope in 4 (31 %) and needle catheter in 2 (15 %).

Conclusions: Echoendoscopes used for FNA in patients with luminal tumors are at risk for malignant cell contamination of the instrument channel, FNA needle catheter, and echoendoscope tip. FNA needle contamination can contribute to false-positive findings.

• References

• 1 Rösch T. Endosonographic staging of esophageal cancer: a review of literature results. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 1995; 5: 537
• 2 Chandawarkar RY, Kakegawa T, Fujita H et al. Endosonography for preoperative staging of specific nodal groups associated with esophageal cancer. World J Surg 1996; 20: 700
• 3 Rizk N, Venkatraman E, Park B et al. The prognostic importance of the number of involved lymph nodes in esophageal cancer: implications for revisions of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006; 132: 1374
• 4 Mariette C, Piessen G, Briez N et al. The number of metastatic lymph nodes and the ratio between metastatic and examined lymph nodes are independent prognostic factors in esophageal cancer regardless of neoadjuvant chemoradiation or lymphadenectomy extent. Ann Surg 2008; 247: 365
• 5 Eloubeidi MA, Wallace MB, Reed CE et al. 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. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 54: 714
• 6 Wiersema MJ, Vilmann P, Giovannini M et al. Endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy: diagnostic accuracy and complication assessment. Gastroenterology 1997; 112: 1087
• 7 Giovannini M, Seitz JF, Monges G et al. Fine-needle aspiration cytology guided by endoscopic ultrasonography: results in 141 patients. Endoscopy 1995; 27: 171
• 8 Schwartz DA, Unni KK, Levy MJ et al. The rate of false-positive results with EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 56: 868-872
• 9 Gleeson FC, Kipp BR, Caudill JL et al. False positive endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration cytology: incidence and risk factors. Gut 2010; 59: 586-593
• 10 Harbaum L, Pomjanski N, Hinterleitner TA et al. False-positive mediastinal lymph node cytology due to translesional endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in a patient with Barrett’s early cancer. Endoscopy 2009; 41: E150-E151
• 11 Levy MJ, Gleeson FC, Campion MB et al. Prospective cytological assessment of gastrointestinal luminal fluid acquired during EUS: a potential source of false-positive FNA and needle tract seeding. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 1311-1318
• 12 van Hemel BM, Lamprou AA, Weersma R et al. Procedure-related, false-positive cytology results during EUS-guided FNA in patients with esophageal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 1130-1133