Diagnostic efficacy of liquid‐based cytology for solid pancreatic lesion samples obtained with endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle aspiration: Propensity score‐matched analysis (original) (raw)
Related papers
Cancer, 2003
Although atypical or suspicious cytology may support a clinical diagnosis of a malignancy, it is often not sufficient for the implementation of therapy in patients with pancreatic carcinoma. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNAB) is a relatively new method for obtaining cytology samples, and one that may decrease the number of atypical/suspicious diagnoses. The goals of the current study were to prospectively evaluate the yield of EUS-FNAB in the diagnosis of patients presenting with solid pancreatic lesions and to evaluate the significance of atypical, suspicious, and false-negative aspirates.
Endoscopy International Open, 2020
Background and study aims The traditional “smear technique” for processing and assessing endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is sensitive to artifacts. Processing and evaluation of specimens collected in a liquid medium, liquid-based cytology (LBC) may be a solution. We compared the diagnostic value of EUS-FNA smears to LBC in pancreatic solid lesions in the absence of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE). Patients and methods Consecutive patients who required EUS-FNA of a solid pancreatic lesion were included in seven hospitals in the Netherlands and followed for at least 12 months. Specimens from the first pass were split into two smears and a vial for LBC (using ThinPrep and/or Cell block). Smear and LBC were compared in terms of diagnostic accuracy for malignancy, sample quality, and diagnostic agreement between three cytopathologists. Results Diagnostic accuracy for malignancy was higher for LBC (82 % (58/71)) than for smear (66 % (47/71), P = 0.04), but di...
Pancreas, 2009
Objective: Patients frequently present with suspected pancreatic neoplasm based on a focal pancreatic lesion on computed tomographic (CT) scan/magnetic resonance image (MRI) but without obstructive jaundice. We evaluated the performance characteristics of endoscopic ultrasoundYguided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in this patient subset. Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of a prospective database and included patients who underwent EUS-FNA at a university hospital for a focal pancreatic lesion noted on CT/MRI. Patients were excluded if (1) they had obstructive jaundice or (2) the lesion appear (seem)ed cystic on CT/MRI. The main outcome measurements were (1) prevalence of pancreatic cancer and (2) performance characteristics of EUS-FNA for identifying malignancy. Results: In the 213 study patients, a focal pancreatic lesion was identified in 173 patients by EUS. The final diagnosis included adenocarcinoma (n = 89), neuroendocrine tumor (n = 14), mucinous cystadenocarcinoma (n = 1), solid pseudopapillary tumor (n = 2), metastases (n = 4), benign cyst (n = 19), pseudocyst (n = 9), abscess (n = 4), chronic pancreatitis (n = 32), and normal pancreas (n = 39). Endoscopic ultrasoundYguided FNA had an accuracy of 97.6% for diagnosing malignant neoplasm, with 96.6% sensitivity, 99.0% specificity, 96.2% negative predictive value, and 99.1% positive predictive value. Conclusions: Endoscopic ultrasoundYguided FNA is highly accurate for diagnosing malignancy in patients with a focal pancreatic lesion on CT scan/MRI but without obstructive jaundice. Endoscopic ultra-soundYguided FNA can potentially be used as a definitive diagnostic test in the management of these patients.
Journal of Gastroenterology, 2016
Background Multiple studies have investigated sampling adequacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (pNENs). However, none have described the diagnostic performance of EUS-FNA for pNENs, or the influencing factors. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA, with post-operative pathological diagnosis as the gold standard, and factors predictive of inadequate EUS sampling. Methods From 1998 to 2014, a total of 698 patients underwent pancreatic resection and 1455 patients underwent EUS-FNA sampling for pancreatic lesions. A total of 410 cases underwent both surgical resection and preceding EUS-FNA. Of these, 60 cases (49 true pNEN, nine nondiagnostic, two misdiagnoses) were included. We studied diagnostic performance of EUS-FNA and factors that were associated with failed diagnosis. Results Of the 60 cases, EUS-FNA yield was 49 truepositive cases, two misdiagnoses, and nine non-diagnostic cases (including six suggestive cases). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 84.5, 99.4, and 97.3 %, respectively; including the six suggestive cases, diagnostic values were 94.8 % sensitivity (55/58), 99.4 % specificity (350/ 352), and 98.7 % accuracy (405/410). In multivariate analysis, sampling adequacy rates were significantly lower when lesions were located in the pancreatic head [odds ratio (OR) = 10.0] and in tumor-rich stromal fibrosis (OR = 10.45). Tumor size, needle type, tumor grading, presence of cystic component, and time period were not significant factors. Conclusions EUS-FNA offers high accuracy for pNEN. However, location of the tumor in the pancreatic head and presence of rich stromal fibrosis negatively impacts sampling adequacy.
Cancer Cytopathology, 2014
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to assess how atypical diagnostic category (ADC) is followed up, its outcomes, and the predictors that are associated with subsequent diagnosis of neoplasm/malignancy. METHODS: We reviewed pancreatic endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) with ADC and compared the rate of detection of neoplasms after a repeat FNA, a biopsy/resection, or a clinical follow-up following ADC. Logistic regression was used to determine the factors associated with the diagnosis of a neoplastic or a malignant lesion following ADC. Predictive probability for each case was calculated on the basis of the significant predictors, and whether it improved diagnostic performance was assessed. RESULTS: Of 3832 cases that received pancreatic EUS-FNAs, 187 (4.9%) were ADC. A total of 93 neoplasms (55%), including 61 carcinomas (36%), were detected after an atypical cytologic diagnosis. Similar rates of detecting neoplasms were observed after repeat FNA or biopsy/resection but higher than after clinical follow-up. The presence of a mass, history of alcohol use, and absence of a history of pancreatitis were significant predictors of a higher rate of diagnosis of neoplasm. Weight loss and bile flow obstruction were more likely to be associated with higher rates of carcinoma. Predictive probability demonstrated a wide range of risk and changed the ambiguous diagnosis to informative in 30% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: ADC of pancreas is associated with a high risk of benign and malignant neoplasms regardless of the method of follow-up. The presences of a mass, alcohol use, and absence of a history of pancreatitis are significant predictors of a diagnosis of neoplasm, whereas weight loss and bile duct obstruction are significant predictors of ductal carcinoma following an ADC.
JOP : Journal of the pancreas, 2013
Rapid onsite adequacy assessment is stated to improve the diagnostic performance of EUS-FNA. The aim of this study was to establish if the introduction of adequacy assessment performed by a biomedical scientist (cytotechnologist) to an established EUS service improved the diagnostic accuracy of EUS guided FNA of solid pancreaticobiliary lesions. This retrospective study includes all patients with solid pancreaticobiliary lesions who underwent EUS-FNA from April 2009 to September 2010. An in room cytotechnologist was present for 2 out of the 4 weekly EUS lists and therefore there were two groups identified: Group 1, cytotechnologist absent; and Group 2, cytotechnologist present. There were 82 patients in Group 1 and 97 patients in Group 2. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of passes (4.1 vs. 4.3), the inadequate aspirate rate (7.3% vs. 5.1%) or the mean size of the lesions (34.7 vs. 32.6 mm) between the groups. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, pos...
Amer J Gastroenterol, 2001
Background: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided core needle biopsies (CNB) are increasingly being performed to diagnose solid pancreatic lesions. However, studies have been conflicting in terms of CNB improving diagnostic accuracy and procedural efficiency vs fine-needle aspiration (FNA), which this study aims to elucidate. Methods: Data were prospectively collected on consecutive patients with solid pancreatic or peripancreatic lesions at a single tertiary care center from November 2015 to November 2016 that underwent either FNA or CNB. Patient demographics, characteristics of lesions, diagnostic accuracy, final and follow-up pathology, use of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), complications, and procedure variables were obtained. Results: A total of 75 FNA and 48 CNB were performed; of these, 13 patients had both. Mean passes were lower with CNB compared to FNA (2.4 vs 2.9, P = .02). Use of ROSE was higher for FNA (97.3% vs 68.1%, P = .001). Mean procedure time was shorter with CNB (34.1 minutes vs 51.2 minutes, P = .02) and diagnostic accuracy was similar (89.2% vs 89.4%, P = .98). There was no difference in diagnostic accuracy when ROSE was performed for CNB vs not performed (93.5% vs 85.7%, P = .58). Additionally, diagnostic accuracy of combined FNA and CNB procedures was 92.3%, which was comparable to FNA (P = .73) or CNB (P = .52) alone. Conclusion: FNA and CNB had comparable safety and diagnostic accuracy. Use of CNB resulted in less number of passes and shorter procedure time as compared to FNA. Moreover, diagnostic accuracy for CNB with or without ROSE was similar.