Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration pancreatic adenocarcinoma samples yield adequate DNA for next-generation sequencing:A cohort analysis

BACKGROUND Genetic tests are increasingly performed for the management of unresectable pancreatic cancer.For genotyping aimed samples current guidelines recommend using core specimens,although based on moderate quality evidence.However,in clinical practice among the endoscopic ultrasound(EUS) guided tissue acquisition methods,fine needle aspiration(FNA) is the most widely performed.AIM To assess the adequacy for next generation sequencing(NGS) of the DNA yielded from EUS-FNA pancreatic adenocarcinoma(PDAC) samples.METHODS Between November 2018 and December 2021,105 patients with PDAC confirmed by EUS-FNA were included in the study at our tertiary gastroenterology center.Either 22 gauge(G) or 19G FNA needles were used.One pass was dedicated to DNA extraction.DNA concentration and purity(A260/280,A260/230) were assessed by spectrophotometry.We assessed the differences in DNA parameters according to needle size and tumor characteristics(size,location) and the adequacy of the extracted DNA for NGS(defined as A260/280 ≥ 1.7,and DNA yield:≥ 10 ng for amplicon based NGS,≥ 50 ng for whole exome sequencing [WES],≥ 100 ng for whole genome sequencing [WGS]) by analysis of variance and ttest respectively.Moreover,we compared DNA purity parameters across the different DNA yield categories.RESULTS Our cohort included 49% male patients,aged 67.02 ± 8.38 years.The 22G needle was used in 71%of the cases.The DNA parameters across our samples varied as follows:DNA yield:1289 ng(inter quartile range:534.75-3101),A260/280 = 1.85(1.79-1.86),A260/230 = 2.2(1.72-2.36).DNA yield was > 10 ng in all samples and > 100 ng in 93% of them(one sample < 50 ng).There were no significant differences in the concentration and A260/280 between samples by needle size.Needle size was the only independent predictor of A260/230 which was higher in the 22G samples(P =0.038).NGS adequacy rate was 90% for 19G samples regardless of NGS type,and for 22G samples it reached 89% for WGS adequacy and 91% for WES and amplicon based NGS.Samples with DNA yield > 100 ng had significantly higher A260/280(1.89 ± 0.32 vs 1.34 ± 0.42,P = 0.013).Tumor characteristics were not corelated with the DNA parameters.CONCLUSION EUS-FNA PDAC samples yield DNA adequate for subsequent NGS.DNA amount was similar between 22G and 19G FNA needles.DNA purity parameters may vary indirectly with needle size.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses:the fine needle aspiration or fine needle biopsy dilemma. Is the best needle yet to come?

Fine needle aspiration (FNA) is currently the standard of care for sampling pancreatic solid masses by using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS).The accuracy of the technique is reported to be high,especially if coupled with the rapid on site evaluation (ROSE),and it has a high safety profile.However,FNA presents some limitations,such as the small amount of tissue that can be collected and the inability of obtaining a core tissue with intact histological architecture,which is relevant to perform immunohistochemical analysis,molecular profiling and,therefore,targeted therapies.Moreover,the presence of the ROSE by an expert cytopathologist is very important to maximize the diagnostic yield of FNA technique;however,it is not widely available,especially in small centers.Hence,the introduction of EUS fine needle biopsy (FNB) with a new generation of needles,which show a high safety profile too and a satisfying diagnostic accuracy even in the absence of ROSE,could be the key to overcome the limitations of FNA.However,FNB has not yet shown diagnostic superiority over FNA.Considering all the technical aspects of FNA and FNB,the different types of needle currently available,comparisons in term of diagnostic yield,and the different techniques of sampling,a tailored approach should be used in order to determine the needle that is most appropriate for the different specific scenarios.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy-Recent topics and technical tips

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNA) is a useful procedure that enables reliable pathological diagnoses of pancreatobiliary diseases, subepithelial lesions, and swollen lymph nodes. In recent years, a pathological diagnosis based on EUS-FNA has made it possible to provide accurate treatment methods not only in these fields, but also in respiratory organs and otorhinolaryngology. This review discusses the latest topics pertaining to EUS-FNA as well as procedural tips.

Contrast-enhanced guided endoscopic ultrasound procedures

Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound(CH-EUS)can overcome the limi-tations of endoscopic ultrasound-guided acquisition by identifying microvessels inside inhomogeneous tumours and improving the characterization of these tumours.Despite the initial enthusiasm that oriented needle sampling under CH-EUS guidance could provide better diagnostic yield in pancreatic solid lesions,further studies did not confirm the supplementary values in cases of tissue acquisition guided by CH-EUS.This review details the knowledge based on the available data on contrast-guided procedures.The indications for CH-EUS tissue acquisition include isoechoic EUS lesions with poor visible delineation where CH-EUS can differentiate the lesion vascularisation from the surrounding parenchyma and also the mural nodules within biliopancreatic cystic lesions,which occur in select cases.Additionally,the roles of CH-EUS-guided therapy in patients whose pancreatic fluid collections or bile ducts that have an echogenic content have indications for drainage,and patients who have nonvisualized vessels that need to be highlighted via Doppler EUS are presented.Another indication is represented if there is a need for an immediate assessment of the post-radiofrequency ablation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours,in which case CH-EUS can be used to reveal the incomplete tumour destruction.

Percutaneous ultrasound and endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions: An analysis of 1074 lesions

Backgrounds:Percutaneous ultrasound(US)and endoscopic ultrasound(EUS)-guided pancreatic biopsies are widely accepted in the diagnosis of pancreatic diseases.Studies comparing the diagnostic performance of US-and EUS-guided pancreatic biopsies are lacking.This study aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic yields of US-and EUS-guided pancreatic biopsies and identify the risk factors for inconclusive biopsies.Methods:Of the 1074 solid pancreatic lesions diagnosed from January 2017 to February 2021 in our center,275 underwent EUS-guided fine needle aspiration(EUS-FNA),and 799 underwent US-guided core needle biopsy(US-CNB/FNA).The outcomes were inconclusive pathological biopsy,diagnostic accuracy and the need for repeat biopsy.All of the included factors and diagnostic performances of both USCNB/FNA and EUS-FNA were compared,and the independent predictors for the study outcomes were identified.Results:The diagnostic accuracy was 89.8%for EUS-FNA and 95.2%for US-CNB/FNA(P=0.001).Biopsy under EUS guidance[odds ratio(OR)=1.808,95%confidence interval(CI):1.083-3.019;P=0.024],lesion size<2 cm(OR=2.069,95%CI:1.145-3.737;P=0.016),hypoechoic appearance(OR=0.274,95%CI:0.097-0.775;P=0.015)and non-pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma carcinoma(PDAC)diagnosis(OR=2.637,95%CI:1.563-4.449;P<0.001)were identified as factors associated with inconclusive pathological biopsy.Hypoechoic appearance(OR=0.236,95%CI:0.064-0.869;P=0.030),lesions in the uncinate process of the pancreas(OR=3.506,95%CI:1.831-6.713;P<0.001)and non-PDAC diagnosis(OR=2.622,95%CI:1.278-5.377;P=0.009)were independent predictors for repeat biopsy.Biopsy under EUS guidance(OR=2.024,95%CI:1.195-3.429;P=0.009),lesions in the uncinate process of the pancreas(OR=1.776,95%CI:1.014-3.108;P=0.044)and hypoechoic appearance(OR=0.127,95%CI:0.047-0.347;P<0.001)were associated with diagnostic accuracy.Conclusions:In conclusion,both percutaneous US-and EUS-guided biopsies of solid pancreatic lesions are safe and effective;though the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA is inferior to US-CNB/FNA.A tailored pancreatic biopsy should be considered a part of the management algorithm for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic disease.

Preoperative diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumor by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration

瞄准：在胃肠的基质肿瘤(大意) 的外科手术前的诊断评估内视镜的指导 ultrasonography 的好针渴望(EUS-FNA ) 的角色。方法：从 2002 年 9 月到 2006 年 6 月，有到合适的肌肉层的连续性的上皮的低亚硫酸钠拟声肿瘤由标准 EUS 作为大意怀疑了的官方补给的道潜水艇的 53 连续 EUS-FNAs 有希望地被评估。为最后的诊断的参考标准是外科(n = 31 ) ，或临床的后续(n = 22 ) 。另外，标本的免疫 phenotyping 由 EUS-FNA 获得了，外科的切除术标本被比较。结果：因为解剖问题，没在 2 情况刺被执行。从官方补给的道的足够的标本的收集率与连续性代替上皮的低亚硫酸钠拟声肿瘤到合适的肌肉层是 82%(42/51 ) 。为肿瘤的诊断的率不到 2 厘米， 2 ～ 4 厘米，和 4 厘米或更多是 71%(15/21 ) ， 86%(18/21 ) ，并且 100%(9/9 ) 分别地。在 29 通过手术用免疫的 EUS-FNA 的 resected 盒子，敏感，特性，积极预兆的价值，否定预兆的价值，和诊断精确性大意的组织化学的分析是100%( 24/24 )，80%( 4/5 )，96%( 24/25 )，100%( 4/4 )，并且97%( 28/29 )分别地。没有主要复杂并发症被遇到。结论：有免疫的 EUS-FNA 组织化学的分析是在大意的 prethera-peutic 诊断的一个安全、精确的方法。它应该在决策被考虑，特别在跟随为大意的最小的侵略外科的早诊断。

Impact of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy for diagnosis of pancreatic masses

AIM: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of histologi- cal evaluation of pancreatic tissue samples obtained by a modified method for recovering and processing the endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspira- tion (FNA) material in the differential diagnosis of pan- creatic solid masses. METHODS: Sixty-two consecutive patients with pan- creatic masses were prospectively studied. EUS was performed by the linear scanning Pentax FG-38UX ech- oendoscope. Three FNAs (22G needle) were carried out during each procedure. The materials obtained with first and second punctures were processed for cytological study. Materials of the third puncture were recovered into 10% formol solution by careful injection of saline so- lution through the needle, and processed for histological study. RESULTS: Length of the core specimen obtained for his- tological analysis was 6.5 ± 5.3 mm (range 1-22 mm). Cytological and histological samples were considered as adequate in 51 (82.3%) and 52 cases (83.9%), respec- tively. Overall sensitivity of both pancreatic cytology and histology for diagnosis of malignancy was 68.4%. Con- trary to cytology, histology was able to diagnose tumours other than adenocarcinomas, and all cases of inflamma- tory masses. Combination of cytology and histology al- lowed obtaining an adequate sample in 56 cases (90.3%), with a global sensitivity of 84.21%, specificity of 100% and an overall accuracy of 90.32%. The complication rate was 1.6%.CONCLUSION: Adequate pancreatic core specimens forhistological examination can be obtained by EUS-guided FNA. This technique is mainly useful for the diagnosis of different types of pancreatic tumours and evaluation of benign diseases.

Ultrasound-guided vs endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic cancer diagnosis

AIM: To clarify the effectiveness and safety of endo- scopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer (PC). METHODS: Patients who were diagnosed with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic PC between February 2006 and September 2011 were selected for this retrospective study. FNA biopsy for pancreatic tumors had been performed percutaneously under extracorporeal ultrasound guidance until October 2009; then, beginning in November 2009, EUS-FNA has been performed. We reviewed the complete medical records of all patients who met the selection criteria for the following data: sex, age, location and size of the targeted tumor, histological and/or cytological findings, details of puncture procedures, time from day of puncture until day of definitive diagnosis, and details of severe adverse events. RESULTS: Of the 121 patients who met the selection criteria, 46 had a percutaneous biopsy (Group A) and 75 had an EUS-FNA biopsy (Group B). Adequate cytological specimens were obtained in 42 Group A patients (91.3%) and all 75 Group B patients (P=0.0192), and histological specimens were obtained in 41 Group A patients (89.1%) and 65 Group B patients (86.7%). Diagnosis of malignancy by cytology was positive in 33 Group A patients (78.6%) and 72 Group B patients (94.6%) (P=0.0079). Malignancy by both cytology and pathology was found in 43 Group A (93.5%) and 73 Group B (97.3%) patients. The mean period from the puncture until the cytological diagnosis in Group B was 1.7 d, which was significantly shorter than that in Group A (4.1 d) (P < 0.0001). Severe adverse events were experienced in two Group A patients (4.3%) and in one Group B patient (1.3%). CONCLUSION: EUS-FNA, as well as percutaneous needle aspiration, is an effective modality to obtain cytopathological confirmation in patients with advanced PC.

Rapid on-site evaluation of endoscopic-ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration diagnosis of pancreatic masses

Endoscopic ultrasound(EUS)has become an essential tool for the study of pancreatic diseases.Specifically,EUS plays a pivotal role evaluating patients with a known or suspected pancreatic mass.In this setting,differential diagnosis remains a clinical challenge.EUSguided fine-needle aspiration(FNA)and fine-needle biopsy(FNB)have been proven to be safe and useful tools in this setting.EUS-guided FNA and FNB,by obtaining cytological and/or histological samples,are able to diagnose pancreatic lesions with high sensitivity and specificity.In this context,several methodological features,trying to increase the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided FNA and FNB,have been evaluated.In this review,we focus on the role of rapid on-site evaluation(ROSE).From data reported in the literature,ROSE may increase diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA specimens by10%-30%,and thus,diagnostic accuracy.However,we should point out that many recent studies have reported adequacy rates of>90%without ROSE,indicating that,perhaps,at high-volume centers,ROSE may not be indispensable to achieve excellent results.The use of ROSE can be considered important during the learning curve of EUS-FNA,and also in hospital with diagnostic accuracy rates<90%.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration in the differentiation of type 1 and type 2 autoimmune pancreatitis

AIM:To investigate the usefulness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration(EUS-FNA) in the differentiation of autoimmune pancreatitis(AIP).METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed 47 of 56 AIP patients who underwent EUS-FNA and met the Asian diagnostic criteria.On 47 EUS-FNA specimens,we evaluated the presence of adequate material and characteristic features of lymphoplasmacytic sclerosing pancreatitis(LPSP) and idiopathic duct-centric pancreatitis(IDCP) mentioned in the International Consensus Diagnostic Criteria and examined if these findings make a contribution to the differential diagnosis of type 1 and type 2 AIP.A disposable 22-gauge needle was used for EUS-FNA.RESULTS:Adequate specimens including pancreatic tissue for differentiating AIP from cancer were obtained from 43 of 47 patients who underwent EUSFNA.EUS-FNA was performed from the pancreatic head in 21 cases,which is known to be technically difficult when performed by core biopsy;there was no significant difference in the results compared with pancreatic body-tail.Nine of 47 patients met level 1 findings of LPSP and 5 patients met level 2 findings of LPSP.No one met level 1 findings of IDCP,but 3 patients met level 2 findings of IDCP.Of 10 seronegative cases,2 cases were diagnosed with "definitive type 1 AIP",and 3 cases were diagnosed with "probable type 2 AIP" when considering both the level 2 histological findings and response to steroids.CONCLUSION:EUS-FNA is useful in the differentiation of type 1 and type 2 AIP,particularly in seronegative cases.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration and useful ancillary methods

The role of endoscopic ultrasound(EUS) in evaluating pancreatic pathology has been well documented from the beginning of its clinical use. High spatial resolution and the close proximity to the evaluated organs within the mediastinum and abdominal cavity allow detection of small focal lesions and precise tissue acquisition from suspected lesions within the reach of this method. Fine needle aspiration(FNA) is considered of additional value to EUS and is performed to obtain tissue diagnosis. Tissue acquisition from suspected lesions for cytological or histological analysis allows, not only the differentiation between malignant and non-malignant lesions, but, in most cases, also the accurate distinction between the various types of malignant lesions. It is well documented that the best results are achieved only if an adequate sample is obtained for further analysis, if the material is processed in an appropriate way, and if adequate ancillary methods are performed. This is a multi-step process and could be quite a challenge in some cases. In this article, we discuss the technical aspects of tissue acquisition by EUS-guided-FNA(EUS-FNA), as well as the role of an on-site cytopathologist, various means of specimen processing, and the selection of the appropriate ancillary method for providing an accurate tissue diagnosis and maximizing the yield of this method. The main goal of this review is to alert endosonographers, not only to the different possibilities of tissue acquisition, namely EUS-FNA, but also to bring to their attention the importance of proper sample processing in the evaluation of various lesions in the gastrointestinal tract and other accessible organs. All aspects of tissue acquisition(needles, suction, use of stylet, complications, etc.) have been well discussed lately. Adequate tissue samples enable comprehensive diagnoses, which answer the main clinical questions, thus enabling targeted therapy.

Influence of the safety and diagnostic accuracy of preoperative endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for resectable pancreatic cancer on clinical performance

AIM:To evaluate the safety and diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration(EUS-FNA)in a cohort of pancreatic cancer patients.METHODS:Of 213 patients with pancreatic cancer evaluated between April 2007 and August 2011,82were thought to have resectable pancreatic cancer on the basis of cross-sectional imaging findings.Of these,54 underwent EUS-FNA before surgery(FNA+group)and 28 underwent surgery without preoperative EUSFNA(FNA-group).RESULTS:All 54 lesions were visible on EUS,and all54 attempts at FNA were technically successful.The diagnostic accuracy according to cytology and histology findings was 98.1%(53/54)and 77.8%(42/54),respectively,and the total accuracy was 98.1%(53/54).One patient developed mild pancreatitis after EUS-FNA but was successfully treated by conservative therapy.No severe complications occurred after EUS-FNA.In the FNA+and FNA-groups,the median relapse-free survival(RFS)was 742 and 265 d,respectively(P=0.0099),and the median overall survival(OS)was1042 and 557 d,respectively(P=0.0071).RFS and OS were therefore not inferior in the FNA+group.These data indicate that the use of EUS-FNA did not influence RFS or OS,nor did it increase the risk of peritoneal recurrence.CONCLUSION:In patients with resectable pancreatic cancer,preoperative EUS-FNA is a safe and accurate diagnostic method.

22-gauge core vs 22-gauge aspiration needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of abdominal masses

AIM To compare the aspiration needle(AN) and core biopsy needle(PC) in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration(EUS-FNA) of abdominal masses.METHODS Consecutive patients referred for EUS-FNA were included in this prospective single-center trial. Each patient underwent a puncture of the lesion with both standard 22-gauge(G) AN(Echo Tip Ultra; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana, United States) and the novel 22 G PC(Echo Tip Pro Core; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana, United States) in a randomized fashion; histology was attempted in the PC group only. The main study endpoint was the overall diagnostic accuracy, including the contribution of histology to the final diagnosis. Secondary outcome measures included material adequacy, number of needle passes, and complications.RESULTS Fifty six consecutive patients(29 men; mean age 68 years) with pancreatic lesions(n = 38), lymphadenopathy(n = 13), submucosal tumors(n = 4), or others lesions(n = 1) underwent EUS-FNA using both of the needles in a randomized order. AN and PC reached similar overall results for diagnostic accuracy(AN: 88.9 vs PC: 96.1, P = 0.25), specimen adequacy(AN: 96.4% vs PC: 91.1%, P = 0.38), mean number of passes(AN: 1.5 vs PC: 1.7, P = 0.14), mean cellularity score(AN: 1.7 vs PC: 1.1, P = 0.058), and complications(none). A diagnosis on the basis of histology was achieved in the PC group in 36(64.3%) patients, and in 2 of those as the sole modality. In patients with available histology the mean cellularity score was higher for AN(AN: 1.7 vs PC: 1.0, P = 0.034); no other differences were of statistical significance.CONCLUSION Both needles achieved high overall diagnostic yields and similar performance characteristics for cytological diagnosis; histological analysis was only possible in 2/3 of cases with the new needle.

Slow-pull and different conventional suction techniques in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic solid lesions using 22-gauge needles

AIM To evaluate the cytological diagnostic capacity and sample quality of the slow-pull technique and compare them with different suction techniques.METHODS From July 2010 to December 2015, 102 patients with pancreatic solid lesions who underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration(EUS-FNA) with 22-gauge needles were retrospectively evaluated. EUS-FNA diagnosis was based on a cytological examination, and final diagnosis was based on a comprehensive standard of cytological diagnosis, surgical pathology and clinical or imaging follow-up. Cytological specimens were characterized for cellularity and blood contamination. The cytological diagnostic capacity and sample quality of the slow-pull technique and suction techniques with 5-m L/10-m L/20-m L syringes were analyzed.RESULTS Of all of the EUS-FNA procedures, the slow-pull technique and suction techniques with 5-m L/10-m L/20-m L syringes were used in 31, 19, 34 and 18 procedures, respectively. There were significant differences between these four suction techniques in terms of cytological diagnostic accuracy(90.3% vs 63.2% vs 58.8% vs 55.6%, P = 0.019), sensitivity(88.2% vs 41.7% vs 40.0% vs 36.4%, P = 0.009) and blood contamination(score ≥ 2 for 29.0% vs 52.6% vs 70.6% vs 72.2%, P = 0.003). The accuracy and sensitivity of the slow-pull technique were significantly higher than those of the suction techniques using 5-m L(P = 0.03, P = 0.014), 10-m L(P = 0.005; P = 0.006) and 20-mL syringes(P = 0.01, P = 0.01). Blood contamination was significantly lower in the slow-pull technique than in the suction techniques with 10-m L(P = 0.001) and 20-mL syringes(P = 0.007).CONCLUSION The slow-pull technique may increase the cytological diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity with slight blood contamination during EUS-FNA when using 22-gauge needles for solid pancreatic masses.

Comparison of cytological and histological preparations in the diagnosis of pancreatic malignancies using endoscopic ultrasoundguided fine needle aspiration

BACKGROUND:Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration(EUS-FNA) has become a crucial diagnostic technique for pancreatic malignancies.The specimen obtained by EUS-FNA can be prepared for either cytological or histological examinations.This study was to compare diagnostic performance of cytological and histological preparations using EUSFNA in the same lesions when pancreatic malignancies were suspected.METHODS:One hundred and eighteen patients who underwent EUS-FNA for suspected pancreatic malignancies were consecutively enrolled.All procedures were conducted by a single echoendoscopist under the same conditions.Four adequate preparations were obtained by 22-gauge needles with 20 to-and-fro movements for each pass.The 4 preparations included 2 cytological and 2 histological specimens.The pathologic reviews of all specimens were conducted independently by a single experienced cytopathologist.Sensitivity,specificity,and accuracy of the 2 preparations were compared.RESULTS:The enrolled patients consisted of 62 males(52.5%),with the mean age of 64.6±10.5 years.Surgery was performed in 23(19.5%) patients.One hundred and sixteen(98.3%) lesions were classified as malignant,while 2(1.7%) were benign.Sensitivity of cytology and histology were 87.9% and 81.9%,respectively,with no significant difference(P=0.190).Accuracy was also not significantly different.Cytological preparation was more sensitive when the size of lesion was <3 cm(86.7% vs 68.9%,P=0.033).CONCLUSIONS:Our results suggested that the diagnostic performances of cytological and histological preparations are not significantly different for the diagnosis of pancreatic malignancies.However,cytological preparation might be more sensitive for pancreatic lesions <3 cm.

Staging the axilla in women with breast cancer: the utility of preoperative ultrasound-guided needle biopsy

Preoperative staging of the axilla in women with invasive breast cancer using ultrasound-guided needle biopsy(UNB) identifies approximately 50% of patients with axillary nodal metastases prior to surgical intervention. Although moderately sensitive, it is a highly specific staging strategy that is rarely falsely-positive, hence a positive UNB allows patients to be triaged to axillary lymph-node dissection(ALND) avoiding potentially unnecessary sentinel node biopsy(SNB). In this review, we extend our previous work through an updated literature search, focusing on studies that report data on UNB utility. Based on data for 10,934 breast cancer patients, sourced from 35 studies, a positive UNB allowed triage of 1,745 cases(simple proportion 16%) to axillary surgical treatment: the utility of UNB was a median 19.8% [interquartile range(IQR) 11.6%-26.7%] across these studies. We also modelled data from a subgroup of studies, and estimated that amongst patients with metastases to axillary nodes, the odds ratio(OR) for high nodal disease burden for a positive UNB versus a negative UNB was 4.38 [95% confidence interval(95% CI): 3.13, 6.13], P<0.001. From this model, the estimated proportion with high nodal disease burden was 58.9%(95% CI: 50.2%, 67.0%) for a positive UNB, whereas the estimated proportion with high nodal disease burden was 24.6%(95% CI: 17.7%, 33.2%) if UNB was negative. Overall, axillary UNB has good clinical utility and a positive UNB can effectively triage to ALND. However, the evolving landscape of axillary surgical treatment means that UNB will have relatively less utility where surgeons have modified their practice to omission of ALND for minimal nodal metastatic disease.

Can the wet suction technique change the efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for diagnosing autoimmune pancreatitis type 1? A prospective single-arm study

BACKGROUND Other than surgery,endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration(EUSFNA)is the only procedure for histologically diagnosing autoimmune pancreatitis(AIP).However,adequate specimens are difficult to obtain.Recently,more adequate specimens were reported to be obtained with EUS-FNA with a wet suction technique(WEST)than with conventional EUS-FNA.AIM To histologically diagnose AIP by EUS-FNA with a WEST.METHODS Eleven patients with possible type 1 AIP between February 2016 and August 2018 underwent EUS-FNA with a WEST(WEST group),with four punctures by 19 or 22 G needles.As a historical control,23 type 1 AIP patients who underwent no fewer than four punctures with 19 or 22 G needles were enrolled(DRY group).Patient characteristics and histological findings were compared between the two groups.RESULTS Three histopathological factors according to the International Consensus Diagnostic Criteria were significantly greater in the WEST group than the DRY group[lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate without granulocytic infiltration:9(81.8%)vs 6(26.1%),P=0.003,storiform fibrosis:5(45.5%)vs 1(4.3%),P=0.008,abundant(>10 cells/HPF)IgG4-positive cells:7(63.6%)vs 5(21.7%),P=0.026].Level 1 or level 2 histopathological findings were observed more often in the WEST group than in the DRY group[8(72.7%)vs 3(13.0%),P=0.001].CONCLUSION EUS-FNA with a WEST was more successful than standard EUS-FNA in histologically diagnosing AIP.

Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration vs fine needle biopsy for pancreatic masses,subepithelial lesions,and lymph nodes

Endoscopic ultrasound tissue acquisition,in the form of both fine needle aspiration(EUS-FNA)and fine needle biopsy(EUS-FNB),is utilized for pancreatic mass lesions,subepithelial lesions,and lymph node biopsy.Both procedures are safe and yield high diagnostic value.Despite its high diagnostic yield,EUS-FNA has potential limitations associated with cytological aspirations,including inability to determine histologic architecture,and a small quantitative sample for further immunohistochemical staining.EUS-FNB,with its larger core biopsy needle,was designed to overcome these potential limitations.However,it remains unclear which technique should be used and for which lesions.Comparative trials are plagued by heterogeneity at every stage of comparison;including variable needles used,and different definitions of endpoints,which therefore limit generalizability.Thus,we present a review of prospective trials,systematic reviews,and meta-analyses on studies examining EUS-FNA vs EUSFNB.Prospective comparative trials of EUS-FNA vs EUS-FNB primarily focus on pancreatic mass lesions,and yield conflicting results in terms of demonstrating the superiority of one method.However,consistent among trials is the potential for diagnosis with fewer passes,and a larger quantity of sample achieved for next generation sequencing.With regard to subepithelial lesions and lymph node biopsy,fewer prospective trials exist,and larger prospective studies are necessary.Based on the available literature,we would recommend EUS-FNB for peri-hepatic lymph nodes.

Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration vs fine needle biopsy in solid lesions:A multi-center analysis

BACKGROUND While endoscopic ultrasound(EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration(FNA)is considered a preferred technique for tissue sampling for solid lesions,fine needle biopsy(FNB)has recently been developed.AIM To compare the accuracy of FNB vs FNA in determining the diagnosis of solid lesions.METHODS A retrospective,multi-center study of EUS-guided tissue sampling using FNA vs FNB needles.Measured outcomes included diagnostic test characteristics(i.e.,sensitivity,specificity,accuracy),use of rapid on-site evaluation(ROSE),and adverse events.Subgroup analyses were performed by type of lesion and diagnostic yield with or without ROSE.A multivariable logistic regression was also performed.RESULTS A total of 1168 patients with solid lesions(n=468 FNA;n=700 FNB)underwent EUS-guided sampling.Mean age was 65.02±12.13 years.Overall,sensitivity,specificity and accuracy were superior for FNB vs FNA(84.70%vs 74.53%;99.29%vs 96.62%;and 87.62%vs 81.55%,respectively;P<0.001).On subgroup analyses,sensitivity,specificity,and accuracy of FNB alone were similar to FNA+ROSE[(81.66%vs 86.45%;P=0.142),(100%vs 100%;P=1.00)and(88.40%vs 85.43%;P=0.320].There were no difference in diagnostic yield of FNB alone vs FNB+ROSE(P>0.05).Multivariate analysis showed no significant predictor for better accuracy.On subgroup analyses,FNB was superior to FNA for non-pancreatic lesions;however,there was no difference between the techniques among pancreatic lesions.One adverse event was reported in each group.CONCLUSION FNB is superior to FNA with equivalent diagnostic test characteristics compared to FNA+ROSE in the diagnosis of non-pancreatic solid lesions.Our results suggest that EUS-FNB may eliminate the need of ROSE and should be employed as a first-line method in the diagnosis of solid lesions.

Push vs pull method for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic head lesions: Propensity score matching analysis

AIM To evaluate the efficacy of endoscopic ultrasoundguided fine needle aspiration(EUS-FNA) of pancreatic head cancer when pushing(push method) or pulling the echoendoscope(pull method).METHODS Overall, 566 pancreatic cancer patients had their first EUS-FNA between February 2001 and December 2017. Among them, 201 who underwent EUS-FNA for pancreatic head lesions were included in this study. EUS-FNA was performed by the push method in 85 patients, the pull method in 101 patients and both the push and pull methods in 15 patients. After propensity score matching(age, sex, tumor diameter, and FNA needle), 85 patients each were stratified into the push and pull groups. Patient characteristics and EUSFNA-related factors were compared between the two groups.RESULTS Patient characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups. The distance to lesion was significantly longer in the push group than in the pull group(13.9 ± 4.9 mm vs 7.0 ± 4.9 mm, P < 0.01). The push method was a significant factor influencing the distance to lesion(≥ median 10 mm)(P < 0.01). Additionally, tumor diameter ≥ 25 mm(OR = 1.91, 95%CI: 1.02-3.58, P = 0.043) and the push method(OR = 1.91, 95%CI: 1.03-3.55, P = 0.04) were significant factors contributing to the histological diagnosis of malignancy.CONCLUSION The pull method shortened the distance between the endoscope and the lesion and facilitated EUS-FNA of pancreatic head cancer. The push method contributed to the histological diagnosis of pancreatic head cancer using EUS-FNA specimens.