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.

Incidents and adverse events of endoscopic ultrasoundguided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic cystic lesions

AIM To evaluate the diagnostic value and safety mainly regarding incidents of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration(EUS-FNA) for pancreatic cystic lesions(PCLs).METHODS A total of 150 consecutive patients with suspected PCLs were prospectively enrolled from April 2015 to November 2016. We finally enrolled 140 patients undergoing EUS-FNA. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA and pathological diagnosis, which is regarded as the gold standard, for PCLs. Patients undergoing EUS-FNA at least 1 wk preoperatively were monitored for incidents and adverse events to evaluate its safety.RESULTS There were 88(62.9%) women and 52(37.1%) men among 140 patients, with a mean age of 50.1(± 15.4) years. There were 67 cysts located in the head/uncinate of the pancreas and 67 in the body/tail, and 6 patients had at least 1 cyst in the pancreas. There were 75 patients undergoing surgery and 55 undergoing EUS-FNA with interval at least 1 wk before other operations, with 3 patients undergoing the procedure twice. The accuracy of EUS-FNA in differentiating benign and malignant lesions was 97.3%(73/75), while the accuracy of characterizing PCL subtype was 84.0%(63/75). The incident rate was 37.9%(22/58), whereas only 1 AE was observed in 58 cases.CONCLUSION EUS-FNA is effective and safe for diagnosis of PCLs, however procedure-related incidents are common. Caution should be taken in patients undergoing EUSFNA.

Accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition in the evaluation of lymph nodes enlargement in the absence of on-site pathologist

AIM To evaluate factors that influence the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound(EUS)-guided tissue acquisition for lymph node enlargement in the absence of an on-site pathologist. METHODS A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent EUS-guided tissue acquisition for the pathological diagnosis of lymph node enlargement between April2012 and June 2015 is reported. Tissue acquisition was performed with both cytology and biopsy needles of different calibers. The variables evaluated were lymph node location and size, number of passes and type of needle used. Final diagnosis was based on surgical histopathology or, in non-operated cases, on EUSguided tissue acquisition and imaging assessment with a minimum clinical follow-up of 6 mo. RESULTS During the study period, 168 lymph nodes with a median size of 20.3 mm(range 12.5-27) were sampled from 152 patients. Ninety lymph nodes(53.6%) were located at mediastinum, and 105(62.5%) were acquired with biopsy needles. The final diagnosis was benign/reactive origin in 87 cases(51.8%), malignant in 65 cases(38.7%), and lymphoma in 16 cases(9.5%). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for the detection of malignancy were 74.1%, 100%, 100% and 80.6%, respectively. The overall accuracy was 87.5%(95%CI: 81.7-91.7). No variables were independently associated with a correct final diagnosis according to the multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION EUS-guided tissue acquisition is a highly accurate technique for assessing lymph node enlargement. None of the variables evaluated were associated with diagnostic accuracy.