Darshana Jhala

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy of patients with suspected pancreatic cancer: diagnostic accuracy and acute and 30-day complications.

OBJECTIVES:The aims of this study were to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound–guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in patients with suspected pancreatic cancer, and to assess immediate, acute, and 30-day complications related to EUS-FNA.METHODS:All patients with suspected pancreatic cancer were prospectively evaluated. A single gastroenterologist performed all EUS-FNAs in the presence of a cytopathologist. Immediate complications were evaluated in all patients. An experienced nurse called patients 24–72 h and 30 days after the procedure. Reference standard for the classification of the final diagnosis included: surgery (n = 48), clinical or imaging follow-up (n = 63), or death from the disease (n = 47).RESULTS:A total of 158 patients (mean age 62.3 yr) underwent EUS-FNA during the study period. The mean tumor size was 32 × 26 mm. The median number of passes was three (range one to 10). Of these patients, 44% had at least one failed attempt at tissue diagnosis before EUS-FNA. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of EUS-FNA in solid pancreatic masses were 84.3%, 97%, 99%, 64%, and 84%, respectively. Immediate self-limited complications occurred in 10 of the 158 EUS-FNAs (6.3%). Of 90 patients contacted at 24–72 h, 78 patients (87%) responded. Of the 90 patients, 20 (22%) reported at least one symptom, all of which were minor except in three cases (one self-limited acute pancreatitis and two emergency room visits, one of which led to admission). In all, 83 patients were contacted at 30 days, and 82% responded. No additional or continued complications were reported.CONCLUSIONS:EUS-FNA is highly accurate in identifying patients with suspected pancreatic cancer, especially when other modalities have failed. Major complications after EUS-FNA are rare, and minor complications are similar to those reported for upper endoscopy. It seems that follow-up at 1 wk might capture all of the adverse events related to EUS-FNA.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy of suspected cholangiocarcinoma

BACKGROUND AND AIMS Despite advances in endoscopic techniques for sampling bile duct strictures, the diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma remains a challenge. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the yield of EUS-FNA and its impact on patient management for patients with suspected cholangiocarcinoma. METHODS All patients undergoing EUS for the evaluation of suspected malignant biliary strictures were prospectively evaluated over a 23-month period. A single gastroenterologist performed all EUS-FNAs in the presence of a cytopathologist. Reference standard for final diagnosis included surgery, death from disease, and clinical and/or imaging follow-up. RESULTS Twenty-eight patients (mean age 67 years [SD +/- 11], 72% male) were evaluated. Most patients (91%) presented with obstructive jaundice, and all except 1 had nondiagnostic sampling of the biliary lesions either at ERCP (88%), percutaneous transhepatic cholangiogram (n = 2), and/or computed tomography-guided biopsy (n = 1). Sixty-seven percent (14/21) had no definitive mass seen on prior abdominal imaging studies. The mean tumor size by EUS was 19 mm x 16 mm with a median number of passes to diagnosis of 3 (range 1-7). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were 86%, 100%, 100%, 57%, and 88%, respectively. EUS-FNA had a positive impact on patient management in 84% of patients: preventing surgery for tissue diagnosis in patients with inoperable disease (n = 10), facilitating surgery in patients with unidentifiable cancer by other modalities (n = 8), and avoiding surgery in benign disease (n = 4). CONCLUSIONS Given the apparent accuracy and safety of EUS with FNA for imaging bile duct mass lesions and for obtaining a tissue diagnosis in patients with suspected cholangiocarcinoma, this technology may represent a new approach to diagnosis especially when other methods fail. The ability to obtain a definite diagnosis has a significant impact on patient management.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration A Cytopathologist's Perspective

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is used to detect and delineate the extent of lesions in the gastrointestinal tract, periluminal lymph nodes, pancreas and hepatobiliary tree, left kidney, spleen, and adrenal glands. EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) has added a new dimension to the capabilities of EUS because it permits characterization of the lesion, thereby enabling triage of patients for more efficient and effective management. This review focuses on the advantages and limitations of EUS-FNA, including a discussion of potential pitfalls in the diagnosis of commonly aspirated deep-seated lesions, such as those of the pancreas and lymph nodes. It also addresses the practical considerations associated with establishing an effective service and the importance of an integrated approach in which the cytopathologist undertakes a key role, interacting extensively with the endoscopist and the patient management team. EUS-FNA is a sensitive modality that enables specific and accurate diagnosis of deep-seated lesions. Samples can be obtained effectively from small lesions (< 25 mm), irrespective of the organ site. On-site assessment permits a highly accurate preliminary diagnosis of malignancy for samples obtained by EUS-FNA and provides an opportunity to increase the diagnostic yield of samples.

Endoscopic Ultrasound–Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is used to detect and delineate the extent of lesions in the gastrointestinal tract, periluminal lymph nodes, pancreas and hepatobiliary tree, left kidney, spleen, and adrenal glands. EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) has added a new dimension to the capabilities of EUS because it permits characterization of the lesion, thereby enabling triage of patients for more efficient and effective management. This review focuses on the advantages and limitations of EUS-FNA, including a discussion of potential pitfalls in the diagnosis of commonly aspirated deep-seated lesions, such as those of the pancreas and lymph nodes. It also addresses the practical considerations associated with establishing an effective service and the importance of an integrated approach in which the cytopathologist undertakes a key role, interacting extensively with the endoscopist and the patient management team. EUS-FNA is a sensitive modality that enables specific and accurate diagnosis of deep-seated lesions. Samples can be obtained effectively from small lesions (<25 mm), irrespective of the organ site. On-site assessment permits a highly accurate preliminary diagnosis of malignancy for samples obtained by EUS-FNA and provides an opportunity to increase the diagnostic yield of samples.

Agreement between rapid onsite and final cytologic interpretations of EUS-guided FNA specimens : Implications for the endosonographer and patient management

BACKGROUND:The practice of onsite cytology interpretation varies across endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) programs in the Untied States and Europe. The value, reliability, and agreement of rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE) compared with final interpretation and its impact on patient management remain largely unknown. We compared agreement between ROSE of EUS-FNA (endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration) specimens with final cytology interpretation and their respective operating characteristics.METHODS:We prospectively evaluated consecutive EUS-FNA specimens obtained by a single endosonographer in the presence of an attending cytopathologist (July 2000–November 2002). The “agreement” between ROSE and final cytology interpretation was assessed by the “kappa” statistic. The frequency and possible reasons for discrepancy between ROSE and final cytologic interpretation were determined.RESULTS:A total of 540 patients (median age 63 yr, 77% white) underwent EUS-FNAs of 656 lesions. These included lymph nodes (LNs, N = 248), solid pancreatic masses (SPMs, N = 229), cystic pancreatic masses (CPM, N = 57), mural lesions (41), bile duct/gallbladder (N = 28), liver (N = 17), mediastinum/lung (N = 17), adrenal (N = 15), spleen (N = 3), and kidney (N = 1). Data were available for onsite evaluation in 607 lesions. Intitial cytology was benign (N = 243), atypical (N = 23), suspicious (24), malignant (300), and indeterminate (N = 17). Out of the 243 benign lesions interpreted by onsite evaluation, five lesions (2.1%) were upgraded to be malignant or suspicious for malignancy on final cytology report. Of the 300 lesions initially reported malignant on ROSE, 294 (98%) remained malignant on the final cytology. There was an excellent agreement between ROSE and final cytologic evaluation (kappa = 84.0%, 95% CI 80.2–87.7), Compared with the true final status, accuracy for final interpretation was slightly higher than for ROSE but was not statistically significant (95.8% vs 93.9%). Scant cellularity remained the most frequent reason for discrepancy, accounting for 21 of 51 discrepancies (41%). Other reasons for discrepancy included: cases requiring an intradepartmental consultation (22%), cases requiring ancillary studies (12%), intra-observer variability (10%), and challenging diagnosis (10%). In three cases, (6%) we were unable to determine the possible reason for discrepancy.CONCLUSION:ROSE of EUS-FNA specimens is highly accurate compared with final cytologic evaluation. Because the diagnosis of malignancy rarely changes, informing our patients and their families and our referring physicians of a cancer diagnosis significantly reduces physician work load and expedites patient management. The majority of discrepancies are related to the nature of the lesion either because it sheds few cells, has challenging morphology, and/or requires additional ancillary studies.

Biomarkers in Diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma in fine-needle aspirates.

This study was undertaken to determine whether recently identified proteins could be translated to clinical practice as markers to distinguish pancreatic adenocarcinoma from chronic pancreatitis on fine-needle aspirate (FNA) samples. Resected pancreatic tissue sections (n = 40) and FNA samples (n = 65) were stained for clusterin-beta, MUC4, survivin, and mesothelin. For each biomarker, the staining patterns in adenocarcinoma and in reactive ductal epithelium were evaluated and compared. Clusterin-beta stained reactive ductal epithelium significantly more frequently than pancreatic adenocarcinoma (P < .001). In comparison, MUC4 and mesothelin were expressed more frequently in pancreatic adenocarcinoma on tissue sections. Positive staining for MUC4 (91% vs 0%; P < .001) and mesothelin (62% vs 0%; P = .01) and absence of staining for clusterin-beta (90% vs 7%; P < .001) were noted significantly more frequently in adenocarcinoma cells than in reactive cells in FNA samples. Clusterin-beta and MUC4 can help distinguish reactive ductal epithelial cells from the cells of pancreatic adenocarcinoma in FNA samples.

Endoscopic ultrasound‐guided FNA biopsy of bile duct and gallbladder: analysis of 53 cases

Objective:  Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography (ERCP)‐guided brushing has been the standard of practice for surveillance and detection of carcinoma in the biliary tree. Few studies have evaluated the role of endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine needle aspiration (EUS‐FNA) in diagnosing clinically suspected cholangiocarcinoma. The role of this method in diagnosing clinically suspected gallbladder malignancies has not been extensively evaluated in the USA. This study investigates the role of EUS‐FNA in the diagnosis of clinically suspected biliary tree and gallbladder malignancies in a large patient series.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy of the adrenal glands: analysis of 24 patients.

Endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle aspiration (EUS‐FNA) biopsy allows the detailed imaging and FNA not only of both intramural and extramural structures and lesions of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract but also of various intraabdominal organs. Thus, EUS‐FNA biopsy offers a novel opportunity to evaluate and obtain cytology samples from adrenal gland lesions. The objective of the current study was to determine the utility of EUS‐FNA in the diagnosis of adrenal lesions.

E-cadherin/beta-catenin and CD10: a limited immunohistochemical panel to distinguish pancreatic endocrine neoplasm from solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas on endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspirates of the pancreas.

Pancreatic endocrine neoplasm (PEN) and solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas (SPN) frequently pose diagnostic challenges. We sought to determine which markers could provide the best immunophenotypic characterization of PEN and SPN, allowing separation on limited cytology samples. We retrieved 22 resected PEN (n = 12) and SPN (n = 10) tumors to serve as a training set for the performance of extensive immunohistochemical staining. Based on these results, we selected a subset of antibodies for application to 25 fine-needle aspiration (FNA) samples from PEN (n = 16) and SPN (n = 9). Chromogranin A, synaptophysin, CD56, and progesterone receptor (PR) highlighted PEN cases in the training set; E-cadherin was noted in a membranous pattern. SPN cases were most immunoreactive for alpha(1)-antitrypsin, vimentin, CD10, and PR, with nuclear staining for beta-catenin; E-cadherin did not show a membranous pattern. Among all FNA samples tested, the immunohistochemical staining of E-cadherin (P = .0003), beta-catenin (P = .00004), and CD10 (P = .00006) demonstrated the greatest difference between PEN and SPN. The pattern of E-cadherin/beta-catenin expression was highly specific for distinguishing PEN from SPN. On limited FNA samples, the characteristic expression of E-cadherin/beta-catenin and the expression of CD10 can be used to distinguish PEN from SPN.

Large, Clear Cytoplasmic Vacuolation An Under-recognized Cytologic Clue to Distinguish Solid Pseudopapillary Neoplasms of the Pancreas From Pancreatic Endocrine Neoplasms on Fine-Needle Aspiration

Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm (SPN) and pancreatic endocrine neoplasm (PEN) are uncommon neoplasms that demonstrate characteristic cytologic features. It is also known that both these tumors may share similar morphologic changes. These features not uncommonly pose significant diagnostic challenge for unsuspecting cytopathologists. In the current study, the authors report that recognition of clear cytoplasmic vacuoles in endoscopic ultrasound–guided fine–needle aspiration (EUS‐FNA) samples from SPN serves as a useful clue that can distinguish this tumor from PEN.