Clin Endosc.  2012 Jun;45(2):132-137. 10.5946/ce.2012.45.2.132.

How Can We Get the Best Results with Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration?

• Ramesh J
• Varadarajulu S

• KMID: 2048850
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2012.45.2.132

Abstract

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has evolved to become an indispensable tool for tissue acquisition. While the overall diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA is greater than 90% for lung cancer staging, it is lower for pancreatic mass lesions. Several factors such as location of the tumor, disease characteristics and procedural techniques determine the outcomes of EUS-FNA. In this review we evaluate the various technical factors that are keys to attaining optimal procedural outcomes.

Keyword

Endoscopic ultrasound; Fine-needle cytology; Techniques

MeSH Terms

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration
Lung Neoplasms
Needles

Reference

1. Varadarajulu S, Wallace MB. Applications of endoscopic ultrasonography in pancreatic cancer. Cancer Control. 2004; 11:15–22. PMID: 14749619.

2. Lee JH, Stewart J, Ross WA, Anandasabapathy S, Xiao L, Staerkel G. Blinded prospective comparison of the performance of 22-gauge and 25-gauge needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of the pancreas and peri-pancreatic lesions. Dig Dis Sci. 2009; 54:2274–2281. PMID: 19669880.

3. Siddiqui UD, Rossi F, Rosenthal LS, Padda MS, Murali-Dharan V, Aslanian HR. EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: a prospective, randomized trial comparing 22-gauge and 25-gauge needles. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009; 70:1093–1097. PMID: 19640524.

4. Fabbri C, Polifemo AM, Luigiano C, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration with 22- and 25-gauge needles in solid pancreatic masses: a prospective comparative study with randomisation of needle sequence. Dig Liver Dis. 2011; 43:647–652. PMID: 21592873.

5. Camellini L, Carlinfante G, Azzolini F, et al. A randomized clinical trial comparing 22G and 25G needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid lesions. Endoscopy. 2011; 43:709–715. PMID: 21611946.

6. Levy MJ. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided trucut biopsy of the pancreas: prospects and problems. Pancreatology. 2007; 7:163–166. PMID: 17592229.

7. Ginès A, Wiersema MJ, Clain JE, Pochron NL, Rajan E, Levy MJ. Prospective study of a Trucut needle for performing EUS-guided biopsy with EUS-guided FNA rescue. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005; 62:597–601. PMID: 16185976.

8. Thomas T, Kaye PV, Ragunath K, Aithal G. Efficacy, safety, and predictive factors for a positive yield of EUS-guided Trucut biopsy: a large tertiary referral center experience. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009; 104:584–591. PMID: 19262518.

9. Larghi A, Verna EC, Stavropoulos SN, Rotterdam H, Lightdale CJ, Stevens PD. EUS-guided trucut needle biopsies in patients with solid pancreatic masses: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004; 59:185–190. PMID: 14745390.

10. Iglesias-Garcia J, Poley JW, Larghi A, et al. Feasibility and yield of a new EUS histology needle: results from a multicenter, pooled, cohort study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011; 73:1189–1196. PMID: 21420083.

11. Bang JY, Hebert-Magee S, Trevino J, Ramesh J, Varadarajulu S. Randomized trial comparing the 22-gauge aspiration and 22-gauge biopsy needles for EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic mass lesions. Gastrointest Endosc. Epub 2012 May 31. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.03.1392.

12. Larghi A, Verna EC, Ricci R, et al. EUS-guided fine-needle tissue acquisition by using a 19-gauge needle in a selected patient population: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011; 74:504–510. PMID: 21872709.

13. Varadarajulu S, Bang JY, Hebert-Magee S. The flexible 19-gauge platform: one needle for all indications. Gastrointest Endosc. Forthcoming 2012.

14. Sahai AV, Paquin SC, Gariépy G. A prospective comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration results obtained in the same lesion, with and without the needle stylet. Endoscopy. 2010; 42:900–903. PMID: 20725886.

15. Rastogi A, Wani S, Gupta N, et al. A prospective, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial of EUS-guided FNA with and without a stylet. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011; 74:58–64. PMID: 21514932.

16. Wani S, Gupta N, Gaddam S, et al. A comparative study of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration with and without a stylet. Dig Dis Sci. 2011; 56:2409–2414. PMID: 21327919.

17. Wallace MB, Kennedy T, Durkalski V, et al. Randomized controlled trial of EUS-guided fine needle aspiration techniques for the detection of malignant lymphadenopathy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001; 54:441–447. PMID: 11577304.

18. LeBlanc JK, Ciaccia D, Al-Assi MT, et al. Optimal number of EUS-guided fine needle passes needed to obtain a correct diagnosis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004; 59:475–481. PMID: 15044881.

19. Erickson RA, Sayage-Rabie L, Beissner RS. Factors predicting the number of EUS-guided fine-needle passes for diagnosis of pancreatic malignancies. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000; 51:184–190. PMID: 10650262.

20. Fisher JM, Gordon SR, Gardner TB. The impact of prior biliary stenting on the accuracy and complication rate of endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration for diagnosing pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Pancreas. 2011; 40:21–24. PMID: 20881899.

21. Ranney N, Phadnis M, Trevino J, Ramesh J, Wilcox CM, Varadarajulu S. Impact of biliary stents on EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic mass lesions. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012; 76:76–83. PMID: 22726468.

22. Siddiqui AA, Fein M, Kowalski TE, Loren DE, Eloubeidi MA. Comparison of the influence of plastic and fully covered metal biliary stents on the accuracy of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Dig Dis Sci. Epub 2012 Apr 21. DOI: 10.1007/s10620-012-2170-z.

23. Siddiqui AA, Brown LJ, Hong SK, et al. Relationship of pancreatic mass size and diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration. Dig Dis Sci. 2011; 56:3370–3375. PMID: 21688127.

24. Ekberg O, Bergenfeldt M, Aspelin P, et al. Reliability of ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy of pancreatic masses. Acta Radiol. 1988; 29:535–539. PMID: 3048349.

25. Wyse JM, Paquin SC, Joseph L, Sahai A. EUS-FNA without the stylet: the yield is comparable to that with the stylet and sampling of multiple sites during the same pass may improve sample quality and yield. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009; 69:AB330–AB331.

26. Bang JY, Hebert-Magee S, Ramesh J, Varadarajulu S. Randomized trial comparing the fanning and standard techniques for EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic mass lesions. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012; 75(4 Suppl):AB445–AB446.

27. Klapman JB, Logrono R, Dye CE, Waxman I. Clinical impact of on-site cytopathology interpretation on endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003; 98:1289–1294. PMID: 12818271.

28. Chang KJ, Katz KD, Durbin TE, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration. Gastrointest Endosc. 1994; 40:694–699. PMID: 7859967.

29. Iglesias-Garcia J, Dominguez-Munoz JE, Abdulkader I, et al. Influence of on-site cytopathology evaluation on the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of solid pancreatic masses. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011; 106:1705–1710. PMID: 21483464.

30. Alsohaibani F, Girgis S, Sandha GS. Does onsite cytotechnology evaluation improve the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy? Can J Gastroenterol. 2009; 23:26–30. PMID: 19172205.

31. Varadarajulu S, Tamhane A, Eloubeidi MA. Yield of EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic masses in the presence or the absence of chronic pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005; 62:728–736. PMID: 16246688.

32. Eloubeidi MA, Varadarajulu S, Desai S, Wilcox CM. Value of repeat endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for suspected pancreatic cancer. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008; 23:567–570. PMID: 18397485.

33. DeWitt J, McGreevy K, Sherman S, LeBlanc J. Utility of a repeated EUS at a tertiary-referral center. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008; 67:610–619. PMID: 18279866.

34. Nicaud M, Hou W, Collins D, Wagh MS, Chauhan S, Draganov PV. The utility of repeat endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for suspected pancreatic cancer. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2010; 2010:268290. PMID: 21234311.

35. Reicher S, Boyar FZ, Albitar M, et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization and K-ras analyses improve diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic masses. Pancreas. 2011; 40:1057–1062. PMID: 21705950.

36. Kubiliun N, Ribeiro A, Fan YS, et al. EUS-FNA with rescue fluorescence in situ hybridization for the diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma in patients with inconclusive on-site cytopathology results. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011; 74:541–547. PMID: 21752364.

37. Varadarajulu S, Blakely J, Latif SU, Eloubeidi MA. Quality assessment of current EUS-FNA assembly performance: adequate for use or opportunity for improvement? Gastrointest Endosc. 2011; 73(4 Suppl):AB174–AB175.

38. Hewitt MJ, McPhail MJ, Possamai L, Dhar A, Vlavianos P, Monahan KJ. EUS-guided FNA for diagnosis of solid pancreatic neoplasms: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012; 75:319–331. PMID: 22248600.