Clin Endosc.  2014 May;47(3):242-247. 10.5946/ce.2014.47.3.242.

Addition of Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration and On-Site Cytology to EUS-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy Increases Procedure Time but Not Diagnostic Accuracy

• Keswani RN
• Krishnan K
• Wani S
• Keefer L
• Komanduri

• KMID: 2049020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2014.47.3.242

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIMS
Although the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound with fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in pancreas adenocarcinoma is high, endoscopic ultrasound with fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is often required in other lesions; in these cases, it may be possible to forgo initial EUS-FNA and rapid on-site cytology evaluation (ROSE). The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB alone (EUS-FNB group) with a conventional sampling algorithm of EUS-FNA with ROSE followed by EUS-FNB (EUS-FNA/B group) in nonpancreas adenocarcinoma lesions.
METHODS
Retrospective cohort study of subjects who underwent EUS sampling of nonpancreatic adenocarcinoma lesions between February 2011 and May 2013.
RESULTS
Over the study period, there were 43 lesions biopsied in 41 unique patients in the EUS-FNB group and 53 patients in the EUS-FNA/B group. Overall diagnostic accuracy was similar between the EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA/B groups (83.7% vs. 84.9%; p=1.0). In the subgroup of subepithelial mass lesions, diagnostic accuracy remained similar in the EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA/B groups (81.0% and 70.6%; p=0.7). EUS-FNB procedures were significantly shorter than those in the EUS-FNA/B group (58.4 minutes vs. 73.5 minutes; p<0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS
EUS-FNB without on-site cytology provides a high diagnostic accuracy in nonpancreas adenocarcinoma lesions. There appears to be no additive benefit with initial EUS-FNA but this requires further study in a prospective study.

Keyword

Endosonography; Biopsy, fine-needle; Submucosal; Subepithelial masses

MeSH Terms

Adenocarcinoma
Biopsy, Fine-Needle*
Cohort Studies
Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration
Endosonography
Humans
Pancreas
Retrospective Studies
Ultrasonography*

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Study flow. EUS-FNB, endoscopic ultrasound with fine needle biopsy; FNA, fine needle aspiration.

Reference

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. Dumonceau JM, Polkowski M, Larghi A, et al. Indications, results, and clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy. 2011; 43:897–912. PMID: 21842456.

5. Watson RR, Binmoeller KF, Hamerski CM, et al. Yield and performance characteristics of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for diagnosing upper GI tract stromal tumors. Dig Dis Sci. 2011; 56:1757–1762. PMID: 21360279.

6. Sepe PS, Moparty B, Pitman MB, Saltzman JR, Brugge WR. EUS-guided FNA for the diagnosis of GI stromal cell tumors: sensitivity and cytologic yield. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009; 70:254–261. PMID: 19482280.

7. 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.

8. Kim GH, Cho YK, Kim EY, et al. Comparison of 22-gauge aspiration needle with 22-gauge biopsy needle in endoscopic ultrasonography-guided subepithelial tumor sampling. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2014; 49:347–354. PMID: 24325591.

9. Krishnan K, Dalal S, Nayar R, Keswani RN, Keefer L, Komanduri S. Rapid on-site evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound core biopsy specimens has excellent specificity and positive predictive value for gastrointestinal lesions. Dig Dis Sci. 2013; 58:2007–2012. PMID: 23504350.

10. Storch I, Jorda M, Thurer R, et al. Advantage of EUS Trucut biopsy combined with fine-needle aspiration without immediate on-site cytopathologic examination. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006; 64:505–511. PMID: 16996340.

11. Storch I, Shah M, Thurer R, Donna E, Ribeiro A. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and Trucut biopsy in thoracic lesions: when tissue is the issue. Surg Endosc. 2008; 22:86–90. PMID: 17479313.

12. Saftoiu A, Vilmann P, Guldhammer Skov B, Georgescu CV. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided Trucut biopsy adds significant information to EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration in selected patients: a prospective study. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2007; 42:117–125. PMID: 17190771.

13. 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.

14. Varadarajulu S, Bang JY, Hebert-Magee S. Assessment of the technical performance of the flexible 19-gauge EUS-FNA needle. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012; 76:336–343. PMID: 22817786.