A case of metastatic non-neural granular cell tumor in a 13-year-old girl.

Conventional granular cell tumor represents a mesenchymal neoplasm observed in a variety of locations and is now believed to be of Schwann cell origin. Granular cell change has also been observed in a variety of different tumors, but recently described in the skin has been a distinct entity termed non-neural granular cell tumor, which lacks expression of S100 protein and is of uncertain histogenesis. This tumor typically displays a greater degree of nuclear atypia and mitotic activity than conventional granular cell tumor but appears to behave in a relatively benign fashion, as only two previous instances of lymph node metastasis have been documented. Herein, we report a case of non-neural granular cell tumor arising on the back of a 13-year-old girl, and later axillary lymph node metastasis with extracapsular extension was observed.

Does on-site adequacy assessment by cytotechnologists improve results of EUS guided FNA of solid pancreaticobiliary lesions?

CONTEXT: Rapid onsite adequacy assessment is stated to improve the diagnostic performance of EUS-FNA. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to establish if the introduction of adequacy assessment performed by a biomedical scientist (cytotechnologist) to an established EUS service improved the diagnostic accuracy of EUS guided FNA of solid pancreaticobiliary lesions. DESIGN AND PATIENTS: This retrospective study includes all patients with solid pancreaticobiliary lesions who underwent EUS-FNA from April 2009 to September 2010. An in room cytotechnologist was present for 2 out of the 4 weekly EUS lists and therefore there were two groups identified: Group 1, cytotechnologist absent; and Group 2, cytotechnologist present. RESULTS: There were 82 patients in Group 1 and 97 patients in Group 2. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of passes (4.1 vs. 4.3), the inadequate aspirate rate (7.3% vs. 5.1%) or the mean size of the lesions (34.7 vs. 32.6 mm) between the groups. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value in Group 1 were 89%, 88%, 100%, 100% and 50% respectively. The results in Group 2 were 91%, 90%, 100%, 100% and 69% respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this study the adequacy assessment performed by a cytotechnologist did not improve the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA. In an established EUS-FNA service with low inadequate aspirate rates, onsite adequacy assessment may not improve results of the test.

Effect of dedicated and supervised training on achieving competence in EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has been suggested as a benchmark of quality performance in EUS. However, there is paucity of data on the training requirement for competency in EUS-FNA of the pancreas. KO commenced the service without prior formal training in EUS-FNA. A formally trained colleague (MN) who underwent a fellowship in the same unit was appointed to a substantive post in 2007. The aims of the study were to assess if a dedicated training program in pancreaticobiliary (PB) EUS-FNA of solid lesions: (1) produced better results at the outset of independent practice than produced at the initiation of service without formal training and (2) produced results comparable with those of an experienced endosonographer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a retrospective review comparing the first 80 consecutive cases at the onset of practice of operator KO1 (2003/2004) and MN (2007/2008) as well as consecutive cases of operator KO2 (2007/2008) in the same time frame as the initial cases of operator MN. RESULTS: There was a significant difference in EUS-FNA sensitivity for pancreatic malignancy between operator KO1 (56%) and operator MN (77%) p < 0.05. There was no significant difference in test performance between operator KO2 (82%) and MN (77%) (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our data show that formal training in PB EUS produces test performance at the outset of independent practice that is comparable with an experienced endosonographer, in line with the published standards for EUS-FNA of the pancreas and significantly better than that achieved without training.

Role of EUS/EUS-guided FNA in the management of proximal biliary strictures.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Optimal management of proximal biliary strictures depends on staging and adequate tissue diagnosis of suspected malignant lesions. Sensitivity of ERCP brush cytology is poor. EUS/EUS-FNA of these lesions is challenging with limited data on its diagnostic accuracy. We report our experience of EUS/ EUS guided FNA of proximal biliary strictures in a tertiary referral centre. METHODOLOGY: All patients who underwent EUS guided FNA of hilar lesions between October 2003 to July 2007 were identified. The final diagnosis was determined by surgical pathology, results of EUS-FNA or follow-up. RESULTS: 32 patients underwent 36 procedures for hilar lesions during the study period. EUS detected a mass in 9/14 patients who did not have a mass seen on imaging. The mean followup period was 39.43 months. The cytological specimen was adequate in 26 patients. The final diagnosis was adenocarcinoma (24) and benign (8). The overall accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of EUS-FNA were 68%, 52 %, 100%, 100% and 54%, respectively. If only adequate aspirates were included in the analysis, the values were 74%, 60%, 100%, 100% and 55% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: EUS guided FNA is a useful modality in the diagnosis and management of hilar lesions.

EUS-FNA versus biliary brushings and assessment of simultaneous performance in jaundiced patients with suspected malignant obstruction.

CONTEXT: Individuals with suspected malignant biliary obstruction commonly undergo ERCP for drainage and tissue sampling via biliary brushings. EUS with EUS-FNA facilitates staging and potentially more accurate tissue sampling. OBJECTIVE: The aim is to compare the diagnostic performance of EUS-FNA and ERCP with biliary brushings (ERCP-BB) in the diagnosis of pancreatobiliary carcinoma and the utility of combining the two procedures under conscious sedation. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database. PATIENTS: Thirty-seven patients with suspected malignant obstructive jaundice underwent 39 paired procedures, either combined (n=22) or within a few days (n=17). RESULTS: Using strict cytological criteria the sensitivity of EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of malignancy was 52.9% (95% CI: 35.1-70.2%) versus 29.4% (95% CI: 15.1-47.5%) for ERCP-BB. Combining the two tests improved sensitivity to 64.7% (95% CI: 46.5-80.3%) which was significantly better than ERCP-BB alone (P=0.001) but not EUS-FNA alone (P=0.125). When both procedures were performed under the same conscious sedation, there was a significant difference (P=0.031) between the sensitivity of EUS-FNA (52.6%; 95% CI: 28.9-75.6%) and that of ERCP-BB (21.1%; 95% CI: 6.1-45.6%). When both procedures were performed together the mean±SD in-room time was 79±14 min (range: 45-105 min). Two of the patients (9.1%) had a complication. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing EUS-FNA and ERCP-BB under the same sedation, EUS-FNA was significantly more sensitive in diagnosing malignancy. Combining the results of both tests improved diagnostic accuracy. Combining therapeutic ERCP and EUS-FNA under the same conscious sedation is feasible, with a complication rate similar to that of ERCP alone.

Diagnostic performance of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)/endoscopic ultrasound--fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) cytology in solid and cystic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Our study aimed to assess the sensitivity of EUS and EUS-FNA for pancreatic neuro-endocrine tumors (pNETs) and compare performance over two consecutive 4 year 2 month periods, to investigate the comparative performance between solid and cystic pNETs and determine the incremental yield of EUS +/- FNA in individuals with a mass not diagnosed as a pNET after cross-sectional imaging. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was carried out to identify all pNET patients who underwent EUS-FNA between April 2003 and September 2011. RESULTS: A final diagnosis of solid and cystic pNETs was made in 43 and 10 patients, respectively. Overall, the yield of combined EUS imaging and cytology was significantly higher than that of CT and/or MRI (p< 0.05) across all groups [solid (83.7% vs. 41.8%), cystic (70% vs. 10%) and combined solid-cystic (81.1% vs. 35.8%)]. The yield of combined EUS imaging and cytology was significantly better than EUS imaging alone (p<0.05) in the solid (83.7% vs. 58%) and combined pNET cohort (81.1% vs. 52.8%) of patients. After a non-diagnostic CT and or MRI, EUS/EUS-FNA confirmed pNET in 19 out of 25 patients (76.0%) with solid pNETs and 6 out of 9 patients (66.7%) with cystic pNETs. CONCLUSION: EUS and EUS-FNA had a significant clinical impact in the 25/34 of cases where pNET was not suspected after initial cross-sectional imaging.