The role of EUS elastography-guided fine needle biopsy in the histological diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions: a prospective exploratory study.

This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of Endoscopic ultrasound elastography-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-EG-FNB) for the diagnosis of pancreatic mass lesions. EUS-EG images were classified into heterogeneous and homogeneous groups. For the heterogeneous group, EUS-FNB was separately performed in both hard areas and soft areas. Only samples obtained during the first two passes (hard/soft areas) were used to compare the diagnostic accuracy as well as the quality and quantity of the specimens. We investigated the association of EUS-EG findings using strain histogram analysis with the histological findings. Fifty-five patients were enrolled including 25 patients with heterogeneous group. The homogeneous group had significantly lower mean strain value (hard) lesions. The adequate sampling rates from hard and soft areas were 88 and 92%, respectively (P = 0.6374). Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy and the quality and quantity of the histological core between hard and soft areas showed no significant differences. In pancreatic adenocarcinoma cases, the proportion of fibrous stroma in the core tissue was significantly correlated with the elasticity of the region. (R2 = 0.1226: P = 0.0022) EUS-EG may reflect tissue composition in pancreatic tumors, however, EUS-EG did not affect either the quality and quantity of the tissues obtained.Clinical Trial Registry No: UMIN-000033073.

Usefulness of Macroscopic On-Site Evaluation Using a Stereomicroscope during EUS-FNB for Diagnosing Solid Pancreatic Lesions.

METHODS: We reviewed a total of 60 consecutive patients who underwent both S-MOSE and rapid on-site cytopathological evaluation (ROSE) during EUS-FNB between July 2019 and October 2020, and the usefulness of S-MOSE in comparison with histology was evaluated. A 22-gauge Franseen needle was used to perform EUS-FNB in all patients, and only the specimens obtained by the first pass were evaluated. The final diagnosis was based on the surgical specimen or the clinical course consistent with the EUS-FNB results. RESULTS: The final diagnoses of the 60 patients included 45 patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, 6 with autoimmune pancreatitis, 4 with mass-forming pancreatitis, 1 with pancreatic metastasis, 2 with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor, and 2 with intraductal papillary mucinous carcinoma. The histological diagnostic accuracy of the first pass of EUS-FNB was 83.3% (50/60). The agreement between the S-MOSE and the histological diagnosis was 90% (54/60). The positive predictive value of S-MOSE for histological diagnosis was 90.7%, which can be an indicator of when to stop the EUS-FNB procedure. There were no immediate or delayed adverse events reported after the FNB based on the chart and medical visit history review. CONCLUSION: In the EUS-FNB of SPLs, S-MOSE can be an alternative to ROSE for specimen evaluation and has the potential to shorten the procedure time.