Onsite evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration: the endosonographer, the cytotechnologist and the cytopathologist.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has become an essential tool in the management of multiple diseases. Its accuracy is related to different aspects of the technique, one of the most important being the experience and interaction of the endosonographer and pathologist. Certain studies over the past years have highlighted the importance of having rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) of samples obtained at the time of EUS-FNA. We have reviewed the role of ROSE, performed by the same endosonographer, a cytotechnologist and an expert cytopathologist. The available data suggest that ROSE (either by the endosonographer, the cytotechnologist, or the cytopathologist) improves sample adequacy and diagnostic yield, with the best option to have ROSE performed by an expert cytopathologist. However, if non-ROSE accuracy is already very high, any improvement is harder to achieve.

Randomized controlled trial comparing stylet-free endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with 22-G and 25-G needles.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Previous studies comparing endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) results with different gauge needles have all been carried out with the stylet in place and show no clear advantage to the larger 22-G needle. Similar data for stylet-free EUS-FNA (SF-EUS-FNA) are unavailable. The aim of the present study was to determine whether diagnostic yield and specimen adequacy is superior with the 22-G needle as compared to the 25-G needle. METHODS: All patients ≥ 18 years referred for solid-lesion EUS-FNA were eligible. Patients with suspected diagnosis of lymphoma, gastrointestinal stromal tumor, sarcoidosis, significant coagulopathy (international normalized ratio > 1.5 or platelets < 50000/mm(3)), use of clopidogrel within 7 days of EUS, and pregnancy were excluded. The two needles were compared regarding diagnostic yield, sample adequacy, bloodiness, ease of puncture, visibility, number of passes, failures, and complications. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty consecutive patients were included and 126 lesions were sampled. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for the 22-G SF-EUS-FNA were 83%, 100%, 100% and 56%, respectively, and for the 25-G SF-EUS-FNA were 88.8%, 100%, 100% and 76.5%, respectively (P=NS). There were no significant differences between the 22-G and the 25-G FNA needles in sample adequacy, bloodiness, ease of puncture, FNA failure, visibility, number of passes and complications; and no significant differences between either needle were found in relation to lesion site. CONCLUSION: For SF-EUS-FNA, the larger 22-G needle offers no advantage over the smaller 25-G needle.

Endohepatology: The endoscopic armamentarium in the hand of the hepatologist.

ABSTRACT: Recent advances in the field of hepatology include new and effective treatments for viral hepatitis. Further effort is now being directed to other disease entities, such as non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, with an increased need for assessment of liver function and histology. In fact, with the evolving nomenclature of fat-associated liver disease and the emergence of the term "metabolic-associated fatty liver disease" (MAFLD), new diagnostic challenges have emerged as patients with histologic absence of steatosis can still be classified under the umbrella of MAFLD. Currently, there is a growing number of endoscopic procedures that are pertinent to patients with liver disease. Indeed, interventional radiologists mostly perform interventional procedures such as percutaneous and intravascular procedures, whereas endoscopists focus on screening for and treatment of esophageal and gastric varices. EUS has proven to be of value in many areas within the realm of hepatology, including liver biopsy, assessment of liver fibrosis, measurement of portal pressure, managing variceal bleeding, and EUS-guided paracentesis. In this review article, we will address the endoscopic applications that are used to manage patients with chronic liver disease.

Comparison of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology results with and without the stylet in 3364 cases.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology (EUS-FNA) is traditionally carried out with the stylet, as it is believed to prevent blockage or contamination of the needle by tissue coming from the gastrointestinal wall. However, this recommendation has not been demonstrated on an empirical basis. The aim of the present study was to compare the yield of EUS-FNA in a very large series of patients with (S+) and without (S-) the stylet. METHODS: Until 2004, the stylet was used for EUS-FNA in our center. After that, the stylet was never used. The results of all EUS-FNA in solid lesions carried out by one endosonographer with the same needle type were compared before and after stylet use was stopped. RESULTS: 3364 EUS-FNA procedures (in 3078 patients) in solid lesions were included (1483 S+ and 1881 S-). There was no significant difference between the S+ and S- results for any variable other than the number of passes required. The number of passes was significantly lower in the S- group when sampling lymph nodes, wall lesions and when carrying out biopsies through the gastric or rectal wall. However the statistical differences disappeared after controlling for malignancy, location and lesion size. CONCLUSION: This very large comparative study showed no benefit in diagnostic yield when using the stylet for EUS-FNA.

Protocol for a randomized controlled trial of endoscopic ultrasound guided celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS-CPN) with vs without bupivacaine.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is a devastating disease with less than 5% 5-year survival. Inoperable patients often present with pain. Randomized controlled trial have shown that endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS-CPN) improves pain control. It is usually performed by injecting bupivacaine followed by absolute alcohol around the celiac axis. STUDY DESIGN: Single center, randomized, double blind controlled trial of EUS-CPN with and without bupivacaine in patients with inoperable malignancy (pancreatic or other) involving the celiac plexus. The study was approved by research ethics board with approval number of 2022-9969, 21.151 and registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04951804). DISCUSSION: We hypothesize that bupivacaine is superfluous and may actually reduce pain control by diluting the neurolytic effect of alcohol. Bupivacaine is also potentially dangerous in that it may produce serious adverse events such as arrythmias and cardiac arrest if inadvertently injected intravascularly. CONCLUSION: This randomized trial is designed to assess whether bupivacaine is of any value during EUS-CPN.

Safety and clinical efficacy of EUS-guided pelvic abscess drainage.

Background and Objectives: EUS is a potential alternative for the drainage of abscesses. The aim of this study was to determine if EUS-guided pelvic abscess drainage is technically feasible, safe, and a valid option for abscess resolution. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review from 2002 to 2020 at a single quaternary institution. EUS-guided pelvic abscess drainage via the transrectal route was performed in all patients with or without drain/stent placement. Technical and clinical success of EUS-guided pelvic abscess drainage was analyzed. Descriptive analyses and Fisher exact test were performed. Results: Sixty consecutive patients were included in the study (53.5% male; mean age, 53.8 ± 17.9 years). Pelvic abscesses occurred mainly postoperatively (33 cases; 60.0%) and from complicated diverticulitis (14 cases; 23.3%). Mean diameter was 6.5 ± 2.4 cm (80% unilocular). Drainage was performed with EUS-guided stent placement (double-pigtail plastic or lumen-apposing metal) in 74.5% of cases and with aspiration alone for the remainder. Technical success occurred in 58 cases (97%). Of those with long-term follow-up after EUS-guided pelvic abscess drainage (n = 55; 91.7%), complete abscess resolution occurred in 72.7% of all cases. Recurrence occurred in 8 cases (14.5%) and persisted in 7 patients (12.5%), 7 of which were successfully retreated with EUS-guided pelvic abscess drainage. Accounting for these successful reinterventions, the overall rate of abscess resolution was 85.5%. Abscess resolution rate improved with drain placement (83%). Accounting for 7 repeat EUS-guided pelvic abscess drainages, overall abscess resolution improved. Two deaths occurred (3.4%) because of sepsis from failed source control in patients who had previously failed medical, radiological, and surgical treatment. Conclusions: EUS-guided pelvic abscess drainage is technically feasible, safe, and an effective alternative to radiological or open surgical drainage. It also offers favorable clinical outcomes in different clinical situations.

EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis for pancreas cancer - Finally established or still under review?

Patients with pancreas cancer must deal frequently with intractable and refractory pain. Endoscopic ultrasound guided-celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS-CPN) has been the most studied and used therapeutic technique aimed to destroy the pain fibres that allow the pancreas to communicate with the central nervous system. A neurolytic agent, most commonly ethanol, is optimally spread around the celiac axis in order to reduce pain and mitigate narcotic requirements. This can be performed early to prevent the spiral of pain and medication use, or more historically as salvage therapy. Different techniques to best administer the ethanol for effective EUS-CPN are still being debated. New EUS-guided injection techniques with radiofrequency, radioactive, and/or chemotherapeutic agents need more study.

Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Fine Needle Aspiration versus Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Fine Needle Biopsy for Pancreatic Cancer Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: One of the most effective diagnostic tools for pancreatic cancer is endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) or biopsy (EUS-FNB). Several randomized clinical trials have compared different EUS tissue sampling needles for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided FNA as EUS-FNB needles for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer using a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHOD: A literature review with a meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA guide. The databases of PubMed, Cochrane and Google Scholar were used, including studies published between 2011-2021 comparing the diagnostic yield (diagnostic accuracy or probability of positivity, sensitivity, specificity, predictive value) of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Random effect models allowed estimation of the pooled odds ratio with a confidence interval (CI) of 95%. RESULTS: Nine randomized control trials were selected out of 5802 articles identified. Among these, five studies found no statistically significant difference between the EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB, whereas the other four did. The meta-analysis found EUS-FNB accuracy superior to EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer with a pooled odds ratio of 1.87 (IC 95%: 1.33-2.63). CONCLUSION: As compared to EUS-FNA, EUS-FNB seems to improve diagnostic accuracy when applied to suspicious pancreatic lesions.

A randomized noninferiority trial comparing the diagnostic yield of the 25G ProCore needle to the standard 25G needle in suspicious pancreatic lesions.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to perform the first randomized trial comparing the diagnostic yield, bloodiness, and cellularity of the 25G standard needle (25S) and the 25G ProCore™ needle (25P). MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients referred to the tertiary care referral center for EUS guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of suspicious solid pancreatic lesions were eligible. EUS-FNA was performed in each lesion with both 25S and 25P needles (the choice of the first needle was randomized), using a multipass sampling pattern, without stylet or suction. Rapid on-site evaluation was used when possible. Pap-stained slides were read by a single experienced cytopathologist, blinded to the needle type. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-three patients were recruited. Samples were positive for cancer in 122/143 (85.3%) with the 25S needle versus 126/143 (88.1%) with the 25P needle, negative in 17/143 (11.9%) with the 25S needle versus 13/143 (9.1%) with the 25P needle, and suspicious in 4/143 (2.8%) with each needle. There was no difference in any outcome based on the type of the first needle. No carryover effect was detected (P = 0.214; NS). Cumulative logistic regression analyses showed no associations between the type of needle and diagnostic yield for cancer, cellularity, or bloodiness. The difference in the yield for cancer was 2.9% (-4.2; 10.1%); with the confidence interval upper within the predetermined noninferiority margin of 15%. CONCLUSION: The 25S needle is noninferior to the 25P needle for diagnosing cancer in suspicious pancreatic lesions.

Controversies in EUS: Do we need miniprobes?

This is the fifth in a series of papers entitled "Controversies in EUS." In the current paper, we deal with high-resolution catheter probes, otherwise known as EUS miniprobes (EUS-MPs). The application of miniprobes for early carcinomas in the entire intestinal tract, for subepithelial lesions, and for findings in the bile duct and pancreatic duct as well as endobronchial use is critically discussed. Submucous lesions, especially in the colon, but also early carcinomas in special cases are considered the most important indications. The argument is illustrated by numerous examples.

Standard reporting elements for the performance of EUS: Recommendations from the FOCUS working group.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Quality indicators for the performance of EUS have been developed to monitor and improve service value and patient outcomes. To support the incorporation of these indicators and standardize EUS documentation, we propose standard EUS reporting elements for endosonographers and endoscopy units. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search and review was performed to identify EUS quality indicators and key components of high-quality standardized EUS reporting. Guidance statements regarding standard EUS reporting elements were developed and reviewed at the Forum for Canadian Endoscopic Ultrasound (FOCUS) 2019 Annual Meeting. RESULTS: EUS reporting elements can be divided into preprocedural, intraprocedural, and postprocedural items. Preprocedural components include the type, indication, and urgency of the procedure and patient clinical information and consent. Intraprocedural components include the adequacy and extent of examination, relevant landmarks, lesion characteristics, sampling method, specimen quality, and intraprocedural adverse events. Postprocedural components include a summary and synthesis of relevant findings as well as recommended management and follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Standardizing reporting elements may help improve the care of patients undergoing EUS procedures. Our review provides a practical guide and compilation of recommended reporting elements to ensure ongoing best practices and quality improvement in EUS.

A proposal for the ideal algorithm for the diagnosis, staging, and treatment of pancreas masses suspicious for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: Results of a working group of the Canadian Society for Endoscopic Ultrasound.

Numerous clinical pathways exist for patients presenting with a suspicious pancreatic mass. These range from direct surgical intervention following staging, with preoperative cross-sectional imaging, EUS with or without fine-needle aspiration or fine-needle core biopsy; neoadjuvant chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy; or palliation. Although international guidelines exist for pancreas cancer management, the ideal workup and treatment for a suspicious pancreas mass is unclear. During its annual meeting in September 2017 (The Forum for Canadian Endoscopic Ultrasonography), the Canadian Society of Endoscopic Ultrasound organized a working group of experienced endosonographers and hepatobiliary surgeons from across Canada to achieve this goal.

Do we need elastography for EUS?

We recently introduced a series of papers "What should be known prior to performing EUS exams." In Part I, the authors discussed which clinical information and whether other imaging modalities are needed before embarking EUS examinations. In Part II, technical controversies on how EUS is performed were discussed from different points of view. In this article, important practical issues regarding EUS elastography will be raised and controversially discussed from very different points of view.

How to perform EUS-guided tattooing?

Recently, we introduced a series of papers describing on how to perform certain techniques and controversies in EUS. In the first paper, "What should be known before performing EUS examinations, Part I," the authors discussed clinical information and whether other imaging modalities should be needed before embarking in EUS examination. In Part II, some technical controversies on how EUS is performed are discussed from different points of view by providing the relevant available evidence. Herewith, we describe on how to perform EUS-guided fine needle tattooing (FNT) in daily practice. The aim of this paper is to discuss pros and cons for several issues including historical remarks, injecting material, technical approach, and how to perform EUS-FNT including argues in favor and against.

Do we need contrast agents for EUS?

We recently introduced a series of articles that dealt with controversies in EUS. In Part I, the authors discussed which clinical information is necessary prior to EUS and whether other imaging modalities are required before embarking on EUS examinations. Part II focuses on technical details and controversies about the use of EUS in special situations. In this article, important practical issues regarding the application of contrast-enhanced EUS in various clinical settings are raised and controversially discussed from different points of view.