Utility of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration in the Diagnosis of Local Recurrence of Pancreaticobiliary Cancer after Surgical Resection

Background/Aims@#Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA; EUS-FNA) allows for diagnostic tissue specimens from various regions to be analyzed. How-ever, diagnosing recurrent pancreaticobiliary cancer after surgery is sometimes difficult. We evaluated the efficacy of EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of local recurrence of pancreatico-biliary cancer and analyzed the factors associated with falsenegative results. @*Methods@#Fifty-one consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNA due to suspected recurrence of pancreaticobiliary cancer after surgery in an academic cen-ter were retrospectively analyzed. The criteria for EUS-FNA were a resected margin or remnant pancreas mass, round swollen lymph node (≥10 mm in diameter), and soft-tissue enhancement around a major artery. Patients with suspected liver metastasis or malignant ascites were excluded. @*Results@#Thirty-nine of the 51 patients had pancreatic cancer; the remaining 12 had biliary cancer. The target sites for EUS-FNA were the soft tissue around a major artery (n=22, 43%), the resected margin or remnant pancreas (n=12, 24%), and the lymph nodes (n=17, 33%). The median size of the suspected recurrent lesions was 15 mm (range, 8 to 40 mm). The over-all sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of recurrence was 84% (32/38), 100% (13/13), and 88% (45/51), respectively. FNA of the soft tissue around major arteries (odds ratio, 8.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.2 to 166.7; p=0.033) was significantly associated with a falsenegative diagnosis in the multivariate analysis. @*Conclusions@#EUS-FNA is useful for diagnosing recurrent cancer, even after pancreaticobiliary surgery. The diagnoses of recurrence at soft-tissue sites should be interpreted with caution.

A “Back Light System” for Identification of Sites for Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration in Solid Pancreatic Masses: A Prospective, Randomized Study with a Crossover Design

BACKGROUND/AIMS: We applied a back light system (BLS) with a magnifying glass to improve the ability to assess the adequacy of specimen sampling using endosonography. We conducted this study to evaluate the efficacy of the BLS in sampling of specimens by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of solid pancreatic masses. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, crossover, single-center clinical trial. An endosonographer evaluated adequacy on gross visual inspection and identified whitish specimen sampling sites with and without the BLS according to a randomization sequence in the first and second passes with a 25-G needle. On cytological evaluation, the presence of well-defined pancreatic ductal epithelium was evaluated by a cytopathologist who was blinded to any clinical information. RESULTS: A total of 80 consecutive patients were eligible during the study period. Adequacy was observed for 52 specimens (65%) with the BLS and 54 (68%) without the BLS (p=0.88). In assessment of specimen adequacy on gross examination, only fair agreement was observed both with and without BLS (kappa score 0.40 and 0.29, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The BLS did not influence the ability to identify specimen sampling sites or reliable assessment of specimen site adequacy using gross visual inspection.

Diagnostic Ability of Convex-Arrayed Endoscopic Ultrasonography for Major Vascular Invasion in Pancreatic Cancer

BACKGROUND/AIMS: This study aimed to examine the diagnostic ability of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for major vascular invasion in pancreatic cancer and to evaluate the relationship between EUS findings and pathological distance. METHODS: In total, 57 consecutive patients who underwent EUS for pancreatic cancer before surgery were retrospectively reviewed. EUS image findings were divided into four types according to the relationship between the tumor and major vessel (types 1 and 2: invasion, types 3 and 4: non-invasion). We also compared the EUS findings and pathologically measured distances between the tumors and evaluated vessels. RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of EUS diagnosis for vascular invasion were 89%, 92%, and 91%, respectively, in the veins and 83%, 94%, and 93%, respectively, in the arteries. The pathologically evaluated distances of cases with type 2 EUS findings were significantly shorter than those of cases with type 3 EUS findings in both the major veins (median [interquartile range], 96 [0–742] µm vs. 2,833 [1,076–5,694] µm, p=0.012) and arteries (623 [0–854] µm vs. 3,097 [1,396–6,000] µm, p=0.0061). All cases with a distance of ≥1,000 µm between the tumors and main vessels were correctly diagnosed. CONCLUSIONS: Tumors at a distance ≥1,000 µm from the main vessels were correctly diagnosed by EUS.