Pancreatic juice cytology for diagnosing invasive pancreatic carcinoma/high-grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia without visible tumors on endoscopic ultrasound.

OBJECTIVES: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) with a diameter ≤10 mm and high-grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HG-PanIN) require pre-operative diagnosis. Most cases present only indirect imaging findings without visible tumors on endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). Therefore, EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy is not applicable. An alternative diagnostic method is pancreatic juice cytology (PJC) via endoscopic naso-pancreatic drainage (ENPD-PJC), which is not the standard practice. This study aimed to investigate ENPD-PJC for diagnosing suspected PDAC/HG-PanIN cases without visible tumors on EUS. METHODS: Data of patients with suspected PDAC/HG-PanIN without visible tumors who underwent PJC were retrospectively evaluated. One PJC sample was collected during endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP-PJC), and 12 samples were collected during ENPD-PJC, 3-hourly for cytological analysis. ERP-PJC, ERP/ENPD-PJC, and ENPD-PJC positivity indicated cytologically positive samples. Patients with positive/negative PJC with follow-up for <4-years were excluded as undiagnosed cases. A non-malignant diagnosis was based on histopathological absence/stable imaging findings for ≥4-years. The primary endpoint was to demonstrate that ERP/ENPD-PJC has a higher diagnostic ability than ERP-PJC. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients with histopathologically diagnosed PDAC/HG-PanIN and 31 with a non-malignant diagnosis were enrolled. ERP-PJC, ERP/ENPD-PJC, and ENPD-PJC showed sensitivities of 36.4 %, 86.4 %, and 77.3 %, specificities of 93.5 %, 87.1 %, and 93.5 %, and accuracies of 69.8 %, 86.7 %, and 86.7 %, respectively. ERP/ENPD-PJC and ENPD-PJC demonstrated superior sensitivity and accuracy compared to ERP-PJC. A greater occurrence of positive outcomes markedly distinguished true positives from false positives. CONCLUSIONS: ERP/ENPD-PJC and ENPD-PJC had higher diagnostic accuracies for PDAC/HG-PanIN without visible tumors on EUS. ENPD-PJC is recommended for the diagnosis of these lesions.

True diagnostic ability of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy sampling for small pancreatic lesions ≤10 mm and salvage diagnosis by pancreatic juice cytology: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The diagnostic performance of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy sampling (EUS-FNAB) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) ≤10 mm in diameter is relatively low. Pancreatic juice cytology (PJC) has gained attention because of its high sensitivity for small PDACs. We aimed to clarify the diagnostic ability of EUS-FNAB and the salvage ability of PJC for PDAC ≤10 mm. METHODS: Data obtained from attempted EUS-FNAB for patients with EUS-confirmed pancreatic tumors ≤10 mm (excluding pancreatic metastases/malignant lymphomas) were retrospectively analyzed. Patients who experienced technical failure or had a negative EUS-FNAB result and had a strong likelihood of PDAC based on imaging characteristics underwent PJC. PDAC was diagnosed using resected histologic specimens, EUS-FNAB-positive tumor growth on the imaging examination, or additional EUS-FNAB-positive results after increase in tumor size. The primary endpoint was the diagnostic ability of EUS-FNAB for PDAC ≤10 mm. The salvage ability of PJC was also assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 86 of 271 patients with pancreatic tumors ≤10 mm who underwent attempted EUS-FNAB were diagnosed with PDAC. The technical success rate, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of EUS-FNAB for PDAC ≤10 mm were 80.8%, 82.3%, 94.9%, and 91.3%, respectively. Among the 35 PDAC patients who experienced technical failure or false-negative results of EUS-FNAB, 26 (74.3%) were correctly diagnosed using salvage PJC. CONCLUSIONS: The true success rate and sensitivity of EUS-FNAB for PDAC ≤10 mm were relatively low. When EUS-FNAB for a pancreatic lesion ≤10 mm strongly suspected to be PDAC is unsuccessful or yields a negative result, PJC is recommended. (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN000049965.).