Increasing Number of Passes Beyond 4 Does Not Increase Sensitivity of Detection of Pancreatic Malignancy by Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: It is not clear exactly how many passes are required to determine whether pancreatic masses are malignant using endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). We aimed to define the per-pass diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA for establishing the malignancy of a pancreatic mass, and identify factors associated with detection of malignancies. METHODS: In a prospective study, 239 patients with solid pancreatic masses were randomly assigned to groups that underwent EUS-FNA, with the number of passes determined by an on-site cytopathology evaluation or set at 7 passes, at 3 tertiary referral centers. A final diagnosis of pancreatic malignancy was made based on findings from cytology, surgery, or a follow-up evaluation at least 1 year after EUS-FNA. The cumulative sensitivity of detection of malignancy by EUS-FNA was calculated after each pass; in the primary analysis, lesions categorized as malignant or suspicious were considered as positive findings. RESULTS: Pancreatic malignancies were found in 202 patients (84.5% of the study population). EUS-FNA detected malignancies with 96% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI], 92%-98%); 4 passes of EUS-FNA detected malignancies with 92% sensitivity (95% CI, 87%-95%). Tumor size greater than 2 cm was the only variable associated with positive results from cytology analysis (odds ratio, 7.8; 95% CI, 1.9-31.6). In masses larger than 2 cm, 4 passes of EUS-FNA detected malignancies with 93% sensitivity (95% CI, 89%-96%) and in masses ≤2 cm, 6 passes was associated with 82% sensitivity (95% CI, 61%-93%). Sensitivity of detection did not increase with increasing number of passes. CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective study, we found 4 passes of EUS-FNA to be sufficient to detect malignant pancreatic masses; increasing the number of passes did not increase the sensitivity of detection. Tumor size greater than 2 cm was associated with malignancy, and a greater number of passes may be required to evaluate masses 2 cm or less. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01386931.

The clinical impact of immediate on-site cytopathology evaluation during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic masses: a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Observational data on the impact of on-site cytopathology evaluation (OCE) during endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of pancreatic masses have reported conflicting results. We aimed to compare the diagnostic yield of malignancy and proportion of inadequate specimens between patients undergoing EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses with and without OCE. METHODS: In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, consecutive patients with solid pancreatic mass underwent randomization for EUS-FNA with or without OCE. The number of FNA passes in the OCE+ arm was dictated by the on-site cytopathologist, whereas seven passes were performed in OCE- arm. EUS-FNA protocol was standardized, and slides were reviewed by cytopathologists using standardized criteria for cytologic characteristics and diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 241 patients (121 OCE+, 120 OCE-) were included. There was no difference between the two groups in diagnostic yield of malignancy (OCE+ 75.2% vs. OCE- 71.6%, P=0.45) and proportion of inadequate specimens (9.8 vs. 13.3%, P=0.31). Procedures in OCE+ group required fewer EUS-FNA passes (median, OCE+ 4 vs. OCE- 7, P<0.0001). There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to overall procedure time, adverse events, number of repeat procedures, costs (based on baseline cost-minimization analysis), and accuracy (using predefined criteria for final diagnosis of malignancy). There was no difference between the two groups with respect to cytologic characteristics of cellularity, bloodiness, number of cells/slide, and contamination. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study demonstrated no significant difference in the diagnostic yield of malignancy, proportion of inadequate specimens, and accuracy in patients with pancreatic mass undergoing EUS-FNA with or without OCE.

A prospective, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial of EUS-guided FNA with and without a stylet.

BACKGROUND: Most endosonographers use an EUS needle with an internal stylet during EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA). Reinserting the stylet into the needle after every pass is tedious and time-consuming, and there are no data to suggest that it improves the quality of the cytology specimen. OBJECTIVE: To compare the samples obtained by EUS-FNA with and without a stylet for (1) the degree of cellularity, adequacy, contamination, and amount of blood and (2) the diagnostic yield of malignancy. DESIGN: Prospective,single-blind, randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Two tertiary care referral centers. PATIENTS: Patients referred for EUS-FNA of solid lesions. INTERVENTION: Patients underwent EUS-FNA of the solid lesions, and 2 passes each were made with a stylet and without a stylet in the needle. The order of the passes was randomized, and the cytopathologists reviewing the slides were blinded to the stylet status of passes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Degree of cellularity, adequacy, contamination, amount of blood, and the diagnostic yield of malignancy in the specimens. RESULTS: A total of 101 patients with 118 lesions were included in final analysis; 236 FNA passes were made, each with and without a stylet. No significant differences were seen in the cellularity (P = .98), adequacy of the specimen (P = .26), contamination (P = .92), or significant amount of blood (P = .61) between specimens obtained with and without a stylet. The diagnostic yield of malignancy was 55 of 236 specimens (23%) in the with-stylet group compared with 66 of 236 specimens (28%) in the without-stylet group (P = .29). LIMITATIONS: Endosonographers were not blinded to the stylet status of the passes. CONCLUSIONS: Using a stylet during EUS-FNA does not confer any significant advantage with regard to the quality of the specimen obtained or the diagnostic yield of malignancy. ( CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT 01213290).

A comparative study of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration with and without a stylet.

BACKGROUND: Despite lack of evidence, use of a stylet during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is assumed to improve the quality and diagnostic yield of specimens. AIM: The purpose of this study was to compare EUS-FNA specimens obtained with stylet (S+) and without stylet (S-) for: (i) cellularity, contamination, adequacy, and amount of blood and (ii) diagnostic yield of malignancy. METHODS: Patients who underwent EUS-FNA of solid lesions by two experienced endosonographers at a tertiary referral center using a 22-gauge FNA needle with suction were included. Stylet was used for all EUS-FNA procedures performed between January 2006 and September 2007 and no stylet was used between October 2007 and April 2009 allowing comparison between the two techniques. Cytology slides were retrieved, de-identified and evaluated by two experienced cytopathologists blinded to FNA technique. Slides were evaluated for cellularity, degree of contamination, adequacy, amount of blood and cytologic diagnosis. Fisher's exact and unpaired t-test were used for comparative analysis. RESULTS: A total of 162 patients with 228 lesions were included. FNA of 106 and 122 lesions each was performed in the S+ and S- groups, respectively. FNA sites included pancreas [41 (18%)], lymph node [125 (55%)], liver [20 (9%)], adrenal [21 (9%)] and others [21 (9%)]. No significant differences in the cellularity (P=0.37), contamination (P=0.18), significant blood (P=0.42) and adequacy of specimen (P=0.45) were found between S+ and S- specimens. There was no statistically significant difference in the diagnostic yield of malignant lesions (P=0.48). CONCLUSIONS: The use of stylet during FNA does not appear to confer any advantage with regards to the adequacy of specimen or diagnostic yield of malignancy.

Amelanotic malignant melanoma: two collision tumors presenting as basal cell carcinoma and atypical fibroxanthoma.

Collision (contiguous) tumors of the skin can result in misleading clinicopathological presentations, and the choice of appropriate diagnostic techniques may prevent incomplete diagnosis and management. We report 2 cases of collision tumors involving amelanotic malignant melanoma of the back. One patient is a 79-yr-old male with an 8.7 x 5.5 x 4.5 cm polypoid lesion that on shave biopsy was diagnosed as basal cell carcinoma. Subsequent excision showed that the lesion was largely composed of amelanotic melanoma underlying a relatively small and thin basal cell carcinoma, and this probably would have been demonstrated in a punch (rather than shave) biopsy. The other patient is a 71-yr-old male with a 1 cm exophytic lesion on the back, which was determined microscopically to be melanoma, and a 0.6 cm papule on the back. This lesion was composed of 2 distinct contiguous neoplastic infiltrates, the predominant component being an atypical fibroxanthoma and the smaller component an amelanotic melanoma (primary vs metastatic), with diagnostic confirmation requiring multiple immunohistochemical stains.

Hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosed by fine-needle aspiration of the parotid gland.

Hepatocellular carcinoma rarely metastasizes to the salivary glands. We report a case of a 47-yr-old man who presented with a right parotid lesion that was diagnosed by fine-needle aspiration (FNA) biopsy as a metastatic lesion suggestive of hepatocellular carcinoma with similar findings in a subsequent intraoral incisional biopsy. The patient's serum alpha-fetoprotein level was within normal limits at the time of diagnosis. CT scan revealed a mass in the liver, but a liver biopsy was not performed. The patient deteriorated rapidly and died about 4 mo later. An autopsy confirmed the presence of hepatocellular carcinoma with distant metastases to unusual sites, including the parotid gland, orbit, and calvarium, bypassing more common sites such as the lungs. This is the second known reported case in which hepatocellular carcinoma presented as a salivary gland metastasis. In both cases the diagnosis was made by FNA biopsy, illustrating the utility of this method for diagnosing uncommon metastatic salivary gland lesions.

Adrenal pseudocyst: a unique case with adrenal renal fusion, mimicking a cystic renal mass.

We describe an unusual adrenal pseudocyst mimicking radiologically and clinically renal mass. The cyst measured 12 cm in diameter and had a fibrotic external envelope that was fused with the renal capsule. The possible diagnostic pitfalls encountered in this case are discussed.