Endoscopic Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound and Fine-Needle Aspiration or Biopsy for the Diagnosis of Pancreatic Solid Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) are currently recommended for the pathologic diagnosis of pancreatic solid lesions (PSLs). The application of contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound (ECEUS) could aid the endoscopist during an FNA and/or FNB procedure. CEUS is indeed able to better differentiate the pathologic tissue from the surrounding healthy pancreatic parenchyma and to detect necrotic areas and vessels. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to evaluate if ECEUS could reduce the number of needle passes and side effects and increase the diagnostic efficacy of FNA and/or FNB. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of clinical studies was performed to explore if ECEUS-FNA or FNB could increase diagnostic accuracy and reduce the number of needle passes and adverse effects compared to standard EUS-FNA or FNB. In accordance with the study protocol, a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the evidence was planned. RESULTS: The proportion of established diagnoses of ECEUS was 90.9% compared to 88.3% of EUS, with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.14). The diagnosis was made through a single step in 70.9% of ECEUS patients and in 65.3% of EUS patients, without statistical significance (p = 0.24). The incidence of adverse reactions was substantially comparable across both groups (p = 0.89). CONCLUSION: ECEUS-FNA and FNB do not appear superior to standard EUS-FNA and FNB for the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions.

EUS-FNA versus EUS-FNB in Pancreatic Solid Lesions ≤ 15 mm.

A small tumor size may impact the diagnostic performance of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) for diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs). We aimed to compare the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and biopsy (FNB) in SPLs with a diameter ≤ 15 mm. Consecutive patients who underwent EUS-TA for SPLs ≤ 15 mm between January 2015 and December 2022 in a tertiary referral center were retrospectively evaluated. The primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy. The final diagnosis was based on surgical pathology or disease evolution after a minimum follow-up of 6 months. Inadequate samples were all considered false negatives for the study. Secondary outcomes included sample adequacy, factors impacting accuracy, and safety. We included 368 patients (52.4% male; mean age: 60.2 years) who underwent FNA in 72 cases and FNB in 296. The mean size of SPLs was 11.9 ± 2.6 mm. More than three passes were performed in 5.7% and 61.5% of patients in the FNB and FNA groups, respectively (p < 0.0001). FNB outperformed FNA in terms of diagnostic accuracy (89.8% vs. 79.1%, p = 0.013) and sample adequacy (95.9% vs. 86.1%, p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, using FNA (OR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.07-4.48) and a final diagnosis (OR: 3.56, 95% CI: 1.82-6.94) of benign conditions negatively impacted accuracy. Overall, the adverse event rate was 0.8%, including one pancreatitis in the FNA group and one pancreatitis and one bleeding in the FNB group, all mild and conservatively managed. EUS-TA for SPLs ≤ 15 mm has a high diagnostic yield and safety. This study suggests the superiority of FNB over FNA, with better performance even with fewer passes performed.

EUS-guided tissue acquisition in patients with solid pseudopapillary neoplasms of the pancreas.

OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) has been the most common method used for the preoperative cytopathological diagnosis of solid tumors of the pancreas. There are only a few reported cases about the role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) in the pre-operative diagnosis of solid pseudopapillary neoplasms (SPN). This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic yield of EUS-TA,including endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) andEUS-FNB, in patients with SPN. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with EUS-TA for SPN diagnosis in 2 referral centers. The primary outcome was the diagnostic yield of EUS-TA compared to the surgical specimen. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients with SPN of the pancreas were identified. Eighteen had a EUS-TA (10 EUS-FNB and 8 EUS-FNA). The median age of the patients was 31 years (IQR 21-38), and all patients were women. The most common presenting symptom was abdominal pain. Most of the tumors were in the head of the pancreas (9/18; 50%). The median tumor size by EUS was 4.5 cm (min-max 2-15 cm). The most common appearance on EUS was a solid lesion (n = 8/18, 44.4%). A definitive presurgical cytopathological diagnosis was obtained in 16/18 patients (88.8%) with EUS-TA. The sensitivity and positive predictive value of the EUS-TA were 94% each. One patient in the EUS-FNB group developed mild acute pancreatitis. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic yield of the EUS-TA in SPN is high. In most cases, the diagnosis was obtained with the first procedure. No differences in the diagnostic yield or AEs between EUS-FNA vs. EUS-FNB needles were seen.

Dry suction versus wet suction technique of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy for diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions: study protocol of a multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that the wet suction technique in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) generates better histological diagnostic accuracy and specimen quality than the dry suction technique. However, conclusions of wet suction on the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) are still controversial. Besides, the optimal number of passes for EUS-FNB has not been determined. We aimed to design a large multicenter randomized trial to compare the diagnostic accuracy of dry suction versus wet suction technique in solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs) using 22G Franseen needles and determine the optimal number of passes required for EUS-FNB. METHODS: This is a multi-center open-label, randomized controlled non-inferiority trial with two parallel groups. Two hundred patients with SPLs will undergo EUS-FNB using 22G Franseen needles in 4 tertiary hospitals in China and will be randomly assigned to the dry suction group and wet suction group in a ratio of 1:1. The primary endpoint is diagnostic accuracy. Secondary endpoints include the optimal number of needle passes, sensitivity, specificity, specimen quality, cytological diagnoses, time of the procedure, and incidence of complications. DISCUSSION: This study has been designed to determine (i) whether EUS-FNB using 22G Franseen needle with dry suction is non-inferior to wet suction in terms of diagnostic accuracy and (ii) the optimal number of passes during EUS-FNB of SPLs using 22G Franseen needle. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05549856. Registered on September 22, 2022.

Cutting edge of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for solid pancreatic lesions.

This article provides an extensive review of the advancements and future perspectives related to endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs). EUS-TA, including fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB), has revolutionized the collection of specimens from intra-abdominal organs, including the pancreas. Improvements in the design of needles, collection methods, and specimen processing techniques have improved the diagnostic performance. This review highlights the latest findings regarding needle evolution, actuation number, sampling methods, specimen evaluation techniques, application of artificial intelligence (AI) for diagnostic purposes, and use of comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP). It acknowledges the rising use of Franseen and fork-tip needles for EUS-FNB and emphasizes that the optimal number of actuations requires further study. Methods such as the door-knocking and fanning techniques have shown promise for increasing diagnostic performance. Macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) is presented as a practical rapid specimen evaluation method, and the integration of AI is identified as a potentially impactful development. The study also underscores the importance of optimal sampling for CGP, which can enhance the precision of cancer treatment. Ongoing research and technological innovations will further improve the accuracy and efficacy of EUS-TA.

Artificial Intelligence in Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration/Biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) for Solid Pancreatic Lesions: Opportunities and Challenges.

Solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs) encompass a variety of benign and malignant diseases and accurate diagnosis is crucial for guiding appropriate treatment decisions. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) serves as a front-line diagnostic tool for pancreatic mass lesions and is widely used in clinical practice. Artificial intelligence (AI) is a mathematical technique that automates the learning and recognition of data patterns. Its strong self-learning ability and unbiased nature have led to its gradual adoption in the medical field. In this paper, we describe the fundamentals of AI and provide a summary of reports on AI in EUS-FNA/B to help endoscopists understand and realize its potential in improving pathological diagnosis and guiding targeted EUS-FNA/B. However, AI models have limitations and shortages that need to be addressed before clinical use. Furthermore, as most AI studies are retrospective, large-scale prospective clinical trials are necessary to evaluate their clinical usefulness accurately. Although AI in EUS-FNA/B is still in its infancy, the constant input of clinical data and the advancements in computer technology are expected to make computer-aided diagnosis and treatment more feasible.

Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Predicting Solid Pancreatic Lesions Using Strain Ratio and Elastography.

Background: Despite advancement in imaging techniques, the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs) remains challenging. The latest advancement in elastography permits the quantitative measurements of the average elasticity of a lesion. Therefore, our main aim of this study was to determine the utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided elastography (EUS-EG) and strain ratio (EUS-SR) in predicting SPLs. Materials and methods: This cross-sectional study was performed at the Department of Hepatogastroenterology, Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplantation. All patients with radiological diagnosis of SPLs underwent EUS-EG, followed by strain ratio (SR) measurement and targeted pancreatic fine needle lesion biopsy (FNB). Area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) was obtained for SR and combined elastography and SR and at an optimal cutoff, diagnostic accuracy was obtained in predicting the nature of SPLs. Results: A total of 52 patients were included in this study. Out of them, 32 (61.5%) patients were males while 20 (38.5%) were females. The mean age was 50.8 ± 12.5 years. Twenty-four (46.2%) patients had malignant pancreatic lesions. Among malignant lesions, the most common etiology was pancreatic adenocarcinoma seen in 18 (34.6%) patients. Out of 28 (53.8%) patients with benign lesions, 14 (26.9%) patients had inflammatory disease. Area under the receiver operating curve was obtained for both SR alone and SR combined with elastography score in differentiating benign from malignant SPLs which was 0.832 (p-value < 0.001) for SR alone and a slightly higher for combined SR with elastography (AUROC-0.839)(p-value < 0.001). At an optimal cutoff of SR of >17, the sensitivity was 94.8% and the diagnostic accuracy was 74% in predicting SPLs. While, when SR and elastography were combined together, the sensitivity increased to 96% with a diagnostic accuracy of 75%. Conclusion: Combined EUS-EG and SR were accurate in diagnosing malignant pancreatic lesions with a diagnostic accuracy of 75% providing additional diagnostics information before biopsy. However, multicentric studies with larger sample sizes are required for the validation of our results to determine the utility and diagnostic accuracy of EUS-SR in defining the characteristic of pancreatic lesions. How to cite this article: Bajaj K, Yaseen T, Tasneem AA, et al. Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Predicting Solid Pancreatic Lesions Using Strain Ratio and Elastography. Euroasian J Hepato-Gastroenterol 2023;13(1):1-4.

Interobserver Agreement among Cytopathologists in False-Negative Cases by Cytological Diagnosis with Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration in Solid Pancreatic Lesions.

INTRODUCTION: Early detection and accurate pathological assessment are critical to improving prognosis of pancreatic cancer. EUS has been widely used in diagnosing pancreatic lesions and can obtain histological diagnosis by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). However, comprehensive assessment of the interobserver agreement (IOA) among cytopathologists evaluating EUS-FNA specimens is still limited. Therefore, this study evaluated IOA among cytopathologists for EUS-FNA specimens of solid pancreatic lesions, especially in false-negative cases of cytological diagnosis and analyzed the factors that influence cytological diagnosis of EUS-FNA so as to improve the diagnostic efficiency of EUS-FNA. METHODS: We retrieved EUS-FNA samples of pancreatic solid lesions from 2017 to 2021 and collected their clinical/cytological data. Two cytopathologists independently reviewed these cases using a quoted, novel standardized cytology scoring tool. Ultimately, we calculated IOA among cytopathologists and performed a binary logistic regression analysis to evaluate factors influencing the cytological diagnosis of EUS-FNA. RESULTS: 161 patients were included, and 60 cases with a clinical diagnosis of pancreatic cancer but a cytological diagnosis of benign and atypical constituted the false-negative group. IOAs for cytological diagnosis of overall patients and the false-negative group were in perfect/moderate agreement with Kendall's W values of 0.896 and 0.462, respectively. The number of diagnostic cells in the scoring tool had the highest level of agreement (κ = 0.721) for overall patients. There was at best moderate agreement on other quantity and quality parameters for both all cases and false-negative group. Logistic regression analysis showed the number of diagnostic cells (OR = 6.110, p < 0.05) and amount of blood (OR = 0.320, p < 0.05) could influence cytological diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The false-negative rate of our study as high as 37.26% (60/161) is mainly related to strict standards of cytopathologists, and their ability to standardize pancreatic cytology is still improving. Suboptimal agreement among cytopathologists for cytological diagnosis and the number of diagnostic cells may be associated with the occurrence of false-negative diagnosis. Further regression analysis confirmed that the number of diagnostic cells and obscuring blood were important factors in cytological diagnosis. Therefore, refinement of cytological diagnostic criteria, standardization of specimen quality evaluation, and training of cytopathologists may improve the agreement of cytopathologists, thus improving the repeatability of cytological diagnosis and reducing the occurrence of false-negative events.

The Utility of Endoscopic-Ultrasonography-Guided Tissue Acquisition for Solid Pancreatic Lesions.

Endoscopic-ultrasonography-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) has been widely performed for the definitive diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs). As the puncture needles, puncture techniques, and sample processing methods have improved, EUS-TA has shown higher diagnostic yields and safety. Recently, several therapeutic target genomic biomarkers have been clarified in pancreatic ductal carcinoma (PDAC). Although only a small proportion of patients with PDAC can benefit from precision medicine based on gene mutations at present, precision medicine will also be further developed for SPLs as more therapeutic target genomic biomarkers are identified. Advances in next-generation sequencing (NGS) techniques enable the examination of multiple genetic mutations in limited tissue samples. EUS-TA is also useful for NGS and will play a more important role in determining treatment strategies. In this review, we describe the utility of EUS-TA for SPLs.

Fine Needle Biopsies of Solid Pancreatic Lesions: Tissue Acquisition Technique and Needle Design Do Not Impact Specimen Adequacy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Data on adequacy of EUS guided biopsies using different tissue acquisition techniques and fine needle aspiration needle designs have been inconclusive. Data on newer fine needle biopsy (FNB) needles are scarce. This study compared the performance of 3 acquisition techniques and 2 fine needle biopsy designs in solid pancreatic lesions. METHODS: Single-center, randomized, pilot clinical trial (Trial registration number NCT03264092). Patients undergoing EUS biopsy of pancreatic lesions were randomized to 1 of 3 acquisition techniques (dry suction, wet suction, slow pull) and 1 of 2 22G FNB needle designs. The primary outcome was specimen cellularity. Secondary outcomes included blood contamination and number of passes needed for diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 52 (35.3%), 49 (33.3%) and 46 (31.3%) specimens were obtained with slow pull, dry suction and wet suction, respectively. A total of 56 (38%) and 91 (62%) specimens were obtained with each needle, respectively. No difference in cellularity scores was identified by technique (3.28 vs 3.55 vs 2.94; p = 0.081) or needle type (3.45 vs 3.15; p = 0.19). The same was true for blood contamination and diagnostic pass. A diagnosis was reached after 3 passes in 51 patients (93%). Histological diagnosis was possible in 45 specimens (82%). No severe adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Cellularity of pancreatic specimens obtained with FNB needles via EUS was not influenced by technique and needle design. Three passes were enough to obtain a histological diagnosis in most patients. Larger clinical trials are required to validate the results of this study.

Endoscopic ultrasound elastography for small solid pancreatic lesions with or without main pancreatic duct dilatation.

BACKGROUND: /Objectives: Endoscopic ultrasound elastography (EUS-EG) is useful for diagnosis of small solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs), particularly in excluding pancreatic cancer (PC), but its dependence on main pancreatic duct dilatation (MPDD) has not been examined. We aimed to investigate EUS-EG for diagnosis of small SPLs with and without MPDD. METHODS: Patients with pathologically diagnosed SPLs of ≤20 mm were included and retrospectively analyzed. Using the blue:green ratio, an EUS-EG image was classified as blue-dominant, equivalent, or green-dominant. Using multiple EUS-EG images per patient, a lesion with a greater number of blue-dominant than green-dominant images was classified as stiff, and the others as soft. EUS-EG images in random order were judged by three raters. Considering stiff SPLs as PC, diagnostic performance of EUS-EG was examined for SPLs with and without MPDD. RESULTS: Of 126 cases analyzed, 65 (52%) were diagnosed as PC, and 63 (50%) had MPDD. A total of 1077 EUS-EG images were examined (kappa coefficient = 0.783). Lesions were classified as stiff in 91 cases and soft in 35 (kappa coefficient = 0.932). The ratio of stiff to soft lesions was significantly higher in PC than in non-PC (62:3 vs. 29:32, P < 0.001). The sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value of a stiff lesion with vs. without MPDD for diagnosis of PC were 94%, 23%, and 50% vs. 100%, 60%, and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Using the EUS-EG stiffness classification for small SPLs, PC can be excluded with high confidence and concordance for a soft lesion without MPDD.

Endosonographers performing on-site evaluation of solid pancreatic specimens for EUS-guided biopsy: A formal training method and learning curves.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to examine the effects of a training program combining formal cytological curriculum and practical assessments on endosonographers and to determine how many operations were needed for training through learning curves. METHODS: A formal cytological curriculum was implemented in November 2019 for four endosonographers. The competency of endosonographers before and after the curriculum was judged by quantitative scores. From December 2019 to October 2020, trainees independently examined the adequacy and atypia grade of pancreatic specimens acquired by EUS-guided-fine-needle biopsy based on specific atypical grading criteria. The accuracy of the adequacy and atypia assessment of each trainee was calculated, and learning curves were drawn to evaluate the improvement. RESULTS: The median posttraining score improved by 87% from 49 to 91.5 out of 100. Ninety patients were enrolled in the practical assessments. The accuracy for specimen adequacy and atypia assessment of each trainee was 91.7%, 92.8%, 91.0%, and 89.3% and 80.0%, 82.1%, 81.0%, and 78.9%. The learning curves of each trainee showed a steady and significant improvement, and ninety cases were sufficient for satisfactory adequacy assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Basic knowledge of on-site cytopathologic evaluation can be gained through standardized and systematic training. Practical assessments showed that, at the completion of ninety cases, trained endosonographers reached a satisfactory level of recognizing specimen adequacy, but continue practice was needed for atypia assessment.

Diagnostic performance of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided elastography for solid pancreatic lesions: Shear-wave measurements versus strain elastography with histogram analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) elastography (EUS-EG) is a minimally invasive diagnostic method for evaluating tissue elasticity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of newly developed EUS shear-wave measurement (EUS-SWM) and to compare diagnostic performance between EUS-SWM and the conventional strain elastography (SE) for the measurement of elasticity of solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs). METHODS: From December 2017 until August 2019, we retrospectively reviewed 64 consecutive cases with SPLs who underwent both EUS-SWM and SE. EUS-SWM was used to measure the shear-wave velocity, Vs (m/s), and the unique measurement reliability index, VsN (%), in the target lesion. SE images were assessed by strain histogram (SH) analysis, and the mean strain value of the elasticity index was measured. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of EUS-SWM and SE with SH to characterize the SPLs. RESULTS: The Vs (m/s) values of SPLs were 2.19 for pancreatic cancer (PC), 1.31 for pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm (PanNEN), 2.56 for mass-forming pancreatitis (MFP) and 1.58 for metastatic tumors. Vs showed no significant difference based on the disease. The mean strain values were 45.5 for PC, 47.3 for PanNEN, and 74.5 for MFP. In the comparison of tissue elasticity between PC and MFP, Vs showed no significant difference (P = 0.5687); however, the mean strain value was significantly lower in PC cases (45.4 vs 74.5: P = 0.0007). CONCLUSION: Endoscopic ultrasound SWM tended to be unstable for the measurement of elasticity of SPLs, and conventional SE with SH was superior for their characterization.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy Needles Provide Higher Diagnostic Yield Compared to Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Needles When Sampling Solid Pancreatic Lesions: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Studies comparing the utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for solid pancreatic lesions have been inconclusive with no clear superiority. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the diagnostic accuracy and safety between the two sampling techniques. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of randomized controlled trials published between 2012 and 2019. The primary outcome was overall diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes included adverse event rates, cytopathologic and histopathologic accuracy, and the mean number of passes required to obtain adequate tissue between FNA and FNB needles. Fixed and random effect models with pooled estimates of target outcomes were developed. RESULTS: Eleven studies involving 1,365 participants were included for analysis. When compared to FNB, FNA had a significant reduction in diagnostic accuracy (81% and 87%, p=0.005). In addition, FNA provided reduced cytopathologic accuracy (82% and 89%, p=0.04) and an increased number of mean passes required compared to FNB (2.3 and 1.6, respectively, p<0.0001). There was no difference in adverse event rate between FNA and FNB needles (1.8% and 2.3% respectively, p=0.64). CONCLUSION: FNB provides superior diagnostic accuracy without compromising safety when compared to FNA. FNB should be readily considered by endosonographers when evaluating solid pancreatic masses.

Development and validation of a clinical prediction model to estimate the probability of malignancy in solid pancreatic lesions and explore its value in the atypical diagnostic category after endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNA).

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions is still a thorny problem for clinicians, even endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNA) still face problems like false negative. The present study aimed to first establish a model to predict the malignancy in solid pancreatic lesions and then explored its validity with atypical diagnostic category diagnosed by cytologists after EUS-FNA. METHODS: Clinical information of 360 cases diagnosed with solid pancreatic lesions between June 2013 and July 2019, and another 20 cases with atypical diagnostic category were collected retrospectively. These cases were divided into group A and group B according to the order of admission. Using the data of group A, multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to construct a malignancy prediction model which was then verified using group B. Furthermore, the characteristics of the malignancy between the group with atypical diagnostic category and group A were compared in order to evaluate the rationality of the model used in the atypical diagnostic category group, and its predictive ability in these lesions. RESULTS: Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that age, density, CA19-9 and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) grade, pancreatic duct, swollen lymph nodes, pancreas calcification, and weight loss were independent factors in predicting malignancy (P<0.05). The verification results showed that the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.854±0.042; 95% CI: 0.771-0.936. Univariate analysis showed no significant difference between the malignancy in atypical diagnostic category group and that in group A. For the atypical diagnostic category group, the sensitivity of this model was 83.33%, specificity 100%, positive predictive value (PPV) 100%, negative predictive value (NPV) 40%. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced age, low density of lesions, high CA19-9 and CEA grade, dilatation of pancreatic duct, swollen lymph nodes and weight loss were risk factors for malignancy, while calcification was a protective factor. The model had a relatively high predictive ability on malignancy in both solid pancreatic lesions and atypical diagnostic category group.

3 T MR perfusion of solid pancreatic lesions using dynamic contrast-enhanced DISCO sequence: Usefulness of qualitative and quantitative analyses in a pilot study.

PURPOSE: To assess the usefulness of qualitative and quantitative analyses of pancreatic focal diseases by using the dynamic contrast-enhanced Differential Subsampling with Cartesian Ordering (DISCO) sequence at 3 T MR device. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten patients without pancreatic diseases and twenty-five patients with pathologically confirmed pancreatic focal disease (ductal adenocarcinoma, n = 14; endocrine tumour, n = 8; focal chronic pancreatitis, n = 3), underwent MRI by 3 T-device. Multiphasic contrast-enhanced MR perfusion, consisting of a 3D axial navigator, based free-breathing T1-weighted DISCO sequence, was repeated for 5 min. A dose of 0.1 mL/kg of Gadobutrolo with a 20 mL saline flush was injected at a flow rate of 5 mL/s. Perfusion MRI were processed using a dedicated software package (GeniQ; GE Healthcare), obtaining both a time-signal-intensity curve (TSIC) and perfusion maps for each healthy pancreatic parenchyma and focal disease. The TSIC were grouped into four types according to their shapes and the MR perfusion parameters (Ktrans, Kep, Ve, IAUGC) were calculated. The one-way analysis of variance and the Student's t-test were used to correlate the quantitative and qualitative parameters with the tissue histology. RESULTS: All 10 patients with healthy pancreas presented a TSIC-type 1; TSIC-type 2 was observed in all 14 ductal adenocarcinomas and in one neuroendocrine tumour; TSIC-type 3 was recognized in the remaining 7 neuroendocrine neoplasms; TSIC-type 4 was identified in all 3 focal chronic pancreatitis. All perfusion parameters were significantly different (p < 0.0001) for each type of lesion. Furthermore, Ve was also very useful to discriminate between normal and pathological tissues (p = 0.0005). CONCLUSION: Qualitative and quantitative analyses of contrast-enhanced 3 T MR perfusion, using the dynamic contrast-enhanced DISCO sequence, could be considered an interesting tool to improve the diagnosis of focal pancreatic diseases, of solid lesions in particular. Further investigations with prospective larger sample studies are required to confirm these preliminary results.

[Value of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration in pretest prediction and diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma].

OBJECTIVE: To identify the predictive factors for differentiating pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) from other neoplastic solid pancreatic lesions and assess the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for diagnosis of PDAC. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of patients referred for EUS-FNA evaluation of pancreatic lesions in the Digestive Endoscopic Center of Nanfang Hospital between January, 2009 and May, 2016. The cases with unknown diagnosis, missing data, repeated punctures, cystic lesions and benign lesions were excluded from the analysis. The positivity rates of EUS-FNA were compared between patients with PDAC and those with non-PDAC lesions, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of EUS-FNA were assessed in the diagnosis of PDAC. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify the factors for differentiating PDAC from non-PDAC lesions based on the demographic characteristics, clinical presentations, laboratory data, and endoscopic ultrasonography imaging features of the patients. RESULTS: Among the 75 patients with solid neoplastic pancreatic lesions, 54 (72.0%) were found to have PDAC and 21 (28.0%) had non-PDAC lesions. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of PDAC were 77.8%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 63.6% and 84.0%, respectively. No significant difference was found in the positivity rate of EUS-FNA between patients with PDAC and those with non-PDAC lesions (77.8% vs 76.2%, P > 0.05). Multivariate regression analysis identified abdominal pain (OR=5.163, 95%CI: 1.093-24.389, P=0.038), lesion size (OR=0.926, 95%CI: 0.877-0.978, P=0.006), characteristics of the solid lesions (OR=7.105, 95%CI: 1.440-35.043, P=0.016), and evidence of metastases (OR=6.165, 95%CI: 1.332-28.533, P=0.020) as the independent factors for predicting PDAC. CONCLUSIONS: The pretest characteristics including abdominal pain, evidence of metastases, and lesion size and lesion characteristics defined by endoscopic ultrasonography findings can reliably predict a diagnosis of PDAC. EUS-FNA has a high sensitivity and a high specificity for the diagnosis of PDAC.

Value of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration in pretest prediction and diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma / 南方医科大学学报

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To identify the predictive factors for differentiating pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) from other neoplastic solid pancreatic lesions and assess the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for diagnosis of PDAC.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of patients referred for EUS-FNA evaluation of pancreatic lesions in the Digestive Endoscopic Center of Nanfang Hospital between January, 2009 and May, 2016. The cases with unknown diagnosis, missing data, repeated punctures, cystic lesions and benign lesions were excluded from the analysis. The positivity rates of EUS-FNA were compared between patients with PDAC and those with non-PDAC lesions, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of EUS-FNA were assessed in the diagnosis of PDAC. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify the factors for differentiating PDAC from non-PDAC lesions based on the demographic characteristics, clinical presentations, laboratory data, and endoscopic ultrasonography imaging features of the patients.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Among the 75 patients with solid neoplastic pancreatic lesions, 54 (72.0%) were found to have PDAC and 21 (28.0%) had non-PDAC lesions. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of PDAC were 77.8%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 63.6% and 84.0%, respectively. No significant difference was found in the positivity rate of EUS-FNA between patients with PDAC and those with non-PDAC lesions (77.8% 76.2%, > 0.05). Multivariate regression analysis identified abdominal pain (=5.163, 95%: 1.093-24.389, =0.038), lesion size (=0.926, 95%: 0.877-0.978, =0.006), characteristics of the solid lesions (=7.105, 95%: 1.440-35.043, =0.016), and evidence of metastases (=6.165, 95%: 1.332-28.533, =0.020) as the independent factors for predicting PDAC.</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>The pretest characteristics including abdominal pain, evidence of metastases, and lesion size and lesion characteristics defined by endoscopic ultrasonography findings can reliably predict a diagnosis of PDAC. EUS-FNA has a high sensitivity and a high specificity for the diagnosis of PDAC.</p>

Endoscopic ultrasound elastography for solid pancreatic lesions.

Elastography is one of technologies assisting diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions (SPL). This technology has been previously used for measuring the stiffness of various organs based on a principle of "harder the lesions, higher chance for malignancy". Two elastography techniques; strain and shear wave elastography, are available. For endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), only the former is existing. To interpret results of EUS elastography for SPL, 3 methods are used: (1) pattern recognition; (2) strain ratio; and (3) strain histogram. Based on results of existing studies, these 3 techniques provide high sensitivity but low to moderate specificity and accuracy rate. This review will summarize all available information in order to update current situation of using elastography for an evaluation of SPLs to readers.

Comparison of two techniques for endoscopic ultrasonography fine-needle aspiration in solid pancreatic mass.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is a newly imagine procedure for assessment and therapeutic in option. The aims of this study are comparison two techniques about EUS-fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), including successful tissue sampling, complication, procedure time, and safety. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 100 patients with pancreatic solid masses were in the study, 50 patients underwent EUS-FNA with negative pressure as Group 1 and 50 patients underwent EUS-FNA without negative pressure and stylet as Group 2 over a 36 months period. RESULTS: The study period was from March 2011 to January 2014. In total case, the male-to-female ratio was 1.27 with a mean age of 61.7 ± 1.3 years. The involvement of different regions of the pancreas, pancreatic head had the most frequent (69%) after that uncinate (12%), body (11%) and tail (8%). In 100 pancreatic EUS-FNA samples, 48% were interpreted as malignant on pathology evaluation, 15% as suspicious for malignancy, 27% as benign processes and 10% inadequate specimen. There were no significant differences between the adequacy of sample cells in two techniques (P < 0.148). CONCLUSION: The EUS-FNA without negative pressure and stylet technique was related with less contamination by blood and raise the diagnostic yield. We recommend further studies for better evaluation of our study with higher the cases because clinically the low the inadequate samples (6% vs. 14%) and less contamination with blood (20% vs. 50%) in the second group (P < 0.002).