Literature DB >> 25088987

Onsite cytopathology evaluation and ancillary studies beneficial in EUS-FNA of pancreatic, mediastinal, intra-abdominal, and submucosal lesions.

Shafqat Mehmood1, Amna Jahan, Asif Loya, Muhammed Aasim Yusuf.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration cytology (EUS-FNA) is considered to be a minimally invasive and safe technique, with low complication rates, for obtaining tissue samples from pancreatic lesions, and mediastinal and intra-abdominal nodes. We retrospectively reviewed the diagnostic accuracy of this method at a tertiary care hospital in Pakistan.
METHODS: The medical records of 393 consecutive patients referred to the gastroenterology service from August 2008 to September 2013 were reviewed in this retrospective study. The mean age of the patients at presentation was 51.2 years (range 6-89; 56.7% males). Major indications for referral were to establish a diagnosis in patients with a pancreatic mass or lymphadenopathy of unknown origin detected on CT scan or PET-CT (n = 235), to exclude lymph node metastasis in those with a known primary tumor (n = 114), and to rule out relapse of lymphoma after treatment or during follow up (n = 44). Of 393 patients, 181 had mediastinal lymphadenopathy, 115 had pancreatic lesions; 79 had intra-abdominal lymphadenopathy and 18 patients had miscellaneous lesions (gastric mass, splenic, retroperitoneal, esophageal, or adrenal lesions).
RESULTS: A mean of 2.2 passes per patient were made; 85% of patients had ≤ 3 passes. The initial rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE) was positive in 363 of 393 (92.3%) patients, but on final cytopathological interpretation, 369 of 393 (93.9%) patients had an adequate specimen for diagnosis. Sufficient material for cytopathology was obtained in 369 patients (93.9%), whereas 24 patients (6.1%) had inadequate aspirate on EUS-FNA as assessed by final cytopathological interpretation. The concordance between final cytopathological diagnoses and ROSE was 98.2%. Follow-up data were available for 296 (75.3%) patients, whereas 97 patients were lost to follow up. Of these 296 patients, 283 of 296 patients were true positive, 9 of 296 were true negative, and 4 of 296 patients were false negative. The overall calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 98.6, 100, 100, and 69.2%, respectively. The major diagnoses that we obtained were granulomata (n = 114), adenocarcinoma (n = 104), reactive nodes (n = 35), metastatic carcinoma (n = 35), Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL; n = 19) and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL; n = 11), neuroendocrine tumors (n = 11), spindle cell lesions (n = 7), benign lesions (n = 9), cystic neoplasms (n = 6), solid pseudopapillary neoplasm (n = 3), and miscellaneous (n = 15). Only 3 of 393 patients (0.7%) suffered a complication as a result of EUS-FNA, and all three were successfully managed conservatively.
CONCLUSION: EUS-FNA, combined with ROSE, is a safe and highly effective technique in experienced hands with excellent diagnostic accuracy and low complication rates.
© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Pakistan; ROSE; ancillary techniques; endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology (EUS-FNA); onsite cytopathological evaluation

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25088987     DOI: 10.1002/dc.23207

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diagn Cytopathol        ISSN: 1097-0339            Impact factor:   1.582


  8 in total

Review 1.  Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Biopsy for Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Pelvic Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Chaoqun Han; Rong Lin; Jun Liu; Xiaohua Hou; Wei Qian; Zhen Ding
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2015-09-04       Impact factor: 3.199

2.  This 'Rose' Has no Thorns-Diagnostic Utility of 'Rapid On-Site Evaluation' (ROSE) in Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology.

Authors:  Kanchan Kothari; Santosh Tummidi; Mona Agnihotri; Pragati Sathe; Leena Naik
Journal:  Indian J Surg Oncol       Date:  2019-09-12

Review 3.  Imaging modalities for characterising focal pancreatic lesions.

Authors:  Lawrence Mj Best; Vishal Rawji; Stephen P Pereira; Brian R Davidson; Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-04-17

Review 4.  "Clinical" cytology for endoscopists: A practical guide.

Authors:  Michael Hocke; Theodoros Topalidis; Barbara Braden; Christoph F Dietrich
Journal:  Endosc Ultrasound       Date:  2017 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.628

5.  Falling under the umbrella cells: A single institutional experience and literature review of urothelial carcinoma presenting as a primary pancreatic mass on endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration.

Authors:  Michael Chambers; Konrad Krall; Shantel Hébert-Magee
Journal:  Cytojournal       Date:  2017-03-20       Impact factor: 2.091

Review 6.  A quarter century of EUS-FNA: Progress, milestones, and future directions.

Authors:  Irina Mihaela Cazacu; Adriana Alexandra Luzuriaga Chavez; Adrian Saftoiu; Peter Vilmann; Manoop S Bhutani
Journal:  Endosc Ultrasound       Date:  2018 May-Jun       Impact factor: 5.628

7.  Tumor Location in the Head/Uncinate Process and Presence of Fibrosis Impair the Adequacy of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition of Solid Pancreatic Tumors.

Authors:  Thomas Togliani; Andrea Lisotti; Rosa Rinaldi; Adele Fornelli; Stefano Pilati; Nicola Passigato; Pietro Fusaroli
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-21       Impact factor: 6.575

Review 8.  Efforts to improve the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic tumors.

Authors:  Akane Yamabe; Atsushi Irisawa; Manoop S Bhutani; Goro Shibukawa; Mariko Fujisawa; Ai Sato; Yoshitsugu Yoshida; Noriyuki Arakawa; Tsunehiko Ikeda; Ryo Igarashi; Takumi Maki; Shogo Yamamoto
Journal:  Endosc Ultrasound       Date:  2016 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.628

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.