BACKGROUND AND AIM: KRAS mutation analysis may provide ancillary diagnostic yield in an endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided histopathological evaluation. We evaluated the clinical impact of KRAS mutation analysis with cytological and histological evaluations in EUS-guided tissue sampling, using a core biopsy needle for solid liver masses. METHODS: EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) using a core biopsy needle was performed in patients with primary or metastatic liver masses that were suspected malignancies. KRAS mutations were analyzed in all specimens obtained. The peptide nucleic acid (PNA)-mediated polymerase chain reaction (PCR) clamping method was compared with a next-generation sequencing (NGS) method for detecting KRAS mutations. RESULTS: EUS-FNB with a core biopsy needle was performed in 28 patients with solid liver masses located in the liver's left lobe. The diagnostic accuracies for malignancy of on-site cytology, cytology using Papanicolaou staining, and histology including immunohistochemical stains were 82.1%, 85.7%, and 89.3%, respectively. KRAS gene mutations were observed in 14.3% of patients by the PNA-PCR clamping method. The NGS method detected more KRAS mutations than the PNA-PCR clamping method: in 25% of patients. Adding the results of KRAS mutation analysis to the cytohistopathological evaluation, the overall diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided tissue sampling was 96.4%. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-guided tissue sampling for solid liver masses in the left lobe provided high diagnostic accuracy from cytological and histological evaluations. KRAS mutation analysis provided additional diagnostic yield in patients with inconclusive cytohistopathological results from EUS-guided tissue sampling. The NGS method detected additional KRAS mutations in patients with negative PNA-mediated PCR clamping test results.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: KRAS mutation analysis may provide ancillary diagnostic yield in an endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided histopathological evaluation. We evaluated the clinical impact of KRAS mutation analysis with cytological and histological evaluations in EUS-guided tissue sampling, using a core biopsy needle for solid liver masses. METHODS: EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) using a core biopsy needle was performed in patients with primary or metastatic liver masses that were suspected malignancies. KRAS mutations were analyzed in all specimens obtained. The peptide nucleic acid (PNA)-mediated polymerase chain reaction (PCR) clamping method was compared with a next-generation sequencing (NGS) method for detecting KRAS mutations. RESULTS: EUS-FNB with a core biopsy needle was performed in 28 patients with solid liver masses located in the liver's left lobe. The diagnostic accuracies for malignancy of on-site cytology, cytology using Papanicolaou staining, and histology including immunohistochemical stains were 82.1%, 85.7%, and 89.3%, respectively. KRAS gene mutations were observed in 14.3% of patients by the PNA-PCR clamping method. The NGS method detected more KRAS mutations than the PNA-PCR clamping method: in 25% of patients. Adding the results of KRAS mutation analysis to the cytohistopathological evaluation, the overall diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided tissue sampling was 96.4%. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-guided tissue sampling for solid liver masses in the left lobe provided high diagnostic accuracy from cytological and histological evaluations. KRAS mutation analysis provided additional diagnostic yield in patients with inconclusive cytohistopathological results from EUS-guided tissue sampling. The NGS method detected additional KRAS mutations in patients with negative PNA-mediated PCR clamping test results.