Methods of tissue preparation after EUS‐guided tissue acquisition without rapid on‐site assessment: Results of a randomized study
- 11 February 2023
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology
- Vol. 38 (5), 733-739
- https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.16137
Abstract
In the absence of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), it is not clear which method of tissue preparation is best to process tissue obtained from EUS guidance. Cytological smearing (CS), cell block (CB), and direct histology (DH) are the available techniques. AimTo compare the diagnostic yield of three techniques of tissue preparation for EUS-guided tissue acquisition without ROSE. MethodsPatients who were referred for EUS-FNA of peri-gastrointestinal masses were recruited. Without ROSE, each lesion was biopsied with three needle passes, and the order in which tissue is prepared was randomized to either (i) CS + CB, (ii) CB only, or (iii) DH only. The prepared specimens were reviewed. ResultsA total of 243 specimens were taken from 81 patients. Tissue diagnosis was achieved in 78/81 (96.3%) of patients, including 63 neoplasms (PDAC [n = 45], pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors [PNET; n = 4], cholangiocarcinoma [n = 5], metastatic disease [n = 4], lymphoma [n = 1], linitis plastica [n = 2], leiomyoma [n = 2]) and 15 benign pathologies (chronic pancreatitis [n = 8], reactive nodes [n = 5], inflammatory biliary stricture [n = 1], and pancreatic rest [n = 1]). The three non-diagnostic cases were found to be PDAC (n = 2) and PNET (n = 1). Sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy was highest with DH (94 and 95%), which was significantly better than that by CS + CB (43 and 54%; P = 0.0001) and CB-only preparations (32 and 48.6%; P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference between the CS + CB and CB-only arms (P > 0.22). ConclusionWithout ROSE, our findings suggest that with just a single pass, DH should be the tissue preparation method of choice given its significantly higher diagnostic accuracy compared with CS and/or CB techniques.Keywords
This publication has 28 references indexed in Scilit:
- The presence of a cytopathologist increases the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine needle aspiration cytology for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a meta‐analysisCytopathology, 2013
- Feasibility and yield of a novel 22-gauge histology EUS needle in patients with pancreatic masses: a multicenter prospective cohort studySurgical Endoscopy, 2013
- Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic cancer: A meta-analysisPancreatology, 2013
- High single-pass diagnostic yield of a new 25-gauge core biopsy needle for EUS-guided FNA biopsy in solid pancreatic lesionsGastrointestinal Endoscopy, 2013
- Direct histological processing of EUS biopsies enables rapid molecular biomarker analysis for interventional pancreatic cancer trialsPancreatology, 2012
- Relationship of Pancreatic Mass Size and Diagnostic Yield of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle AspirationDigestive Diseases and Sciences, 2011
- Factors Associated with Inadequate Tissue Yield in EUS-FNA for Gastric SMTISRN Gastroenterology, 2011
- BSCC Code of Practice – fine needle aspiration cytologyCytopathology, 2009
- Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic masses with rapid on-site cytological evaluation by endosonographers without attendance of cytopathologistsThe Esophagus, 2009
- Routine Air Drying of All Smears Prepared During Fine Needle Aspiration and Intraoperative Cytology StudiesActa Cytologica, 2001