Display options
Cite
Schneider AR, Nerlich A, Topalidis T, et al. Specialized clinical cytology may improve the results of EUS (endoscopic ultrasound)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) from pancreatic tumors. Endosc Int Open. 2014;3(2):E134-7doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1390886.
Schneider, A. R., Nerlich, A., Topalidis, T., & Schepp, W. (2015). Specialized clinical cytology may improve the results of EUS (endoscopic ultrasound)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) from pancreatic tumors. Endoscopy international open, 3(2), E134-7. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1390886
Schneider, Arne R, et al. "Specialized clinical cytology may improve the results of EUS (endoscopic ultrasound)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) from pancreatic tumors." Endoscopy international open vol. 3,2 (2015): E134-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1390886
Schneider AR, Nerlich A, Topalidis T, Schepp W. Specialized clinical cytology may improve the results of EUS (endoscopic ultrasound)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) from pancreatic tumors. Endosc Int Open. 2015 Apr;3(2):E134-7. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1390886. Epub 2014 Dec 05. PMID: 26135655; PMCID: PMC4477028.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Endosc Int Open. 2015 Apr;3(2):E134-7. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1390886. Epub 2014 Dec 05.

Specialized clinical cytology may improve the results of EUS (endoscopic ultrasound)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) from pancreatic tumors.

Endoscopy international open

Arne R Schneider, Andreas Nerlich, Theodoros Topalidis, Wolfgang Schepp

Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Gastroenterological Oncology, Bogenhausen Academic Teaching Hospital, Munich Municipal Hospital Holding, Munich, Germany.
  2. Department of Pathology, Bogenhausen Academic Teaching Hospital, Munich Municipal Hospital Holding, Munich, Germany.
  3. Institute of Cytopathology, Hannover, Germany.

PMID: 26135655 PMCID: PMC4477028 DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1390886

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: A variety of factors (needle type, needle passes, tumor location, cytological assessment, etc.) may influence the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology (EUS-FNAC) from pancreatic tumors. Whereas most published studies report a diagnostic accuracy of > 80 % for EUS-FNAC, the results in routine settings are often considerably lower. This retrospective study aimed to define the effect of switching microscopic assessment from a standard pathology department to a highly specialized institute of cytology.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 63 patients underwent EUS-FNAC of solid or semisolid pancreatic masses. Specimens of the first consecutive 20 cases (Phase 1) were assessed by the local department of pathology. Then in Phase 2, involving another 43 subsequent cases, a specialized cytology laboratory examined all aspirates. All EUS-FNACs were performed in the same manner, using a 22-gauge needle. After cytological evaluation, all patients either underwent surgery or were followed up for at least 6 months.

RESULTS: Of the tumors, 56 were solid and 7 semisolid; the mean size was 30 mm. Sensitivity (sens.), specificity (spec.), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of EUS-FNAC were 38.5 % (95 %CI [confidence interval] 13.9 - 68.4 %), 100 % (59.0 - 100 %), 100 % (47.8 - 100 %), and 46.7 % (21.3 - 73.4 %) during Phase 1 versus 91.4 % (95 %CI 76.9 - 98.2 %), 100 % (63.1 - 100 %), 100 % (89.1 - 100 %), and 72.7 % (39.0 - 94.0 %) during Phase 2.

CONCLUSION: These results emphasize the considerable impact of a dedicated cytological evaluation on the results of EUS-FNAC.

References

  1. Br J Surg. 2009 Jan;96(1):5-20 - PubMed
  2. HPB (Oxford). 2010 Aug;12 (6):389-95 - PubMed
  3. Cytopathology. 2006 Feb;17(1):18-26 - PubMed
  4. J Gastrointest Surg. 2007 Jul;11(7):813-9 - PubMed
  5. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Jul;70(1):60-9 - PubMed
  6. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008 Apr;23 (4):567-70 - PubMed
  7. Diagn Cytopathol. 2014 Apr;42(4):338-50 - PubMed
  8. Dig Endosc. 2011 May;23 Suppl 1:29-33 - PubMed
  9. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009 Mar;24(3):384-90 - PubMed
  10. Dig Liver Dis. 2012 Apr;44(4):311-4 - PubMed
  11. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005 Nov;62(5):728-36; quiz 751, 753 - PubMed
  12. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005 Jan;61(1):76-9 - PubMed
  13. Endoscopy. 2004 May;36(5):397-401 - PubMed
  14. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009 Jan;24(1):90-6 - PubMed
  15. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012 Apr;136(4):447-53 - PubMed
  16. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Aug;76(2):321-7 - PubMed
  17. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Aug;76(2):336-43 - PubMed
  18. Cytopathology. 2006 Feb;17(1):34-41 - PubMed
  19. Gut Liver. 2009 Jun;3(2):116-21 - PubMed
  20. Cancer. 2003 Feb 25;99(1):44-50 - PubMed
  21. Endoscopy. 2011 Oct;43(10 ):897-912 - PubMed
  22. Endoscopy. 2005 Apr;37(4):362-6 - PubMed
  23. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2009;23 (5):743-59 - PubMed
  24. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011 Aug;26(8):1256-61 - PubMed
  25. Dig Dis. 2008;26(4):377-82 - PubMed
  26. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003 Dec;98(12):2663-8 - PubMed
  27. World J Gastroenterol. 2007 Jan 14;13(2):289-93 - PubMed
  28. Dig Liver Dis. 2011 Aug;43(8):647-52 - PubMed

Publication Types