• Users Online:1215
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 

 Table of Contents  
LETTER TO EDITOR
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 432-433

Macroscopic on-site evaluation during EUS-fine needle biopsy with combined cyto and histological analysis may overcome the need of rapid on-site evaluation


Department of Gastroenterology, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário São João; Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

Date of Submission19-Oct-2019
Date of Acceptance12-Nov-2019
Date of Web Publication13-Dec-2019

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Pedro Costa-Moreira
Department of Gastroenterology, Centro Hospitalar São João, Al. Prof. Hernâni Monteiro, 4200-319 Porto
Portugal
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/eus.eus_72_19

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Costa-Moreira P, Vilas-Boas F, Moutinho-Ribeiro P, Macedo G. Macroscopic on-site evaluation during EUS-fine needle biopsy with combined cyto and histological analysis may overcome the need of rapid on-site evaluation. Endosc Ultrasound 2019;8:432-3

How to cite this URL:
Costa-Moreira P, Vilas-Boas F, Moutinho-Ribeiro P, Macedo G. Macroscopic on-site evaluation during EUS-fine needle biopsy with combined cyto and histological analysis may overcome the need of rapid on-site evaluation. Endosc Ultrasound [serial online] 2019 [cited 2020 Jan 25];8:432-3. Available from: http://www.eusjournal.com/text.asp?2019/8/6/432/272864



Dear Editor,

We read with great interest the article of Oh et al.[1] about the use of macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) as an adjunct technique in EUS guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB). The authors reported that MOSE can improve the diagnostic accuracy of FNB samples of up to 94.5%. Due to the limited availability of rapid-onset site evaluation (ROSE), they argued that EUS-guided FNB with MOSE can replace EUS-FNA with ROSE in terms of optimal histological obtaining and diagnostic accuracy. However, the direct comparison of the two techniques was not previously reported.

In our center, we aimed to assess the accuracy of simultaneous cytological/histological analysis after MOSE in EUS-guided FNB, as well as to compare the diagnostic yield of this method with the use of ROSE during EUS-FNA.

For this purpose, we performed a prospective study with a consecutive cohort of patients who underwent EUS-FNB for solid upper gastrointestinal lesions, from January to December 2018, in a single, tertiary center. After EUS-FNB, the biopsy specimen was expressed entirely onto a slide. The macroscopic visible core (MVC) was then fixed in formalin for histological evaluation, and the residual sample was used in a smear for cytological assessment (combined cytological-histological analysis), as described by Iwashita et al.[2] Control cases were obtained using a historical cohort from the same center, of patients submitted to ROSE during EUS-FNA of pancreatic solid lesions. The final diagnosis was based on the pathology report.

We included 52 cases (mean age 61.1 ± 6.5 years, 58% males) with pancreatic solid lesions (51.9%), lymph nodes (19.2%), and subepithelial lesions of the digestive tract (28.8%). Lesions had a mean diameter of 37.1 ± 18.0 mm. For EUS-FNB we used mostly “Franseen” (65.4%) and “Fork-tip” (25.0%) type FNB needles, with a median number of 3 (IQR 2-3) passes.

The obtained MVC was satisfactory for histological evaluation in 82.7%. The combined cytological-histological analysis revealed a diagnostic yield of 86.5%. MOSE followed by combined cytological-histological analysis showed a sensitivity of 93.3%, specificity of 85.7%, and a positive predictive value of 97.7% to obtain an adequate sample for pathological diagnosis.

When compared with the cohort submitted to EUS-FNA with ROSE (61 lesions, with a mean diameter of 37.6 mm ± 35 mm), the combined cytological-histological analysis revealed similar diagnostic accuracy (MOSE: 86.5%, ROSE: 83.6%, P = 0.66).

Our results support that EUS-guided FNB with MOSE and combined cytological-histological analysis allow an overall diagnostic yield similar to ROSE. With this easy-to-perform technique, many difficulties related to the use of ROSE can be overcome, without decreasing the accuracy of pathological diagnosis.

Of note, in our cohort, the percentage of identified histological core was lower than the results presented by Oh et al.[1] (86.5% vs. 94.9%, respectively), what in part can be justified by the absence, in our protocol, of the use of the paper filter to absorb the blood clots after expelling FNB samples.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Oh D, Seo DW, Hong SM, et al. The impact of macroscopic on-site evaluation using filter paper in EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy. Endosc Ultrasound 2019;8:342-7.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Iwashita T, Yasuda I, Mukai T, et al. Macroscopic on-site quality evaluation of biopsy specimens to improve the diagnostic accuracy during EUS-guided FNA using a 19-gauge needle for solid lesions: A single-center prospective pilot study (MOSE study). Gastrointest Endosc 2015;81:177-85.  Back to cited text no. 2
    




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
   References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed157    
    Printed2    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded36    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]