• Users Online:140
  • 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  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 3  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 174-178

Comparison of two techniques for endoscopic ultrasonography fine-needle aspiration in solid pancreatic mass


Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Date of Submission21-Mar-2014
Date of Acceptance02-May-2014
Date of Web Publication16-Aug-2014

Correspondence Address:
Amir Alizadeh
Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2303-9027.138790

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

Background: Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is a newly imagine procedure for assessment and therapeutic in option. The aims of this study are comparison two techniques about EUS-fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), including successful tissue sampling, complication, procedure time, and safety. Materials and Methods: A total of 100 patients with pancreatic solid masses were in the study, 50 patients underwent EUS-FNA with negative pressure as Group 1 and 50 patients underwent EUS-FNA without negative pressure and stylet as Group 2 over a 36 months period. Results: The study period was from March 2011 to January 2014. In total case, the male-to-female ratio was 1.27 with a mean age of 61.7 ± 1.3 years. The involvement of different regions of the pancreas, pancreatic head had the most frequent (69%) after that uncinate (12%), body (11%) and tail (8%). In 100 pancreatic EUS-FNA samples, 48% were interpreted as malignant on pathology evaluation, 15% as suspicious for malignancy, 27% as benign processes and 10% inadequate specimen. There were no significant differences between the adequacy of sample cells in two techniques (P < 0.148). Conclusion: The EUS-FNA without negative pressure and stylet technique was related with less contamination by blood and raise the diagnostic yield. We recommend further studies for better evaluation of our study with higher the cases because clinically the low the inadequate samples (6% vs. 14%) and less contamination with blood (20% vs. 50%) in the second group (P < 0.002).

Keywords: Endoscopic ultrasonography-fine needle aspiration, solid pancreatic lesions, suction method, without suction and stylet


How to cite this article:
Alizadeh A, Hadizadeh M, Padashi M, Shahbaazi S, Molaee M, Shariatpanahi ZV. Comparison of two techniques for endoscopic ultrasonography fine-needle aspiration in solid pancreatic mass. Endosc Ultrasound 2014;3:174-8

How to cite this URL:
Alizadeh A, Hadizadeh M, Padashi M, Shahbaazi S, Molaee M, Shariatpanahi ZV. Comparison of two techniques for endoscopic ultrasonography fine-needle aspiration in solid pancreatic mass. Endosc Ultrasound [serial online] 2014 [cited 2020 Oct 19];3:174-8. Available from: http://www.eusjournal.com/text.asp?2014/3/3/174/138790


  Introduction Top


Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has developed a diagnostic imaging procedure to one that can also be used for invasive diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. [1],[2] Since this device is a part of the linear scan tool and allows different interventions to physician has widely welcomed. EUS-fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is capable takes samples from masses that are not saw by computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging and lesions too well encased by adjacent vascular structures to allow percutaneous biopsy. [3],[4],[5]

Solid pancreatic masses (exocrine and endocrine) classify as benign and malignant neoplasm. Diagnostic biopsy of a pancreatic malignancy is performed for the treatment of systemic spread of disease, local evidence of unrepeatability, or if neoadjuvant treatment is being contemplated. Positive biopsy can confirm the diagnosis, but a benign sample does not exclude the malignancy. [6],[7],[8] EUS-guided FNA is the best modality for taking a tissue diagnosis, even if the mass is weakly saw by other imaging modalities. [9] Intraperitoneal spread of the tumor occurs less with this procedure. [10] It assumes that suctioning dilutes the specimen by blood, and stylet injures malignant cells and raises suspicions or atypical results.

Thus in the current study, we prospectively evaluated the cellular yield of the technique EUS-FNA without suctioning and stylet at time of insertioning needle inside the biopsy channel of echoendoscope in patients with pancreatic masses.


  Materials and methods Top


This was a study conducted over 36 months (March 2011 to January 2014) at a Tertiary Care Center in Tehran, Iran. We prospectively evaluated two techniques EUS-FNA in 100 patients with solid pancreatic masses. Samples were selected randomized that these two methods used as an alternate.

Exclusion criteria were cystic masses, coagulopathy (international normalized ratio >1.5), thrombocytopenia (platelet count >50,000) advanced cardiovascular disease, stenosis or obstruction of esophagus, stomach or duodenum. This study conducted to observe all ethical and allow all patients.

A total of 100 patients with pancreatic masses were in the study, 50 patients underwent EUS-FNA with negative pressure was applied with a 10 mL syringe (Group 1) and 50 patients underwent EUS-FNA, the negative pressure was not applied and stylet was withdrawing before insertion. Indeed EUS-FNA was done without negative pressure and stylet (Group 2). When we saw the sheet of needle in contact with the mucosa of stomach or duodenum overlying the pancreatic mass. We were withdrawing the stylet 2-3 mm out of the needle and were inserting the needle inside the mass suddenly. Furthermore, we were pushed the stylet inside needle and were removed the stylet and begun the procedure.

To perform the procedure, the patient lied to the left lateral decubitus position and by using intravenous propofol for deep sedation. EUS for guided puncture of the lesion, carried by using Olympus equipment (UC 24OP-AL5) and Aloka Prosound color Doppler. Also, all samples carried out by a specialist. All FNA performed with a 22-gauge needle (Echotip; Wilson-Cook, Winston Salem, NC). A median of four needle passes performed. After the aspiration needle withdrawn from the endoscope, the endoscopist immediately washed the aspiration needle in 70% ethanol inside an appropriately labeled screw capped sterile plastic test tube. After transferring to laboratory, the tubes centrifuged lightly to concentrate the content at the bottom of the tube and processed for cytology evaluation. Then smears and sections of the cell block evaluated by an expert pathologist for determining the adequacy of specimen (presence of pancreatic cells) and other cytology findings such as the cellularity, necrosis, evidence of fibrosis and inflammation.

The cytology results classified as negative for malignancy, suspicious for malignancy, positive for malignancy, and inadequate cells for histological examination. Gold standard of diagnosis.

Statistical analysis

Patients were first analyzed as one group, then as two separate groups. Continuous variables reported as means and standard deviations (SD) or as median based on their distribution. The Pearson Chi-square used for comparison of two groups. Statistical analyses performed using SPSS 17 software (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL).


  Results Top


One hundred patients with a mean age (±SD) of 61.7 ± 1.3 years, including 56 male and 44 female, studied. 18 (18%) patients had a history of smoking, 10% taking alcohol, 5% opium addiction, 30% diabetes mellitus and 5% family history of pancreatic cancer. [Table 1] presents demographic characteristics and risk factors of each group.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics and risk factors of study groups

Click here to view


Most of the patients 67% presented with a complaint of loss of appetite, 52% had Weight loss, nausea in 17%, 43% presented with jaundice, 28% with pruritus, 65% presented with abdominal pain and 21% had anemia. Patients' clinical symptoms of Groups 1 and 2 are summarized in [Table 2].
Table 2. Clinical symptoms of study groups

Click here to view


Totally, 69% of the lesions were in the head of the pancreas, 12% were in the uncinate, 11% were in the body, and 8% were in the tail. The locations of the mass in the two groups are shown in [Table 3].
Table 3. Location mass in study groups

Click here to view


[Table 4] presents the time of the procedure, inadequate sampling and contamination of samples with blood. During sampling, two patient of the first group and three persons of the second group were hypotension, after 10 min comeback to normal that seem to be caused by the side effects of anesthesia drugs.

There were no significant differences between in cellularity of the two techniques (P < 0.148).
Table 4. Time of procedure, inadequate sampling and contamination of samples with blood

Click here to view


In 100 pancreatic EUS-FNA samples, 48% were interpreted as malignant on pathology evaluation, 15% as suspicious for malignancy, 27% as benign processes and 10% inadequate cells (7 samples in Groups 1 and 3 samples in Group 2). The cytology results in the two groups are shown in [Table 5].

Of the 48 malignant lesions, 41 were adenocarcinoma, 5 were neuroendocrine tumors and 2 was lymphoma. CT guided biopsy confirmed that 12 suspicious and 3 benign smears were adenocarcinoma. Of the 20 benign smears was later found to have autoimmune pancreatitis on clinical follow-ups.
Table 5. Cytology results in two groups

Click here to view


The median follow-up was 261 ± 71 days (120-360 days). The mean tumor size was 3.1 cm (range, 1.7-7.5 cm). Patients with malignant masses were older than benign masses (64 ± 10.3 compared with 51 ± 15, P < 0.005). The frequency of nondiagnostic results was significantly more in masses smaller than 3.5 cm (9 vs. 3, P < 0.05). Most of the nondiagnostic results were in the head of the pancreas (9 vs. 3, P < 0.05).


  Discussion Top


Endoscopic ultrasonography is progressively more uses in the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic carcinoma. [11] The indications for EUS-FNA in patients with pancreatic cancer are controversial. It is agreed that histological and cytological confirmation helps for planning chemotherapy or radiotherapy in patients who have distant metastases, are poorly surgical candidates, or have advanced locoregional disease. EUS-FNA is technically successful in 90-95% of procedures, with a sensitivity of 80-95% and a specificity of 100% for diagnosing pancreatic cancer. [12],[13] The accuracy is lower in the chronic pancreatitis (74 compared with 91% in one report), [14],[15] and in patients with obstructive jaundice. [16]

The benefits of EUS-guided FNA are illustrated by a study of 559 samples undergoing EUS-FNA for assessment of pancreatic masses. [16] In that study, when using strict cytologic criteria, the sensitivity for EUS-FNA diagnosing pancreatic carcinoma was 77%, with a specificity of 99%. When patients with atypical or suspicious cytology were reclassified as positive for malignancy, the sensitivity raised to 93%, without a change in the specificity.

The accuracy of EUS-FNA can improve with more FNA passes and onsite histologic interpretation. [17]

In one report a cytopathologist in attendance for all aspiration procedures accuracy was raised (95%) in diagnosing pancreatic cancer. [18] The absence of a cytopathologist required an average of at least five to six passes from the pancreatic mass to make sure enough cellularity. In another study, there was a high yield from only two FNA passes when the samples were looked at by histology and cytology. [19] Other approaches such as rising needle size or needle passing may harbors higher complications.

In another study was publishing in 2014 by Nakai et al., the slow-pull technique result in lower scores for cellularity (≥2 for 37.5% vs. 76.7%) but scores for contamination with blood were lower (≥2 for 25.0% vs. 66.7%) and sensitivity of diagnosis of malignancy were higher (90.0% vs. 67.9%) when a 25-gauge FNA needle were used. There were no significant differences between the two techniques when a 22-gauge needle was used. In multivariate analysis of 82 cases with malignancy, the slow-pull technique (odds ratio (OR): 1.92, P = 0.028), tumor size ≥25 mm (OR: 4.64, P < 0.001), and tumor location in the body or tail (OR: 2.82, P < 0.001) were associated with greater sensitivity. [20]

In all above studies, the EUS-FNA technique was accompanied by suctioning and stylet in place to gain most specimens. Suctioning, by diluting the specimen with blood (especially at the end of suctioning) and stylet traumatizes cells at the insertion cause diagnostic problems for cytologist and lowers the diagnostic yield.

In the current study, we reviewed our experience without suctioning and use of the stylet in EUS-FNA in patients with solid pancreatic masses. Although statistically significant differences were not found between the two methods (P < 0.148), but clinically the low the inadequate samples in the second group (6% vs. 14%) and less contamination with blood (20% vs. 50%) in the second group(P < 0.002). we recommend the second method. With this assumption, we performed this procedure without suctioning and stylet and found that false negative results were decreased. Larger studies are needed to confirm these benefits.

 
  References Top

1.Artifon EL, Giovannini M, Sun S, et al. Therapeutic endoscopic ultrasonography. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2013;2013:390821.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Azad JS, Verma D, Kapadia AS, et al. Can U.S. GI fellowship programs meet American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommendations for training in EUS? A survey of U.S. GI fellowship program directors. Gastrointest Endosc 2006;64:235-41.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Fritscher-Ravens A, Topalidis T, Bobrowski C, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in focal pancreatic lesions: A prospective intraindividual comparison of two needle assemblies. Endoscopy 2001;33:484-90.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.Gress F, Gottlieb K, Sherman S, et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy of suspected pancreatic cancer. Ann Intern Med 2001;134:459-64.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.Harewood GC, Wiersema MJ. Endosonography-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in the evaluation of pancreatic masses. Am J Gastroenterol 2002;97:1386-91.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.Erickson RA, Garza AA. Impact of endoscopic ultrasound on the management and outcome of pancreatic carcinoma. Am J Gastroenterol 2000;95:2248-54.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.Suits J, Frazee R, Erickson RA. Endoscopic ultrasound and fine needle aspiration for the evaluation of pancreatic masses. Arch Surg 1999;134:639-42.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.Cahn M, Chang K, Nguyen P, et al. Impact of endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration on the surgical management of pancreatic cancer. Am J Surg 1996;172:470-2.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.Tummala P, Junaidi O, Agarwal B. Imaging of pancreatic cancer: An overview. J Gastrointest Oncol 2011;2:168-74.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.Pancreas Cancer. Clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and surgical staging of exocrine pancreatic cancer. http://www.aboutcancer.com/pacreas_utd_807.htm. [Last accessed on 2014 Feb 5].  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.Eloubeidi MA, Jhala D, Chhieng DC, et al. Yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy in patients with suspected pancreatic carcinoma. Cancer 2003;99:285-92.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.Sãftoiu A, Vilmann P. Role of endoscopic ultrasound in the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer. J Clin Ultrasound 2009;37:1-17.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.Siddiqui AA, Brown LJ, Hong SK, et al. Relationship of pancreatic mass size and diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration. Dig Dis Sci 2011;56:3370-5.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.Krishna NB, Mehra M, Reddy AV, et al. EUS/EUS-FNA for suspected pancreatic cancer: Influence of chronic pancreatitis and clinical presentation with or without obstructive jaundice on performance characteristics. Gastrointest Endosc 2009;70:70-9.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.Varadarajulu S, Tamhane A, Eloubeidi MA. Yield of EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic masses in the presence or the absence of chronic pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc 2005;62:728-36.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.Turner BG, Cizginer S, Agarwal D, et al. Diagnosis of pancreatic neoplasia with EUS and FNA: A report of accuracy. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;71:91-8.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.Erickson RA, Sayage-Rabie L, Beissner RS. Factors predicting the number of EUS-guided fine-needle passes for diagnosis of pancreatic malignancies. Gastrointest Endosc 2000;51:184-90.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.Iglesias-Garcia J, Dominguez-Munoz JE, Abdulkader I, et al. Influence of on-site cytopathology evaluation on the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of solid pancreatic masses. Am J Gastroenterol 2011;106:1705-10.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.Möller K, Papanikolaou IS, Toermer T, et al. EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: High yield of 2 passes with combined histologic-cytologic analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2009;70:60-9.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.Nakai Y, Isayama H, Chang KJ, et al. Slow pull versus suction in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic solid masses. Dig Dis Sci 2014;59:1578-85.  Back to cited text no. 20
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5]


This article has been cited by
1 Slow-pull technique yields better quality smears: prospective comparison of slow-pull and standard suction techniques of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration
Renáta Bor,Béla Vasas,Anna Fábián,Mónika Szucs,Árpád Füredi,László Czakó,Mariann Rutka,Klaudia Farkas,Tamás Molnár,Ágnes Milassin,Anita Bálint,Kata Szántó,Sándor Hamar,László Kaizer,László Tiszlavicz,Zoltán Szepes
Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology. 2020; : 1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Safety and efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for pancreatic masses: A prospective multicenter study
Shigetaka Yoshinaga,Takao Itoi,Kenji Yamao,Ichiro Yasuda,Atsushi Irisawa,Hiroshi Imaoka,Takayoshi Tsuchiya,Shinpei Doi,Akane Yamabe,Yoshitaka Murakami,Hideki Ishikawa,Yutaka Saito
Digestive Endoscopy. 2019;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 Suction versus slow-pull for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic tumors: a prospective randomized trial
Spencer Cheng,Vitor O. Brunaldi,Mauricio K. Minata,Danielle A. Chacon,Eduardo B. da Silveira,Diogo TH. de Moura,Marcos EL. dos Santos,Sergio E. Matuguma,Dalton M. Chaves,Raony F. França,Alfredo L. Jacomo,Everson LA. Artifon
HPB. 2019;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
4 Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Specimen Collection and Evaluation Techniques Affect Diagnostic Accuracy
Ji Young Bang,Udayakumar Navaneethan,Muhammad K. Hasan,Robert Hawes,Shyam Varadarajulu
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2018;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
5 Analysis of the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration in patients with a suspected pancreatic malignancy
Lei Yang,Tomohisa Iwai,Mitsuhiro Kida,Hiroshi Yamauchi,Kosuke Okuwaki,Hiroshi Imaizumi,Tohru Kaneko,Rikiya Hasegawa,Eiji Miyata,Koizumi Wasaburo
Revista Espańola de Enfermedades Digestivas. 2018; 110: 544
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
6 Imaging modalities for characterising focal pancreatic lesions
Lawrence MJ Best,Vishal Rawji,Stephen P Pereira,Brian R Davidson,Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
7 Advances in endoscopic ultrasound guided tissue acquisition
Silvia Carrara,Francesco Auriemma,Shyam Varadarajulu
Techniques in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
8 Diagnostic accuracies of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with distinct negative pressure suction techniques in solid lesions: A retrospective study
Ronghua Wang,Jinlin Wang,Yawen Li,Yaqi Duan,Xiaoli Wu,Bin Cheng
Oncology Letters. 2017; 13(5): 3709
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
9 Endoscopic ultrasonography guided-fine needle aspiration for the diagnosis of solid pancreaticobiliary lesions: Clinical aspects to improve the diagnosis
Hiroyuki Matsubayashi
World Journal of Gastroenterology. 2016; 22(2): 628
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
10 Endoscopic ultrasonography: Transition towards the future of gastro-intestinal diseases
Stefania De Lisi
World Journal of Gastroenterology. 2016; 22(5): 1779
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
11 Slow-pull and different conventional suction techniques in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic solid lesions using 22-gauge needles
Jia-Ying Chen,Qing-Yu Ding,Yang Lv,Wen Guo,Fa-Chao Zhi,Si-De Liu,Tian-Ming Cheng
World Journal of Gastroenterology. 2016; 22(39): 8790
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

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

 
  In this article
   Abstract
  Introduction
   Materials and me...
  Results
  Discussion
   References
   Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1557    
    Printed25    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded296    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 11    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]