Article

Cell block technique and cytological smears for the differential diagnosis of pancreatic neoplasms after endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration.

Echoendoscopy Unit, 9 de Julho Hospital and Ribeirão Preto Medical School-USP, São Paulo, Brazil.
Acta gastroenterologica Latinoamericana 12/2008; 38(4):246-51.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Cytological smear is widely employed to analyse specimens obtained from endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), but false-negative or inconclusive results may occur. A better diagnostic yield can be obtained from processing cell blocks. We compared the effectiveness of the cell block technique and cytological smear in the diagnosis of pancreatic neoplasms. From January 1997 to December 2006, 611 patients with pancreatic tumors were evaluated by EUS-FNA. Surgery was performed in 356 cases, and the other 255 patients were followed clinically for an average of 12.8 months. In total, 282 (46.2%) patients were evaluated with cytological smears, and 329 (53.8%) were evaluated using only cell blocks. Malignant disease was detected in 352 (57.6%) cases, in which adenocarcinoma accounted for 236 (67%) cases. A benign disease was found in the other 259 cases, including 35.1% focal chronic pancreatitis and 32.4% pseudocysts. Aspiration samples were satisfactory in 595 (97.4%) patients after an average of 2.2 (1-4) passes of the needle. Regardless of the cytopathological examination technique, EUS-FNA confirmed malignancy in 269 of 352 (76.4%) cases, and a benign disease in 257 of 259 (99.2%) cases. For patients who received surgery with histologically confirmed lesions, the sensitivity specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of the smears versus cell blocks in diagnosing pancreatic tumors were 61% versus 85.2% (P<0.001), 100% versus 93.1%, 100% versus 98.4%, 36% versus 55.1% (P=0.046) and 68% versus 86.5% (P<0.001), respectively The cell block technique demonstrated a hig her sensitivity, negative predictive value and accuracy than cytological smears.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
85 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: EUS-FNA of pancreatic lesion has been put into clinical use widely in many centers. The present meta-analysis was conducted to study the diagnostic role of EUS-FNA in pancreatic cancer. METHODS: A comprehensive review of study on the precision of EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. A random effects model was used to pool the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). A summary receiver-operating characteristic (SROC) was constructed to summarize the overall test performance. RESULTS: Thirty-one articles were eligible for the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR and DOR of EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer were 0.89 (95% CI: 0.88-0.90), 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95-0.97), 16.88 (95% CI: 10.63-26.79), 0.13 (95%CI: 0.10-0.16) and 150.80 (95%CI: 95.94-237.03) respectively. In subgroup meta-analysis of the prospective studies, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR and DOR were 0.91 (95% CI: 0.90-0.93), 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91-0.96), 11.19 (95% CI: 6.36-19.69), 0.10 (95% CI: 0.07-0.15) and 125.22 (62.37-251.41). The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.97, indicating a good performance of overall accuracy. CONCLUSION: EUS-FNA has the high sensitivity and specificity in differentiating pancreatic cancer. Moreover, it is also a safe diagnostic modality with little complications.
    Pancreatology 01/2013; 13(3):298-304. · 2.04 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Metastases to the pancreas are rare, and usually mistaken for primary pancreatic cancers. This study aimed to describe the histology results of solid pancreatic tumours obtained by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for diagnosis of metastases to the pancreas. METHODS: In a retrospective review, patients with pancreatic solid tumours and history of previous extrapancreatic cancer underwent EUS-FNA from January/1997 to December /2010. Most patients were followed-up until death and some of them were still alive at the end of the study. The performance of EUS-FNA for diagnosis of pancreatic metastases was analyzed. Symptoms, time frame between primary tumour diagnosis and the finding of metastases, and survival after diagnosis were also analyzed. RESULTS: 37 patients underwent EUS-FNA for probable pancreas metastases. Most cases (65%) presented with symptoms, especially upper abdominal pain (46%). Median time between detection of the first tumour and the finding of pancreatic metastases was 36 months. Metastases were confirmed in 32 (1.6%) cases, 30 of them by EUS-FNA, and 2 by surgery. Other 5 cases were non-metastatic. Most metastases were from lymphoma, colon, lung, and kidney. Twelve (32%) patients were submitted to surgery. Median survival after diagnosis of pancreatic metastases was 9 months, with no difference of survival between surgical and non-surgical cases. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of EUS-FNA with histology analysis of the specimens for diagnosis of pancreatic metastases were, respectively, 93.8%, 60%, 93.8%, 60% and 89%. CONCLUSION: EUS-FNA with histology of the specimens is a sensitive and accurate method for definitive diagnosis of metastatic disease in patients with a previous history of extrapancreatic malignancies.
    BMC Gastroenterology 04/2013; 13(1):63. · 2.11 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Objective. Widespread use of imaging procedures has promoted a higher identification of incidental pancreatic cysts (IPCs). However, little is known as to whether endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) could change the management strategy of patients having IPCs. This study has aimed to evaluate the management impact of EUS-FNA on IPCs. Material and methods. Patients with pancreatic cysts (PCs) who were referred to EUS-FNA were recruited prospectively. The referring physicians were questioned about the management strategy for these patients before and after EUS-FNA. The impact of EUS-FNA on management was then evaluated. Results. A total of 302 PC patients were recruited. Of these, 159 (52.6%) patients had asymptomatic IPCs. The average size was 2.3 cm (range: 0.2-7.1 cm), and 110 patients having smaller than 3 cm sized cysts. Lesions were located in the pancreatic head in 96 (61%) cases, and most patients (94%) had only a single cyst. The final diagnoses, obtained by EUS-FNA (91) and surgery (68), were 93 (58%) benign lesions, 36 (23%) cysts with malignant potential, 14 (9%) noninvasive malignancies, 10 (6%) malignant precursor lesions (PanIN), and 6 (4%) invasive malignancies. Management strategy changed significantly after EUS-FNA in 114 (71.7%) patients: 43% of the cases were referred to surgery, 44% of the patients were discharged from surveillance, and 13% of the cases were given further periodical imaging tests. Conclusion. EUS-FNA has a management impact in almost 72% of IPCs, with a major influence on the management strategy, either discharge rather than surgical resection or surgery rather than additional follow up.
    Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 11/2013; · 2.33 Impact Factor