EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: a learning curve with 300 consecutive procedures

Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (Impact Factor: 4.9). 06/2005; 61(6):700-8. DOI: 10.1016/S0016-5107(05)00363-9
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The objective of our study was to assess a single operator's learning curve with regard to the number of passes, the diagnostic accuracy, and the complications associated with EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) of solid pancreatic masses.
The number of passes, the diagnostic accuracy, and the complication rate were prospectively evaluated in 300 consecutive EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic masses performed by a single endosonographer over a 3-year period. The procedures were placed into 3 groups, which contained 100 procedures each. The endosonographer had undergone a third-tier EUS fellowship and had performed 45 supervised pancreatic EUS-FNA during his training.
Of the 300 EUS-FNA performed (median age 63 years, 64% men), no statistically significant differences among the 3 groups with regard to age, gender, race, location, or size of the mass were found. Diagnostic accuracy of the EUS-FNA procedure was similar over time (Group 1, 92%; Group 2, 92%; Group 3, 95%). Median number of passes showed a decreasing trend over the 3-year study period, despite an increasing trend of the number of procedures performed (r = -0.14, p = 0.42). The median number of passes was lower for Group 2 (median, 3; p = 0.02) and Group 3 (median, 3; p = 0.003) compared with Group 1 (median, 4). Group 3 (7/100, 7%) was less likely to encounter complications compared with Group 1 (13/100, 13%; p = 0.24) and Group 2 (18/100, 18%; p = 0.03). Frequency of serious complications was similar across the 3 groups (1%-3%).
With adequate third-tier training, a newly developed EUS program can achieve safe and accurate results of EUS-FNA of the pancreas. The learning curve, however, needs to continue after the fellowship, because more procedures are needed for one to gain proficiency and efficiency with EUS-FNA.

  • Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 11/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.gie.2014.07.066 · 4.90 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Endosonography with fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNA) has become a widespreadly available clinical tool to diagnose numerous different lesions in humans. EUS-FNA is frequently used for tissue-based diagnoses such as lymphatic diseases (ranging from tuberculosis / sarcoidosis to malignant lymphoma) or solid tumors (such as pancreatic carcinoma, neuroendocrine tumors, sub-epithelial gastrointestinal tumors and others). Outcomes of EUS-FNA results, however, vary which is caused by several different factors ranging from experience of the endoscopist over technical factors such as use of stylet or suction for puncture through the skills of the cyto-pathologist who takes care of the specimen obtained by EUS-FNA. Though introduced since more than 20 years ago EUS-FNA has still not yet been perfectionized and several issues remain controversial among endoscopist. These issues include needle size and type (FNA versus TNB needles), use of a stylet and suction for FNA sampling, pure cytologic assessment versus cyto-histologic techniques, grading of the investigator´s and pathologist´s experience and improvement of EUS training for novices. In this report we briefly review the actual literature and summarize the available evidence on some controversely discussed issues. The results support the view that use of a stylet rarely aids to increase the amount of tissue obtained during EUS-FNA, whereas use of suction can be helpful in certain situations. Novel cutting needles may potentially improve number and size of core biopsies that can be rendered for special histologic tissue processing techniques. An in-room-cytopathologist not necessarily improves outcome of EUS-FNA results but may have a role during build-up of EUS units to become more successful. EUS-FNA education requires skilled endoscopists on both sides and can presumably be improved by objective testing of practical expertise by peer review and introducing objective sampling parameters. Novel techniques and equipment are about to evolve in the near future.
    Zeitschrift für Gastroenterologie 09/2014; 52(9):1081-1092. DOI:10.1055/s-0034-1385133 · 1.67 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNET), and metastatic lesions (pMET) are the most common neoplastic solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs). Early diagnosis enables prompt treatment. To identify factors differentiating PDAC from non-PDAC lesions and assess the accuracy of EUS-guided FNA. Retrospective tertiary center. Consecutive patients referred for EUS evaluation of SPLs from 2004 to 2011. Pretest (preceding EUS-guided FNA [EUS-FNA]) predictors of PDAC among neoplastic SPLs and accuracy of EUS-FNA. A total of 1333 EUS scans with 1108 EUS-FNAs were performed for pancreatic lesions. Of the 672 patients with neoplastic SPLs, 528 had PDAC and 144 non-PDAC. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and accuracy of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of PDAC were 97.3%, 99.3%, 99.8%, and 97.8%, respectively. Years of EUS experience significantly correlated with fewer needle passes (Rs = -0.18, P < .001). Controlling for all potential confounders, multivariable regression analysis demonstrated that patients with PDAC compared with pNETs and pMETs were older (odds ratio [OR] 4.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1-9.5; P < .001), had weight loss (OR 3.0; 95% CI, 1.6-5.4; P < .001), hyperbilirubinemia (OR 3.7; 95% CI, 1.8-7.5; P < .001), elevated CA19-9 (OR 6.9; 95% CI, 2.4-20.3; P < .01), evidence of arterial invasion (OR 6.5; 95% CI, 2.7-15.4; P < .001), and PD dilation (OR 3.3; 95% CI, 1.8-5.9; P < .001). Retrospective design, single center. When evaluating neoplastic SPLs, demographic, clinical, laboratory, and imaging characteristics can reliably discern and suggest PDAC. In addition, EUS-FNA is exceedingly sensitive and specific for PDAC. Copyright © 2014 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 10/2014; 81(2). DOI:10.1016/j.gie.2014.08.023 · 4.90 Impact Factor