Role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the diagnosis of space occupying lesions of the pancreas

 

PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction: Space occupying lesions (SOLs) of the pancreas are commonly encountered in day to day practice either as an incidental finding or during evaluation of symptomatic patients. The aim of the present study was to compare the final diagnosis at follow-up with diagnosis made at computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). Materials and Methods: Retrospective analysis of EUS data of 131 patients referred for tissue diagnosis of SOL in pancreas was done. The lesions were classified as malignant, benign, and nonneoplastic by both CT/MRI and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in conjunction with clinical presentation, biochemical parameters, and tumor markers. Follow-up cases with a final diagnosis alone were included for the comparative analysis. Statistical Analysis: Chi-square test, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive values (NPV) for CT/MRI and EUS-FNA were computed against the follow-up data. Results: Of the 131, there were 78 males (59.5%). The median age of presentation was 48 years (range: 11–82 years. Follow-up information on the final diagnosis was available for 54 patients. Confirmed diagnosis at follow-up was malignant lesion in 18, benign in 13 and 23 with a nonneoplastic lesion. When EUS-FNA outcome was compared with the definitive diagnosis of the 54 patients, it had a higher sensitivity for malignant (66.7% vs. 61.1%) and nonneoplastic lesions (78.3% vs. 73.9%) and was similar to CT/MRI for benign lesions (76.9% for both). EUS-FNA had a higher specificity (87.8% vs. 80.5%) with a good PPV for benign lesions (66.7% vs. 55.6%). CT/MRI was less accurate than EUS-FNA in predicting benign (79.6% vs. 85.2%) and nonneoplastic lesions (79.6% vs. 81.5%) compared to malignant lesions wherein it was similar at 81.5%. The high NPV with a lower PPV for both EUS/FNA and CT/MRI suggests that follow-up definitive diagnosis was superior to both –. Conclusions: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration had a higher specificity, but low sensitivity for the both neoplastic and nonneoplastic lesion of the pancreas compared to the world literature. The overall EUS-FNA yield was low when compared to the follow-up definitive diagnosis.

• References

• 1 Tian MC, Guo W, Lei S. Evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of space occupying lesion of the pancreas. Endoscopy 2011;43:A17.
• 2 Basturk O, Coban I, Adsay NV. Pancreatic cysts: Pathologic classification, differential diagnosis, and clinical implications. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2009;133:423-38.
• 3 Sharma V, Rana SS, Bhasin DK. Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration for diagnosis of pancreatic tuberculosis. JOP 2013;14:521.
• 4 Rao RN, Pandey R, Rana MK, Rai P, Gupta A. Pancreatic and peripancreatic tuberculosis presenting as hypoechoic mass and malignancy diagnosed by ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology. J Cytol 2013;30:130-5.
• 5 Gupta P, Guleria S, Agarwal S. Role of endoscopic ultrasound guided FNAC in diagnosis of pancreatic TB presenting as mass lesion: A case report and review of literature. Indian J Tuberc 2011;58:120-4.
• 6 Puri R, Thandassery RB, Eloubeidi MA, Sud R. Diagnosis of isolated pancreatic tuberculosis: The role of EUS-guided FNA cytology. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:900-4.
• 7 Puri R, Mangla R, Eloubeidi M, Vilmann P, Thandassery R, Sud R. Diagnostic yield of EUS-guided FNA and cytology in suspected tubercular intra-abdominal lymphadenopathy. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:1005-10.
• 8 Sivanandham S, Subashchandrabose P, Muthusamy KR. FNA diagnosis of osteoclast-like giant cell tumor of the pancreas. J Cytol 2012;29:270-2.
• 9 Bhatia V, Rastogi A, Saluja SS, Kumar M, Bihari C, Kalayarasan R, et al. Cystic pancreatic lymphangioma. The first report of a preoperative pathological diagnosis by endoscopic ultrasound-guided cyst aspiration. JOP 2011;12:473-6.
• 10 Rao RN, Vij M, Singla N, Kumar A. Malignant pancreatic extra-gastrointestinal stromal tumor diagnosed by ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration cytology. A case report with a review of the literature. JOP 2011;12:283-6.
• 11 Frossard JL, Amouyal P, Amouyal G, Palazzo L, Amaris J, Soldan M, et al. Performance of endosonography-guided fine needle aspiration and biopsy in the diagnosis of pancreatic cystic lesions. Am J Gastroenterol 2003;98:1516-24.
• 12 Brandwein SL, Farrell JJ, Centeno BA, Brugge WR. Detection and tumor staging of malignancy in cystic, intraductal, and solid tumors of the pancreas by EUS. Gastrointest Endosc 2001;53:722-7.
• 13 Lai R, Stanley MW, Bardales R, Linzie B, Mallery S. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct aspiration: Diagnostic yield and safety. Endoscopy 2002;34:715-20.
• 14 Williams DB, Sahai AV, Aabakken L, Penman ID, van Velse A, Webb J, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration biopsy: A large single centre experience. Gut 1999;44:720-6.
• 15 Brugge WR, Lewandrowski K, Lee-Lewandrowski E, Centeno BA, Szydlo T, Regan S, et al. Diagnosis of pancreatic cystic neoplasms: A report of the cooperative pancreatic cyst study. Gastroenterology 2004;126:1330-6.
• 16 Aithal GP, Chen RY, Cunningham JT, Durkalski V, Kim EY, Patel RS, et al. Accuracy of EUS for detection of intraductal papillary mucinous tumor of the pancreas. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;56:701-7.
• 17 Le Borgne J, de Calan L, Partensky C. Cystadenomas and cystadenocarcinomas of the pancreas: A multiinstitutional retrospective study of 398 cases. French Surgical Association. Ann Surg 1999;230:152-61.
• 18 Maire F, Couvelard A, Hammel P, Ponsot P, Palazzo L, Aubert A, et al. Intraductal papillary mucinous tumors of the pancreas: The preoperative value of cytologic and histopathologic diagnosis. Gastrointest Endosc 2003;58:701-6.
• 19 Wiersema MJ, Vilmann P, Giovannini M, Chang KJ, Wiersema LM. Endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy: Diagnostic accuracy and complication assessment. Gastroenterology 1997;112:1087-95.