Diagnostic accuracies of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with distinct negative pressure suction techniques in solid lesions: A retrospective study

Wang,Ronghua; Wang,Jinlin; Li,Yawen; Duan,Yaqi; Wu,Xiaoli; Cheng,Bin

doi:10.3892/ol.2017.5942

Diagnostic accuracies of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with distinct negative pressure suction techniques in solid lesions: A retrospective study

Authors:
- Ronghua Wang
- Jinlin Wang
- Yawen Li
- Yaqi Duan
- Xiaoli Wu
- Bin Cheng
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tongji Hospital, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei 430030, P.R. China, Department of Pathology, Tongji Hospital, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei 430030, P.R. China
Published online on: March 28, 2017 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2017.5942
Pages: 3709-3716

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is highly accurate in obtaining specific diagnoses for various diseases. The present study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic yields, accuracies and sampling adequacies, of slow-pull, 5 ml suction and 10 ml suction techniques in EUS‑FNA of solid lesions. The present study was a retrospective comparative study, which was performed in tertiary academic centers, recognized for their expertise in EUS and EUS‑guided FNA. The present study involved 149 patients who underwent EUS‑FNA of solid masses. A total of 34 (22.8%), 37 (24.8%) and 78 (52.4%) patients underwent EUS‑FNA with slow‑pull, 5 ml suction and 10 ml suction techniques, respectively. The EUS‑FNA cytology and histology results were compared with those from the gold standard of surgical histopathology [hematoxylin‑eosin staining; immunohistochemical test of cluster of differentiation (CD) 79a, CD20 and flow cytometry test] or long‑term clinical follow‑up. The present retrospective comparative study demonstrated that the diagnostic yields and accuracies of EUS‑FNA with slow‑pull (86.1%) were significantly superior to those achieved with 5 ml suction (83.3%) or 10 ml suction (69.9%; P<0.0001; χ2 test). Consistently, 86.5% (32/37) of the samples obtained from the 5 ml suction group were adequate for histological diagnosis. By contrast, 70.6 (24/34) and 85.9% (67/78) of samples from the slow‑pull and 10 ml suction groups were adequate for histological diagnosis, respectively. The samples obtained using 10 ml suction contained more blood compared with those obtained via slow‑pull and 5 ml suction (P=0.0056; χ2 test). No complications were noted in any of the three groups. The samples that were obtained for histopathological diagnosis using 5 ml suction were superior to those obtained using slow‑pull or 10 ml suction. Additional multi‑central prospective studies in which EUS‑FNA is performed with variable negative pressures are required to improve the defining of the diagnostic roles of those techniques.

View Figures

View References

1	Abdalla EK and Pisters PW: Staging and preoperative evaluation of upper gastrointestinal malignancies. Semin Oncol. 31:513–529. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Pei Q, Wang L, Pan J, Ling T, Lv Y and Zou X: Endoscopic ultrasonography for staging depth of invasion in early gastric cancer: A meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 30:1566–1573. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Guo T, Yao F, Yang AM, Li XY, Zhong DR, Wu DS, Wu X and Lu XH: Endoscopic ultrasound in restaging and predicting pathological response for advanced gastric cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 10:e28–e32. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Chandran S, Efthymiou M, Kaffes A, Chen JW, Kwan V, Murray M, Williams D, Nguyen NQ, Tam W, Welch C, et al: Management of pancreatic collections with a novel endoscopically placed fully covered self-expandable metal stent: A national experience (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 81:127–135. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Iglesias-Garcia J, Lariño-Noia J, Vallejo-Senra N, de-la-Iglesia-Garcia D, Abdulkader-Nallib I and Dominguez-Muñoz JE: Feasibility of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) and biopsy (FNB) with a new slim linear echoendoscope. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 107:359–365. 2015.PubMed/NCBI
6	Singh R, Jayanna M, Wong J, Lim LG, Zhang J, Lv J, Liu D, Lee YC, Han ML, Tseng PH, et al: Narrow-band imaging and white-light endoscopy with optical magnification in the diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus: Results of the Asia-Pacific barrett's consortium. Endosc Int Open. 3:E14–E18. 2015.PubMed/NCBI
7	Barawi M and Gress F: EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration in the mediastinum. Gastrointest Endosc. 52:(6 Suppl). S12–S17. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Horwhat JD and Gress FG: Defining the diagnostic algorithm in pancreatic cancer. JOP. 5:289–303. 2004.PubMed/NCBI
9	Fritscher-Ravens A: Endoscopic ultrasound evaluation in the diagnosis and staging of lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 41:259–267. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Shami VM, Parmar KS and Waxman I: Clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the management of rectal carcinoma. Dis Colon Rectum. 47:59–65. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Lee YT, Chan FK, Leung WK, Chan HL, Wu JC, Yung MY, Ng EK, Lau JY and Sung JJ: Comparison of EUS and ERCP in the investigation with suspected biliary obstruction caused by choledocholithiasis: A randomized study. Gastrointest Endosc. 67:660–668. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Ribeiro A, Vazquez-Sequeiros E, Wiersema LM, Wang KK, Clain JE and Wiersema MJ: EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration combined with flow cytometry and immunocytochemistry in the diagnosis of lymphoma. Gastrointest Endosc. 53:485–491. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Erickson RA, Sayage-Rabie L and Beissner RS: Factors predicting the number of EUS-guided fine-needle passes for diagnosis of pancreatic malignancies. Gastrointest Endosc. 51:184–190. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Mesa H, Stelow EB, Stanley MW, Mallery S, Lai R and Bardales RH: Diagnosis of nonprimary pancreatic neoplasms by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration. Diagn Cytopathol. 31:313–318. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Klapman JB, Logrono R, Dye CE and Waxman I: Clinical impact of on-site cytopathology interpretation on endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration. Am J Gastroenterol. 98:1289–1294. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Logroño R and Waxman I: Interactive role of the cytopathologist in EUS-guided fine needle aspiration: An efficient approach. Gastrointest Endosc. 54:485–490. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Jhala NC, Jhala DN, Chhieng DC, Eloubeidi MA and Eltoum IA: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration. A cytopathologist's perspective. Am J Clin Pathol. 120:351–367. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Wani S, Gupta N, Gaddam S, Singh V, Ulusarac O, Romanas M, Bansal A, Sharma P, Olyaee MS and Rastogi A: A comparative study of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration with and without a stylet. Dig Dis Sci. 56:2409–2414. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Rastogi A, Wani S, Gupta N, Singh V, Gaddam S, Reddymasu S, Ulusarac O, Fan F, Romanas M, Dennis KL, et al: A prospective, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial of EUS-guided FNA with and without a stylet. Gastrointest Endosc. 74:58–64. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Mertz H and Gautam S: The learning curve for EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic cancer. Gastrointest Endosc. 59:33–37. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Siddiqui UD, Rossi F, Rosenthal LS, Padda MS, Murali-Dharan V and Aslanian HR: EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: A prospective, randomized trial comparing 22-gauge and 25-gauge needles. Gastrointest Endosc. 70:1093–1097. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Puri R, Vilmann P, Săftoiu A, Skov BG, Linnemann D, Hassan H, Garcia ES and Gorunescu F: Randomized controlled trial of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle sampling with or without suction for better cytological diagnosis. Scand J Gastroenterol. 44:499–504. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	Kudo T, Kawakami H, Hayashi T, Yasuda I, Mukai T, Inoue H, Katanuma A, Kawakubo K, Ishiwatari H, Doi S, et al: High and low negative pressure suction techniques in EUS-guided fine-needle tissue acquisition by using 25-gauge needles: A multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 80:1030–1037.e1. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Larghi A, Noffsinger A, Dye CE, Hart J and Waxman I: EUS-guided fine needle tissue acquisition by using high negative pressure suction for the evaluation of solid masses: A pilot study. Gastrointest Endosc. 62:768–774. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
25	Harris K, Maroun R, Attwood K and Chalhoub M: Comparison of cytologic accuracy of endobronchial ultrasound transbronchial needle aspiration using needle suction versus no suction. Endosc Ultrasound. 4:115–119. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
26	Alizadeh Mohammad AH, Hadizadeh M, Padashi M, Shahbaazi S, Molaee M and Shariatpanahi ZV: Comparison of two techniques for endoscopic ultrasonography fine-needle aspiration in solid pancreatic mass. Endosc Ultrasound. 3:174–178. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
27	Aadam AA, Oh YS, Shidham VB, Khan A, Hunt B, Rao N, Zhang Y, Tarima S and Dua KS: Eliminating the residual negative pressure in the endoscopic ultrasound aspirating needle enhances cytology yield of pancreas masses. Dig Dis Sci. 61:890–899. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
28	Gerke H, Rizk MK, Vanderheyden AD and Jensen CS: Randomized study comparing endoscopic ultrasound-guided Trucut biopsy and fine needle aspiration with high suction. Cytopathology. 21:44–51. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
29	Wang KX, Ben QW, Jin ZD, Du YQ, Zou DW, Liao Z and Li ZS: Assessment of morbidity and mortality associated with EUS-guided FNA: A systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc. 73:283–290. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
30	Haba S, Yamao K, Bhatia V, Mizuno N, Hara K, Hijioka S, Imaoka H, Niwa Y, Tajika M, Kondo S, et al: Diagnostic ability and factors affecting accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for pancreatic solid lesions: Japanese large single center experience. J Gastroenterol. 48:973–981. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
31	Bhutani MS, Suryaprasad S, Moezzi J and Seabrook D: Improved technique for performing endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration of lymph nodes. Endoscopy. 31:550–553. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
32	Wallace MB, Kennedy T, Durkalski V, Eloubeidi MA, Etamad R, Matsuda K, Lewin D, Van Velse A, Hennesey W, Hawes RH and Hoffman BJ: Randomized controlled trial of EUS-guided fine needle aspiration techniques for the detection of malignant lymphadenopathy. Gastrointest Endosc. 54:441–447. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
33	Lee JK, Choi JH, Lee KH, Kim KM, Shin JU, Lee JK, Lee KT and Jang KT: A prospective, comparative trial to optimize sampling techniques in EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses. Gastrointest Endosc. 77:745–751. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
34	Polkowski M, Larghi A, Weynand B, Boustière C, Giovannini M, Pujol B and Dumonceau JM: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE): Learning, techniques, and complications of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) technical guideline. Endoscopy. 44:190–206. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI