Premium
Touch imprint cytology on endoscopic ultrasound fine‐needle biopsy provides comparable sample quality and diagnostic yield to standard endoscopic ultrasound fine‐needle aspiration specimens in the evaluation of solid pancreatic lesions
Author(s) -
Crinò Stefano Francesco,
Larghi Alberto,
Bernardoni Laura,
Parisi Alice,
Frulloni Luca,
Gabbrielli Armando,
Parcesepe Pietro,
Scarpa Aldo,
Manfrin Erminia
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
cytopathology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.512
H-Index - 48
eISSN - 1365-2303
pISSN - 0956-5507
DOI - 10.1111/cyt.12662
Subject(s) - medicine , endoscopic ultrasound , fine needle aspiration , radiology , biopsy , ultrasound , fine needle aspiration cytology , diagnostic accuracy
Objectives Endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle aspiration ( EUS ‐ FNA ) is the gold standard for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions ( SPL s). Cytological samples can also be obtained using touch imprint cytology ( TIC ) on EUS fine‐needle biopsy ( FNB ) specimens. We aimed to compare sample quality and diagnostic yield of EUS ‐ FNA ‐standard cytology ( EUS ‐ FNA ‐ SC ) to that of EUS ‐ FNB ‐ TIC in a series of patients with SPL s. Methods Thirty‐two consecutive patients referred for EUS ‐tissue acquisition of SPL s who underwent rapid on‐site evaluation of both EUS ‐ FNA ‐ SC and paired EUS ‐ FNB ‐ TIC during the same endoscopic session were retrospectively identified. Sample quality (evaluated in terms of blood contamination, presence of clots, tissue casts, cellularity, and necrosis) and diagnostic yield were compared between the techniques. Results The mean number of passes to reach diagnosis at rapid on‐site evaluation was similar between EUS ‐ FNA ‐ SC and EUS ‐ FNB ‐ TIC (1.09 ± 0.3 vs 1.13 ± 0.34, P = .711). EUS ‐ FNA ‐ SC scores of sample quality were comparable to those of EUS ‐ FNB ‐ TIC (blood contamination, 2.47 ± 1.11 vs 2.25 ± 1.14, P = .109; clots, 1.25 ± 0.76 vs 1.19 ± 0.69, P = .624; tissue casts, 3.56 ± 0.88 vs 3.59 ± 1.09, P = .872; cellularity, 2.84 ± 1.11 vs 3.09 ± 1.09, P = .244; necrosis, 2.25 ± 1.08 vs 2.53 ± 1.02 P = .059; total score, 12.38 ± 2.88 vs 17.66 ± 2.38, P = .536). Adequacy, sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy of the two sampling techniques were equal (93.7%, 90.6% and 90.6%, respectively). Conclusions EUS ‐ FNB ‐ TIC provides comparable samples to those of EUS ‐ FNA ‐ SC and combines the benefits of cytology and histology for the evaluation of SPL s by employing a single needle during the same endoscopic procedure.