data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2c3fd/2c3fd2c05ec175716150fd2054ac6d9c19b5c66f" alt="open-access-img"
Performance of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration in diagnosing pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors
Author(s) -
Jane Bernstein,
Berrin Ustun,
Ahmed AlOmari,
Fang Bao,
Harry R. Aslanian,
Uzma D. Siddiqui,
David C. Chhieng,
Guoping Cai
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
cyto journal/cytojournal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.371
H-Index - 27
eISSN - 0974-5963
pISSN - 1742-6413
DOI - 10.4103/1742-6413.112648
Subject(s) - endoscopic ultrasound , fine needle aspiration , medicine , neuroendocrine tumors , radiology , ultrasound , pathology , general surgery , biopsy
Background: Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) are rare tumors of the pancreas, which are increasingly diagnosed by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). In this retrospective study, we assessed the performance of EUS-FNA in diagnosing PNETs. Materials and Methods: We identified 48 cases of surgically resected PNETs in which pre-operative EUS-FNA was performed. The clinical features, cytological diagnoses, and surgical follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. The diagnostic performance of EUS-FNA was analyzed as compared to the diagnosis in the follow-up. The cases with discrepancies between cytological diagnosis and surgical follow-up were analyzed and diagnostic pitfalls in discrepant cases were discussed. Results: The patients were 20 male and 28 female with ages ranging from 15 years to 81 years (mean 57 years). The tumors were solid and cystic in 41 and 7 cases, respectively, with sizes ranging from 0.5 cm to 11 cm (mean 2.7 cm). Based on cytomorphologic features and adjunct immunocytochemistry results, when performed, 38 patients (79%) were diagnosed with PNET, while a diagnosis of "suspicious for PNET" or a diagnosis of "neoplasm with differential diagnosis including PNET" was rendered in the 3 patients (6%). One case was diagnosed as mucinous cystic neoplasm (2%). The remaining 6 patients (13%) had non-diagnostic, negative or atypical diagnosis. Conclusions: Our data demonstrated that EUS-FNA has a relatively high sensitivity for diagnosing PNETs. Lack of additional materials for immunocytochemical studies could lead to a less definite diagnosis. Non-diagnostic or false negative FNA diagnosis can be seen in a limited number of cases, especially in those small sized tumors