Tianye Liu, Swikrity Upadhyay Baskota, Abel Gonzalez
{"title":"Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and fine-needle biopsy in the diagnosis of gastrointestinal lymphomas.","authors":"Tianye Liu, Swikrity Upadhyay Baskota, Abel Gonzalez","doi":"10.1016/j.jasc.2024.12.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) in the clinical management of gastrointestinal lymphoma has not been extensively studied. This study investigates the use of EUS-FNA/B in the diagnosis of first-time and recurrent gastrointestinal lymphomas at a large academic institution.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A total of 40 patients who had final diagnosis of lymphoma according to the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of tumors of hematopoietic lymphoid tissues who underwent EUS-FNA/B were included in the study. Cases with concurrent forceps mucosal biopsies or lost to clinical follow-up were excluded. The diagnostic accuracy and clinical use of EUS-FNA/B was investigated by comparing EUS-FNA/B diagnosis with the final diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>EUS-FNA/B diagnoses were concordant with the final WHO diagnosis for as high as 72.5% of the cases. Of the remaining 27.5%, 17.5% had enough cytologic features for lymphoma diagnosis with incomplete phenotyping, while the remaining 10.0% showed features suspicious for lymphoma. Cell block and flow cytometry quality significantly affected diagnostic accuracy. Number of passes between 1 and 5 yielded better diagnostic accuracy than 6 or more passes during FNA; however, no difference was identified during procedures that used FNB alone or combined with FNA. There is no significant difference in onsite adequacy diagnostic performance of EUS-FNA performed by cytopathologists or cytotechnologists.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>EUS-FNA/B with concurrent ancillary studies such as immunocytochemistry in cell block and flow cytometry can be helpful in efficient first and recurrent diagnoses of gastrointestinal lymphomas.</p>","PeriodicalId":38262,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Society of Cytopathology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Society of Cytopathology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasc.2024.12.002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: The role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) in the clinical management of gastrointestinal lymphoma has not been extensively studied. This study investigates the use of EUS-FNA/B in the diagnosis of first-time and recurrent gastrointestinal lymphomas at a large academic institution.
Materials and methods: A total of 40 patients who had final diagnosis of lymphoma according to the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of tumors of hematopoietic lymphoid tissues who underwent EUS-FNA/B were included in the study. Cases with concurrent forceps mucosal biopsies or lost to clinical follow-up were excluded. The diagnostic accuracy and clinical use of EUS-FNA/B was investigated by comparing EUS-FNA/B diagnosis with the final diagnosis.
Results: EUS-FNA/B diagnoses were concordant with the final WHO diagnosis for as high as 72.5% of the cases. Of the remaining 27.5%, 17.5% had enough cytologic features for lymphoma diagnosis with incomplete phenotyping, while the remaining 10.0% showed features suspicious for lymphoma. Cell block and flow cytometry quality significantly affected diagnostic accuracy. Number of passes between 1 and 5 yielded better diagnostic accuracy than 6 or more passes during FNA; however, no difference was identified during procedures that used FNB alone or combined with FNA. There is no significant difference in onsite adequacy diagnostic performance of EUS-FNA performed by cytopathologists or cytotechnologists.
Conclusions: EUS-FNA/B with concurrent ancillary studies such as immunocytochemistry in cell block and flow cytometry can be helpful in efficient first and recurrent diagnoses of gastrointestinal lymphomas.