Rapid On-Site Evaluation with Pancreatic Fine-Needle Biopsies: Successes and Challenges.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 PATHOLOGY
Acta Cytologica Pub Date : 2025-02-18 DOI:10.1159/000544737
T Leif Helland, M Lisa Zhang, Martha B Pitman, Vanda F Torous
{"title":"Rapid On-Site Evaluation with Pancreatic Fine-Needle Biopsies: Successes and Challenges.","authors":"T Leif Helland, M Lisa Zhang, Martha B Pitman, Vanda F Torous","doi":"10.1159/000544737","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) using larger, next-generation cutting needles is a minimally invasive method for the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions. Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) is employed to render preliminary diagnoses, ensure specimen adequacy, and triage tissue for ancillary testing and can be performed on FNB cores. Given the difficulty of pancreatic cytology and the novelty of ROSE with these larger cutting needles, this study was performed to evaluate discrepancies between ROSE and the final diagnosis to uncover challenging diagnostic areas.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Final reports from pancreatic FNBs with ROSE between 1/2019-12/2021 were reviewed, and the ROSE and final diagnoses were compared. Cases were categorized into non-diagnostic (ND), negative for malignancy (NEG), atypical, neoplastic (NEO), suspicious for malignancy (SFM), and positive for malignant cells (POS). A major discrepancy was defined as a ND/NEG versus NEO/SFM/POS interpretation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>454 cases were identified. The ROSE versus final diagnosis breakdown was as follows: ND/NEG 18.7% versus 16.3%, atypical 6.4% versus 5.1%, NEO 10.8% versus 11.9%, SFM 4.4% versus 2.0%, and POS 59.7% versus 64.8%. The concordance rate was high at 96.9% with only 14 (3.1%) major discrepancies which included 6 due to interpretive error, 3 to sampling error, and 5 due to a combination of both. While the majority of lesions in the cohort were conventional ductal adenocarcinomas (76%), there was an over-representation of non-ductal tumors constituting major discrepancies (6/14; 42.9%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ROSE using pancreatic EUS-FNB is possible and provides an accurate interpretation in most cases. Diagnostic challenges remain with non-ductal tumors.</p>","PeriodicalId":6959,"journal":{"name":"Acta Cytologica","volume":" ","pages":"1-19"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Cytologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000544737","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) using larger, next-generation cutting needles is a minimally invasive method for the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions. Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) is employed to render preliminary diagnoses, ensure specimen adequacy, and triage tissue for ancillary testing and can be performed on FNB cores. Given the difficulty of pancreatic cytology and the novelty of ROSE with these larger cutting needles, this study was performed to evaluate discrepancies between ROSE and the final diagnosis to uncover challenging diagnostic areas.

Methods: Final reports from pancreatic FNBs with ROSE between 1/2019-12/2021 were reviewed, and the ROSE and final diagnoses were compared. Cases were categorized into non-diagnostic (ND), negative for malignancy (NEG), atypical, neoplastic (NEO), suspicious for malignancy (SFM), and positive for malignant cells (POS). A major discrepancy was defined as a ND/NEG versus NEO/SFM/POS interpretation.

Results: 454 cases were identified. The ROSE versus final diagnosis breakdown was as follows: ND/NEG 18.7% versus 16.3%, atypical 6.4% versus 5.1%, NEO 10.8% versus 11.9%, SFM 4.4% versus 2.0%, and POS 59.7% versus 64.8%. The concordance rate was high at 96.9% with only 14 (3.1%) major discrepancies which included 6 due to interpretive error, 3 to sampling error, and 5 due to a combination of both. While the majority of lesions in the cohort were conventional ductal adenocarcinomas (76%), there was an over-representation of non-ductal tumors constituting major discrepancies (6/14; 42.9%).

Conclusions: ROSE using pancreatic EUS-FNB is possible and provides an accurate interpretation in most cases. Diagnostic challenges remain with non-ductal tumors.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Acta Cytologica
Acta Cytologica 生物-病理学
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
11.10%
发文量
46
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: With articles offering an excellent balance between clinical cytology and cytopathology, ''Acta Cytologica'' fosters the understanding of the pathogenetic mechanisms behind cytomorphology and thus facilitates the translation of frontline research into clinical practice. As the official journal of the International Academy of Cytology and affiliated to over 50 national cytology societies around the world, ''Acta Cytologica'' evaluates new and existing diagnostic applications of scientific advances as well as their clinical correlations. Original papers, review articles, meta-analyses, novel insights from clinical practice, and letters to the editor cover topics from diagnostic cytopathology, gynecologic and non-gynecologic cytopathology to fine needle aspiration, molecular techniques and their diagnostic applications. As the perfect reference for practical use, ''Acta Cytologica'' addresses a multidisciplinary audience practicing clinical cytopathology, cell biology, oncology, interventional radiology, otorhinolaryngology, gastroenterology, urology, pulmonology and preventive medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信