Search

Barada K, 2009, J CLIN GASTROENTEROL, V43, P5, DOI 10.1097-MCG.0b013e31811edd13; Chiu PWY, 2009, CLIN GASTROENTEROL H, V7, P311, DOI 10.1016-j.cgh.2008.08.044; CHOUDARI CP, 1994, GUT, V35, P464, DOI 10.1136-gut.35.4.464; Cooper GS, 1997, J GEN INTERN MED, V12, P485, DOI 10.1046-j.1525-1497.1997.00087.x; Hallas J, 2006, BRIT MED J, V333, P726, DOI 10.1136-bmj.38947.697558.AE; Hearnshaw SA, 2011, GUT, V60, P1327, DOI 10.1136-gut.2010.228437; hsberg K, 2010, ALIMENT PHARM THER, V32, P801; Lanas A, 2011, ALIMENT PHARM THER, V33, P1225, DOI 10.1111-j.1365-2036.2011.04651.x; Marmo R, 2010, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V105, P1284, DOI 10.1038-ajg.2009.687; Marmo R, 2012, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V75, P263, DOI 10.1016-j.gie.2011.07.066; Marmo R, 2008, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V103, P1639, DOI 10.1111-j.1572-0241.2008.01865.x; Mose Hanne, 2006, Am J Geriatr Pharmacother, V4, P244, DOI 10.1016-j.amjopharm.2006.09.006; Ortiz V, 2009, DIGESTION, V80, P89, DOI 10.1159-000219345; Pirmohamed M, 2004, BRIT MED J, V329, P15, DOI 10.1136-bmj.329.7456.15; Rodriguez LAG, 2011, CIRCULATION, V123, P1108, DOI 10.1161-CIRCULATIONAHA.110.973008; Rubin TA, 2003, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V58, P369; Sostres C, 2011, DRUGS, V71, P1, DOI 10.2165-11585320-000000000-00000; Sung JJY, 2010, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V105, P84, DOI 10.1038-ajg.2009.507; Sung JJY, 2010, ANN INTERN MED, V152, P1, DOI 10.7326-0003-4819-152-1-201001050-00179; Taha AS, 2006, ALIMENT PHARM THERAP, V24, P633, DOI 10.1111-j.1365-2036.2006.03017.x; Theocharis GJ, 2008, J CLIN GASTROENTEROL, V42, P128, DOI 10.1097-01.mcg.0000248004.73075.ad; Thomopoulos KC, 2005, WORLD J GASTROENTERO, V11, P1365; van Leerdam ME, 2003, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V98, P1494, DOI 10.1016-S0002-9270(03)00299-5; Wang YR, 2010, ANN SURG, V251, P51, DOI 10.1097-SLA.0b013e3181b975b8; Wolf AT, 2007, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V102, P290, DOI 10.1111-j.1572-0241.2006.00969.x; Wong GLH, 2009, GASTROENTEROLOGY, V137, P525, DOI 10.1053-j.gastro.2009.05.006

Background and Aim: Endoscopic ultrasound guided pancreatic pseudocyst drainage (EUS-PPD) is increasingly being used for management of pancreatic pseudocysts. We evaluated the outcome and complications of EUS-PPD with modified combined technique by inserting both endoprosthesis and naso-cystic drain. Methods: Forty patients referred between August 2007 and January 2010 for EUS-PPD were prospectively studied. EUS-PPD was attempted for symptomatic pancreatic pseudocysts which were; (i) resistant to conservative treatment, (ii) in contact with the gastric or duodenal wall on EUS and (iii) having no bulge seen on endoscopy. Controlled radial expansion wire guided balloon dilation of the puncture tract was performed followed by insertion of a 10 French double pigtail stent and 7-Fr naso-biliary drain. The early and late outcome and complications of EUS-PPD were analyzed. Results: Thirty-two patients had non-infected and eight had infected pseudocysts. EUS-PPD was technically successful in all. Pseudocysts resolved completely in 39 patients, while one with infected pseudocyst underwent surgical resection for bleeding in the cyst. Naso-cystic drain was removed in 39 patients after median duration of 13 days. Thereafter, the double pigtail stent was removed in all cases after median duration of 10 weeks. Pseudocyst recurred in one patient requiring a second session of EUS-PPD. All 32 patients without cystic infection were successfully treated by EUS-PPD. Seven out of eight patients (87%) with cystic infection were successfully treated by EUS-PPD. Conclusion: Endoscopic ultrasound guided pancreatic pseudocyst drainage with modified combined technique is safe and is associated with high success rate.

Ballo MS, 2001, DIAGN CYTOPATHOL, V24, P16, DOI 10.1002-1097-0339(200101)24:116::AID-DC10023.0.CO;2-T; Chen VK, 2004, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V99, P628, DOI 10.1111-j.1572-0241.2004.04064.x; Eloubeidi MA, 2006, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V101, P2841, DOI 10.1111-j.1572-0241.2006.00852.x; Gleeson FC, 2009, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V69, P896, DOI 10.1016-j.gie.2008.04.051; Harewood GC, 2002, GASTROENTEROLOGY, V123, P24, DOI 10.1053-gast.2002.34163; Harewood GC, 2004, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V99, P623, DOI 10.1111-j.1572-0241.2004.04116.x; Hunerbein M, 2001, SURGERY, V129, P164, DOI 10.1067-msy.2001.110428; Lievre A, 2008, J CLIN ONCOL, V26, P374, DOI 10.1200-JCO.2007.12.5906; Maor Y, 2006, J GASTROEN HEPATOL, V21, P454, DOI 10.1111-j.1440-1746.2005.03927.x; Misra SP, 1998, DIAGN CYTOPATHOL, V19, P330, DOI 10.1002-(SICI)1097-0339(199811)19:5330::AID-DC33.0.CO;2-V; Sasaki Y, 2005, ENDOSCOPY, V37, P154, DOI 10.1055-5-2004-826152; Siddiqui Ali A, 2006, Int Semin Surg Oncol, V3, P36, DOI 10.1186-1477-7800-3-36; Vander Noot MR, 2004, CANCER CYTOPATHOL, V102, P157, DOI 10.1002-cncr.20360

Background and Aims: A forward-viewing echoendoscope (FV-CLA) has been recently developed for performing interventional endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). The role of FV-CLA in performing standard EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA), Tru-cut biopsy (TCB), and celiac plexus neurolysis (CPN) is unknown. Our aims were to evaluate the feasibility of the FV-CLA for performing EUS-guided FNA/TCB and CPN. Methods: In this prospective study conducted over a 3-month period, 30 patients were evaluated with the FV-CLA. Procedures performed were FNA in 28 lesions, TCB in one, and CPN in five patients. Results: EUS-guided FNA was undertaken at the following sites: mediastinum (n = 3), liver (n = 2), retroperitoneal mass (n = 2), pancreas head/uncinate (n = 9), pancreas body (n = 6), pancreas tail (n = 4), and perigastric lymph node (n = 2). The median size of the lesions was 37 × 34 mm. A median of two passes was performed (range: 1–7). Final cytopathology diagnosed malignancies in 21 patients, with adenocarcinoma suspected for one.TCB of a mediastinal lymph node revealed lymphoma. FNA was benign in six patients. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for a malignancy diagnosis was 96% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87–96%), 100% (95% CI, 70–100%), 100% (92–100), and 86% (60–86%), respectively. CPN was successful in all five patients. It was easier to deploy the needle from the echoendoscope at all locations, including the duodenum, and irrespective of the site of the lesion. Conclusions: The initial evaluation and safety profile of the FV-CLA echoendoscope for performing standard FNA/TCB and CPN appear to be favorable. The narrow image does not preclude basic therapeutic maneuvers. A major advantage appears to be easy needle deployment at any site within reach of the echoendoscope.

BACKGROUND. The role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in the evaluation of spindle cell and mesenchymal lesions is unclear. This study reviews the use of EUS-FNA in diagnosing intrathoracic and intra-abdominal spindle and mesenchymal cell lesions at an academic institution. METHODS. All EUS-FNA specimens with a significant spindle or mesenchymal cell component were retrieved. Follow-up was comprised of clinical correlation, chart review, or evaluation of subsequent tissue specimens, including FNAs, biopsies, and/or surgical resections. Lesions were categorized as either inflammatory/reactive or neoplastic. RESULTS. Forty-four EUS-FNA specimens were retrieved from 39 patients (21 men and 18 women with a median age of 61 years [range, 20-88 years]). Anatomic sites included 19 lymph node specimens, 15 gastrointestinal tract specimens, 7 pancreatic specimens, and 4 other anatomic site specimens. Twenty-two cases were inflammatory/reactive lesions, including 17 granulomatous lesions and 5 cases of chronic pancreatitis. Twenty-two cases were neoplastic, including 14 gastrointestinal stromal tumors, 2 smooth muscle tumors, 2 sarcomatoid carcinomas, 2 melanomas, 1 sarcoma, and 1 solitary fibrous tumor. A specific cytologic diagnosis was rendered in 30 cases (81%). Immunocytochemistry was performed on 21 neoplastic cases and contributed to the differential diagnosis in 18 cases. No false-positive findings were encountered. Three false-negative results were identified and were attributed to sampling error. CONCLUSIONS. Spindle cell neoplasms are rarely encountered on EUS-FNA. The differential diagnosis encompasses a wide variety of benign and neoplastic entities. Correlation of cytomorphology and ancillary studies yields a high diagnostic accuracy of spindle cell and mesenchymal lesions on EUS-FNA. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2010. © 2010 American Cancer Society.

Background and Aims: Few case series are reported on endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage of pelvic abscesses under fluoroscopy guidance. We hypothesized that EUS-guided drainage of pelvic abscesses without fluoroscopy is an effective alternative to surgery in patients whose abscesses are not amenable to percutaneous drainage techniques. The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical efficacy of EUS-guided trans-rectal/transcolonic drainage of pelvic abscess without fluoroscopy. Methods: Fourteen consecutive patients with pelvic abscesses not amenable to percutaneous drainage underwent EUS-guided drainage over a period of 22 months. Main outcome measures were the resolution of the pelvic abscess on repeat imaging and improved clinical symptoms. Results: Fourteen consecutive patients were enrolled. EUS-guided aspiration was performed in three patients. In two patients, dilatation and aspiration was performed, while trans-rectal stent was placed in nine patients. All patients became afebrile within 72 h. Stent was removed in all patients, after confirming the resolution of the abscess on repeat computed tomography after 7 days. One patient in whom only aspiration was done had recurrence of fever and abscess on the seventh day and was treated by surgical drainage. A follow-up EUS done in 13 of the patients after 3 months revealed no recurrence, and all patients were asymptomatic at 6 months. The procedure was uneventful in all patients. Conclusion: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage without fluoroscopy is a safe and effective modality of treatment for pelvic abscesses not amenable to radiologically guided drainage, thus reducing the need for surgical intervention.

Background: The close proximity of the echoendoscope to the extrahepatic bile ductal system and its safety make endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) an excellent method for examining the common bile duct (CBD). The aim of the present study was to compare EUS diagnostic performance for CBD stones with endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC). Methods: A prospective series of our first 60 patients (65% women, average age 43 years) who were referred for ERC for suspicion of choledocholithiasis based on clinical, biochemical and cross-sectional imaging (ultrasonography [US] or computed tomography [CT]) data underwent radial EUS. EUS results were recorded as positive or negative for CBD stones before starting the ERC. All patients underwent ERC with a balloon sweep of the bile duct as the standard of reference for CBD stone. All procedures were performed during the same endoscopy session by a single endoscopist who was blinded to the clinical, biochemical and imaging data. Results: Sixty-five percent of our patients had low to moderate risk for CBD stones. EUS diagnoses were confirmed by ERC as follows: 23 true positive, 33 true negative, three false negative and one false positive (sensitivity of 89%, specificity of 97%, positive predictive value of 96%, and negative predictive value of 92%; overall accuracy of 93%). Compared to the EUS diagnostic accuracy (90%) during the first 30 cases, EUS had a very high diagnostic accuracy (97%) for CBD stones during the last 30 cases (P = 0.31). Conclusion: EUS is highly accurate for the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis. The EUS learning curve is relatively short for CBD stones.

Background and Aims: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a safe and accurate technique for diagnosing pancreatic cancer. The value of repeat EUS-FNA in patients with high clinical suspicion for pancreatic cancer after an inconclusive index study is unknown. Our aims were to determine the yield and success of repeat EUS-FNA and the reasons for failure of initial EUS-FNA. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data in a tertiary University based referral center for pancreatico-biliary disorders. All patients who underwent more then one EUS-FNA for evaluation of suspected pancreatic cancer over a five and a half year period were included in this analysis. Results: Of the 547 procedures performed on 517 patients, 24 (4.6%) patients underwent 51 repeat EUS-FNA procedures. Initial EUS-FNA was atypical/suspicious in 10 (41.6%), benign in 10 (41.6%), malignant in two (8.3%), and failed/indeterminate in two (8.3%) patients. Eight of 10 (80%) patients with atypical/suspicious findings at initial EUS-FNA were diagnosed with malignancy on repeat EUS-FNA. Of the 10 patients with benign findings at initial EUS-FNA, repeat study diagnosed two (20%) with malignancy and the rest were confirmed benign on long-term follow up (average 530 days, SD 369 days). Of the two patients with indeterminate findings at initial EUS-FNA, repeat study diagnosed one patient with malignant disease and the other with benign disease that was confirmed by long-term follow up. Of the two patients diagnosed with neoplastic disease at initial EUS-FNA, repeat EUS-FNA with immunostains downgraded both to chronic pancreatitis. Repeat EUS-FNA facilitated determination of the true status of disease in 20 of 24 patients (accuracy 84%). Suspected reasons for failed initial EUS-FNA were: coexisting pancreatitis (n = 10; 42%), technical difficulty due to scope positioning in uncinate lesion/sedation failure (n = 4; 16.7%), difficult cytology (partly cystic, extensive necrosis, well-differentiated adenocarcinoma) (n = 4; 16.7%), presence of ascites or collaterals (n = 3; 12.5%), pathologist's interobserver variation (n = 2; 8.33%), and unknown reason in one patient. Conclusion: Repeat EUS-FNA is warranted in patients with high clinical suspicion for pancreatic cancer despite indeterminate or negative findings at initial EUS-FNA.

SUMMARY Background Adequate patient sedation is mandatory for advanced endoscopic procedures such as ERCP and EUS. Aim To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ketamine in difficult to sedate patients undergoing advanced endoscopic procedures. Methods This was a prospective, randomized trial of all patients undergoing ERCP or EUS who were not adequately sedated despite administration of meperidine 50 mg, midazolam 5 mg and diazepam 5 mg. Patients during endoscopy were then randomized to receive either intravenous ketamine (20 mg) every 5 min or continue to receive standard sedation using meperidine and diazepam. Results Of 175 patients, 82 were randomized to receive ketamine and 93 standard sedatives. Compared with standard sedation, qualitative physician rating (P

BACKGROUND The objectives of this study were to determine threshold probabilities needed to perform endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and those needed to treat patients suspected of having malignancy and then to compare these thresholds to the pre- and posttest probabilities of malignancy associated with benign, atypical, suspicious, and malignant diagnoses. The goal was to aid endoscopists in making appropriate clinical decisions based on both quantitative and qualitative approaches. METHODS The study included 633 consecutive patients. A decision tree was constructed to estimate the “treatment” threshold. Using treatment threshold and likelihood ratios, the authors determined the “no-test-test” and “test-treatment” thresholds. Pretest probability was compared with no-test-test and test-treatment thresholds, and the post-EUS-FNA probability of malignancy for each diagnostic category with the treatment threshold. Results were stratified by lesion site, lesion size, and cytopathologist. RESULTS EUS-FNA has a wide range of pretest probabilities within which it could be performed (0.06–0.98). The posttest probabilities for malignancy, 0.99 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.967–0.996) and 0.09 (95% CI, 0.057–0.126), after a positive or a negative result, respectively, were significantly different from the treatment threshold but not those of suspicious, 0.92 (95% CI, 0.767–0.994) diagnosis. The posttest probability of atypical diagnosis, 0.60 (95% CI, 0.407–0.772), was not significantly different from that of pretest probability. Results did not vary by lesion size, organ site, or cytopathologist. CONCLUSION The authors demonstrated the uncertainty associated with EUS-FNA diagnostic categories and used the threshold approach to qualify quantitatively the decision to perform EUS-FNA and the decision to treat patients suspected of having malignancy. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2006. © 2006 American Cancer Society.

The Endosonography for Right Sided and Acute Upper Intestinal Misery (EFRAIM) study indicates that the yield of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is equivalent if not superior to upper endoscopy combined with transabdominal ultrasound in patients presenting with acute discomfort. Furthermore, this strategy may be more cost effective as EUS simultaneously enables assessment of intraluminal disease as well as extra intestinal pathology. These results are in sync with prior studies demonstrating the hegemony of EUS in the assessment of pancreaticobiliary disease and its role in the assessment of enigmatic chronic abdominal pain. Nevertheless, EUS does not permit assessment for appendicitis or genitourinary catastrophe. Thus a careful history and physical examination to localize pain to the right upper quadrant and epigastrium is essential.

BACKGROUND Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) biopsy allows the detailed imaging and FNA not only of both intramural and extramural structures and lesions of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract but also of various intraabdominal organs. Thus, EUS-FNA biopsy offers a novel opportunity to evaluate and obtain cytology samples from adrenal gland lesions. The objective of the current study was to determine the utility of EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of adrenal lesions. METHODS The authors conducted a prospective evaluation of 24 consecutive EUS-FNA biopsy specimens obtained from patients with adrenal lesions. An attending cytopathologist was present on site to assess specimen adequacy and to provide rapid interpretation of air-dried material that had been stained with Diff-Quik (Baxter Scientific Products, McGraw Park, IL). Additional samples were obtained for ThinPrep (Cytyc Corporation, Boxborough, MA) preparation, and cell blocks subsequently were prepared. Appropriate immunohistochemical staining was performed as indicated. The cytologic diagnosis was then analyzed for correlations with the final diagnosis, which was based on relevant correlative cytologic or histologic examination of biopsied/resected pathology materials and/or final clinical follow-up. RESULTS In total, 24 EUS-FNA biopsy specimens (from 18 males and 6 females) were obtained from adrenal glands. The mean patient age was 62.2 years (range, 48–81 years). Adequate cellularity was noted in all 24 samples. Seven of 24 samples (29%) were reported to be positive for carcinoma. All samples that were diagnosed as metastatic carcinoma were confirmed on subsequent follow-up. EUS-FNA performed simultaneously with adrenal gland aspiration either from the primary site (n = 1) or from metastases to lymph nodes (n = 3) supported diagnoses of metastatic carcinoma. Six of seven samples were metastatic from the lung, and one specimen was a direct extension of a transitional renal cell carcinoma. EUS-FNA biopsy of the right adrenal gland in one patient revealed myelolipoma. In 16 patients, benign adrenal gland cells were noted on EUS-FNA biopsy specimens from enlarged adrenal glands. In 5 samples (31%), signs of adenoma were evident. Morphology alone could not distinguish between adrenal adenoma and adrenal hyperplasia. No significant complications were reported after EUS-FNA biopsy of adrenal glands. CONCLUSIONS EUS-FNA biopsy is a highly specific and safe technique for confirming the diagnosis of carcinoma metastatic to the adrenal glands. Along with cytologic evaluation, EUS imaging is needed to support the diagnosis of adrenal adenoma. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2004. © 2004 American Cancer Society.

BACKGROUND Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNA) allows detailed imaging of both intramural and extramural structures of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and also allows tissue samples to be obtained from masses and lesions in the GI tract. The objective of the current study was to determine the diagnostic utility of EUS-FNA in evaluating intramural and extramural GI tract lesions. METHODS The authors evaluated all EUS-FNA specimens of GI tract lesions obtained over a 30-month period (from August 2000 to February 2003). Samples of pancreatic and intrabdominal/mediastinal lymph nodes were excluded from the study. A single endosonographer performed all procedures. An attending cytopathologist also was present on site to assess specimen adequacy. Cytologic diagnoses were analyzed for correlations with final diagnoses, which were based on histologic examination of biopsied/resected pathology materials and/or clinical follow-up findings. RESULTS Sixty-two EUS-FNA specimens of intramural and extramural GI tract lesions were obtained from a total of 60 patients. The mean patient age was 58.8 years (standard deviation, 15.3 years). Thirty-six patients (60%) were male, and 24 (40%) were female. Twenty-eight patients had surgical pathologic evaluation of the corresponding lesions. The remaining 32 patients were followed clinically for a mean duration of 9.5 months (standard deviation, 7.7 months). The anatomic sites of the lesions were as follows: esophagus in 23 patients (37%), stomach in 13 patients (21%), duodenum in 15 patients (24%), and rectum/sigmoid in 11 patients (18%). It is noteworthy that 29 patients (43%) previously had experienced unsuccessful attempts at tissue diagnosis by endoscopic forceps biopsy. Of the 62 EUS-FNA specimens, 43, 4, and 15 were reported as being positive for a neoplasm, suspicious, and benign, respectively. Neoplastic lesions included carcinoma (n = 24), gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST; n = 18), neuroendocrine neoplasm (n = 2), and lymphoma (n = 1). There were two cases of endometriosis, three foregut duplication cysts, and one case of diverticulosis. There were two lesions that yielded false-negative findings (one gastric lymphoma and one GIST) secondary to sampling or interpretive error. There also were three cases that yielded false-positive findings (one case of endometriosis, one case of duodenal diverticula with smooth muscle hyperplasia, and one case of normal pancreas, which presented as a periduodenal mass). The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA in diagnosing GI tract neoplastic lesions were 89%, 88%, and 89%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS EUS-FNA provides accurate tissue diagnosis in a wide variety of extraintestinal mass lesions and intramural GI tumors, particularly in patients for whom previous endoscopic forceps biopsy was unsuccessful in establishing a diagnosis. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2004. © 2004 American Cancer Society.

Use of ThinPrep preparation for fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNA) is gaining popularity. However, there may be a difference in the morphology and the operating characteristics between ThinPrep and conventional methods. The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of the two methods and to address the pitfalls of ThinPrep preparation in pancreatic FNA. A computer search identified 67 pancreatic FNAs with both conventional smears and ThinPrep preparation during a 19-mo period. These cases, obtained under endoscopic ultrasound-guidance, consisted of 47 malignant neoplasms (44 ductal carcinomas, two mucinous neoplasms, and one islet cell tumor) and 20 benign lesions. Direct smears were prepared first and the remaining material was then put into PreservCyt Solution for ThinPrep slides. All slides were reviewed and the cytologic diagnoses were correlated with histologic and clinical follow-up. Five conventional and 16 ThinPrep specimens were unsatisfactory due to insufficient cellularity. These cases were excluded from the analysis. Among the 62 cases evaluated by conventional preparation, 77% (34) were diagnosed as positive and 14% (seven) atypical/suspicious by conventional smears. For the 51 ThinPrep specimens, 58% (22) were interpreted as positive and 31% (12) atypical/suspicious. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of diagnosing a malignancy were 77%, 100%, and 84% for conventional smears and 58%, 100%, and 67% for ThinPrep preparation, respectively. There were no false positives with either method. However, three benign lesions were interpreted as atypical/suspicious with ThinPrep preparation because of the presence of single atypical cells with distinct nucleoli. One of the two mucinous neoplasms was incorrectly diagnosed with ThinPrep preparation because of lack of mucin. The diagnostic accuracy of pancreatic FNA using ThinPrep is inferior to that of conventional smears. This may be partly due to the use of split sample technique resulting in scant cellularity in ThinPrep preparation and partly due to the differences in morphology between the two preparations. Therefore, the current morphologic criteria may need modification for ThinPrep preparation in pancreatic FNA.

BACKGROUND Although atypical or suspicious cytology may support a clinical diagnosis of a malignancy, it is often not sufficient for the implementation of therapy in patients with pancreatic carcinoma. Endoscopic ultrasound–guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNAB) is a relatively new method for obtaining cytology samples, and one that may decrease the number of atypical/suspicious diagnoses. The goals of the current study were to prospectively evaluate the yield of EUS-FNAB in the diagnosis of patients presenting with solid pancreatic lesions and to evaluate the significance of atypical, suspicious, and false-negative aspirates. METHODS All patients who presented with a solid pancreatic lesion and underwent EUS-FNAB over a 13-month period were included in the current study. One endoscopist performed all EUS-FNABs. On-site evaluation of specimen adequacy by a cytopathologist was available for each case. Follow-up included histologic correlation (n = 21) and clinical and/or imaging follow-up (n = 80), including 38 patients who died of the disease. RESULTS EUS-FNABs were obtained from 101 patients (mean age, 62 ± 11.8 years; age range, 34–89 years). The male-to-female ratio was 2:1. Sixty-five percent of the lesions were located in the head of the pancreas, 12% were located in the uncinate, 17% were located in the body, and 6% were located in the tail. The mean size of the tumors was 3.3 cm (range, 1.3–7 cm). A median of 4 needle passes were performed (range, 1–11 needle passes). Sixty-two biopsies (61.4%) were interpreted as malignant on cytologic evaluation, 5 (5%) as suspicious for a malignancy, 6 (5.9%) as atypical/indeterminate, and 26 (25.7%) as benign processes. Of the 76 malignant lesions, 71 were adenocarcinomas, 3 were neuroendocrine tumors, 1 was a lymphoma, and 1 was a metastatic renal cell carcinoma. All except one of the suspicious/atypical aspirates were subsequently confirmed to be malignant. Agreement was complete for the atypical cases. Among the suspicious cases, 2 of the 5 were identified as carcinoma by one cytopathologist and as suspicious lesions by the other, yielding a 40% disagreement rate between the 2 cytopathologists. Therefore, for the 10 atypical or suspicious cases that later were confirmed to be malignant, the final diagnosis of malignant disease was not made due to scant cellularity that could be attributed to sampling error in 8 cases and to interpretative disagreement in 2 cases (20%). All four false-negative diagnoses were attributed to sampling error. Two percent of all biopsies were inadequate for interpretation. Of the 99 adequate specimens, 72 yielded true-positive results, 23 yielded true-negative results, and 4 yielded false-negative results. No false-positives were encountered. Therefore, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of EUS-FNAB for solid pancreatic masses were 94.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 89.7–99.8%), 100%, 100%, and 85.2% (95% CI, 71.8–98.6%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS EUS-FNAB is a safe and highly accurate method for tissue diagnosis of patients with solid pancreatic lesions. Patients with suspicious and atypical EUS-FNAB aspirates deserve further clinical evaluation. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2003;99:285–92. © 2003 American Cancer Society. DOI 10.1002/cncr.11643

Summary Background : The measurement of the hepatic venous pressure gradient may identify a suboptimal response to beta-blockers in patients with varices at risk for bleeding. However, the cost-effectiveness of routine hepatic venous pressure gradient measurements to guide primary prophylaxis has not been examined. Methods : We used decision analysis to evaluate two hepatic venous pressure gradient measurement strategies relative to standard beta-blocker therapy in a hypothetical cohort of patients with high-risk varices: (i) hepatic venous pressure gradient measurement 4 weeks after the initiation of beta-blocker therapy; and (ii) hepatic venous pressure gradient measurement prior to and 4 weeks after the initiation of beta-blocker therapy. The total expected costs, variceal bleeding episodes and deaths were calculated over a 1-year time horizon. Results : Beta-blocker therapy was associated with total costs of $1464, seven variceal bleeding episodes, one variceal bleeding episode-related death and 15 deaths. One hepatic venous pressure gradient measurement was associated with total costs of $5015, four variceal bleeding episodes, one variceal bleeding episode-related death and 15 deaths. Two hepatic venous pressure gradient measurements were associated with total costs of $8657, four episodes of variceal bleeding, one variceal bleeding episode-related death and 15 deaths. Compared with beta-blocker therapy alone, the incremental costs per variceal bleeding episode prevented and death averted were, respectively, $108 185 and $355 100 (one hepatic venous pressure gradient measurement) and $202 796 and $719 300 (two hepatic venous pressure gradient measurements). The results were sensitive to the time horizon of the analysis, the probability of bleeding whilst on beta-blockers and the cost of hepatic venous pressure gradient measurement. Conclusion : Hepatic venous pressure gradient measurement to guide primary prophylaxis is an expensive strategy for reducing variceal bleeding or death, especially in patients with limited life expectancy, such as those with advanced, decompensated cirrhosis.

Although uncommon, Hurthle cell neoplasms have a characteristic histologic and cytologic features which often aid in the diagnosis of these lesions. In fine needle aspiration biopsies, determining malignant potential on cytologic features is challenging unless other evidence of malignancy (such as metastases) are known. The role of EUS-guided FNA in diagnosing superior mediastinal masses has been described previously. It's role in evaluating subcarinal metastases from lung cancer primaries have also heen studied. However we describe metastatic thyroid Hurthle cell carcinoma to the subcarina diagnosed through EUS-guided FNA combining the unique cytologic features o Hurthle cell neoplasms and the versatility ofthe endoscopic ultrasound to reach a diagnosis in this unusual neoplasm. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2013;41:977–979. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

While adrenal gland histoplasmosis has been previously diagnosed by fine needle aspiration utilizing the percutaneous approach, EUS-FNA has not been employed in the diagnosis of this infection affecting both adrenal glands. We report a patient with massive bilateral adrenal enlargement due to histoplasmosis that was diagnosed by EUS-FNA. Trans-duodenal and trans-gastric fine needle aspiration biopsy of both adrenal glands was performed. Rapid onsite cytopathologic evaluation (ROSE) revealed epithelioid histiocytes, singly and in clusters consistent with granulomas. Apparent intracytoplasmic inclusions suggestive of organisms were visible. A Gomori Methenamine Silver stain (GMS) revealed abundant small intracellular budding yeasts, morphologically consistent with Histoplasma; the patient was admitted for amphotericin B intravenous infusion. His fever abated on the second day after amphotericin B was started. His urine Histoplasma antigen was positive. Fungal cultures from both adrenal EUS-FNA samples grew Histoplasma capsulatum. After a one week hospital stay, he was discharged home on itraconazole 200 mg po bid for one year. Four months after initiation of treatment, his urine Histoplasma antigen was undetectable. Nine months after initial diagnosis, the patient regained his energy level, and returned to work with complete resolution of his initial symptoms. This case highlights that EUS-FNA with ROSE can be a highly effective tool in the diagnosis of uncommon infections of the adrenal glands.

Background: Using cumulative sum (CUSUM) chart, we address two questions: (i) Over time, how will an EUS-FNA (endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration) service maintain an acceptable non-diagnostic rate defined as technical failures, unsatisfactory specimens and atypical and suspicious diagnoses? (ii) Over time, how will EUS-FNA maintain acceptable diagnostic errors (false-positives plus false-negative diagnosis)? Methods: The study included all consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNA at our institution from July 2000 to October 2003 and were followed up until December 2004. Using a simple spread sheet, we designed CUSUM charts and used them to track trends and assess performance at a preset acceptable rate of 10% and a preset unacceptable rate of 15% for non-diagnostic rate and diagnostic errors. We assessed all cases collectively and then in groups defined by site, size and cytopathologist. Results: Of 876 patients undergoing EUS-FNA, 83 (9.5%) had non-diagnostic results: 43 (51%) of these diagnoses were ‘atypical’, 27(33%) were ‘suspicious for malignancy’, eight (10%) were ‘insufficient material for diagnosis’ and five (6%) were ‘technical failure’. In 585 cases with adequate follow up, there were 26 (6.3%) diagnostic errors: three (0.5%) were false positive and 23 (3.1) were false negative. The overall CUSUM charts for both non-diagnostic rate and for diagnostic error rate start with a small period of learning then cross to a significantly acceptable level at case numbers 121 and 97 respectively. Our diagnostic performance was better in lymph nodes than in the pancreas and other organs and was not significantly different for lesions ≤25 mm compared with lesion >25 mm in diameter. Performance was better for pathologists with prior experience than for pathologists without experience. Conclusion: In the current climate of proficiency testing, error tracking and competence evaluation, there is a great potential for the use of CUSUM charts to assess procedure failure and error tracking in quality control programs, particularly when a new procedure such as EUS-FNA is introduced in the laboratory. Additionally, the method can be used to assess trainee competency and to track the proficiency of practicing cytologists.