» Articles » PMID: 39448514

Identification of Endosonographic Features That Compromise EUS-FNB Diagnostic Accuracy in Pancreatic Masses

Overview
Journal Dig Dis Sci
Specialty Gastroenterology
Date 2024 Oct 24
PMID 39448514
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is highly accurate for diagnosing pancreatic mass. However, making diagnosis is challenging in 5-20% of patients. This study investigated the challenging features associated with reduced diagnostic performance in EUS-FNB and potential rescue methods that can improve the diagnostic rate.

Methods: This single-center retrospective study included patients with solid pancreatic tumors who underwent EUS-FNB between January 1, 2019, and December 12, 2021. Patients without a computed tomography (CT) scan or definite diagnosis were excluded. Challenging features were features that reduced diagnostic accuracy in EUS-FNB, as determined through multivariate analysis. Rescue methods were methods that assisted operators in assessing lesions in patients with challenging features.

Results: Of 332 enrolled patients, an accurate diagnosis obtained using EUS-FNB was achieved in 286 (86.1%). Univariable analysis revealed that the diagnostic accuracy was lower in cases of pancreatic tumors with isoattenuation in CT images (77.3% vs. 89.8%, odds ratio [OR]: 0.39, p = 0.003), an ill-defined margin on EUS (61.2% vs. 92.5%, OR: 0.13, p < 0.001), or tumor size < 20 mm (65.5% vs. 88.1%, OR: 0.26, p = 0.002). However, only ill-defined margins on EUS (OR: 0.14, p < 0.001) and tumor size < 20 mm (OR: 0.25, p = 0.005) were independent predictors of inconclusive EUS-FNB in the multivariate analysis. The use of contrast (OR: 4.46, p = 0.026) and a highly experienced endosonographer (> 5cases/month; OR: 3.25, p = 0.034) improved diagnostic performance in difficult cases.

Conclusions: Pancreatic tumors with ill-defined tumor margins on EUS or size < 20 mm are challenging features in EUS-FNB. The use of contrast and a highly experienced endosonographer can improve diagnostic performance in difficult cases.

Citing Articles

Clinical value of the nomogram model based on endoscopic ultrasonography radiomics and clinical indicators in identifying benign and malignant lesions of the pancreas.

Fan X, Huang J, Cai X, Maihemuti A, Li S, Fang W Front Oncol. 2025; 15:1504593.

PMID: 40046629 PMC: 11879810. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1504593.

References
1.
Iwashita T, Yasuda I, Mukai T, Doi S, Nakashima M, Uemura S . Macroscopic on-site quality evaluation of biopsy specimens to improve the diagnostic accuracy during EUS-guided FNA using a 19-gauge needle for solid lesions: a single-center prospective pilot study (MOSE study). Gastrointest Endosc. 2014; 81(1):177-85. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.08.040. View

2.
Kovacevic B, Vilmann P . EUS tissue acquisition: From A to B. Endosc Ultrasound. 2020; 9(4):225-231. PMC: 7528999. DOI: 10.4103/eus.eus_21_20. View

3.
Lin M, Wu C, Kida M, Chang W, Sheu B . Confirming Whether Fine Needle Biopsy Device Shortens the Learning Curve of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition Without Rapid Onsite Evaluation. Clin Endosc. 2021; 54(3):420-427. PMC: 8182233. DOI: 10.5946/ce.2020.184. View

4.
Ishikawa T, Ohno E, Mizutani Y, Iida T, Uetsuki K, Yashika J . Usefulness of Macroscopic On-Site Evaluation Using a Stereomicroscope during EUS-FNB for Diagnosing Solid Pancreatic Lesions. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022; 2022:2737578. PMC: 8789468. DOI: 10.1155/2022/2737578. View

5.
de Moura D, McCarty T, Jirapinyo P, Ribeiro I, Hathorn K, Madruga-Neto A . Evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration versus fine-needle biopsy and impact of rapid on-site evaluation for pancreatic masses. Endosc Int Open. 2020; 8(6):E738-E747. PMC: 7247894. DOI: 10.1055/a-1122-8674. View