Comparison between EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology and EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy histology for the evaluation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.


Journal

Pancreatology : official journal of the International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) ... [et al.]
ISSN: 1424-3911
Titre abrégé: Pancreatology
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 100966936

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Mar 2021
Historique:
received: 10 10 2020
revised: 09 12 2020
accepted: 21 12 2020
pubmed: 5 1 2021
medline: 6 11 2021
entrez: 4 1 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Studies comparing EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) with EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for the evaluation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) are lacking. We aimed at comparing EUS-FNA with EUS-FNB in terms of Ki-67 proliferative index (PI) estimation capability, cellularity of the samples, and reliability of Ki-67 PI/tumor grading compared with surgical specimens. Patients diagnosed with pNETs on EUS and/or surgical specimens were retrospectively identified. Specimens were re-evaluated to assess Ki-67 PI feasibility, sample cellularity by manual counting, and determination of Ki-67 PI value. Outcomes in the EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB groups were compared. Kendall rank test was used for Ki-67 PI correlation between EUS and surgical specimens. Subgroup analysis including small (≤20 mm), non-functioning pNETs was performed. Three-hundred samples from 292 lesions were evaluated: 69 EUS-FNA cytology and 231 EUS-FNB histology. Ki-67 PI feasibility was similar for EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB (91.3% vs. 95.7%, p = 0.15), while EUS-FNB performed significantly better in the subgroup of 179 small pNETs (88.2% vs. 96.1%, p = 0.04). Rate of poor cellulated (<500 cells) specimens was equal between EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB. A significant correlation for Ki-67 PI values between EUS and 92 correspondent surgical specimens was found in both groups, but it was stronger with EUS-FNB (tau = 0.626, p < 0.0001 vs. tau = 0.452, p = 0.031). Correct grading estimation was comparable between the two groups (p = 0.482). Our study showed stronger correlation for Ki-67 values between EUS-FNB and surgical specimens, and that EUS-FNB outperformed EUS-FNA in the evaluation of small pNETs. EUS-FNB should become standard of care for grading assessment of suspected pNETs.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES OBJECTIVE
Studies comparing EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) with EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for the evaluation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) are lacking. We aimed at comparing EUS-FNA with EUS-FNB in terms of Ki-67 proliferative index (PI) estimation capability, cellularity of the samples, and reliability of Ki-67 PI/tumor grading compared with surgical specimens.
METHODS METHODS
Patients diagnosed with pNETs on EUS and/or surgical specimens were retrospectively identified. Specimens were re-evaluated to assess Ki-67 PI feasibility, sample cellularity by manual counting, and determination of Ki-67 PI value. Outcomes in the EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB groups were compared. Kendall rank test was used for Ki-67 PI correlation between EUS and surgical specimens. Subgroup analysis including small (≤20 mm), non-functioning pNETs was performed.
RESULTS RESULTS
Three-hundred samples from 292 lesions were evaluated: 69 EUS-FNA cytology and 231 EUS-FNB histology. Ki-67 PI feasibility was similar for EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB (91.3% vs. 95.7%, p = 0.15), while EUS-FNB performed significantly better in the subgroup of 179 small pNETs (88.2% vs. 96.1%, p = 0.04). Rate of poor cellulated (<500 cells) specimens was equal between EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB. A significant correlation for Ki-67 PI values between EUS and 92 correspondent surgical specimens was found in both groups, but it was stronger with EUS-FNB (tau = 0.626, p < 0.0001 vs. tau = 0.452, p = 0.031). Correct grading estimation was comparable between the two groups (p = 0.482).
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
Our study showed stronger correlation for Ki-67 values between EUS-FNB and surgical specimens, and that EUS-FNB outperformed EUS-FNA in the evaluation of small pNETs. EUS-FNB should become standard of care for grading assessment of suspected pNETs.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33390343
pii: S1424-3903(20)30875-9
doi: 10.1016/j.pan.2020.12.015
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

443-450

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 IAP and EPC. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest Authors declare no Conflict of Interests for this article.

Auteurs

Stefano Francesco Crinò (SF)

Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, The Pancreas Institute, G.B. Rossi University Hospital, Verona, Italy. Electronic address: stefanocrino@hotmail.com.

Serena Ammendola (S)

Department of Diagnostics and Public Health, G.B. Rossi University Hospital, Verona, Italy.

Anna Meneghetti (A)

Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, The Pancreas Institute, G.B. Rossi University Hospital, Verona, Italy.

Laura Bernardoni (L)

Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, The Pancreas Institute, G.B. Rossi University Hospital, Verona, Italy.

Maria Cristina Conti Bellocchi (MC)

Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, The Pancreas Institute, G.B. Rossi University Hospital, Verona, Italy.

Armando Gabbrielli (A)

Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, The Pancreas Institute, G.B. Rossi University Hospital, Verona, Italy.

Luca Landoni (L)

Department of General and Pancreatic Surgery, The Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital Trust, Verona, Italy.

Salvatore Paiella (S)

Department of General and Pancreatic Surgery, The Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital Trust, Verona, Italy.

Federico Pin (F)

Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, The Pancreas Institute, G.B. Rossi University Hospital, Verona, Italy.

Alice Parisi (A)

Department of Diagnostics and Public Health, G.B. Rossi University Hospital, Verona, Italy.

Maria Gaia Mastrosimini (MG)

Department of Diagnostics and Public Health, G.B. Rossi University Hospital, Verona, Italy.

Antonio Amodio (A)

Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, The Pancreas Institute, G.B. Rossi University Hospital, Verona, Italy.

Luca Frulloni (L)

Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, The Pancreas Institute, G.B. Rossi University Hospital, Verona, Italy.

Antonio Facciorusso (A)

Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.

Alberto Larghi (A)

Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.

Erminia Manfrin (E)

Department of Diagnostics and Public Health, G.B. Rossi University Hospital, Verona, Italy.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH