Optimization of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sample acquisition for commercially available comprehensive genome profiling.
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration
Endosonography
Genome
Neoplasms
Precision medicine
Journal
Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology
ISSN: 1440-1746
Titre abrégé: J Gastroenterol Hepatol
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 8607909
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2023
Oct 2023
Historique:
revised:
12
06
2023
received:
12
02
2023
accepted:
08
07
2023
medline:
23
10
2023
pubmed:
27
7
2023
entrez:
26
7
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Optimal tumor samples are crucial for successful analysis using commercially available comprehensive genomic profiling (CACGP). However, samples acquired by endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) are occasionally insufficient, and no consensus on the optimal number of needle passes required for CACGP exists. This study aimed to explore the optimal number of needle passes required for EUS-TA to procure an ideal sample fulfilling the prerequisite criteria of CACGPs. Patients who underwent EUS-TA for solid masses between November 2019 and July 2021 were retrospectively studied. The correlation between the acquisition rate of an ideal sample and the number of needle passes mounted on a microscope slide was evaluated. Additionally, the factors predicting a successful analysis were investigated in patients scheduled for CACGP using EUS-TA-obtained samples during the same period. EUS-TAs using 22- and 19-gauge (G) needles were performed in 336 and 57 patients, respectively. There was a positive correlation between the acquisition rate and the number of passes using a 22-G needle (38.9%, 45.0%, 83.7%, and 100% for 1, 2, 3, and 4 passes, respectively), while no correlation was found with a 19-G needle (84.2%, 83.3%, and 85.0% for 1, 2, and 3 passes, respectively). The analysis success rate in patients with scheduled CACGP was significantly higher with ideal samples than with suboptimal samples (94.1% vs 55.0%, P < 0.01). The optimal estimated number of needle passes was 4 and 1-2 for 22- and 19-G needles, respectively.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIM
OBJECTIVE
Optimal tumor samples are crucial for successful analysis using commercially available comprehensive genomic profiling (CACGP). However, samples acquired by endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) are occasionally insufficient, and no consensus on the optimal number of needle passes required for CACGP exists. This study aimed to explore the optimal number of needle passes required for EUS-TA to procure an ideal sample fulfilling the prerequisite criteria of CACGPs.
METHODS
METHODS
Patients who underwent EUS-TA for solid masses between November 2019 and July 2021 were retrospectively studied. The correlation between the acquisition rate of an ideal sample and the number of needle passes mounted on a microscope slide was evaluated. Additionally, the factors predicting a successful analysis were investigated in patients scheduled for CACGP using EUS-TA-obtained samples during the same period.
RESULTS
RESULTS
EUS-TAs using 22- and 19-gauge (G) needles were performed in 336 and 57 patients, respectively. There was a positive correlation between the acquisition rate and the number of passes using a 22-G needle (38.9%, 45.0%, 83.7%, and 100% for 1, 2, 3, and 4 passes, respectively), while no correlation was found with a 19-G needle (84.2%, 83.3%, and 85.0% for 1, 2, and 3 passes, respectively). The analysis success rate in patients with scheduled CACGP was significantly higher with ideal samples than with suboptimal samples (94.1% vs 55.0%, P < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The optimal estimated number of needle passes was 4 and 1-2 for 22- and 19-G needles, respectively.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1794-1801Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2023 Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
Références
Pishvaian MJ, Blais EM, Brody JR et al. Overall survival in patients with pancreatic cancer receiving matched therapies following molecular profiling: a retrospective analysis of the Know Your Tumor registry trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020; 21: 508-518.
Le DT, Durham JN, Smith KN et al. Mismatch repair deficiency predicts response of solid tumors to PD-1 blockade. Science 2017; 357: 409-413.
Foundation Medicine Inc. FoundationOne CDx [Internet]. Available from: https://www.foundationmedicine.com/genomic-testing/foundation-one-cdx
Ebi H, Bando H. Precision oncology and the universal health coverage system in Japan. JCO Precis. Oncol. 2019; 3: 1-2.
Foundation Medicine Inc. FoundationOne CDx: Specimen Instructions [Internet]. Available from: https://assets.ctfassets.net/vhribv12lmne/6ms7OiT5PaQgGiMWue2MAM/53f9bdd91bfa22549087a28b53225fa5/
Larson BK, Tuli R, Jamil LH, Lo SK, Deng N, Hendifar AE. Utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy for next-generation sequencing of pancreatic exocrine malignancies. Pancreas 2018; 47: 990-995.
Kuwata T, Wakabayashi M, Hatanaka Y et al. Impact of DNA integrity on the success rate of tissue-based next-generation sequencing: lessons from nationwide cancer genome screening project SCRUM-Japan GI-SCREEN. Pathol. Int. 2020; 70: 932-942.
Hewitt MJ, McPhail MJ, Possamai L, Dhar A, Vlavianos P, Monahan KJ. EUS-guided FNA for diagnosis of solid pancreatic neoplasms: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2012; 75: 319-331.
de Moura DTH, McCarty TR, Jirapinyo P et al. EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling versus FNA in the diagnosis of subepithelial lesions: a large multicenter study. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2020; 92: 108-119.
Chen VK, Eloubeidi MA. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration is superior to lymph node echofeatures: a prospective evaluation of mediastinal and peri-intestinal lymphadenopathy. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2004; 99: 628-633.
Vilmann P, Jacobsen GK, Henriksen FW, Hancke S. Endoscopic ultrasonography with guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in pancreatic disease. Gastrointest. Endosc. 1992; 38: 172-173.
Ishiwatari H, Hayashi T, Kawakami H et al. Randomized trial comparing a side-port needle and standard needle for EUS-guided histology of pancreatic lesions. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2016; 84: 670-678.
Sato J, Ishiwatari H, Sasaki K et al. Benefit of high negative pressure during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with standard 22-gauge needles for pancreatic lesions: a retrospective comparative study. Scand. J. Gastroenterol. 2019; 54: 108-113.
Lee YN, Moon JH, Kim HK et al. Core biopsy needle versus standard aspiration needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses: a randomized parallel-group study. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 1056-1062.
Oppong KW, Bekkali NLH, Leeds JS et al. Fork-tip needle biopsy versus fine-needle aspiration in endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses: a randomized crossover study. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 454-461.
Fujie S, Ishiwatari H, Sasaki K et al. Comparison of the diagnostic yield of the standard 22-gauge needle and the new 20-gauge forward-bevel core biopsy needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition from pancreatic lesions. Gut Liver 2019; 13: 349-355.
Kaneko J, Ishiwatari H, Sasaki K et al. Macroscopic on-site evaluation of biopsy specimens for accurate pathological diagnosis during EUS-guided fine needle biopsy using 22-G Franseen needle. Endosc. Ultrasound 2020; 9: 385-391.
Kondo T, Matsubara J, Quy PN et al. Comprehensive genomic profiling for patients with chemotherapy-naïve advanced cancer. Cancer Sci. 2021; 112: 296-304.
Kimura R, Ohtsuka T, Kubo M et al. FoundationOne® CDx gene profiling in Japanese pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients: a single-institution experience. Surg. Today 2021; 51: 619-626.
The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Integrated genomic characterization of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Cancer Cell 2017; 32: 185-203.
Wood LD, Hruban RH. Pathology and molecular genetics of pancreatic neoplasms. Cancer J. 2012; 18: 492-501.
Iwashita T, Yasuda I, Mukai T et al. 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. 2015; 81: 177-185.
Ishiwatari H, Sato J, Fujie S et al. Gross visual inspection by endosonographers during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration. Pancreatology 2019; 19: 191-195.
Kaneko J, Ishiwatari H, Sasaki K et al. Macroscopic visible core length can predict the histological sample quantity in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition: Multicenter prospective study. Dig. Endosc. 2022; 34: 622-631.
Ashat M, Klair JS, Rooney SL et al. Randomized controlled trial comparing the Franseen needle with the Fork-tip needle for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2021; 93: 140-150.
Mangiavillano B, Crino SF, Facciorusso A et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy with or without macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE): a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial. Endoscopy 2023; 55: 129-137.
Mita N, Iwashita T, Uemura S et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy using 22-gauge Franseen needle for the histological diagnosis of solid lesions: a multicenter prospective pilot study. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2020; 65: 1155-1163.
Ikeda G, Hijioka S, Nagashio Y et al. Fine-needle biopsy with 19G needle is effective in combination with endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition for genomic profiling of unresectable pancreatic cancer. Dig. Endosc. 2023; 35: 124-133.
Hisada Y, Hijioka S, Ikeda G et al. Proportion of unresectable pancreatic cancer specimens obtained by endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition meeting the OncoGuide™ NCC Oncopanel System analysis suitability criteria: a single-arm, phase II clinical trial. J. Gastroenterol. 2022; 57: 990-998.