Next-Generation Biopsy Devices
Factors influencing the diagnostic yield of a lesion include the location, size, nature of the lesion (solid, cystic, or firm), and the type and the size of the needle used for aspiration. Needle types with different tip designs that have been introduced for solid masses include the EchoTip ProCore® HD Ultrasound (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN), Shark coreTM FNB Exchange (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN), and the AcquireTM (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA). These newer-generation EUS-FNA biopsy needles help obtain small histopathology specimens from pancreatic solid masses (Fig. 4). For pancreatic cystic masses the Moray micro forceps have been used. These needles not only improve the tissue yield compared to FNA, but also significantly reduce the number of passes and provide a larger amount of cellularity for diagnostic accuracy and ancillary studies. In our experience, material obtained from these newer-generation needles, depending on the gauge of the needle used and the experience of the laboratory, is best processed using cell blocks as the biopsies are fragile and fragment easily.
Disclosure Statement
The author has no conflicts of interest to disclose.
References
1Al-Abbadi MA: Basics of cytology. Avicenna J Med 2011;1:18–28.
2Klapman JB, Logrono R, Dye CE, Waxman I: Clinical impact of on-site cytopathology interpretation on endoscopic ultrasoundguided fine needle aspiration. Am J Gastroenterol 2003;98:1289–1294.
3Hebert-Magee S, Bae S, Varadarajulu S, et al: The presence of a cytopathologist increases the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration cytology for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a meta-analysis. Cytopathology 2013;24:159–171.
4Schmidt RL, Walker BS, Howard K, Layfield LJ, Adler DG: Rapid on-site evaluation increases endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration adequacy for pancreatic lesions. Dig Dis Sci 2013;58:872–882.
5Haba S, Yamao K, Bhatia V, et al: Diagnostic ability and factors affecting accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for pancreatic solid lesions: Japanese large single center experience. J Gastroenterol 2013;48:973–981.
6Collins BT, Murad FM, Wang JF, Bernadt CT: Rapid on-site evaluation for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy of the pancreas decreases the incidence of repeat biopsy procedures. Cancer Cytopathol 2013;121:518–524.
7Iglesias-Garcia J, Dominguez-Munoz JE, Abdulkader I, et al: Influence of on-site cytopathology evaluation on the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of solid pancreatic masses. Am J Gastroenterol 2011;106:1705–1710.
8Ecka RS, Sharma M: Rapid on-site evaluation of EUS-FNA by cytopathologist: an experience of a tertiary hospital. Diagn Cytopathol 2013;41:1075–1080.
9Chang KJ: Maximizing the yield of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;56:S28–S34.
10Yamao K, Sawaki A, Mizuno N, Shimizu Y, Yatabe Y, Koshikawa T: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNAB): past, present, and future. J Gastroenterol 2005;40:1013–1023.
11Logrono R, Waxman I: Interactive role of the cytopathologists in EUS-guided fine needle aspiration: an effective approach. Gastrointest Endosc 2001;54:485–490.
12Erickson RA, Sayage-Rabie L, Beissner RS: Factors predicting the number of EUS-guided fine-needle passes for diagnosis of pancreatic malignancies. Gastrointest Endosc 2000;51:184–190.
13LeBlanc JK, Ciaccia D, Al-Assi MT, et al: Optimal number of EUS-guided fine needle passes needed to obtain a correct diagnosis. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;59:475–481.
14Storch I, Jorda M, Thurer R, et al: Advantage of EUS Trucut biopsy combined with fine-needle aspiration without immediate on-site cytopathologic examination. Gastrointest Endosc 2006;64:505–511.
15Lee LS, Nieto J, Watson RR, Hwang AL, Muthusamy VR, Walter L, Jajoo K, Ryou MK, Saltzman JR, Saunders MD, Suleiman S, Kadiyala V: Randomized noninferiority trial comparing diagnostic yield of cytopathologist-guided versus 7 passes for EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses. Dig Endosc 2016;28:469–475.
16Kong F, Zhu J, Kong X, Sun T, Deng X, Du Y, Li Z: Rapid on-site evaluation does not improve endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration adequacy in pancreatic masses: a meta-analysis and systematic review. PLoS One 2016;11:e0163056.
17Thakur M, Guttikonda VR: Modified ultrafast Papanicolaou staining technique: a comparative study. J Cytol 2017;34:149–153.
18de Luna R, Eloubeidi MA, Sheffield MV, Eltoum I, Jhala N, Jhala D, Chen VK, Chhieng DC: Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional preparations in pancreatic fine-needle aspiration biopsy. Diagn Cytopathol 2004;30:71–76.
19Rollins SD, Russell DK: Cytopathology in focus: cell blocks: getting the most from the least invasive method. CAP Today, Aug 2017.
20Balassanian R, Wool GD, Ono JC, Olejnik-Nave J, Mah MM, Sweeney BJ, Liberman H, Ljung BM, Pitman MB: A superior method for cell block preparation for fine-needle aspiration biopsies. Cancer Cytopathol 2016;124:508–518.
21Henwood AF, Charlton A: Extraneous epithelial cells from thromboplastin in cell blocks. Cytopathology 2014;25:412–413.
22Pitman MB, Lewandrowski K, Shen J, Sahani D, Brugge W, Fernandez-del Castillo C. Pancreatic cysts: preoperative diagnosis and clinical management. Cancer Cytopathol. 2010;118(1):1–13.
23Tanaka M, Chari S, Adsay V, Fernandez-del Castillo C, Falconi M, Shimizu M, Yamaguchi K, Yamao K, Matsuno S; International Association of Pancreatology: International consensus guidelines for management of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms and mucinous cystic neoplasms of the pancreas. Pancreatology 2006;6:17–32.
24Chai SM, Herba K, Kumarasinghe MP, de Boer WB, Amanuel B, Grieu-Iacopetta F, Lim EM, Segarajasingam D, Yusoff I, Choo C, Frost F: Optimizing the multimodal approach to pancreatic cyst fluid diagnosis: developing a volume-based triage protocol. Cancer Cytopathol 2013;121:86–100.
25Khalid A, McGrath KM, Zahid M, Wilson M, Brody D, Swalsky P, Moser AJ, Lee KK, Slivka A, Whitcomb DC, Finkelstein S: The role of pancreatic cyst