Endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNA and ProCore biopsy in sampling pancreatic and intra-abdominal masses

Jessica Dwyer, Liron Pantanowitz, N. Paul Ohori, Reetesh K. Pai, Colleen Vrbin, Randall E. Brand, Sara E. Monaco

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: ProCore fine-needle biopsy (FNB) was introduced to improve the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) sampling. The aim of this study was to evaluate EUS-guided sampling of intra-abdominal masses and compare the diagnostic utility of conventional EUS-FNA and ProCore FNB. METHODS: EUS-guided biopsy samples (FNA and/or EchoTip ProCore FNB) were retrospectively retrieved over the course of 23 months. Clinical findings, pathology reports, and available histological materials were reviewed. All cell blocks were reviewed, and their cellularity was scored (range, 0-3). RESULTS: Fifty-six masses from 58 cases were acquired, and they included 40 pancreatic sites and 16 other intra-abdominal sites. Among the 31 FNB-only cases, 71% were satisfactory, 65% were positive for malignancy at the time of final diagnosis, and their cell blocks were moderately cellular. For the cases with both FNB and FNA performed, more FNB samples than FNA samples were satisfactory (83% vs 76%) and were positive for malignancy (65% vs 48%) at final diagnosis, and the former had more cellular cell blocks (mean score, 1.58 vs 1.29); however, the differences were not statistically significant. Significantly more FNB samples were used for immunostains (48% vs 10%; P =.005). CONCLUSIONS: These data show that a wide variety of intra-abdominal masses were amenable to sampling by ProCore FNB. In this subset of cases with prior/concurrent indeterminate FNAs, FNB showed slightly better diagnostic yield, and had more cellular tissue samples and more material for ancillary studies than matched FNAs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)110-121
Number of pages12
JournalCancer cytopathology
Volume124
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2016

Fingerprint

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration
Fine Needle Biopsy
Clinical Pathology

Keywords

  • cytology
  • cytopathology
  • endoscopic
  • fine-needle aspiration (FNA)
  • fine-needle biopsy (FNB)
  • pancreas
  • ProCore

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

Dwyer, J., Pantanowitz, L., Ohori, N. P., Pai, R. K., Vrbin, C., Brand, R. E., & Monaco, S. E. (2016). Endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNA and ProCore biopsy in sampling pancreatic and intra-abdominal masses. Cancer cytopathology, 124(2), 110-121. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncy.21623

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNA and ProCore biopsy in sampling pancreatic and intra-abdominal masses. / Dwyer, Jessica; Pantanowitz, Liron; Ohori, N. Paul; Pai, Reetesh K.; Vrbin, Colleen; Brand, Randall E.; Monaco, Sara E.

In: Cancer cytopathology, Vol. 124, No. 2, 01.02.2016, p. 110-121.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Dwyer, J, Pantanowitz, L, Ohori, NP, Pai, RK, Vrbin, C, Brand, RE & Monaco, SE 2016, 'Endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNA and ProCore biopsy in sampling pancreatic and intra-abdominal masses', Cancer cytopathology, vol. 124, no. 2, pp. 110-121. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncy.21623
Dwyer, Jessica ; Pantanowitz, Liron ; Ohori, N. Paul ; Pai, Reetesh K. ; Vrbin, Colleen ; Brand, Randall E. ; Monaco, Sara E. / Endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNA and ProCore biopsy in sampling pancreatic and intra-abdominal masses. In: Cancer cytopathology. 2016 ; Vol. 124, No. 2. pp. 110-121.
@article{e443f916c27d4891bb2c56c22e8108fc,
title = "Endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNA and ProCore biopsy in sampling pancreatic and intra-abdominal masses",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: ProCore fine-needle biopsy (FNB) was introduced to improve the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) sampling. The aim of this study was to evaluate EUS-guided sampling of intra-abdominal masses and compare the diagnostic utility of conventional EUS-FNA and ProCore FNB. METHODS: EUS-guided biopsy samples (FNA and/or EchoTip ProCore FNB) were retrospectively retrieved over the course of 23 months. Clinical findings, pathology reports, and available histological materials were reviewed. All cell blocks were reviewed, and their cellularity was scored (range, 0-3). RESULTS: Fifty-six masses from 58 cases were acquired, and they included 40 pancreatic sites and 16 other intra-abdominal sites. Among the 31 FNB-only cases, 71{\%} were satisfactory, 65{\%} were positive for malignancy at the time of final diagnosis, and their cell blocks were moderately cellular. For the cases with both FNB and FNA performed, more FNB samples than FNA samples were satisfactory (83{\%} vs 76{\%}) and were positive for malignancy (65{\%} vs 48{\%}) at final diagnosis, and the former had more cellular cell blocks (mean score, 1.58 vs 1.29); however, the differences were not statistically significant. Significantly more FNB samples were used for immunostains (48{\%} vs 10{\%}; P =.005). CONCLUSIONS: These data show that a wide variety of intra-abdominal masses were amenable to sampling by ProCore FNB. In this subset of cases with prior/concurrent indeterminate FNAs, FNB showed slightly better diagnostic yield, and had more cellular tissue samples and more material for ancillary studies than matched FNAs.",
keywords = "cytology, cytopathology, endoscopic, fine-needle aspiration (FNA), fine-needle biopsy (FNB), pancreas, ProCore",
author = "Jessica Dwyer and Liron Pantanowitz and Ohori, {N. Paul} and Pai, {Reetesh K.} and Colleen Vrbin and Brand, {Randall E.} and Monaco, {Sara E.}",
year = "2016",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/cncy.21623",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "124",
pages = "110--121",
journal = "Cancer cytopathology",
issn = "1934-662X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNA and ProCore biopsy in sampling pancreatic and intra-abdominal masses

AU - Dwyer, Jessica

AU - Pantanowitz, Liron

AU - Ohori, N. Paul

AU - Pai, Reetesh K.

AU - Vrbin, Colleen

AU - Brand, Randall E.

AU - Monaco, Sara E.

PY - 2016/2/1

Y1 - 2016/2/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: ProCore fine-needle biopsy (FNB) was introduced to improve the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) sampling. The aim of this study was to evaluate EUS-guided sampling of intra-abdominal masses and compare the diagnostic utility of conventional EUS-FNA and ProCore FNB. METHODS: EUS-guided biopsy samples (FNA and/or EchoTip ProCore FNB) were retrospectively retrieved over the course of 23 months. Clinical findings, pathology reports, and available histological materials were reviewed. All cell blocks were reviewed, and their cellularity was scored (range, 0-3). RESULTS: Fifty-six masses from 58 cases were acquired, and they included 40 pancreatic sites and 16 other intra-abdominal sites. Among the 31 FNB-only cases, 71% were satisfactory, 65% were positive for malignancy at the time of final diagnosis, and their cell blocks were moderately cellular. For the cases with both FNB and FNA performed, more FNB samples than FNA samples were satisfactory (83% vs 76%) and were positive for malignancy (65% vs 48%) at final diagnosis, and the former had more cellular cell blocks (mean score, 1.58 vs 1.29); however, the differences were not statistically significant. Significantly more FNB samples were used for immunostains (48% vs 10%; P =.005). CONCLUSIONS: These data show that a wide variety of intra-abdominal masses were amenable to sampling by ProCore FNB. In this subset of cases with prior/concurrent indeterminate FNAs, FNB showed slightly better diagnostic yield, and had more cellular tissue samples and more material for ancillary studies than matched FNAs.

AB - BACKGROUND: ProCore fine-needle biopsy (FNB) was introduced to improve the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) sampling. The aim of this study was to evaluate EUS-guided sampling of intra-abdominal masses and compare the diagnostic utility of conventional EUS-FNA and ProCore FNB. METHODS: EUS-guided biopsy samples (FNA and/or EchoTip ProCore FNB) were retrospectively retrieved over the course of 23 months. Clinical findings, pathology reports, and available histological materials were reviewed. All cell blocks were reviewed, and their cellularity was scored (range, 0-3). RESULTS: Fifty-six masses from 58 cases were acquired, and they included 40 pancreatic sites and 16 other intra-abdominal sites. Among the 31 FNB-only cases, 71% were satisfactory, 65% were positive for malignancy at the time of final diagnosis, and their cell blocks were moderately cellular. For the cases with both FNB and FNA performed, more FNB samples than FNA samples were satisfactory (83% vs 76%) and were positive for malignancy (65% vs 48%) at final diagnosis, and the former had more cellular cell blocks (mean score, 1.58 vs 1.29); however, the differences were not statistically significant. Significantly more FNB samples were used for immunostains (48% vs 10%; P =.005). CONCLUSIONS: These data show that a wide variety of intra-abdominal masses were amenable to sampling by ProCore FNB. In this subset of cases with prior/concurrent indeterminate FNAs, FNB showed slightly better diagnostic yield, and had more cellular tissue samples and more material for ancillary studies than matched FNAs.

KW - cytology

KW - cytopathology

KW - endoscopic

KW - fine-needle aspiration (FNA)

KW - fine-needle biopsy (FNB)

KW - pancreas

KW - ProCore

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84958771077&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84958771077&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/cncy.21623

DO - 10.1002/cncy.21623

M3 - Article

C2 - 26430767

AN - SCOPUS:84958771077

VL - 124

SP - 110

EP - 121

JO - Cancer cytopathology

JF - Cancer cytopathology

SN - 1934-662X

IS - 2

ER -