Improved diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle biopsy with histology specimen processing

• Published in: World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy Vol. 12; no. 8; pp. 212 - 219
• Main Authors: Ku, Lawrence, Shahshahan, Mohammad A, Hou, Linda A, Eysselein, Viktor E, Reicher, Sofiya
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 16.08.2020
• Subjects: Retrospective Cohort Study
• ISSN: 1948-5190; 1948-5190
• DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v12.i8.212

BACKGROUNDEndoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) has emerged as a safe, efficacious alternative to fine needle aspiration (FNA) for tissue acquisition. EUS-FNB is reported to have higher diagnostic yield while preserving specimen tissue architecture. However, data on the optimal method of EUS-FNB specimen processing is limited. AIMTo evaluate EUS-FNB with specimen processing as histology vs EUS-FNA cytology with regards to diagnostic yield and specimen adequacy. METHODSAll EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB performed at our institution from July 1, 2016, to January 31, 2018, were retrospectively analyzed. We collected data on demographics, EUS findings, pathology, clinical outcomes, and procedural complications in two periods, July 2016 through March 2017, and April 2017 through January 2018, with predominant use of FNB in the second data collection time period. FNA specimens were processed as cytology with cell block technique and reviewed by a cytopathologist; FNB specimens were fixed in formalin, processed for histopathologic analysis and immunohistochemical staining, and reviewed by an anatomic pathologist. Final diagnosis was based on surgical pathology when available, repeat biopsy or imaging, and length of clinical follow up. RESULTSOne hundred six EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB procedures were performed. FNA alone was performed in 17 patients; in 56 patients, FNB alone was done; and in 33 patients, both FNA and FNB were performed. For all indications, diagnostic yield was 47.1% (8/17) in FNA alone cases, 85.7% (48/56) in FNB alone cases, and 84.8% (28/33) in cases where both FNA and FNB were performed (P = 0.0039). Specimens were adequate for pathologic evaluation in 52.9% (9/17) of FNA alone cases, in 89.3% (50/56) of FNB alone cases, and 84.8% (28/33) in cases where FNA with FNB were performed (P = 0.0049). Tissue could not be aspirated for cytology in 10.0% (5/50) of cases where FNA was done, while in 3.4% (3/89) of FNB cases, tissue could not be obtained for histology. In patients who underwent FNA with FNB, there was a statistically significant difference in both specimen adequacy (P = 0.0455) and diagnostic yield (P = 0.0455) between the FNA and FNB specimens (processed correspondingly as cytology or histology). CONCLUSIONEUS-FNB has a higher diagnostic yield and specimen adequacy than EUS-FNA. In our experience, specimen processing as histology may have contributed to the overall increased diagnostic yield of EUS-FNB.