r o i n t e s t inal a s t Dige Journal of ... · be taken into account that the procedures were...
3
Volume 1 • Issue 2 • 1000e104 J Gastroint Dig Syst ISSN: 2161-069X JGDS, an open access journal Vila et al., J Gastroint Dig Syst 2012, 2:1 DOI: 10.4172/2161-069X.1000e104 Editorial Open Access What is best for Endosonography Guided Fine Needle Aspiration (EUS- FNA) Samples in Solid and Cystic Lesions: Cytology, Histology or Both? Juan J. Vila 1 *, Pietro Fusaroli 2 and Marcos Kutz 3 1Endoscopy Unit, Department of Gastroenterology, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain 2Department of Clinical Medicine, GI Unit, University of Bologna/Hospital of Imola, Italy 3Endoscopy Unit, Department of Gastroenterology, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain Since its introduction in clinical practice about two decades ago, EUS-FNA has been one of the most efcient and safe methods to obtain samples from diferent gastroenterical as well as extraintestinal lesions for cytological and histological analysis [1]. EUS-FNA is of cardinal importance in esophageal, lung, rectal and pancreatic cancer staging [2-4]. Apart from staging, EUS-FNA has also per se indications, representing the procedure of choice for the acquisition of cytological samples from pancreatic and biliary lesions [5,6]. Sensitivity and specifcity for the diagnosis of such abnormalities range between 85 and 100% respectively regarding pancreas; sensitivity for biliary strictures varies between 43 and 86% [7,8]. Tese fgures exceed the ones described for alternative approaches such as intraductal ERCP brushing or percutaneous puncture, which entail a higher complication rate [6]. EUS-FNA greatest advantage over the mentioned alternatives regards the real-time needle control provided during the whole operation, thanks to the fact that the device is introduced through the same plane as the ultrasound signal. Tis allows the endoscopist to puncture aiming towards the spots where the highest quality material presumably will be retrieved and avoid structures that may stand in the way, reducing the risk of secondary complications. In this respect, both EUS elastography and contrast enhanced EUS have been advocated to emphasize the spots within lesions where the chances of obtaining diagnostic specimens are higher. With the latter technique, it has been reported that the hypoenhanced areas within a pancreatic lesion are highly predictive of adenocarcinoma and should be targeted selectively during EUS-FNA [9]. However, several factors may ultimately infuence the outcome of EUS-FNA, including the lesion’s characteristics, the presence of chronic pancreatitis, the type of needle utilized, the manipulation of the sample and also the endoscopist’s and cytologist’s experience. Te standard EUS-FNA technique is well known [10-12], but ignoring its principles might lead to suboptimal outcomes. In fact, current data demonstrates that up to 30% of the patients whose cytology is labeled as negative may actually harbor malignancy [13]. In order to improve our EUS-FNA results, it is convenient to review the technique and try to correct those aspects that can be ameliorated. Nowadays we reckon that, at the time of puncturing lesions, particularly large ones, several thrusts into the periphery should be performed, since these usually yield better quality samples containing small amounts of necrotic tissue [14]. On the other hand, the infuence of the needle caliber on the diagnostic yield has been evaluated in diferent studies, by comparing the specimens obtained with 25-gauge and 22-gauge needles. Although most of them have not found diferences regarding the diagnostic outcome [15-20], it can be at least inferred that the use of a 25-gauge needle does not imply a yield loss compared to the larger needle, provides samples with a smaller blood cell component and allows an easier insertion through the echoendoscope due to its great fexibility. Sample handling afer its retrieval may also infuence the fnal result. Specimen fxation in a cell block liquid solution improves the outcome over glass slide smearing and cytological examination, especially if there is no available cytologist in the endoscopy room [21]. One study analyzed retrospectively the diagnostic accuracy of cell block and cytological examination of EUS-FNA samples from 611 pancreatic tumors, describing 86.5% and 68% accuracy respectively (p < 0.001) [22]. Moreover, cell block enables immunocytochemical and molecular biology techniques to be applied, increasing the diagnostic yield in entities such as lymphoma [23]. However, these procedures are more expensive than glass slide cytology and their cost-beneft has been questioned by some authors [22]. Still, EUS-FNA with sample retrieval for cytological examination entails considerable drawbacks, such as the interpretation of the specimens rich in hematic, necrotic or infammatory cells, or the defnitive characterization of neoplasms that require immunohistochemical processing. EUS tru-cut biopsy needles were developed in order to overcome these faws. Although they have been proven accurate in the diagnosis of pancreatic masses, gastric subepithelial tumors, lymphomas and necrotic neoplasms, their overall diagnostic yield remains suboptimal due to technical limitations of the tru-cut apparatus [24]. For example, Whittmann et al. [25] compared the outcome accuracy from EUS guided tru-cut biopsies and EUS-FNA in 159 patients failing to detect signifcant diferences between them (73% vs 77% respectively). A multicentric study from Aithal et al. [26] including 95 patients, described a diagnostic accuracy of 89% in EUS guided tru-cut biopsies while EUS-FNA accuracy was 82% (p=0.21). However, studies proved that the combination of data acquired through EUS guided tru-cut biopsy and EUS-FNA ameliorates signifcantly the results obtained by EUS-FNA alone. In Whittmann et al.’s [25] study, the combined diagnostic accuracy reached 91%, Aithal et al. [26] placed it at 93% and a more recent study by Kipp et al. [27] showed a combined diagnostic sensitivity of 78% compared to 55% when using EUS-FNA alone (p < 0.001). Other factors, such as high costs, uncertain security profle and possible greater morbidity [28], have contributed to the criticisms against EUS guided tru-cut biopsy. In a personal view, one should add to that list the great number of blank thrusts that must be performed to retrieve a good quality specimen, which likely increases the risk of complications. In order to grant a new opportunity to histological sample retrieval through EUS-FNA a new type of needle has been recently developed (Echotip Procore, Cook Medical). Te device provides EUS guided core biopsies by means of a section system and not through a tru- cut system. Its diagnostic yield and security profle are still to be determined. At the moment of writing this editorial only one published study had evaluated the 19-gauge procore needle. Iglesias-Garcia et al. *Corresponding author: Juan J. Vila, MD, Endoscopy Unit, Department of Gastroenterology, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, c/ Irunlarrea, 331008, Pamplona, Spain, E-mail: [email protected] Received January 30, 2012; Accepted February 01, 2012; Published February 03, 2012 Citation: Vila JJ, Fusaroli P, Kutz M (2012) What is best for Endosonography Guided Fine Needle Aspiration (EUS-FNA) Samples in Solid and Cystic Lesions: Cytology, Histology or Both?. J Gastroint Dig Syst 2:e104. doi:10.4172/2161- 069X.1000e104 Copyright: © 2011 Vila JJ, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. J o u r n a l o f G a s t r o i n t e s t i n a l & D i g e s t i v e S y s t e m ISSN: 2161-069X Journal of Gastrointestinal & Digestive System
Transcript of r o i n t e s t inal a s t Dige Journal of ... · be taken into account that the procedures were...
Volume 1 • Issue 2 • 1000e104 J Gastroint Dig SystISSN: 2161-069X JGDS, an open access journal
Vila et al., J Gastroint Dig Syst 2012, 2:1
DOI: 10.4172/2161-069X.1000e104
Editorial Open Access
What is best for Endosonography Guided Fine Needle Aspiration (EUS-FNA) Samples in Solid and Cystic Lesions: Cytology, Histology or Both? Juan J. Vila1*, Pietro Fusaroli2 and Marcos Kutz3
1Endoscopy Unit, Department of Gastroenterology, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain 2Department of Clinical Medicine, GI Unit, University of Bologna/Hospital of Imola, Italy 3Endoscopy Unit, Department of Gastroenterology, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
Since its introduction in clinical practice about two decades ago, EUS-FNA has been one of the most efficient and safe methods to obtain samples from different gastroenterical as well as extraintestinal lesions for cytological and histological analysis [1]. EUS-FNA is of cardinal importance in esophageal, lung, rectal and pancreatic cancer staging [2-4]. Apart from staging, EUS-FNA has also per se indications, representing the procedure of choice for the acquisition of cytological samples from pancreatic and biliary lesions [5,6]. Sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of such abnormalities range between 85 and 100% respectively regarding pancreas; sensitivity for biliary strictures varies between 43 and 86% [7,8]. These figures exceed the ones described for alternative approaches such as intraductal ERCP brushing or percutaneous puncture, which entail a higher complication rate [6]. EUS-FNA greatest advantage over the mentioned alternatives regards the real-time needle control provided during the whole operation, thanks to the fact that the device is introduced through the same plane as the ultrasound signal. This allows the endoscopist to puncture aiming towards the spots where the highest quality material presumably will be retrieved and avoid structures that may stand in the way, reducing the risk of secondary complications. In this respect, both EUS elastography and contrast enhanced EUS have been advocated to emphasize the spots within lesions where the chances of obtaining diagnostic specimens are higher. With the latter technique, it has been reported that the hypoenhanced areas within a pancreatic lesion are highly predictive of adenocarcinoma and should be targeted selectively during EUS-FNA [9].
However, several factors may ultimately influence the outcome of EUS-FNA, including the lesion’s characteristics, the presence of chronic pancreatitis, the type of needle utilized, the manipulation of the sample and also the endoscopist’s and cytologist’s experience. The standard EUS-FNA technique is well known [10-12], but ignoring its principles might lead to suboptimal outcomes. In fact, current data demonstrates that up to 30% of the patients whose cytology is labeled as negative may actually harbor malignancy [13]. In order to improve our EUS-FNA results, it is convenient to review the technique and try to correct those aspects that can be ameliorated. Nowadays we reckon that, at the time of puncturing lesions, particularly large ones, several thrusts into the periphery should be performed, since these usually yield better quality samples containing small amounts of necrotic tissue [14]. On the other hand, the influence of the needle caliber on the diagnostic yield has been evaluated in different studies, by comparing the specimens obtained with 25-gauge and 22-gauge needles. Although most of them have not found differences regarding the diagnostic outcome [15-20], it can be at least inferred that the use of a 25-gauge needle does not imply a yield loss compared to the larger needle, provides samples with a smaller blood cell component and allows an easier insertion through the echoendoscope due to its great flexibility. Sample handling after its retrieval may also influence the final result. Specimen fixation in a cell block liquid solution improves the outcome over glass slide smearing and cytological examination, especially if there is no available cytologist in the endoscopy room [21]. One study analyzed retrospectively the diagnostic accuracy of cell block and cytological examination of EUS-FNA samples from 611
pancreatic tumors, describing 86.5% and 68% accuracy respectively (p < 0.001) [22]. Moreover, cell block enables immunocytochemical and molecular biology techniques to be applied, increasing the diagnostic yield in entities such as lymphoma [23]. However, these procedures are more expensive than glass slide cytology and their cost-benefit has been questioned by some authors [22]. Still, EUS-FNA with sample retrieval for cytological examination entails considerable drawbacks, such as the interpretation of the specimens rich in hematic, necrotic or inflammatory cells, or the definitive characterization of neoplasms that require immunohistochemical processing. EUS tru-cut biopsy needles were developed in order to overcome these flaws. Although they have been proven accurate in the diagnosis of pancreatic masses, gastric subepithelial tumors, lymphomas and necrotic neoplasms, their overall diagnostic yield remains suboptimal due to technical limitations of the tru-cut apparatus [24]. For example, Whittmann et al. [25] compared the outcome accuracy from EUS guided tru-cut biopsies and EUS-FNA in 159 patients failing to detect significant differences between them (73% vs 77% respectively). A multicentric study from Aithal et al. [26] including 95 patients, described a diagnostic accuracy of 89% in EUS guided tru-cut biopsies while EUS-FNA accuracy was 82% (p=0.21). However, studies proved that the combination of data acquired through EUS guided tru-cut biopsy and EUS-FNA ameliorates significantly the results obtained by EUS-FNA alone. In Whittmann et al.’s [25] study, the combined diagnostic accuracy reached 91%, Aithal et al. [26] placed it at 93% and a more recent study by Kipp et al. [27] showed a combined diagnostic sensitivity of 78% compared to 55% when using EUS-FNA alone (p < 0.001). Other factors, such as high costs, uncertain security profile and possible greater morbidity [28], have contributed to the criticisms against EUS guided tru-cut biopsy. In a personal view, one should add to that list the great number of blank thrusts that must be performed to retrieve a good quality specimen, which likely increases the risk of complications.
In order to grant a new opportunity to histological sample retrieval through EUS-FNA a new type of needle has been recently developed (Echotip Procore, Cook Medical). The device provides EUS guided core biopsies by means of a section system and not through a trucut system. Its diagnostic yield and security profile are still to be determined. At the moment of writing this editorial only one published study had evaluated the 19-gauge procore needle. Iglesias-Garcia et al.
*Corresponding author: Juan J. Vila, MD, Endoscopy Unit, Department of Gastroenterology, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, c/ Irunlarrea, 331008, Pamplona, Spain, E-mail: [email protected]
Received January 30, 2012; Accepted February 01, 2012; Published February 03, 2012
Citation: Vila JJ, Fusaroli P, Kutz M (2012) What is best for Endosonography Guided Fine Needle Aspiration (EUS-FNA) Samples in Solid and Cystic Lesions: Cytology, Histology or Both?. J Gastroint Dig Syst 2:e104. doi:10.4172/2161-069X.1000e104
Copyright: © 2011 Vila JJ, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Journal
of G
astro
intestinal & DigestiveSystem
ISSN: 2161-069X
Journal of Gastrointestinal & Digestive System
Volume 1 • Issue 2 • 1000e104 J Gastroint Dig SystISSN: 2161-069X JGDS, an open access journal
Citation: Vila JJ, Fusaroli P, Kutz M (2012) What is best for Endosonography Guided Fine Needle Aspiration (EUS-FNA) Samples in Solid and Cystic Lesions: Cytology, Histology or Both?. J Gastroint Dig Syst 2:e104. doi:10.4172/2161-069X.1000e104
[29] included 109 patients with 114 lesions. EUS guided biopsy wassuccessfully accomplished in 112 lesions (98%), yielding 102 samplesthat were considered suitable for histological examination (89%). Globalfigures for sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positivepredictive value and diagnostic accuracy were 90%, 100%, 79%, 100%and 93% respectively [29]. These results are promising, but it shouldbe taken into account that the procedures were performed in highlyspecialized centers with a large EUS and EUS-FNA load. Thus, newstudies in other hospitals, including comparative ones comparing withEUS-FNA, are required before judging whether it may complement orsubstitute the latter. The needle security profile might reveal itself ofparticular relevance, for the instrument includes a fenestration whichmay cause small vessel section during withdrawal if the endoscopistis incautious, culminating in a higher percentage of bleeding.Nevertheless, in Iglesias-García et al. [29] study no procedure relatedcomplications were observed. EUS has been established as the mosteffective procedure for the characterization of pancreatic cystic lesions.The cyst content can be aspirated by EUS-FNA, allowing cytologicaland biochemical analyses with amylase and carcinoembrionary antigen(CEA) determination. The latter parameter’s sensitivity to identifymucinous cysts, which is basically the goal of EUS-FNA in this area,is around 80% [30]. On the other hand, the yield of cytology in thiscontext is very low (sensitivity below 50%) [30]. Such poor EUS-FNAoutcomes regarding cystic lesions have stimulated the research for newtechniques to obtain suitable specimens to improve the diagnostic yield.In the last years new devices have been proposed, like the cytologybrush Echobrush (Cook Medical), which permits intracystic brushing,through a 19-gauge needle. The data reported in the literature aboutthe diagnostic yield and security of this instrument is contradictory.A recent study compared the usefulness of intracystic Echobrushversus cytological analysis of the cyst content in 30 patients; intracysticbrushing improved the cellular diagnosis of these pancreatic lesions(73% vs 36%, p=0.08), particularly in those of mucinous lineage (50%vs 18%, p=0.016) [31]. However, intracystic brushing could not beaccomplished due to technical matters in 8 of 30 patients and implied27% technical failure that was greatest in cystic lesions located in thepancreatic head. Furthermore, this study has been strongly criticized[32] because it encountered 13.6% morbidity and 4.5% mortality inpatients who underwent brushing, remarkably higher than the otherdiagnostic and therapeutic maneuvers performed through EUS [33].In another study, 19% morbidity rate including severe complicationsin 8% of the patients has also been described in relation to intracysticbrushing with Echobrush in a group of 37 subjects [34]. Results in alarger patient data set have been recently published comparing theEchobrush to EUS-FNA in 127 cystic lesions out of 120 patients [35].Adequate material was obtained in 85.1% of the lesions with Echobrushcompared to 66.3% with FNA (p<0.05). Three patients had self-limitedintra cystic bleeding and another one developed a perigastric abscess,all of them in the Echobrush group. Therefore, we believe that the safetyprofile of the Echobrush must be further assessed in high quality, largevolume studies.
Just as it occurred regarding solid lesions, the possibility of obtaining histological samples from the cystic wall during EUS has been studied. A Spanish group has for the first time described the performance of a cystic wall forceps biopsy in a case series, acquired thanks to a 0.8 mm in diameter and 220 cm in length forceps (PolyScope; Lumenis Surgical), which was introduced through a 19-gauge needle [36]. The biopsy led to the correct diagnosis of the lesions in all the cases. The future role of this ingenious technique remains to be defined. In summary, to answer the question entitling this editorial, to date EUS guided biopsies have not displaced EUS-FNA as the EUS based procedure
Page 2 of 3
of choice to retrieve tissue samples. The published studies do prove that the combination of both strategies improves each one’s separate outcomes. Which lesions require implementing both approaches for their diagnosis and which may be characterized only by cytological analysis is still to be defined. Future investigations should establish how the latest technological advancements might contribute to the diagnosis of the lesions discussed above and if the histological specimens will finally prevail over cytological samples.
References
1. Vilmann P, Jacobsen GK, Henriksen FW, Hancke S (1992) Endoscopic ultrasonography with guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in pancreatic disease. Gastrointest Endosc 38: 172-173.
2. Brugge WR (1998) Endoscopic ultrasonography: the current status. Gastroenterology 115: 1577-1583.
3. Vila JJ (2005) Endoscopic ultrasonography with fine-needle aspiration: present situation and indications. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 97: 899-906.
4. Vila JJ, Jiménez FJ, Irisarri R, Martínez A, Amorena E, et al. (2007) Rectal cancer staging with endoscopic ultrasonography: correlation with pathological staging. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 99: 132-137.
5. Gress F, Gottlieb K, Sherman S, Lehman G (2001) Endoscopic ultrasonographyguided fine-needle aspiration biopsy of suspected pancreatic cancer. Ann Intern Med 134: 459-464.
6. Oppong K, Raine D, Nayar M, Wadehra V, Ramakrishnan S, et al. (2010) EUSFNA versus biliary brushings and assessment of simultaneous performance in jaundiced patients with suspected malignant obstruction. JOP 11: 560-567.
7. Raut CP, Grau AM, Staerkel GA, Kaw M, Tamm EP, et al. (2003) Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in patients with presumed pancreatic cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 7: 118-126.
8. Wu LM, Jiang XX, Gu HY, Xu X, Zhang W, et al. (2011) Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy in the evaluation of bile duct strictures and gallbladder masses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 23: 113-120.
9. Fusaroli P, Spada A, Mancino MG, Caletti G (2010) Contrast harmonic echo-endoscopic ultrasound improves accuracy in diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 8: 629-634.
10. Irisawa A, Hikichi T, Bhutani MS, Ohira H (2009) Basic technique of FNA. Gastrointest Endosc 69: 125-129.
11. Palazzo L, O’Toole D, Hammel P (2009) Technique of pancreatic cyst aspiration. Gastrointest Endosc 69: 146-151.
12. 12.Savides TJ (2009) Tricks for improving EUS-FNA accuracy and maximizing cellular yield. Gastrointest Endosc 69: 130-133.
13. Arcidiacono PG, Bhutani MS, Giovannini M (2004) EURO-EUS 2003: pancreatic tumor: impact of endoscopic ultrasonography on diagnosis, staging and treatment. Cancer Biol Ther 3: 477-481.
14. Irisawa A, Hikichi T, Bhutani MS, Ohira H (2009) Basic technique of FNA. Gastrointest Endosc 69: 125-129.
15. Lee JH, Stewart J, Ross WA, Anandasabapathy S, Xiao L, et al. (2009) Blinded prospective comparison of the performance of 22-gauge and 25-gauge needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of the pancreas and peri-pancreatic lesions. Dig Dis Sci 54: 2274-2281.
16. Siddiqui UD, Rossi F, Rosenthal LS, Padda MS, Murali-Dharan V, et al. (2009) EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: a prospective, randomized trial comparing 22-gauge and 25-gauge needles. Gastrointest Endosc 70: 1093-1097.
17. Nguyen TTH, Lee CE, Whang CS (2008) A comparison of the diagnostic yield and specimen adequacy between 22 and 25 gauge needles for endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of solid pancreatic lesions (SPL): is bigger better? Gastrointest Endosc 67: AB100.
18. Fanning S, Kwok A, Jones B, Leong R (2010) EUS aspiration needle size: smaller is better? Gastrointest Endosc 72: 904-905.
19. Yusuf TE, Ho S, Pavey DA, Michael H, Gress FG (2009) Retrospective analysis of the utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in pancreatic masses, using a 22-gauge or 25-gauge needle system: a multicenter experience. Endoscopy 41: 445-448.
Volume 1 • Issue 2 • 1000e104J Gastroint Dig SystISSN: 2161-069X JGDS, an open access journal
Citation: Vila JJ, Fusaroli P, Kutz M (2012) What is best for Endosonography Guided Fine Needle Aspiration (EUS-FNA) Samples in Solid and Cystic Lesions: Cytology, Histology or Both?. J Gastroint Dig Syst 2:e104. doi:10.4172/2161-069X.1000e104
Page 3 of 3
20. Sakamoto H, Kitano M, Komaki T, Noda K, Chikugo T, et al. (2009) Prospective comparative study of the EUS guided 25-gauge FNA needle with the 19-gauge Trucut needle and 22-gauge FNA needle in patients with solid pancreatic masses. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 24: 384-390.
21. de Luna R, Eloubeidi MA, Sheffield MV, Eltoum I, Jhala N, et al. (2004) Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional preparations in pancreatic fine-needle aspiration biopsy. Diagn Cytopathol 30: 71-76.
22. Ardengh JC, Lopes CV, de Lima LF, Venco F, Santo GC, et al. (2008) Cell block technique and cytological smears for the differential diagnosis of pancreatic neoplasms after endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration. Acta Gastroenterol Latinoam 38: 246-251.
23. Rossi ED, Larghi A, Verna EC, Martini M, Galasso D, et al. (2010) Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with liquid-based cytologic preparation in the diagnosis of primary pancreatic lymphoma. Pancreas 39: 1299-1302.
24. Storch I, Jorda M, Thurer R, Raez L, Rocha-Lima C, et al. (2006) Advantage of EUS Trucut biopsy combined with fine-needle aspiration without immediate on-site cytopathologic examination. Gastrointest Endosc 64: 505-511.
25. Wittmann J, Kocjan G, Sgouros SN, Deheragoda M, Pereira SP (2006) Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling by combined fine needle aspiration and trucut needle biopsy: a prospective study. Cytopathology 17: 27-33.
26. Aithal GP, Anagnostopoulos GK, Tam W, Dean J, Zaitoun A, et al. (2007) EUS-guided tissue sampling: comparison of “dual sampling” (Trucut biopsy plus FNA) with “sequential sampling” (Trucut biopsy and then FNA as required). Endoscopy 39: 725-730.
27. Kipp BR, Pereira TC, Souza PC, Gleeson FC, Levy MJ, et al. (2009) Comparison of EUS-guided FNA and Trucut biopsy for diagnosing and staging abdominal and mediastinal neoplasms. Diagn Cytopathol 37: 549-556.
28. Levy MJ, Wiersema MJ (2005) EUS-guided Trucut biopsy. Gastrointest Endosc 62: 417-426.
29. Iglesias-Garcia J, Poley JW, Larghi A, Giovannini M, Petrone MC, et al. (2011) Feasibility and yield of a new EUS histology needle: results from a multicenter, pooled, cohort study. Gastrointest Endosc 73: 1189-1196.
30. Oh HC, Kim MH, Hwang CY, Lee TY, Lee SS, et al. (2008) Cystic lesions of the pancreas: challenging issues in clinical practice. Am J Gastroenterol 103: 229-239.
31. Sendino O, Fernández-Esparrach G, Solé M, Colomo L, Pellisé M, et al. (2010) Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided brushing increases cellular diagnosis of pancreatic cysts: A prospective study. Dig Liver Dis 42: 877-881.
32. Crippa S, Falconi M (2010) Improving cytological diagnosis of pancreatic cysts: is it clinically necessary or just the latest fashion? Dig Liver Dis 42: 844-845.
33. Wang KX, Ben QW, Jin ZD, Du YQ, Zou DW, et al. (2011) Assessment of morbidity and mortality associated with EUS-guided FNA: a systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc 73: 283-290.
34. Al-Haddad M, Gill KR, Raimondo M, Woodward TA, Krishna M, et al. (2010) Safety and efficacy of cytology brushings versus standard fine-needle aspiration in evaluating cystic pancreatic lesions: a controlled study. Endoscopy 42: 127132.
35. Lozano MD, Subtil JC, Miravalles TL, Echeveste JI, Prieto C, et al. (2011) EchoBrush may be superior to standard EUS-guided FNA in the evaluation of cystic lesions of the pancreas: Preliminary experience. Cancer Cytopathol 119: 209-214.
36. Aparicio JR, Martínez J, Niveiro M, Cabezas A, Ruiz F, et al. (2010) Direct intracystic biopsy and pancreatic cystoscopy through a 19-gauge needle EUS (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 72: 1285-1288.
