Lymphangioma of the pancreas: a multimodal approach to pre‐operative diagnosis

Background: Lymphangioma of the pancreas is an extremely rare benign tumour of lymphatic origin, with only four cases diagnosed by EUS‐FNA reported to date. Methods and materials: Five cases of either cytologically or histologically diagnosed pancreatic lymphangioma with pre‐operative cytological analysis by EUS‐FNAC were reviewed. Results: All patients were female, with a mean age of 56.4 years. By imaging, the cystic lesions ranged in size from 2 to 7 cm (mean 4.5 cm) and were mainly located in the head of the pancreas. All cysts had thin walls and no cyst demonstrated a mural nodule. Diagnosis based on imaging features was benign in all cases due to the absence of high‐risk features. Four samples were sent for biochemical analysis, which showed low CEA levels (range, <0.5–19.4 ng/ml; mean, 5.45 ng/ml) and CA 19.9 and CA 72.4 levels within normal range. All cyst fluids showed numerous small lymphocytes with no atypia; no epithelial cells were present, including no gastrointestinal contamination. Flow cytometry in two cases showed T lymphocytes with a mature phenotype. Surgical resection in two patients confirmed the cytological diagnosis. Benign clinical follow‐up was available in three patients at 2, 3 and 3.5 years. Conclusion: A multimodal approach to cytological diagnosis (combining clinical, radiological and cyst fluid gross, biochemical and cytological characteristics) can lead to the diagnosis of this cystic neoplasm and distinguish it from other more common cysts in the pancreas, potentially avoiding the need for unnecessary surgery.     

Value of EUS‐FNA cytological preparations compared with cell block sections in the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumours

Y. Kopelman, S. Marmor, I. Ashkenazi and Z. Fireman
Value of EUS‐FNA cytological preparations compared with cell block sections in the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumours Objective: Endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine needle aspiration (EUS‐FNA) is performed in order to achieve a definite tissue diagnosis of pancreatic lesions. This in turn is a guide to the appropriate treatment for the patient. Tissue samples collected by the same needle for cytological preparations and cell block histological sections (often referred to as FNA‐cytology and FNA–biopsy, respectively) are handled differently. The specific contribution of each of these tests was evaluated. Methods: One hundred and two consecutive patients underwent EUS‐FNA while being investigated for pancreatic solid lesions. Diagnosis was made by cytology, cell block sections or both. The diagnosis was confirmed by clinical outcome. Results: Male/female ratio was 61/41. Mean age was 65 ± 12 years (range, 22–94). Mean lesion size was 3.1 ± 1.8 cm (range, 0.6–10 cm); 68% were >2 cm and 75% were located in the pancreatic head. The average number of needle passes was two (range, 1–4 passes). Final tissue diagnosis was malignant in 66 (65%) patients. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 73%, 94% and 81%, respectively, for cytology alone, and 63%, 100% and 78%, for cell blocks alone. Eighty‐two patients (80%) had cytology and cell blocks, which matched in 64 (78%) patients. EUS‐FNA results that relied on both techniques had 84% sensitivity, 94% specificity and 88% accuracy. Cytology revealed 13 malignancies not diagnosed on cell blocks, while cell blocks revealed five malignancies not diagnosed by cytology. Malignant lesions were more common in men; they were larger in size and located in the pancreatic head. Conclusion: EUS‐FNA cytology was more sensitive than cell blocks but less specific for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions. The two methods are complementary and implementing both improves the diagnostic value of EUS‐FNA.     

Endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine needle aspiration of the pancreas: cytomorphological evaluation with emphasis on adequacy assessment,diagnostic criteria and contamination from the gastrointestinal tract1

Objective: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)‐guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) has been proved to be safe, efficient and reliable in the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions. This study evaluated specimen adequacy, diagnostic criteria of various pancreatic neoplasms and contamination from the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Methods: EUS‐guided FNA of the pancreas and subsequent surgical resections performed at the University of California Irvine Medical Center during February 1996–October 2000 were retrospectively selected. Modified Papanicolaou staining method was used for immediate evaluation and cell block prepared. Results: A total of 267 cases were available for review, including 147 (55.1%) positive/suspicious, 10 (3.7%) atypical, 96 (36.0%) negative and 14 (5.2%) unsatisfactory cases. Eighty‐six (58.5%) positive/suspicious cases had histological confirmation and 12 (8.3%) had lymph node or distant metastases by cytology. Three atypical, two negative, and two unsatisfactory cases proved to have adenocarcinoma. Contamination from duodenum, stomach or pancreas was found in 77 positive/suspicious, three atypical and 90 negative cases. The sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, positive and negative predictive values were 94.6%, 100%, 95.6%, 100%, 82% respectively. Conclusions: EUS FNA is efficient and accurate in the diagnosis of pancreatic neoplasms in adequate samples. Contamination from the GI tract should be well recognized to avoid misinterpretation.     

Thyroid FNAC cytology: can we do it better?

This article reviews recent developments in thyroid fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC). While thyroid nodules are common, carcinoma is comparatively rare. Although histological assessment is used in most studies as the benchmark, the differential diagnosis on cytology or histology is not always reproducible. The literature shows wide variations in criteria for inadequate thyroid FNAC and study inclusion or exclusion criteria. In-clinic assessment of specimen adequacy and in-clinic reporting of thyroid FNAC has become popular although the costs and resource implications of in-clinic thyroid FNAC assessment and reporting are substantial. Many centres continue to use conventional techniques although liquid-based cytology and ultrasound-guided FNAC are gaining in popularity. Standardized categorical systems for FNAC reporting can make results easier to understand for clinicians and give clear indications for therapeutic action. Multidisciplinary case review is also essential, especially when there is diagnostic uncertainty. While currently of limited use, molecular pathology testing holds out some promise for the future.     

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling by combined fine needle aspiration and trucut needle biopsy: a prospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has a diagnostic accuracy of 70-90%, depending on the site under evaluation. In order to improve EUS-guided tissue sampling a novel 19-gauge trucut-type needle has been designed to obtain core biopsies during EUS. We prospectively evaluated the safety and accuracy of EUS-FNA alone versus combined EUS-FNA and trucut needle biopsy (TNB) in patients referred to our Unit over a 3-year period. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 159 patients underwent EUS-FNA alone (lesions<2 cm) or the combination of both sampling modalities (lesions>or=2 cm). The adequacy of sampling, sensitivity, specificity and overall accuracies of EUS-FNA or EUS-TNB alone and combined EUS-FNA/TNB were determined. RESULTS: Adequate samples were obtained by EUS-FNA, EUS-TNB and EUS-FNA/TNB in 91%, 88% and 97% of patients, respectively. From the pancreas (n=83), adequate samples were obtained by FNA in 94% and by TNB in 81%, compared with 87% and 92% from non-pancreatic sites (n=76), respectively. The combination of both techniques resulted in more adequate samples from non-pancreatic cases than EUS-FNA alone (P=0.044). The specificity was 100%. Overall accuracy for EUS-FNA alone was 77%, for EUS-TNB alone 73% and for EUS-FNA/TNB 91% (P=0.008). For pancreatic sampling, the accuracy of EUS-FNA alone was 77%, for EUS-TNB alone 56% and for EUS-FNA/TNB 83%. For non-pancreatic sampling, the accuracy for EUS-FNA alone was 78%, for EUS-TNB alone 83% and for EUS-FNA/TNB 95% (P=0.006). The complication rate was 0.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Combined EUS-FNA/TNB for lesions>or=2 cm improves adequacy of sampling and diagnostic accuracy compared with either technique alone and is safe.     

Pathology of supraclavicular lymphadenopathy in Chandigarh, north India: an audit of 200 cases diagnosed by needle aspiration

OBJECTIVE: Fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) of lymph nodes can be used routinely as a first-line diagnostic test. The majority of studies reveal a malignant cause for palpable supraclavicular lymph nodes. The present audit further emphasizes the use of FNAC as a first-line investigation for the evaluation of enlarged supraclavicular lymph nodes. METHODS: A total of 200 cases of palpable supraclavicular lymph node(s) were included in the present study. RESULTS: Left supraclavicular lymph nodes were found to be more commonly involved (59.5% cases). Sixty-four per cent cases showed metastatic deposits and 13.5% cases were diagnosed as tuberculosis. Ten per cent cases showed reactive lymphoid hyperplasia; 0.5% (one) case showed only necrosis and on autopsy, a microscopic focus of choriocarcinoma was found in the testis. In 7.5% cases, diagnostic material could not be aspirated despite repeated attempts. Common metastatic tumours were from lung (22% cases), breast (16.4% cases), cervix (11% cases) and oesophagus (8.6% cases). In 13.3% cases the primary site was unknown and the diagnosis of malignancy first came from FNAC. CONCLUSION: The present study further highlights the importance of FNAC as a first-line diagnostic modality in the evaluation of supraclavicular lymphadenopathy. A full history, radiological findings and immunochemistry in difficult cases can help to arrive at a definitive diagnosis.     

Pancreatobiliary cytology in the multidisciplinary setting

This review article discusses the role of endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine needle aspiration (EUS FNA) cytology in the clinical management of patients with pancreatic tumours in the setting of a multidisciplinary team (MDT). The commonest diagnosis encountered is pancreatic adenocarcinoma, which is seldom diagnosed early enough for surgical resection. Thus, cytology is likely to be the only form of diagnosis in the majority of cases. Nevertheless, about half the lesions discussed at the MDT meeting are lesions other than primary adenocarcinoma and a wide differential diagnosis must be considered in order to identify tumours, including neuroendocrine tumours, that are amenable to surgical resection. Cytology is not always definitive and the diagnosis may be helped by categorizing results according to whether they are malignant, suspicious, atypical/indeterminate, benign or inadequate. Discussion at MDT meetings and correlation with clinical and imaging findings along with review of cytology slides may allow equivocal results to be clarified before treatment is decided. Inadequate cytology results are avoided by rapid on‐site evaluation of slides; although this is cost‐effective in terms of overall patient care, attendance of cytopathologists on‐site may not be feasible. At Imperial College NHS Trust, specially trained biomedical scientists successfully carry out rapid on‐site evaluation.