Next Article in Journal
A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Immediate Loading and Delayed Loading of Single-Tooth Implants: 5-Year Results
Next Article in Special Issue
Factors Affecting Technical Difficulty in Balloon Enteroscopy-Assisted Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Patients with Surgically Altered Anatomy
Previous Article in Journal
Long-Term Survival and Complication Rates of Porcelain Laminate Veneers in Clinical Studies: A Systematic Review
Previous Article in Special Issue
Diagnostic Process Using Endoscopy for Biliary Strictures: A Narrative Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 10
Issue 5
10.3390/jcm10051076
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Diagnosis of Pancreatic Solid Lesions, Subepithelial Lesions, and Lymph Nodes Using Endoscopic Ultrasound

by
Akashi Fujita
1,
Shomei Ryozawa
1,*,
Masafumi Mizuide
1,
Yuki Tanisaka
1,
Tomoya Ogawa
1,
Masahiro Suzuki
1,
Hiromune Katsuda
1,
Yoichi Saito
1,
Tomoaki Tashima
1,
Kazuya Miyaguchi
1,
Eiichi Arai
2,
Tomonori Kawasaki
2 and
Yumi Mashimo
1
1
Department of Gastroenterology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, 1397-1, Yamane, Hidaka, Saitama 350-1298, Japan
2
Department of Pathology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, 1397-1, Yamane, Hidaka, Saitama 350-1298, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10(5), 1076; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10051076
Submission received: 17 February 2021 / Revised: 28 February 2021 / Accepted: 2 March 2021 / Published: 5 March 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Clinical Advances of Endoscopy in Pancreaticobiliary Disease)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Currently, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become widely accepted and has considerable advantages over computed tomography (CT) and other imaging modalities, given that it enables echostructure assessment in lesions with <1 cm diameter and permits high resolution imaging. EUS-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) provides consistent results under ultrasound guidance and has been considered more effective compared to CT- or ultrasound-guided lesion biopsy. Moreover, complication rates, including pancreatitis and bleeding, have been extremely low, with <1% morbidity and mortality rates, thereby suggesting the exceptional overall safety of EUS-TA. The aggressive use of EUS for various lesions has been key in facilitating early diagnosis and therapy. This review summarizes the diagnostic ability of EUS for pancreatic solid lesions, subepithelial lesions, and lymph nodes where it is mainly used. EUS has played an important role in diagnosing these lesions and planning treatment strategies. Future developments in EUS imaging technology, such as producing images close to histopathological findings, are expected to further improve its diagnostic ability. Moreover, tissue acquisition via EUS is expected to be used for precision medicine, which facilitates the selection of an appropriate therapeutic agent by increasing the amount of tissue collected and improving genetic analysis.

1. Introduction

Currently, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become widely accepted for evaluating pancreatobiliary diseases and other abdominal tumors. It offers considerable advantages over computed tomography (CT) and other imaging modalities given that it enables echostructure assessment in lesions with <1 cm diameter and permits high resolution imaging. Apart from purely diagnostic imaging, EUS has progressed to tissue acquisition and therapeutic procedures [1]. Two differently shaped EUS scopes have been developed, namely radial and linear arrays. Accordingly, radial EUS has a viewing angle of 360 degrees, which can help differentiate between the lesion and organs around it that may appear similar to the lesion. On the other hand, the advantage of the linear array echoendoscope lies in its ability to be used for tissue acquisition through endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) [2].
EUS-TA allows for obtaining material from abnormal lesions via the gastrointestinal wall for tissue analysis [3]. First reported in 1992 [4], EUS-TA has been well established worldwide. This widely used tissue sampling procedure provides consistent results under ultrasound guidance [5,6,7] and has been considered more effective compared to CT- or ultrasound-guided lesion biopsy [8]. Moreover, complication rates, including pancreatitis and bleeding, have been extremely low, with <1% morbidity and mortality rates, suggesting its impeccable safety [9,10]. EUS-TA has been mainly used for pancreatic solid lesions [11,12], abdominal or mediastinal lymph nodes [13,14,15], and gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions (SELs) [7,16], with other indications including liver lesions [17], adrenal grand lesions [18], and biliary strictures [19,20]. However, indications for pancreatic cystic lesions have varied significantly between countries due to the risk of dissemination [21,22].
The aggressive use of EUS for various lesions has been key in facilitating early diagnosis and therapy given that it helps distinguish between benign and malignant tumors when determining whether surgery or follow-up is needed, diagnose the degree of malignant tumor progression when undetermined lymph node swelling is detected, and obtain histological evidence of cancer when chemotherapy is selected [23].
EUS is expected to play an increasingly important role in improving prognosis through early diagnosis, especially for abdominal tumors. Therefore, the current review focuses on the diagnostic ability of EUS for pancreatic solid lesions, SELs, and lymph nodes where it is mainly used.

2. Pancreatic Solid Lesions

To detect pancreatic cancer, several imaging modalities, including ultrasonography (US), EUS, CT, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) have been used. Most pancreatic cancer cases develop main pancreatic duct stenosis at the lesion site and distal dilatation, which is often accompanied by focal branch duct dilatation and cyst formation adjacent to the tumor. Cases with carcinoma in situ may exhibit irregularities in the pancreatic duct diameter due to localized pancreatic duct stenosis or hypoechoic changes reflecting obstructive pancreatitis caused by stenosis. Studies have shown the usefulness of EUS given that other imaging modalities often fail to detect small lesions [24]. Tumor detection rates for early stage of pancreatic cancer (Stage 0, I) have been reported to be 76.3%, 51.5%, 45.1%, and 52.6% using EUS, CT, MRI, and US, respectively [25]. Considering this situation, recent guidelines suggest performing EUS, as well as CT or MRI, upon diagnosis [26]. The recommended diagnostic algorism is shown in Figure 1.
Additionally, studies have suggested the utility of contrast-harmonic EUS (CH-EUS), which allows for the evaluation of pancreatic lesion vascularity. Contrast harmonic imaging allows real-time depiction of microvessels and parenchymal perfusion without doppler-related artifacts [27]. Pancreatic solid lesions can be classified into four categories: nonenhancement, hypoenhancement, isoenhancement, and hyperenhancement lesions (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Kitano et al. reported that a hypoenhancement pattern, determined via CH-EUS, had a sensitivity and specificity of 95.1% and 89.0% for diagnosing ductal carcinomas, while a hyperenhancement pattern had a sensitivity and specificity of 78.9% and 98.0% for diagnosing neuroendocrine tumors, respectively [28]. A recent meta-analysis on the utility of CH-EUS with enhancement pattern assessment showed a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 93% and 80%, respectively, for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer [27]. Moreover, CH-EUS can be advantageous for patients who have contraindications to MRI and CT contrast agents, such as renal failure or contrast allergies. CH-EUS also allows for dynamic and repeat examinations, given that it does not expose patients to ionizing radiation [29]. Considering the aforementioned reasons, CH-EUS indeed plays an important role in clinical practice and can be certainly expected to be developed into a modality that approaches pathological diagnosis in the near future.
Apart from diagnostic imaging, EUS-TA can be useful in the differential diagnosis of pancreatic solid lesions, with good diagnostic performance having been reported. Five meta-analyses have reported that endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (FNB) have sensitivities and specificities of 84–92% and 96–98%, respectively, [30,31,32,33,34] (Table 1). Several factors can affect the outcome of this technique, with evidence showing that rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE) increases the diagnostic performance of EUS-TA [32,35]. A randomized trial compared standard EUS-TA with CH-EUS guided TA. There was no significant difference in diagnostic performance between these groups [36]. However, CH-EUS can help to identify the target for EUS-TA, with easier avoidance of necrosis described as nonenhancement areas and vessels inside the tumor [28]. Needle selection has been considered an essential factor and has consequently been evaluated in numerous studies. Although the use of an FNA needle was traditionally considered first-line, the FNB needle is increasingly more common in clinical practice to improve yield. A randomized crossover study showed statistically significant differences in sensitivity (82% vs. 71%) and accuracy (84% vs. 75%) between FNB and FNA needles, respectively [37]. Recently, two different FNB needles have been mainly used, including the fork-tip needle (SharkCore; Medtronic, Newton, Mass and Covidien, Dublin, Ireland), which is characterized by two sharp tips on the opposite side of the lumen [38], and the franseen-type needle (Acquire; Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA), which is characterized by three symmetric cutting tips [39]. A meta-analysis comparing the two needles for the EUS-FNB of solid mass lesions was published. The analysis featured a total of 21 studies with 1632 patients. The pooled diagnostic yield with fork-tip needle was 92.8% (95% CI 85.3–96.6, I2 = 73.1), whereas the pooled diagnostic yield using the franseen needle was 92.7% (95% CI 86.4–96.2, I2 = 88.4), demonstrating no statistical difference between the needles (p = 0.98). These needles provided a higher rate of extremely good-quality histologic samples and required fewer needle passes to reach a diagnosis compared to other FNB needles [40]. A recent randomized trial comparing EUS-FNA+ROSE with EUS-FNB alone demonstrated equal diagnostic yield [41] Thus, in medical centers where ROSE has not been applicable, FNB may still be an effective option. However, no definitive recommendations can be made in favor of using one particular device given no strong diagnostic superiority of one needle over another [42,43,44,45,46]. Thus, endoscopists are encouraged to select the appropriate needle for the situation. A 25G needle may be better than a 22G or 19G one for lesions difficult to puncture, while an FNB needle may provide further information on tissue architecture, as well as a greater sample yield, which would allow for further analyses, such as genetic sequencing and phenotyping. This again may enable more personalized treatment strategies [23].
Sometimes it is difficult to perform EUS-TA for early stage of pancreatic cancer. In such cases, ERCP may be useful and the sensitivity of serial pancreatic juice cytology by ERCP is reported to be 77.2–100%. However, the incidence of acute pancreatitis due to diagnostic ERCP is reported to be 0.7–11.8% [47]. Therefore, the indication of ERCP needs to be considered carefully.
Although EUS-TA is exceedingly safe and useful for diagnosing pancreatic solid lesions, needle tract seeding remains a concern for preoperative cases [48]. Recently, neoadjuvant therapy has been found to facilitate the possibility of surgery in borderline resectable pancreatic cancer [49,50,51]. In a randomized controlled trial comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine administration and S-1 with upfront surgery, neoadjuvant chemotherapy demonstrated to have considerable survival benefits for patients with resectable pancreatic cancer [52]. Therefore, obtaining an accurate preoperative diagnosis is especially important. Although needle tract seeding is an extremely rare adverse event and has mostly been observed in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, it can also occur after solid pseudopapillary neoplasms [53]. Despite the unclear developmental process of needle tract seeding, certain measures should be established to reduce the risk of needle tract seeding for preoperative pancreatic solid lesions.

3. Subepithelial Lesions

SELs are often found incidentally upon esophagogastroduodenoscopy [54]. Although extramural compressions are mostly caused by normal organs, such as the spleen or splenic artery, pancreas, gallbladder, heart, and the left lobe of the liver, they can also be caused by pathologic structures, such as pseudocysts, an enlarged gallbladder, and splenic artery aneurysms or tumors [55,56]. Several SELs are benign, such as lipomas, ectopic pancreas, leiomyomas, schwannomas, or lymphangioleiomyoma. However, up to 13% of upper gastrointestinal tract lesions are malignant, such as metastatic or malignant lymphomas, while an additional 8% have at least a malignant potential, such as gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) [57]. Considering the difficulty of distinguishing between malignant and non-malignant tumors through endoscopic appearance alone, further characterization and management of these lesions through other modalities is important.
Conventional endoscopic forceps biopsy is limited because these forceps usually cannot reach the tumor. The diagnostic yield of the bite-on-bite technique, in which each bite is directly on top of the previous bite to burrow into the lesion, is poor, ranging from 17% to 58.9% [58,59]. Through EUS, SELs can be diagnosed through the evaluation of their originating layer, echo level, and internal echo pattern. The gastrointestinal wall can be viewed as a five-layer structure with lower frequency (7.5–12 MHz) [60]. The EUS layer, location within the gastrointestinal tract, and echo features can provide valuable information with which a possible diagnosis can be established. Regarding the echo features, hyperechoic and anechoic lesions can be initially differentiated from hypoechoic, isoechoic, or mixed echogenic lesions. Hyperechoic lesions are generally benign and most often indicate lipomas, with no further work-up being needed when no mixed features are found within a hyperechoic lesion [61]. Anechoic lesions are fluid-filled structures that can indicate vascular lesions (e.g., varices) or cystic lesions (e.g., lymphangioma), both of which can be easily distinguished by a positive or negative doppler signal, respectively. Mixed lesions with partially solid appearing components require further work-up by other modalities, given that such lesions can indicate solid lesions with cystic degeneration, complicated cystic lesions, or intra-abdominal abscesses [62,63,64]. For hypoechoic, isoechoic, or mixed SELs, specific diagnosis is required considering their possible malignant potential [65,66]. Typical EUS features of SELs are summarized in Table 2.
The differential diagnosis of malignant or potentially malignant SELs from benign lesions is important in determining treatment strategy [67,68]. GIST may require a definite diagnosis before providing treatment interventions, such as surgery or chemotherapy, whereas benign lesions, such as leiomyomas and schwannomas, can often be followed up. Approximately 10% to 30% of GISTs have a malignant clinical course [69,70,71]. Additionally, reports have shown that large GISTs with a high mitotic index frequently exhibit a malignant clinical course, whereas small GISTs with a low mitotic index may also show a malignant course with metastasis [72,73]. However, several SELs, including GIST, with similar echo features originate from the fourth layer, making it difficult to distinguish GIST from other SELs through EUS imaging alone [60].
GIST is diagnosed through KIT or CD34 positivity following immunohistochemical analysis of the tissue. Tumors negative for KIT, CD34, desmin, and S-100 may require additional tests, including DOG1 staining or the identification of mutations in the KIT or PDGFRA gene [74]. Thus, acquiring tissue samples for immunohistochemistry staining is essential [75] (Figure 4 and Figure 5). EUS-TA has been found to be a useful, minimally invasive procedure for tissue acquisition from SELs, with reported diagnostic accuracy rates reigning from 52% to 92% [16,76,77,78,79,80]. Moreover, a recent report revealed a diagnostic accuracy of 87.5% of a forward-viewing echoendoscope even for small lesions (mean lesion diameter of 10.6 mm) [81].
Apart from EUS-TA, other endoscopic tissue acquisition techniques have been recently reported and clinically applied to obtain more SEL tissue volumes. The reported diagnostic rates of various endoscopic tissue-obtaining methods using endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) techniques or endoscopic snare resection techniques have ranged from 85% to 94% [82,83]. However, ESD and the endoscopic snare resection technique have disadvantages. Given the invasive nature of these procedures, endoscopists should pay special attention to intraoperative bleeding and perforation due to risk for severe hypotension or tumor cell seeding as a consequence thereof [84]. Reports have shown that minor complications (procedural-relate oozing) occurred in 56% of patients who underwent endoscopic partial removal using the unroofing technique, although no severe complication had occurred [83]. Furthermore, using the aforementioned procedures for tissue sampling of SELs with an extraluminal growth pattern is difficult [82]. In contrast, EUS-TA is safe and reliable while being unmatched in its ability to distinguish between different types of SELs, especially those originating from the fourth EUS layer [7,85].

4. Lymph Nodes

The distinction between benign and malignant lymph nodes is particularly important when planning for the treatment of various diseases. Although other imaging modalities, such as CT and PET, can detect enlarged lymph nodes, they lack sufficient accuracy to distinguish benign from malignant lymphadenopathies [86,87]. Traditional thoracotomy, thoracoscopy, and laparoscopy, which can accurately establish a pathological diagnosis, will be invasive for patients with benign lymphadenopathy [88]. On the other hand, EUS can effectively detect and evaluate mediastinal and abdominal lymph nodes. The proposed EUS-based diagnostic criteria for malignant lymphadenopathies include round or oval cross-sections, sharp demarcations, internal hypoechoic features, and >10 mm largest diameter (Figure 6). Overall, EUS alone has a diagnostic accuracy of 80% when all criteria are met [89]. Therefore, distinguishing between benign and malignancy and determining the most appropriate cancer management using EUS imaging of lymphadenopathy alone remains challenging [89,90].
EUS-TA is useful when other modalities, including EUS, are unreliable. Already a part of general practice, EUS-TA for lymphadenopathy helps identify malignancy and diagnose inflammatory diseases, including tuberculosis [91,92,93]. The advantages of EUS-TA for the lymph nodes include: (1) staging of malignant diseases (N-staging), (2) identification of an unknown primary tumor or clarifying which cancer has spread to the lymph nodes when multiple cancers are present (primary identification), (3) diagnosis of recurrence when enlarged lymph nodes appear following cancer surgery, and (4) puncturing the lymph nodes to obtain a sample for histological diagnosis in cases where puncturing the primary tumor is difficult. EUS-TA of the lymph nodes may change the diagnosis and treatment plan [94]. EUS-TA is indicated for mediastinal lymph nodes that can be punctured from the esophagus, abdominal lymph nodes from the stomach and duodenum, and pelvic lymph nodes from the rectum. Attempts at describing abdominal lymph nodes through EUS is particularly important given that gastrointestinal tract stretching using scope manipulation may facilitate the visualization of puncturable lesions that appear to be distant from the stomach or duodenum on CT images or other puncturable lymph nodes. Advance understanding of the positional relationship between the lymph nodes to be punctured and the surrounding vessels and organs based on the findings of CT and PET is imperative.
A meta-analysis reported that EUS-TA had a pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio of 87% (95% confidence interval (CI) 86–90%), 100% (95% CI 99–100%), 68.98 (95% CI 42.10–113.02), and 0.14 (95% CI 0.11–0.17) in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant lymph nodes, respectively [95]. EUS-TA has also been found useful in diagnosing malignant lymphoma. In fact, some studies have reported high diagnostic yields using flow cytometry for malignant lymphomas [96,97], with the selective use of flow cytometry potentially improving diagnostic outcomes [98]. Yasuda et al. [6] were able to subtype, according to the World Health Organization classification, 44 of their 48 patients with lymphoma who subsequently received multiple tailored treatments, including chemotherapy. They used a 19G needle to safely perform EUS-TA, with only 1% of their patients developing complications. To increase the rate of subtyping, using 19-gauge needle may be useful.
In case of lower gastrointestinal tract approach for pelvic lymphadenopathy, EUS-TA has been reported to be useful for urological cancer types, including prostate and bladder cancer, with a sensitivity of 94.4% [99]. Therefore, EUS-TA has been widely applied in diagnosing lymph nodes.

5. Conclusions

This review summarized the diagnostic ability of EUS for pancreatic solid lesions, SELs, and lymph nodes where it is mainly used. EUS has played an important role in diagnosing these lesions and planning treatment strategies. Future developments in EUS imaging technology, such as producing images close to histopathological findings, can be expected to further improve its diagnostic ability. Moreover, tissue acquisition via EUS is expected to be used for precision medicine, which would facilitate the selection of therapeutic agents by increasing the amount of tissue collected and improving genetic analysis.

Author Contributions

A.F. and S.R. designed the report; M.M., Y.T., T.O., M.S., H.K., Y.S., T.T., K.M., E.A., T.K., and Y.M. contributed to the analysis and interpretation of previous reports and assisted in the preparation of the manuscript. A.F. and S.R. organized the report; and A.F. wrote paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. Irisawa, A.; Yamao, K. Curved linear array EUS technique in the pancreas and biliary tree: Focusing on the stations. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2009, 69, S84–S89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Matsumoto, K.; Takeda, Y.; Onoyama, T.; Kawata, S.; Kurumi, H.; Koda, H.; Yamashita, T.; Isomoto, H. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy—Recent topics and technical tips. World J. Clin. Cases 2019, 7, 1775–1783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Cazacu, I.M.; Luzuriaga Chavez, A.A.; Saftoiu, A.; Vilmann, P.; Bhutani, M.S. A quarter century of EUS-FNA: Progress, milestones, and future directions. Endosc. Ultrasound 2018, 7, 141–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Vilmann, P.; Jacobsen, G.K.; Henriksen, F.W.; Hancke, S. Endoscopic ultrasonography with guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in pancreatic disease. Gastrointest. Endosc. 1992, 38, 172–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ryozawa, S.; Kitoh, H.; Gondo, T.; Urayama, N.; Yamashita, H.; Ozawa, H.; Yanai, H.; Okita, K. Usefulness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. J. Gastroenterol. 2005, 40, 907–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Yasuda, I.; Tsurumi, H.; Omar, S.; Iwashita, T.; Kojima, Y.; Yamada, T.; Sawada, M.; Takami, T.; Moriwaki, H.; Soehendra, N. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy for lymphadenopathy of unknown origin. Endoscopy 2006, 38, 919–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Mekky, M.A.; Yamao, K.; Sawaki, A.; Mizuno, N.; Hara, K.; Nafeh, M.A.; Osman, A.M.; Koshikawa, T.; Yatabe, Y.; Bhatia, V. Diagnostic utility of EUS-guided FNA in patients with gastric submucosal tumors. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2010, 71, 913–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Horwhat, J.D.; Paulson, E.K.; McGrath, K.; Branch, M.S.; Baillie, J.; Tyler, D.; Pappas, T.; Enns, R.; Robuck, G.; Stiffler, H.; et al. A randomized comparison of EUS-guided FNA versus CT or US-guided FNA for the evaluation of pancreatic mass lesions. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2006, 63, 966–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wang, K.X.; Ben, Q.W.; Jin, Z.D.; Du, Y.Q.; Zou, D.W.; Liao, Z.; Li, Z.S. Assessment of morbidity and mortality associated with EUS-guided FNA: A systematic review. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2011, 73, 283–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mizuide, M.; Ryozawa, S.; Fujita, A.; Ogawa, T.; Katsuda, H.; Suzuki, M.; Noguchi, T.; Tanisaka, Y. Complications of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration: A Narrative Review. Diagn. (BaselSwitz.) 2020, 10, 964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Khalid, A.; Nodit, L.; Zahid, M.; Bauer, K.; Brody, D.; Finkelstein, S.D.; McGrath, K.M. Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspirate DNA analysis to differentiate malignant and benign pancreatic masses. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2006, 101, 2493–2500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Eloubeidi, M.A.; Chen, V.K.; Eltoum, I.A.; Jhala, D.; Chhieng, D.C.; Jhala, N.; Vickers, S.M.; Wilcox, C.M. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy of patients with suspected pancreatic cancer: Diagnostic accuracy and acute and 30-day complications. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2003, 98, 2663–2668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Catalano, M.F.; Rosenblatt, M.L.; Chak, A.; Sivak, M.V., Jr.; Scheiman, J.; Gress, F. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration in the diagnosis of mediastinal masses of unknown origin. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2002, 97, 2559–2565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Tournoy, K.G.; Praet, M.M.; Van Maele, G.; Van Meerbeeck, J.P. Esophageal endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration with an on-site cytopathologist: High accuracy for the diagnosis of mediastinal lymphadenopathy. Chest 2005, 128, 3004–3009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Yasuda, I.; Goto, N.; Tsurumi, H.; Nakashima, M.; Doi, S.; Iwashita, T.; Kanemura, N.; Kasahara, S.; Adachi, S.; Hara, T.; et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy for diagnosis of lymphoproliferative disorders: Feasibility of immunohistological, flow cytometric, and cytogenetic assessments. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2012, 107, 397–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Philipper, M.; Hollerbach, S.; Gabbert, H.E.; Heikaus, S.; Bocking, A.; Pomjanski, N.; Neuhaus, H.; Frieling, T.; Schumacher, B. Prospective comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and surgical histology in upper gastrointestinal submucosal tumors. Endoscopy 2010, 42, 300–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Singh, P.; Mukhopadhyay, P.; Bhatt, B.; Patel, T.; Kiss, A.; Gupta, R.; Bhat, S.; Erickson, R.A. Endoscopic ultrasound versus CT scan for detection of the metastases to the liver: Results of a prospective comparative study. J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2009, 43, 367–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. DeWitt, J.; Alsatie, M.; LeBlanc, J.; McHenry, L.; Sherman, S. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of left adrenal gland masses. Endoscopy 2007, 39, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lee, J.H.; Salem, R.; Aslanian, H.; Chacho, M.; Topazian, M. Endoscopic ultrasound and fine-needle aspiration of unexplained bile duct strictures. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2004, 99, 1069–1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Eloubeidi, M.A.; Chen, V.K.; Jhala, N.C.; Eltoum, I.E.; Jhala, D.; Chhieng, D.C.; Syed, S.A.; Vickers, S.M.; Mel Wilcox, C. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy of suspected cholangiocarcinoma. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2004, 2, 209–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Tanaka, M.; Fernandez-Del Castillo, C.; Kamisawa, T.; Jang, J.Y.; Levy, P.; Ohtsuka, T.; Salvia, R.; Shimizu, Y.; Tada, M.; Wolfgang, C.L. Revisions of international consensus Fukuoka guidelines for the management of IPMN of the pancreas. Pancreatology 2017, 17, 738–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hirooka, Y.; Goto, H.; Itoh, A.; Hashimoto, S.; Niwa, K.; Ishikawa, H.; Okada, N.; Itoh, T.; Kawashima, H. Case of intraductal papillary mucinous tumor in which endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy caused dissemination. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2003, 18, 1323–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Fujita, A.; Ryozawa, S.; Tanisaka, Y.; Ogawa, T.; Suzuki, M.; Noguchi, T.; Katsuda, H.; Mizuide, M. Current Status of Needles in the Optimization of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Procedures. Diagn. (BaselSwitz.) 2020, 10, 463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hanada, K.; Okazaki, A.; Hirano, N.; Izumi, Y.; Teraoka, Y.; Ikemoto, J.; Kanemitsu, K.; Hino, F.; Fukuda, T.; Yonehara, S. Diagnostic strategies for early pancreatic cancer. J. Gastroenterol. 2015, 50, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kanno, A.; Masamune, A.; Hanada, K.; Maguchi, H.; Shimizu, Y.; Ueki, T.; Hasebe, O.; Ohtsuka, T.; Nakamura, M.; Takenaka, M.; et al. Multicenter study of early pancreatic cancer in Japan. Pancreatology 2018, 18, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Okusaka, T.; Nakamura, M.; Yoshida, M.; Kitano, M.; Uesaka, K.; Ito, Y.; Furuse, J.; Hanada, K.; Okazaki, K. Clinical Practice Guidelines for Pancreatic Cancer 2019 From the Japan Pancreas Society: A Synopsis. Pancreas 2020, 49, 326–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Yamashita, Y.; Shimokawa, T.; Napoléon, B.; Fusaroli, P.; Gincul, R.; Kudo, M.; Kitano, M. Value of contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography with enhancement pattern for diagnosis of pancreatic cancer: A meta-analysis. Dig. Endosc. Off. J. Jpn. Gastroenterol. Endosc. Soc. 2019, 31, 125–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kitano, M.; Kudo, M.; Yamao, K.; Takagi, T.; Sakamoto, H.; Komaki, T.; Kamata, K.; Imai, H.; Chiba, Y.; Okada, M.; et al. Characterization of small solid tumors in the pancreas: The value of contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2012, 107, 303–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Reddy, N.K.; Ioncică, A.M.; Săftoiu, A.; Vilmann, P.; Bhutani, M.S. Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasonography. World J. Gastroenterol. 2011, 17, 42–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Banafea, O.; Mghanga, F.P.; Zhao, J.; Zhao, R.; Zhu, L. Endoscopic ultrasonography with fine-needle aspiration for histological diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses: A meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMC Gastroenterol. 2016, 16, 108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Chen, J.; Yang, R.; Lu, Y.; Xia, Y.; Zhou, H. Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for solid pancreatic lesion: A systematic review. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 2012, 138, 1433–1441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hewitt, M.J.; McPhail, M.J.; Possamai, L.; Dhar, A.; Vlavianos, P.; Monahan, K.J. EUS-guided FNA for diagnosis of solid pancreatic neoplasms: A meta-analysis. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2012, 75, 319–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Puli, S.R.; Bechtold, M.L.; Buxbaum, J.L.; Eloubeidi, M.A. How good is endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in diagnosing the correct etiology for a solid pancreatic mass?: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Pancreas 2013, 42, 20–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yang, Y.; Li, L.; Qu, C.; Liang, S.; Zeng, B.; Luo, Z. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle core biopsy for the diagnosis of pancreatic malignant lesions: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 22978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hébert-Magee, S.; Bae, S.; Varadarajulu, S.; Ramesh, J.; Frost, A.R.; Eloubeidi, M.A.; Eltoum, I.A. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Seicean, A.; Samarghitan, A.; Bolboacă, S.D.; Pojoga, C.; Rusu, I.; Rusu, D.; Sparchez, Z.; Gheorghiu, M.; Al Hajjar, N.; Seicean, R. Contrast-enhanced harmonic versus standard endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in solid pancreatic lesions: A single-center prospective randomized trial. Endoscopy 2020, 52, 1084–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Oppong, K.W.; Bekkali, N.L.H.; Leeds, J.S.; Johnson, S.J.; Nayar, M.K.; Darné, A.; Egan, M.; Bassett, P.; Haugk, B. Fork-tip needle biopsy versus fine-needle aspiration in endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses: A randomized crossover study. Endoscopy 2020, 52, 454–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Adler, D.G.; Witt, B.; Chadwick, B.; Wells, J.; Taylor, L.J.; Dimaio, C.; Schmidt, R. Pathologic evaluation of a new endoscopic ultrasound needle designed to obtain core tissue samples: A pilot study. Endosc. Ultrasound 2016, 5, 178–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Bang, J.Y.; Hebert-Magee, S.; Hasan, M.K.; Navaneethan, U.; Hawes, R.; Varadarajulu, S. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biopsy using a Franseen needle design: Initial assessment. Dig. Endosc. Off. J. Jpn. Gastroenterol. Endosc. Soc. 2017, 29, 338–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Crinò, S.F.; Le Grazie, M.; Manfrin, E.; Conti Bellocchi, M.C.; Bernardoni, L.; Granato, A.; Locatelli, F.; Parisi, A.; Di Stefano, S.; Frulloni, L.; et al. Randomized trial comparing fork-tip and side-fenestrated needles for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2020, 92, 648–658.e642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Chen, Y.I.; Chatterjee, A.; Berger, R.; Kanber, Y.; Wyse, J.M.; Lam, E.; Gan, S.I.; Auger, M.; Kenshil, S.; Telford, J.; et al. EUS-guided fine needle biopsy alone vs. EUS-guided fine needle aspiration with rapid on-site evaluation of cytopathology in pancreatic lesions: A multicenter randomized trial. Endoscopy 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Madhoun, M.F.; Wani, S.B.; Rastogi, A.; Early, D.; Gaddam, S.; Tierney, W.M.; Maple, J.T. The diagnostic accuracy of 22-gauge and 25-gauge needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions: A meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2013, 45, 86–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Alatawi, A.; Beuvon, F.; Grabar, S.; Leblanc, S.; Chaussade, S.; Terris, B.; Barret, M.; Prat, F. Comparison of 22G reverse-beveled versus standard needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions. United Eur. Gastroenterol. J. 2015, 3, 343–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Facciorusso, A.; Stasi, E.; Di Maso, M.; Serviddio, G.; Ali Hussein, M.S.; Muscatiello, N. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic lesions with 22 versus 25 Gauge needles: A meta-analysis. United Eur. Gastroenterol. J. 2017, 5, 846–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Xu, M.M.; Jia, H.Y.; Yan, L.L.; Li, S.S.; Zheng, Y. Comparison of two different size needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions: A meta-analysis of prospective controlled trials. Med. (Baltim.) 2017, 96, e5802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Guedes, H.G.; Moura, D.T.H.; Duarte, R.B.; Cordero, M.A.C.; Santos, M.; Cheng, S.; Matuguma, S.E.; Chaves, D.M.; Bernardo, W.M.; Moura, E.G.H. A comparison of the efficiency of 22G versus 25G needles in EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic mass assessment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. (Sao PauloBraz.) 2018, 73, e261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ishii, Y.; Serikawa, M.; Tsuboi, T.; Kawamura, R.; Tsushima, K.; Nakamura, S.; Hirano, T.; Fukiage, A.; Mori, T.; Ikemoto, J.; et al. Role of Endoscopic Ultrasonography and Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in the Diagnosis of Pancreatic Cancer. Diagn. (BaselSwitz.) 2021, 11, 238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Minaga, K.; Kitano, M.; Enoki, E.; Kashida, H.; Kudo, M. Needle-Tract Seeding on the Proximal Gastric Wall After EUS-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration of a Pancreatic Mass. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2016, 111, 1515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Shubert, C.R.; Bergquist, J.R.; Groeschl, R.T.; Habermann, E.B.; Wilson, P.M.; Truty, M.J.; Smoot, R.L.; Kendrick, M.L.; Nagorney, D.M.; Farnell, M.B. Overall survival is increased among stage III pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared to surgery first and adjuvant chemotherapy: An intention to treat analysis of the National Cancer Database. Surgery 2016, 160, 1080–1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. de Geus, S.W.; Eskander, M.F.; Bliss, L.A.; Kasumova, G.G.; Ng, S.C.; Callery, M.P.; Tseng, J.F. Neoadjuvant therapy versus upfront surgery for resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A nationwide propensity score matched analysis. Surgery 2017, 161, 592–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Motoi, F.; Satoi, S.; Honda, G.; Wada, K.; Shinchi, H.; Matsumoto, I.; Sho, M.; Tsuchida, A.; Unno, M. A single-arm, phase II trial of neoadjuvant gemcitabine and S1 in patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma: PREP-01 study. J. Gastroenterol. 2019, 54, 194–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Motoi, F.; Kosuge, T.; Ueno, H.; Yamaue, H.; Satoi, S.; Sho, M.; Honda, G.; Matsumoto, I.; Wada, K.; Furuse, J.; et al. Randomized phase II/III trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine and S-1 versus upfront surgery for resectable pancreatic cancer (Prep-02/JSAP05). Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 2019, 49, 190–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Yamaguchi, H.; Morisaka, H.; Sano, K.; Nagata, K.; Ryozawa, S.; Okamoto, K.; Ichikawa, T. Seeding of a Tumor in the Gastric Wall after Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Aspiration of Solid Pseudopapillary Neoplasm of the Pancreas. Intern. Med. 2020, 59, 779–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Hedenbro, J.L.; Ekelund, M.; Wetterberg, P. Endoscopic diagnosis of submucosal gastric lesions. The results after routine endoscopy. Surg. Endosc. 1991, 5, 20–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Motoo, Y.; Okai, T.; Ohta, H.; Satomura, Y.; Watanabe, H.; Yamakawa, O.; Yamaguchi, Y.; Mouri, I.; Sawabu, N. Endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnosis of extraluminal compressions mimicking gastric submucosal tumors. Endoscopy 1994, 26, 239–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hwang, J.H.; Saunders, M.D.; Rulyak, S.J.; Shaw, S.; Nietsch, H.; Kimmey, M.B. A prospective study comparing endoscopy and EUS in the evaluation of GI subepithelial masses. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2005, 62, 202–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Polkowski, M. Endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy for the diagnosis of malignant submucosal tumors. Endoscopy 2005, 37, 635–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Cantor, M.J.; Davila, R.E.; Faigel, D.O. Yield of tissue sampling for subepithelial lesions evaluated by EUS: A comparison between forceps biopsies and endoscopic submucosal resection. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2006, 64, 29–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Buscaglia, J.M.; Nagula, S.; Jayaraman, V.; Robbins, D.H.; Vadada, D.; Gross, S.A.; DiMaio, C.J.; Pais, S.; Patel, K.; Sejpal, D.V.; et al. Diagnostic yield and safety of jumbo biopsy forceps in patients with subepithelial lesions of the upper and lower GI tract. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2012, 75, 1147–1152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kida, M.; Kawaguchi, Y.; Miyata, E.; Hasegawa, R.; Kaneko, T.; Yamauchi, H.; Koizumi, S.; Okuwaki, K.; Miyazawa, S.; Iwai, T.; et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography diagnosis of subepithelial lesions. Dig. Endosc. Off. J. Jpn. Gastroenterol. Endosc. Soc. 2017, 29, 431–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Eckardt, A.J.; Jenssen, C. Current endoscopic ultrasound-guided approach to incidental subepithelial lesions: Optimal or optional? Ann. Gastroenterol. 2015, 28, 160–172. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  62. Sato, M.; Irisawa, A.; Bhutani, M.S.; Schnadig, V.; Takagi, T.; Shibukawa, G.; Wakatsuki, T.; Imamura, H.; Takahashi, Y.; Sato, A.; et al. Gastric bronchogenic cyst diagnosed by endosonographically guided fine needle aspiration biopsy. J. Clin. Ultrasound 2008, 36, 237–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Polkowski, M.; Gerke, W.; Jarosz, D.; Nasierowska-Guttmejer, A.; Rutkowski, P.; Nowecki, Z.I.; Ruka, W.; Regula, J.; Butruk, E. Diagnostic yield and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided trucut [corrected] biopsy in patients with gastric submucosal tumors: A prospective study. Endoscopy 2009, 41, 329–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Eckardt, A.J.; Adler, A.; Gomes, E.M.; Jenssen, C.; Siebert, C.; Gottschalk, U.; Koch, M.; Röcken, C.; Rösch, T. Endosonographic large-bore biopsy of gastric subepithelial tumors: A prospective multicenter study. Eur. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2012, 24, 1135–1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kim, G.H.; Kim, K.B.; Lee, S.H.; Jeon, H.K.; Park, D.Y.; Jeon, T.Y.; Kim, D.H.; Song, G.A. Digital image analysis of endoscopic ultrasonography is helpful in diagnosing gastric mesenchymal tumors. Bmc Gastroenterol. 2014, 14, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Kim, G.H.; Park, D.Y.; Kim, S.; Kim, D.H.; Kim, D.H.; Choi, C.W.; Heo, J.; Song, G.A. Is it possible to differentiate gastric GISTs from gastric leiomyomas by EUS? World J. Gastroenterol. 2009, 15, 3376–3381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Ando, N.; Goto, H.; Niwa, Y.; Hirooka, Y.; Ohmiya, N.; Nagasaka, T.; Hayakawa, T. The diagnosis of GI stromal tumors with EUS-guided fine needle aspiration with immunohistochemical analysis. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2002, 55, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Miettinen, M.; Lasota, J. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors—Definition, clinical, histological, immunohistochemical, and molecular genetic features and differential diagnosis. Virchows Arch. 2001, 438, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Joensuu, H. Risk stratification of patients diagnosed with gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Hum. Pathol. 2008, 39, 1411–1419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Miettinen, M.; Lasota, J. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors: Review on morphology, molecular pathology, prognosis, and differential diagnosis. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2006, 130, 1466–1478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Miettinen, M.; Sobin, L.H.; Lasota, J. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors of the stomach: A clinicopathologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular genetic study of 1765 cases with long-term follow-up. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2005, 29, 52–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Akahoshi, K.; Oya, M.; Koga, T.; Koga, H.; Motomura, Y.; Kubokawa, M.; Gibo, J.; Nakamura, K. Clinical usefulness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for gastric subepithelial lesions smaller than 2 cm. J. Gastrointestin. Liver Dis. 2014, 23, 405–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  73. Aso, A.; Ihara, E.; Kubo, H.; Osoegawa, T.; Oono, T.; Nakamura, K.; Ito, T.; Kakeji, Y.; Mikako, O.; Yamamoto, H.; et al. Gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor smaller than 20 mm with liver metastasis. Clin. J. Gastroenterol. 2013, 6, 29–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. West, R.B.; Corless, C.L.; Chen, X.; Rubin, B.P.; Subramanian, S.; Montgomery, K.; Zhu, S.; Ball, C.A.; Nielsen, T.O.; Patel, R.; et al. The novel marker, DOG1, is expressed ubiquitously in gastrointestinal stromal tumors irrespective of KIT or PDGFRA mutation status. Am. J. Pathol. 2004, 165, 107–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Okasha, H.H.; Naguib, M.; El Nady, M.; Ezzat, R.; Al-Gemeie, E.; Al-Nabawy, W.; Aref, W.; Abdel-Moaty, A.; Essam, K.; Hamdy, A. Role of endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic-ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in endoscopic biopsy negative gastrointestinal lesions. Endosc. Ultrasound 2017, 6, 156–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  76. Akahoshi, K.; Sumida, Y.; Matsui, N.; Oya, M.; Akinaga, R.; Kubokawa, M.; Motomura, Y.; Honda, K.; Watanabe, M.; Nagaie, T. Preoperative diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumor by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration. World J. Gastroenterol. 2007, 13, 2077–2082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. El Chafic, A.H.; Loren, D.; Siddiqui, A.; Mounzer, R.; Cosgrove, N.; Kowalski, T. Comparison of FNA and fine-needle biopsy for EUS-guided sampling of suspected GI stromal tumors. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2017, 86, 510–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Hoda, K.M.; Rodriguez, S.A.; Faigel, D.O. EUS-guided sampling of suspected GI stromal tumors. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2009, 69, 1218–1223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Kim, G.H.; Cho, Y.K.; Kim, E.Y.; Kim, H.K.; Cho, J.W.; Lee, T.H.; Moon, J.S. Comparison of 22-gauge aspiration needle with 22-gauge biopsy needle in endoscopic ultrasonography-guided subepithelial tumor sampling. Scand. J. Gastroenterol. 2014, 49, 347–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Watson, R.R.; Binmoeller, K.F.; Hamerski, C.M.; Shergill, A.K.; Shaw, R.E.; Jaffee, I.M.; Stewart, L.; Shah, J.N. Yield and performance characteristics of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for diagnosing upper GI tract stromal tumors. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2011, 56, 1757–1762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Yamabe, A.; Irisawa, A.; Bhutani, M.S.; Shibukawa, G.; Abe, Y.; Saito, A.; Imbe, K.; Hoshi, K.; Igarashi, R. Usefulness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with a forward-viewing and curved linear-array echoendoscope for small gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions. Endosc. Int. Open 2015, 3, E161–E164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Ihara, E.; Matsuzaka, H.; Honda, K.; Hata, Y.; Sumida, Y.; Akiho, H.; Misawa, T.; Toyoshima, S.; Chijiiwa, Y.; Nakamura, K.; et al. Mucosal-incision assisted biopsy for suspected gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors. World J. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2013, 5, 191–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Lee, C.K.; Chung, I.K.; Lee, S.H.; Lee, S.H.; Lee, T.H.; Park, S.H.; Kim, H.S.; Kim, S.J.; Cho, H.D. Endoscopic partial resection with the unroofing technique for reliable tissue diagnosis of upper GI subepithelial tumors originating from the muscularis propria on EUS (with video). Gastrointest. Endosc. 2010, 71, 188–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Akahoshi, K.; Oya, M.; Koga, T.; Shiratsuchi, Y. Current clinical management of gastrointestinal stromal tumor. World J. Gastroenterol. 2018, 24, 2806–2817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Fujita, A.; Ryozawa, S.; Kobayashi, M.; Araki, R.; Nagata, K.; Minami, K.; Tanisaka, Y.; Kobatake, T.; Mizuide, M. Diagnostic ability of a 22G Franseen needle in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of subepithelial lesions. Mol. Clin. Oncol. 2018, 9, 527–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. De Potter, T.; Flamen, P.; Van Cutsem, E.; Penninckx, F.; Filez, L.; Bormans, G.; Maes, A.; Mortelmans, L. Whole-body PET with FDG for the diagnosis of recurrent gastric cancer. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2002, 29, 525–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Habermann, C.R.; Weiss, F.; Riecken, R.; Honarpisheh, H.; Bohnacker, S.; Staedtler, C.; Dieckmann, C.; Schoder, V.; Adam, G. Preoperative staging of gastric adenocarcinoma: Comparison of helical CT and endoscopic US. Radiology 2004, 230, 465–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Annema, J.T.; Versteegh, M.I.; Veseliç, M.; Voigt, P.; Rabe, K.F. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the diagnosis and staging of lung cancer and its impact on surgical staging. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005, 23, 8357–8361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Bhutani, M.S.; Hawes, R.H.; Hoffman, B.J. A comparison of the accuracy of echo features during endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration for diagnosis of malignant lymph node invasion. Gastrointest. Endosc. 1997, 45, 474–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Kanamori, A.; Hirooka, Y.; Itoh, A.; Hashimoto, S.; Kawashima, H.; Hara, K.; Uchida, H.; Goto, J.; Ohmiya, N.; Niwa, Y.; et al. Usefulness of contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasonography in the differentiation between malignant and benign lymphadenopathy. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2006, 101, 45–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Chen, V.K.; Eloubeidi, M.A. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration is superior to lymph node echofeatures: A prospective evaluation of mediastinal and peri-intestinal lymphadenopathy. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2004, 99, 628–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Eloubeidi, M.A.; Wallace, M.B.; Reed, C.E.; Hadzijahic, N.; Lewin, D.N.; Van Velse, A.; Leveen, M.B.; Etemad, B.; Matsuda, K.; Patel, R.S.; et al. The utility of EUS and EUS-guided fine needle aspiration in detecting celiac lymph node metastasis in patients with esophageal cancer: A single-center experience. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2001, 54, 714–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Song, H.J.; Kim, J.O.; Eun, S.H.; Cho, Y.D.; Jung, I.S.; Cheon, Y.K.; Moon, J.H.; Lee, J.S.; Lee, M.S.; Shim, C.S.; et al. Endoscopic Ultrasonograpic Findings of Benign Mediastinal and Abdominal Lymphadenopathy Confirmed by EUS-guided Fine Needle Aspiration. Gut Liver 2007, 1, 68–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  94. Tanisaka, Y.; Ryozawa, S.; Kobayashi, M.; Harada, M.; Kobatake, T.; Omiya, K.; Iwano, H.; Arai, S.; Nonaka, K.; Mashimo, Y. Usefulness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for lymphadenopathy. Oncol. Lett. 2018, 15, 4759–4766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  95. Chen, L.; Li, Y.; Gao, X.; Lin, S.; He, L.; Luo, G.; Li, J.; Huang, C.; Wang, G.; Yang, Q.; et al. High Diagnostic Accuracy and Safety of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration in Malignant Lymph Nodes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Nakahara, O.; Yamao, K.; Bhatia, V.; Sawaki, A.; Mizuno, N.; Takagi, T.; Shimizu, Y.; Koshikawa, T.; Yatabe, Y.; Baba, H. Usefulness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for undiagnosed intra-abdominal lymphadenopathy. J. Gastroenterol. 2009, 44, 562–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Ribeiro, A.; Vazquez-Sequeiros, E.; Wiersema, L.M.; Wang, K.K.; Clain, J.E.; Wiersema, M.J. EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration combined with flow cytometry and immunocytochemistry in the diagnosis of lymphoma. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2001, 53, 485–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Fujii, Y.; Kanno, Y.; Koshita, S.; Ogawa, T.; Kusunose, H.; Masu, K.; Sakai, T.; Yonamine, K.; Kawakami, Y.; Murabayashi, T.; et al. Predictive Factors for Inaccurate Diagnosis of Swollen Lymph Nodes in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration. Clin. Endosc. 2019, 52, 152–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Gleeson, F.C.; Clain, J.E.; Karnes, R.J.; Rajan, E.; Topazian, M.D.; Wang, K.K.; Levy, M.J. Endoscopic-ultrasound-guided tissue sampling facilitates the detection of local recurrence and extra pelvic metastasis in pelvic urologic malignancy. Diagn. Ther. Endosc. 2012, 2012, 219521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Jcm 10 01076 g001 550
Figure 1. Algorithm for pancreatic cancer diagnosis (from [26]). Black arrows indicate higher performance frequency, whereas white arrows indicate lower performance frequency. US, ultrasound; CT, computed tomography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; MRCP, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography; EUS, endoscopic ultrasound; ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; EUS-TA, endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition.
Figure 1. Algorithm for pancreatic cancer diagnosis (from [26]). Black arrows indicate higher performance frequency, whereas white arrows indicate lower performance frequency. US, ultrasound; CT, computed tomography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; MRCP, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography; EUS, endoscopic ultrasound; ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; EUS-TA, endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition.
Jcm 10 01076 g001
Jcm 10 01076 g002 550
Figure 2. A typical example of pancreatic adenocarcinoma with hypoenhancement. Fundamental B-mode endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) (a) showing a hypoechoic tumor at the pancreatic body, and contrast-harmonic EUS (b) showing the tumor with hypoenhancement.
Figure 2. A typical example of pancreatic adenocarcinoma with hypoenhancement. Fundamental B-mode endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) (a) showing a hypoechoic tumor at the pancreatic body, and contrast-harmonic EUS (b) showing the tumor with hypoenhancement.
Jcm 10 01076 g002
Jcm 10 01076 g003 550
Figure 3. A typical example of a pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor with hyperenhancement. Fundamental B-mode endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) (a) showing a hypo-isoechoic tumor at the pancreatic head, and contrast-harmonic EUS (b) showing a tumor with hyperenhancement.
Figure 3. A typical example of a pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor with hyperenhancement. Fundamental B-mode endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) (a) showing a hypo-isoechoic tumor at the pancreatic head, and contrast-harmonic EUS (b) showing a tumor with hyperenhancement.
Jcm 10 01076 g003
Jcm 10 01076 g004 550
Figure 4. Case of gastric leiomyoma. Endoscopic ultrasound (a) showing a hypoechoic tumor originating from the fourth layer. Histopathology (b) showing eosinophilic spindle cells with desmin (c) and α-SMA (d) immuno-expressions on a specimen of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition.
Figure 4. Case of gastric leiomyoma. Endoscopic ultrasound (a) showing a hypoechoic tumor originating from the fourth layer. Histopathology (b) showing eosinophilic spindle cells with desmin (c) and α-SMA (d) immuno-expressions on a specimen of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition.
Jcm 10 01076 g004
Jcm 10 01076 g005 550
Figure 5. Case of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Endoscopic ultrasonography (a) showing a hypoechoic tumor with a heterogeneous echotexture. Histology (b) showing relatively basophilic spindle cells with KIT (c) and CD34 (d) positivity on a specimen of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition.
Figure 5. Case of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Endoscopic ultrasonography (a) showing a hypoechoic tumor with a heterogeneous echotexture. Histology (b) showing relatively basophilic spindle cells with KIT (c) and CD34 (d) positivity on a specimen of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition.
Jcm 10 01076 g005
Jcm 10 01076 g006 550
Figure 6. (a) A typical finding for a benign lymph node (LN). This lesion shows flat cross-sections, internal hyperechoic features, and <10 mm diameter (red arrow). (b) A typical finding for a malignant LN. This lesion shows round cross-sections, sharp demarcations, internal hypoechoic features, and 25 mm diameter.
Figure 6. (a) A typical finding for a benign lymph node (LN). This lesion shows flat cross-sections, internal hyperechoic features, and <10 mm diameter (red arrow). (b) A typical finding for a malignant LN. This lesion shows round cross-sections, sharp demarcations, internal hypoechoic features, and 25 mm diameter.
Jcm 10 01076 g006
Table
Table 1. Meta-analyses of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration or fine-needle biopsy for solid pancreatic lesions.
Table 1. Meta-analyses of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration or fine-needle biopsy for solid pancreatic lesions.
ReferenceYearCases (n)SensitivitySpecificity
Hewitt [32]2012FNA: 49848598
Chen [31]2012FNA: 18609296
Puli [33]2013FNA: 476686.895.8
Banafea [30]2016FNA: 276190.896.5
Yang [34]2016FNB: 8288498
Table
Table 2. Typical features of subepithelial lesions (from [60,61]).
Table 2. Typical features of subepithelial lesions (from [60,61]).
SELsEUS LayerEUS Imaging FeatureHistologyMalignant Potential
Leiomyoma2nd or 4thHypoechoic (iso- or hypoechoic compared to muscle layer), homogeneous, sometimes calcificationsDesmin (+), α-SMA (+)None (primary leiomyosarcoma:
extremely rare)
Schwannoma3rd or 4thHypoechoic, round or oval,
homogeneous, well-demarcated		S-100 (+)Extremely rare
Ectopic pancreas3rd (and 4th)Hypoechoic, or mixed echogenicity
heterogeneous echotexture,
umbilication, ductal structures,
indistinct margins		Pancreatic tissueExtremely rare
Lipoma3rdHyperechoic, smooth margins,
homogeneous, may be polypoid		Mature lipocytesNone
Brunnerioma3rdHyperechoic, smooth margin, possibly
hypoechoic-dilated gland duct		Hyperplasia of
the Brunner gland		None
Lymphangioma3rdAnechoic, occasionally
multiloculated		No solid componentsNone
Varices2nd or 3rdAnechoic, serpiginous structure with
doppler signal		No solid componentsNone
Granular cell tumor2nd, 3rd, or 4thHypo- or isoechoic, oval,
homogeneous, smooth margins		PAS (+), S-100 (+),
and NSE (+)		Extremely low risk
of malignancy (2–4%)
Glomus tumor3rd or 4thRound, hypoechoic, homogeneous,
may have a halo		α-SMA (+), vimentin (+),
laminin (+), CD34 (rarely),
and KIT (-)		Rare
GIST4thBenign features: small (≤2 cm), oval or round,
hypoechoic but relatively hyperechoic
compared to muscle layer, homogeneous
Malignant features: large (>3 cm), irregular margins, heterogeneous echotexture, cystic spaces, hypervascularity, marginal halo, hyperechoic spots/echogenic foci		KIT (+), CD34 (+), desmin (+), S-100 (-), DOG1 (+), or a mutation search of the KIT or PDGFRA gene10–30%
clinically
malignant
NET2nd or 3rdOval to round, hypo- or isoechoic, homogeneous, regular marginsSynaptophysin (+), chromogranin (+), INSM1 (+)Depending on
type, size, and location
Lymphoma2nd, 3rd, or 4thHypoechoicAtypical lymphocyteAlways
metastasisAny layerHeterogeneous or hypoechoicDepending on a primaryAlways
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fujita, A.; Ryozawa, S.; Mizuide, M.; Tanisaka, Y.; Ogawa, T.; Suzuki, M.; Katsuda, H.; Saito, Y.; Tashima, T.; Miyaguchi, K.; et al. Diagnosis of Pancreatic Solid Lesions, Subepithelial Lesions, and Lymph Nodes Using Endoscopic Ultrasound. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 1076. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10051076

AMA Style

Fujita A, Ryozawa S, Mizuide M, Tanisaka Y, Ogawa T, Suzuki M, Katsuda H, Saito Y, Tashima T, Miyaguchi K, et al. Diagnosis of Pancreatic Solid Lesions, Subepithelial Lesions, and Lymph Nodes Using Endoscopic Ultrasound. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2021; 10(5):1076. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10051076

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fujita, Akashi, Shomei Ryozawa, Masafumi Mizuide, Yuki Tanisaka, Tomoya Ogawa, Masahiro Suzuki, Hiromune Katsuda, Yoichi Saito, Tomoaki Tashima, Kazuya Miyaguchi, and et al. 2021. "Diagnosis of Pancreatic Solid Lesions, Subepithelial Lesions, and Lymph Nodes Using Endoscopic Ultrasound" Journal of Clinical Medicine 10, no. 5: 1076. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10051076

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop