Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration (FNA) With Rapid On-site Evaluation (ROSE) of Cytopathology vs. EUS-guided Fine Needle Biopsy (FNB) Alone in the Diagnosis of Pancreatic Solid Lesions

Currently, the best way to evaluate pancreatic masses is through endoscopic-guided needle sampling of the mass to determine the diagnosis by looking at the acquired tissue under a microscope. This is done by inserting a small camera (endoscope) through the mouth of the patient then advanced to the stomach and using ultrasound guidance a sample of the pancreas can be acquired through the stomach. The sampling is usually done with a small needle called fine needle aspiration needle or FNA. FNA alone is sometimes limited due to inadequate acquisition of cells for proper diagnosis under the microscope, which can lead to need for repeat endoscopic procedures and delay in diagnosis and possibly treatment. Rapid on-site evaluation of cytopathology (ROSE) is where a cytopathologist is next to the physician doing the endoscopic procedures and evaluates each sampling performed immediately under the microscope and can give feedback to the endoscopist until enough cells has been acquired for a diagnosis. This method has been shown to increase the ability to diagnose pancreatic cancer but is expensive and requires significant amount of resources. New needles called core needles (fine needle biopsy, FNB) have recently been developed which not only acquires cells but also the entire tissue structure (histology) and has been shown to be also very accurate in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. The purpose of this study is to compare endoscopy-guided biopsy of pancreatic masses with the new core needle (FNB), which can obtain more tissue for diagnosis vs. using a traditional needle (FNA) with the help of an immediate assessment of the obtained samples under the microscope to determine whether enough tissue has been obtained (ROSE). Both approaches have been shown to increase the accuracy of diagnosis in solid pancreatic masses but it is unclear which one is superior. This is a randomized trial meaning that the participants would either undergo biopsy with the new needle or with the traditional needle plus the addition of on-site assessment of the obtained samples. The advantage of the new needle is that it is easy to implement and likely much cheaper. If the investigators can show in our study that the new needles are as accurate as FNA with ROSE then FNB could be implemented across hospitals worldwide in an easier and less expensive fashion.

Sex

All

Minimum age

18 Years

Inclusion Criteria:

* Age \> 18 years
* Patients referred for EUS evaluation of a definite solid pancreatic mass noted on computed tomography(CT)/Magnetic resonance imaging(MRI)/EUS, in which malignancy is suspected with no previous histological diagnosis

Exclusion Criteria:

* Age \< 18 years, pregnant patients.
* Uncorrectable coagulopathy Prothrombin time (PT) \>50% of control, Partial Thromboplastin time (PTT) \>50 sec, or International normalized ratio (INR) \>1.5 and/or uncorrectable thrombocytopenia platelet count\<50, 000109/L.

• BACKGROUNDKlapman JB, Logrono R, Dye CE, Waxman I. Clinical impact of on-site cytopathology interpretation on endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003 Jun;98(6):1289-94. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2003.07472.x. PMID 12818271
• BACKGROUNDGress FG, Hawes RH, Savides TJ, Ikenberry SO, Lehman GA. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy using linear array and radial scanning endosonography. Gastrointest Endosc. 1997 Mar;45(3):243-50. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(97)70266-9. PMID 9087830
• BACKGROUNDChang KJ, Katz KD, Durbin TE, Erickson RA, Butler JA, Lin F, Wuerker RB. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration. Gastrointest Endosc. 1994 Nov-Dec;40(6):694-9. PMID 7859967
• BACKGROUNDKulesza P, Eltoum IA. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration: sampling, pitfalls, and quality management. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007 Nov;5(11):1248-54. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2007.09.011. PMID 17981244
• BACKGROUNDKandel P, Tranesh G, Nassar A, Bingham R, Raimondo M, Woodward TA, Gomez V, Wallace MB. EUS-guided fine needle biopsy sampling using a novel fork-tip needle: a case-control study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Dec;84(6):1034-1039. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.03.1405. Epub 2016 Mar 24. PMID 27018087
• BACKGROUNDCotton PB, Eisen GM, Aabakken L, Baron TH, Hutter MM, Jacobson BC, Mergener K, Nemcek A Jr, Petersen BT, Petrini JL, Pike IM, Rabeneck L, Romagnuolo J, Vargo JJ. A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Mar;71(3):446-54. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2009.10.027. No abstract available. PMID 20189503
• DERIVEDChen YI, Chatterjee A, Berger R, Kanber Y, Wyse J, Lam E, Gan I, Auger M, Kenshil S, Telford J, Donnellan F, Quinlan J, Lutzak G, Alshamsi F, Parent J, Waschke K, Alghamdi A, Barkun J, Metrakos P, Chaudhury P, Martel M, Dorreen A, Candido K, Miller C, Adam V, Barkun A, Zogopoulos G, Wong C. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle biopsy alone vs. EUS-guided fine needle aspiration with rapid onsite evaluation in pancreatic lesions: a multicenter randomized trial. Endoscopy. 2022 Jan;54(1):4-12. doi: 10.1055/a-1375-9775. Epub 2021 Apr 15.