An evaluation of risk factors for inadequate cytology in EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic tumors and lymph nodes

Patrick Cleveland, Kanwar Rupinder S Gill, Susan G. Coe, Timothy A. Woodward, Massimo Raimondo, Laith Jamil, Seth A. Gross, Michael G. Heckman, Juliana Crook, Michael B. Wallace

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

48 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The factors associated with maximizing the cytological adequacy of EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) in pancreatic tumor evaluation are not well-known. Objective: To examine associations of physician and procedural factors with the endpoint: the presence of an adequate cytological specimen found by using EUS-FNA in patients with pancreatic tumors and lymph nodes. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: A U.S. tertiary care center. Patients: Patients undergoing EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses and lymph nodes. Interventions: Analysis of EUS-FNA procedures performed in our institution from 1997 to 2007. Main Outcome Measurements: Associations were evaluated between the primary endpoint of cytological adequacy and factors including the endoscopist, needle gauge, the number of needle passes attempted, the pathologist, and the presence of an onsite cytotechnologist to confirm an adequate specimen. EUS-FNA adequacy was determined by a pathologist based on the presence of definite benign or malignant tissue. Results: EUS-FNA was performed in 247 pancreatic masses and 276 lymph nodes. An adequate cytological sample was obtained in 240 (97%) pancreatic tumors (95% CI, 94%-99%) and 252 (91%) lymph nodes (95% CI, 87%-94%). For pancreatic tumors, there was no evidence of any associations between factors and cytological adequacy. For lymph nodes, cytological adequacy was improved when an onsite cytotechnologist was present (96% vs 84%, P = .002); no other factors showed statistically significant associations with cytological adequacy. Limitations: Retrospective study, low power to detect associations. Conclusions: The presence of an onsite cytotechnologist is an important factor in achieving successful EUS-FNA of suspicious lymph nodes in patients with pancreatic masses.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1194-1199
Number of pages6
JournalGastrointestinal Endoscopy
Volume71
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - 2010

Fingerprint

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration
Cell Biology
Lymph Nodes
Neoplasms
Needles
Retrospective Studies
Tertiary Care Centers
Cohort Studies
Physicians

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

An evaluation of risk factors for inadequate cytology in EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic tumors and lymph nodes. / Cleveland, Patrick; Gill, Kanwar Rupinder S; Coe, Susan G.; Woodward, Timothy A.; Raimondo, Massimo; Jamil, Laith; Gross, Seth A.; Heckman, Michael G.; Crook, Juliana; Wallace, Michael B.

In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Vol. 71, No. 7, 2010, p. 1194-1199.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Cleveland, P, Gill, KRS, Coe, SG, Woodward, TA, Raimondo, M, Jamil, L, Gross, SA, Heckman, MG, Crook, J & Wallace, MB 2010, 'An evaluation of risk factors for inadequate cytology in EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic tumors and lymph nodes', Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, vol. 71, no. 7, pp. 1194-1199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2010.01.029
Cleveland, Patrick ; Gill, Kanwar Rupinder S ; Coe, Susan G. ; Woodward, Timothy A. ; Raimondo, Massimo ; Jamil, Laith ; Gross, Seth A. ; Heckman, Michael G. ; Crook, Juliana ; Wallace, Michael B. / An evaluation of risk factors for inadequate cytology in EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic tumors and lymph nodes. In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2010 ; Vol. 71, No. 7. pp. 1194-1199.
@article{5e84244122614d0e9a206181019245e9,
title = "An evaluation of risk factors for inadequate cytology in EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic tumors and lymph nodes",
abstract = "Background: The factors associated with maximizing the cytological adequacy of EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) in pancreatic tumor evaluation are not well-known. Objective: To examine associations of physician and procedural factors with the endpoint: the presence of an adequate cytological specimen found by using EUS-FNA in patients with pancreatic tumors and lymph nodes. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: A U.S. tertiary care center. Patients: Patients undergoing EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses and lymph nodes. Interventions: Analysis of EUS-FNA procedures performed in our institution from 1997 to 2007. Main Outcome Measurements: Associations were evaluated between the primary endpoint of cytological adequacy and factors including the endoscopist, needle gauge, the number of needle passes attempted, the pathologist, and the presence of an onsite cytotechnologist to confirm an adequate specimen. EUS-FNA adequacy was determined by a pathologist based on the presence of definite benign or malignant tissue. Results: EUS-FNA was performed in 247 pancreatic masses and 276 lymph nodes. An adequate cytological sample was obtained in 240 (97{\%}) pancreatic tumors (95{\%} CI, 94{\%}-99{\%}) and 252 (91{\%}) lymph nodes (95{\%} CI, 87{\%}-94{\%}). For pancreatic tumors, there was no evidence of any associations between factors and cytological adequacy. For lymph nodes, cytological adequacy was improved when an onsite cytotechnologist was present (96{\%} vs 84{\%}, P = .002); no other factors showed statistically significant associations with cytological adequacy. Limitations: Retrospective study, low power to detect associations. Conclusions: The presence of an onsite cytotechnologist is an important factor in achieving successful EUS-FNA of suspicious lymph nodes in patients with pancreatic masses.",
author = "Patrick Cleveland and Gill, {Kanwar Rupinder S} and Coe, {Susan G.} and Woodward, {Timothy A.} and Massimo Raimondo and Laith Jamil and Gross, {Seth A.} and Heckman, {Michael G.} and Juliana Crook and Wallace, {Michael B.}",
year = "2010",
doi = "10.1016/j.gie.2010.01.029",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "71",
pages = "1194--1199",
journal = "Gastrointestinal Endoscopy",
issn = "0016-5107",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - An evaluation of risk factors for inadequate cytology in EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic tumors and lymph nodes

AU - Cleveland, Patrick

AU - Gill, Kanwar Rupinder S

AU - Coe, Susan G.

AU - Woodward, Timothy A.

AU - Raimondo, Massimo

AU - Jamil, Laith

AU - Gross, Seth A.

AU - Heckman, Michael G.

AU - Crook, Juliana

AU - Wallace, Michael B.

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - Background: The factors associated with maximizing the cytological adequacy of EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) in pancreatic tumor evaluation are not well-known. Objective: To examine associations of physician and procedural factors with the endpoint: the presence of an adequate cytological specimen found by using EUS-FNA in patients with pancreatic tumors and lymph nodes. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: A U.S. tertiary care center. Patients: Patients undergoing EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses and lymph nodes. Interventions: Analysis of EUS-FNA procedures performed in our institution from 1997 to 2007. Main Outcome Measurements: Associations were evaluated between the primary endpoint of cytological adequacy and factors including the endoscopist, needle gauge, the number of needle passes attempted, the pathologist, and the presence of an onsite cytotechnologist to confirm an adequate specimen. EUS-FNA adequacy was determined by a pathologist based on the presence of definite benign or malignant tissue. Results: EUS-FNA was performed in 247 pancreatic masses and 276 lymph nodes. An adequate cytological sample was obtained in 240 (97%) pancreatic tumors (95% CI, 94%-99%) and 252 (91%) lymph nodes (95% CI, 87%-94%). For pancreatic tumors, there was no evidence of any associations between factors and cytological adequacy. For lymph nodes, cytological adequacy was improved when an onsite cytotechnologist was present (96% vs 84%, P = .002); no other factors showed statistically significant associations with cytological adequacy. Limitations: Retrospective study, low power to detect associations. Conclusions: The presence of an onsite cytotechnologist is an important factor in achieving successful EUS-FNA of suspicious lymph nodes in patients with pancreatic masses.

AB - Background: The factors associated with maximizing the cytological adequacy of EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) in pancreatic tumor evaluation are not well-known. Objective: To examine associations of physician and procedural factors with the endpoint: the presence of an adequate cytological specimen found by using EUS-FNA in patients with pancreatic tumors and lymph nodes. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: A U.S. tertiary care center. Patients: Patients undergoing EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses and lymph nodes. Interventions: Analysis of EUS-FNA procedures performed in our institution from 1997 to 2007. Main Outcome Measurements: Associations were evaluated between the primary endpoint of cytological adequacy and factors including the endoscopist, needle gauge, the number of needle passes attempted, the pathologist, and the presence of an onsite cytotechnologist to confirm an adequate specimen. EUS-FNA adequacy was determined by a pathologist based on the presence of definite benign or malignant tissue. Results: EUS-FNA was performed in 247 pancreatic masses and 276 lymph nodes. An adequate cytological sample was obtained in 240 (97%) pancreatic tumors (95% CI, 94%-99%) and 252 (91%) lymph nodes (95% CI, 87%-94%). For pancreatic tumors, there was no evidence of any associations between factors and cytological adequacy. For lymph nodes, cytological adequacy was improved when an onsite cytotechnologist was present (96% vs 84%, P = .002); no other factors showed statistically significant associations with cytological adequacy. Limitations: Retrospective study, low power to detect associations. Conclusions: The presence of an onsite cytotechnologist is an important factor in achieving successful EUS-FNA of suspicious lymph nodes in patients with pancreatic masses.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77952851069&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77952851069&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.gie.2010.01.029

DO - 10.1016/j.gie.2010.01.029

M3 - Article

C2 - 20598246

AN - SCOPUS:77952851069

VL - 71

SP - 1194

EP - 1199

JO - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

JF - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

SN - 0016-5107

IS - 7

ER -