Methotrexate‐associated lymphoproliferative disorder: A rare pancreatic tumor diagnosed via endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle biopsy
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kitagawa K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10914123 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background/aimsThe diagnostic work-up of lymphadenopathy is challenging but important to determine the correct therapy. Nevertheless, few studies have addressed the topic of endosonography (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition in lymphadenopathy. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the accuracy and safety of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling (EUS-FNB) in intrathoracic and intraabdominal lymphadenopathy.MethodsIn a tertiary care center, patients with lymphadenopathy referred for EUS-guided sampling were included prospectively from 2014 to 2019 (NCT02360839). In all cases, EUS-FNB (22 gauge) and EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) (25 gauge) were performed. The patients were randomized to the first needle pass with FNB or FNA. Study outcomes were the diagnostic accuracy and adverse event rate.ResultsForty-eight patients were included (median age: 69 years [interquartile range, 59-76]; 24/48 females [50%]). The final diagnoses were metastasis (n=17), lymphoma (n=11), sarcoidosis (n=6), and inflammatory disease (n=14). The diagnostic performance of the two modalities was comparable, including a high sensitivity for metastatic nodes (EUS-FNB: 87% vs. EUSFNA: 100%, p=0.5). The sensitivity for lymphoma was borderline superior in favor of EUS-FNB (EUS-FNB: 55% vs. EUS-FNA: 9%, p=0.06). No adverse events were recorded.ConclusionIn lymphadenopathy, both EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA are safe and highly sensitive for metastatic lymph node detection. Lymphoma diagnosis is challenging regardless of the needle used.
| S-EPMC8505168 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNA) is a recent innovation in the evaluation of gastrointestinal and pulmonary malignancies. AIMS: To review the experience with EUS-FNA of a large single centre. METHODS: 333 consecutive patients underwent EUS-FNA. Follow up data were available on 327 lesions in 317 patients, including 160 lymph nodes, 144 pancreatic lesions, 15 extraintestinal masses, and eight intramural tumours. RESULTS: A primary diagnosis of malignancy was obtained by EUS-FNA in 62% of patients with clinically suspicious lesions. The overall accuracy of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of malignancy was 86%, with sensitivity of 84% and specificity of 96%. With respect to lesion types, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 85%, 100%, and 89% for lymph nodes; 82%, 100%, and 85% for pancreatic lesions; 88%, 100%, and 90% for perirectal masses; and 50%, 25%, and 38% for intramural lesions, respectively. Compared with size and sonographic criteria, EUS-FNA in the evaluation of lymph nodes provided superior accuracy and specificity, without compromising sensitivity. Inadequate specimens were obtained from only six patients, including 3/5 with stromal tumors. Only one complication occurred. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNA is safe and can readily obtain tissue specimens adequate for cytopathological diagnoses. Compared with size and sonographic criteria, it is a superior modality for the detection of nodal metastases. While providing accurate diagnosis of pancreatic and perirectal malignancies, results suggest the technique is less useful for intramural lesions.
| S-EPMC1727480 | biostudies-other
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC4158657 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Histopathological diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) on endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) specimens has become the mainstay of preoperative pathological diagnosis. However, on EUS-FNB specimens, accurate histopathological evaluation is difficult due to low specimen volume with isolated cancer cells and high contamination of blood, inflammatory and digestive tract cells. In this study, we performed annotations for training sets by expert pancreatic pathologists and trained a deep learning model to assess PDAC on EUS-FNB of the pancreas in histopathological whole-slide images. We obtained a high receiver operator curve area under the curve of 0.984, accuracy of 0.9417, sensitivity of 0.9302 and specificity of 0.9706. Our model was able to accurately detect difficult cases of isolated and low volume cancer cells. If adopted as a supportive system in routine diagnosis of pancreatic EUS-FNB specimens, our model has the potential to aid pathologists diagnose difficult cases.
| S-EPMC8055968 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDiagnostic laparoscopy is often a necessary, albeit invasive, procedure to help resolve undiagnosed peritoneal diseases. Previous retrospective studies reported that EUS-FNA is feasible on peritoneal and omental lesions, however, EUS-FNA provided a limited amount of tissue for immunohistochemistry stain (IHC).AimThis pilot study aims to prospectively determine the effectiveness of EUS-FNB regarding adequacy of tissue for IHC staining, diagnostic rate and the avoidance rate of diagnostic laparoscopy or percutaneous biopsy in patients with these lesions.MethodsFrom March 2017 to June 2018, patients with peritoneal or omental lesions identified by CT or MRI at the King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand were prospectively enrolled in the study. All Patients underwent EUS-FNB. For those with negative pathological results of EUS-FNB, percutaneous biopsy or diagnostic laparoscopy was planned. Analysis uses percentages only due to small sample sizes.ResultsA total of 30 EUS-FNB passes were completed, with a median of 3 passes (range 2-3 passes) per case. For EUS-FNB, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of EUS-FNB from peritoneal lesions were 63.6%, 100%, 100%, 20% and 66.7% respectively. Adequate tissue for IHC stain was found in 25/30 passes (80%). The tissues from EUS results were found malignant in 7/12 patients (58.3%). IHC could be done in 10/12 patients (83.3%). Among the five patients with negative EUS results, two underwent either liver biopsy of mass or abdominal paracentesis, showing gallbladder cancer and adenocarcinoma. Two patients refused laparoscopy due to advanced pancreatic cancer and worsening ovarian cancer. The fifth patient had post-surgical inflammation only with spontaneous resolution. The avoidance rate of laparoscopic diagnosis was 58.3%. No major adverse event was observed.ConclusionsEUS-FNB from peritoneal lesions provided sufficient core tissue for diagnosis and IHC. Diagnostic laparoscopy can often be avoided in patients with peritoneal lesions.
| S-EPMC8542287 | biostudies-literature
Project description:An 82-year-old man had been treated for lung adenocarcinoma and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Contrast-enhanced computed tomography examination showed swelling of the left adrenal gland, suggesting metastasis of lung adenocarcinoma, HCC, or primary adrenal tumor. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) was performed for the pathological diagnosis, and adrenal metastasis of HCC was diagnosed. No notable complications due to EUS-FNA were found. There have been reports of adrenal metastasis due to various cancers, but there are few reports that can confirm the diagnosis of adrenal metastasis of HCC using EUS-FNA. Adrenal metastasis of HCC is not a rare condition, but it may be difficult to diagnose in the case of multiple cancer complications. We experienced a case in which EUS-FNA was useful for the diagnosis of adrenal metastasis of HCC.
| S-EPMC11004765 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A 71-year-old man in whom a gastric submucosal lesion was found incidentally was referred to our hospital for detailed examination. Esophagastroduodenoscopy showed a submucosal lesion in the body of the stomach. Endoscopic ultrasound revealed a 15-mm hypoechoic round mass with calcifications arising from the muscular layer. Confusing the diagnosis, it resembled a gastrointestinal mesenchymal tumor. Subsequently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration was conducted for definitive diagnosis. Pathologic analysis showed a granuloma. Because this patient had no prior exposure to tuberculosis or Helicobacter pylori infection and had no abnormal laboratory data, this submucosal lesion was diagnosed as idiopathic granulomatous gastritis.
| S-EPMC4423308 | biostudies-other
Project description:Video 1Tools and techniques: understanding EUS-guided liver biopsy needle types and tissue acquisition techniques.
| S-EPMC8573426 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration is a multistep procedure that involves proper clinical indication, correct selection of needles, adapting evidence-based techniques such as the fanning maneuver and not routinely using suction or the stylet for tissue sampling, and establishing reliable cytopathology support. Integrating cytopathology in the training curriculum and developing a more flexible platform of needles and echoendoscopes are likely to further advance the field of endosonography. This review aims to summarize the technical issues that are key to performing high-quality endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration.
| S-EPMC4115182 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe comparison between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) and EUS guided fine needle biopsy (FNB) in sampling pancreatic masses is still controversial.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed and Web of Science to identify all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes of interest (specimen adequacy, diagnostic accuracy, complications, and technical success), while mean difference (MD) and 95% CI were pooled for continuous variables (number of needle passes required for diagnosis).ResultsEleven RCTs were identified with a total of 694 EUS-FNA cases and 688 EUS-FNB cases. Compared with EUS-FNA, EUS-FNB had a better specimen adequacy (OR: 1.83, 95% CI: 1.27-2.64), higher diagnostic accuracy (OR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.17-2.26), and fewer number of needle passes (MD: 0.69, 95% CI: 1.18 to 0.20). No significant difference was found in complications (OR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.27-3.78) and technical success (OR: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.02-1.07).ConclusionEUS-FNB is superior to EUS-FNA in sampling pancreatic masses.
| S-EPMC5895392 | biostudies-literature