Cumulative sum learning curves guiding multicenter multidisciplinary quality improvement of EUS-guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic lesions.

Background and study aims In this study, we evaluated the performance of community hospitals involved in the Dutch quality in endosonography team regarding yield of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition (TA) of solid pancreatic lesions using cumulative sum (CUSUM) learning curves. The aims were to assess trends in quality over time and explore potential benefits of CUSUM as a feedback-tool. Patients and methods All consecutive EUS-guided TA procedures for solid pancreatic lesions were registered in five community hospitals between 2015 and  2018. CUSUM learning curves were plotted for overall performance and for performance per center. The American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy-defined key performance indicators, rate of adequate sample (RAS), and diagnostic yield of malignancy (DYM) were used for this purpose. Feedback regarding performance was provided on multiple occasions at regional interest group meetings during the study period. Results A total of 431 EUS-guided TA procedures in 403 patients were included in this study. The overall and per center CUSUM curves for RAS improved over time. CUSUM curves for DYM revealed gradual improvement, reaching the predefined performance target (70 %) overall, and in three of five contributing centers in 2018. Analysis of a sudden downslope development in the CUSUM curve of DYM in one center revealed temporary absence of a senior cytopathologist to have had a temporary negative impact on performance. Conclusions CUSUM-derived learning curves allow for assessment of best practices by comparison among peers in a multidisciplinary multicenter quality improvement initiative and proved to be a valuable and easy-to-interpret means to evaluate EUS performance over time.

Optimizing cytological specimens of EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions: A pilot study to the effect of a smear preparation training for endoscopy personnel on sample quality and accuracy.

BACKGROUND: In the absence of rapid on-side pathological evaluation, endoscopy staff generally "smears" endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) specimens on a glass slide. As this technique is vulnerable to preparation artifacts, we assessed if its quality could be improved through a smear-preparation-training for endoscopy staff. METHODS: In this prospective pilot study, 10 endosonographers and 12 endoscopy nurses from seven regional EUS-centers in the Netherlands were invited to participate in a EUS-FNA smear-preparation-training. Subsequently, post training slides derived from solid pancreatic lesions were compared to pre-training "control" slides. Primary outcome was to assess if the training positively affects smear quality and, consequently, diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions. RESULTS: Participants collected and prepared 71 cases, mostly pancreatic head lesions (48%). Sixty-eight controls were selected from the pretraining period. The presence of artifacts was comparable for smears performed before and after training (76% vs 82%, P = .36). Likewise, smear cellularity (≥50% target cells) before and after training did not differ (44% (30/68) vs 49% (35/71), P = .48). Similar, no difference in diagnostic accuracy for malignancy was detected (P = .10). CONCLUSION: In this pilot EUS-FNA smear-preparation-training for endoscopy personnel, smear quality and diagnostic accuracy were not improved after the training. Based on these results, we plan to further study other training programs and possibilities.

Diagnostic yield and agreement on fine-needle specimens from solid pancreatic lesions : comparing the smear technique to liquid-based cytology.

Background and study aims The traditional "smear technique" for processing and assessing endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is sensitive to artifacts. Processing and evaluation of specimens collected in a liquid medium, liquid-based cytology (LBC) may be a solution. We compared the diagnostic value of EUS-FNA smears to LBC in pancreatic solid lesions in the absence of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE). Patients and methods Consecutive patients who required EUS-FNA of a solid pancreatic lesion were included in seven hospitals in the Netherlands and followed for at least 12 months. Specimens from the first pass were split into two smears and a vial for LBC (using ThinPrep and/or Cell block). Smear and LBC were compared in terms of diagnostic accuracy for malignancy, sample quality, and diagnostic agreement between three cytopathologists. Results Diagnostic accuracy for malignancy was higher for LBC (82 % (58/71)) than for smear (66 % (47/71), P  = 0.04), but did not differ when smears were compared to ThinPrep (71 % (30/42), P  = 0.56) or Cell block (62 % (39/63), P  = 0.61) individually. Artifacts were less often present in ThinPrep (57 % (24/42), P  = 0.02) or Cell block samples (40 % (25/63), P  < 0.001) than smears (76 % (54/71)). Agreement on malignancy was equally good for smears and LBC (ĸ = 0.71 versus ĸ = 0.70, P  = 0.98), but lower for ThinPrep (ĸ = 0.26, P  = 0.01) than smears. Conclusion After a single pass, LBC provides higher diagnostic accuracy than the conventional smear technique for EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions in the absence of ROSE. Therefore, LBC, may be an alternative to the conventional smear technique, especially in centers lacking ROSE.