Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with on-site cytopathology versus core biopsy: a comparison of both techniques performed at the same endoscopic session.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) with bedside cytopathology is the gold standard for assessment of pancreatic, subepithelial, and other lesions in close proximity to the gastrointestinal tract, but it is time-consuming, has certain diagnostic limitations, and bedside cytopathology is not widely available. AIMS: The goal of this study is to compare the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided FNA with on-site cytopathology and EUS-guided core biopsy. METHODS: Twenty-six patients with gastrointestinal mass lesions requiring biopsy at a tertiary medical center were included in this retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort. Two core biopsies were taken using a 22 gauge needle followed by FNA guided by a bedside cytopathologist at the same endoscopic session. The diagnostic yield and test characteristics of EUS core biopsy and EUS FNA with bedside cytopathology were examined. RESULTS: The mean number of passes was 3.2 for FNA, and the mean procedure time was 39.4 minutes. The final diagnosis was malignant in 92.3 %. Sensitivity and specificity were 83 % and 100 %, respectively, for FNA, and 91.7 % and 100 %, respectively, for core biopsy. Diagnostic accuracy was 92.3 % for FNA and 84.6 % for core biopsy. The two approaches were in agreement in 88.4 % with a kappa statistic of 0.66 (95 % confidence interval 0.33 - 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: An approach using two passes with a core biopsy needle is comparable to the current gold standard of FNA with bedside cytopathology. The performance of two core biopsies is time-efficient and could represent a good alternative to FNA with bedside cytopathology.

Multicenter comparison of the interobserver agreement of standard EUS scoring and Rosemont classification scoring for diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: EUS has less than optimal interobserver agreement for the diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis. The newly developed Rosemont consensus scoring system includes weighted criteria and stricter definitions for individual features. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim was to compare the interobserver agreement of standard and Rosemont scoring. SETTING: Multiple tertiary-care institutions. INTERVENTION: Fifty EUS videos were interpreted by 14 experts. Each expert interpreted the videos on two occasions: First, the videos were read by using standard scoring (9 criteria). Second, after viewing a presentation of the Rosemont classification, the same experts re-read the videos by using Rosemont scoring. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Fleiss' kappa (K) statistics are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: The interobserver agreement was "substantial" (K = 0.65 [95% CI, 0.52-0.77]) for Rosemont scoring and "moderate" (K = 0.54 [95% CI, 0.44-0.66]) for standard scoring; however, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.12). LIMITATIONS: The sample size does not allow detection of differences in K of <0.25. CONCLUSION: Use of the Rosemont classification did not significantly increase interobserver agreement for EUS diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis compared with standard scoring.