Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy is superior to fine-needle aspiration in assessing pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

Abstract

Background and study aims Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs) outcomes are dependent upon grading by Ki67. This study compared endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) to fine-needle aspiration (FNA) in assessing PanNETs.

Patients and methods All pancreatic histology for PanNET between January 2009 and June 2017 was included if EUS sampling was performed prior to surgical resection. Ki67 and grade from FNA and FNB samples was compared to surgical histology using correlation coefficient and kappa values. Subgroup analysis was performed for purely solid lesions, lesions < 2 cm and FNB needle type.

Results One hundred sixity-four patients had PanNET of which 57 underwent surgical resection. Thirty-five lesions underwent FNA and 26 FNB (4 had both) confirming PanNET. 23/ of 35 FNA samples reported Ki67/grading compared to all 26 FNB samples (P = 0.0006). Compared to surgical histology, Ki67 on FNA correlated poorly overall (r = –0.08), in solid lesions (r = –0.102) and lesions < 2 cm (r = –0.149) whereas FNB correlated moderately overall (r = 0.65), in solid lesions (r = 0.64) and lesions < 2 cm (r = 0.61). Tumor grade showed poor agreement (kappa) with FNA overall (0.026), in solid lesions (0.044) and lesions < 2 cm (0.00) whereas FNB showed moderate-good agreement overall (0.474), in solid lesions (0.58) and lesions < 2 cm (0.745). Fork-tip FNB needles Ki67 showed strong correlation with surgical histology (r = 0.788) compared to reverse bevel FNB needles (r = 0.521). Both FNB needles showed moderate agreement with tumor grade.

Conclusion FNB samples were significantly more likely than FNA to provide adequate material for Ki67/grading and showed a closer match to surgical histology. FNB needle types require prospective investigation.

• References

• 1 Yao JC, Hassan M, Phan A. et al. One hundred years after “carcinoid”: epidemiology of and prognostic factors for neuroendocrine tumors in 35,825 cases in the United States. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 3063-3072
• 2 Metz DC, Jensen RT. Gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumours: pancreatic endocrine tumours. Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 1469-1492
• 3 Fitzgerald TL, Hickner ZJ, Schmitz M. et al. Changing incidence of pancreatic neoplasms: a 16-year review of statewide tumor registry. Pancreas 2008; 37: 134-138
• 4 Rindi G, Petrone G, Inzani F. The 2010 WHO classification of digestive neuroendocrine neoplasms: a critical appraisal four years after its introduction. Endocr Pathol 2014; 25: 186-192
• 5 Falconi M, Bartsch DK, Eriksson B. et al. ENETS Consensus Guidelines for the management of patients with digestive neuroendocrine neoplasms of the digestive system: well-differentiated pancreatic non-functioning tumors. Neuroendocrinology 2012; 95: 120-134
• 6 Rindi G, Falconi M, Klersy C. et al. TNM staging of neoplasms of the endocrine pancreas: results from a large international cohort study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012; 104: 764-777
• 7 Ganetsky A, Bhatt V. Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: update on therapeutics. Ann Pharmacother 2012; 46: 851-862
• 8 Vilmann P, Jacobsen GK, Henriksen FW. et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography with guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in pancreatic disease. Gastrointest Endosc 1992; 38: 172-173
• 9 Attili F, Capurso G, Vanella G. et al. Diagnostic and therapeutic role of endoscopy in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms. Dig Liver Dis 2014; 46: 9-17
• 10 Figueiredo FA, Giovannini M, Monges G. et al. EUSFNA predicts 5-year survival in pancreatic endocrine tumors. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 907-914
• 11 Hasegawa T, Yamao K, Hijioka S. et al. Evaluation of Ki-67 index in EUS-FNA specimens for the assessment of malignancy risk in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 32-38
• 12 Figueiredo FA, Giovannini M, Monges G. et al. Pancreatic endocrine tumors: a large single-center experience. Pancreas 2009; 38: 936-940
• 13 Piani C, Franchi GM, Cappelletti C. et al. Cytological Ki-67 in pancreatic endocrine tumours: an opportunity for pre-operative grading. Endocr Relat Cancer 2008; 15: 175-181
• 14 Chatzipantelis P, Konstantinou P, Kaklamanos M. et al. The role of cytomorphology and proliferative activity in predicting biologic behavior of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a study by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration cytology. Cancer 2009; 117: 211-216
• 15 Alexiev BA, Darwin PE, Goloubeva O. et al. Proliferative rate in endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic endocrine tumors: correlation with clinical behavior. Cancer 2009; 117: 40-45
• 16 Weynand B, Borbath I, Bernard V. et al. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumour grading on endoscopic ultrasoundguided fine needle aspiration: high reproducibility and inter-observer agreement of the Ki-67 labelling index. Cytopathology 2014; 25: 389-395
• 17 Larghi A, Capurso G, Carnuccio A. et al. Ki-67 grading of nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors on histologic samples obtained by EUS-guided fine-needle tissue acquisition: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 570-577
• 18 Nayar MK, Paranandi B, Dawwas MF. et al. Comparison of the diagnostic performance of 2 core biopsy needles for EUS-guided tissue acquisition from solid pancreatic lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 1017-1024
• 19 DiMaio CJ, Kolb JM, Benias PC. et al. Initial experience with a novel EUS-guided core biopsy needle (SharkCore): results of a large North American multicenter study. Endosc Int Open 2016; 4: E974-E979
• 20 Kandel P, Tranesh G, Nassar A. et al. EUS-guided fine needle biopsy sampling using a novel fork-tip needle: a case-control study. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 84: 1034-1039
• 21 Bang JY, Hawes R, Varadarajulu S. A meta-analysis comparing ProCore and standard fine-needle aspiration needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 339-349
• 22 Witt BL, Factor RE, Chadwick BE. et al. Evaluation of the SharkCore® needle for EUS-guided core biopsy of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Endosc Ultrasound 2018; 7: 323-328
• 23 Nayar MK, Chatterjee S, Wadehra V. et al. Does on-site adequacy assessment by cytotechnologists improve results of EUS guided FNA of solid pancreaticobiliary lesions?. JOP 2013; 14: 44-49
• 24 Bosman FT, Carneiro F, Hruban RH. et al. WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system. 4th. edition France: IARC; 2010
• 25 Stephenson TJ, Cross SS, Chetty R. Dataset for neuroendocrine tumours of the gastrointestinal tract including pancreas. 3rd. edn. London: The Royal College of Pathologists; 2012
• 26 Kandel P, Wallace MB. Advanced EUS guided tissue acquisition methods for pancreatic cancer. Cancers 2018; 10: pii E54