Interobserver agreement and accuracy of preoperative endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy for histological grading of pancreatic cancer

Background and study aim: Poorly differentiated/high grade pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is associated with an early unfavorable outcome, and patients with these tumors may be candidates for neo-adjuvant treatment. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) may, in theory, allow preoperative assessment of PDAC histological grading. The aim of the current study was to assess the interobserver agreement and accuracy of preoperative PDAC grading from EUS-FNB specimens.

Methods: Data from 42 postsurgical PDAC patients who had undergone preoperative EUS-FNB were retrieved. Four experienced pathologists independently reviewed the EUS-FNB slides and reported tumor grading (well, moderately, or poorly differentiated). Agreement among pathologists for grading of preoperative EUS-FNB samples was expressed by using Cohen’s or Fleiss’ kappa statistic, as appropriate. Postsurgical PDAC grading was used as the gold standard to assess the cumulative accuracy of EUS-FNB for the preoperative prediction of PDAC grading.

Results: The kappa values for PDAC grading on EUS-FNB specimens ranged from 0.09 to 0.41. The total agreement among the four pathologists was only fair (κ = 0.27; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.14 – 0.38). When tumor grades were grouped as well or moderately differentiated vs. poorly differentiated, kappa values ranged from 0.19 to 0.50, with only a fair overall agreement (κ = 0.27; 95 %CI 0.21 – 0.49). The accuracy of preoperative grading from EUS-FNB was 56 % (75/134 readings; 95 %CI 40 % – 65 %), with mean sensitivity and specificity to detect a high grade, poorly differentiated tumor of 41 % (95 %CI 19 % – 54 %) and 78 % (53/68 readings; 95 %CI 60 % – 99 %), respectively.

Conclusions: Preoperative EUS-FNB-based histological grading of PDAC is unreliable, and current results do not support the use of this information in clinical practice. This appears to be due to suboptimal interobserver agreement among pathologists and an overall low accuracy in predicting postsurgical grading.

• References

• 1 Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J et al. Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer 2013; 49: 1374-1403
• 2 Yadav D, Lowenfels AB. The epidemiology of pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. Gastroenterology 2013; 144: 1252-1261
• 3 Zuckerman DS, Ryan DP. Adjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer: a review. Cancer 2008; 112: 243-249
• 4 Kennedy EP, Yeo CJ. The case for routine use of adjuvant therapy in pancreatic cancer. J Surg Oncol 2007; 95: 597-603
• 5 Burris 3rd HA. Recent updates on the role of chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer. Semin Oncol 2005; 32: 1-3
• 6 Papavasiliou P, Chun YS, Hoffman JP. How to define and manage borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Surg Clin North Am 2013; 93: 663-674
• 7 Chua TC, Saxena A. Preoperative chemoradiation followed by surgical resection for resectable pancreatic cancer: a review of current results. Surg Oncol 2011; 20: e161-168
• 8 Barugola G, Partelli S, Marcucci S et al. Resectable pancreatic cancer: who really benefits from resection?. Ann Surg Oncol 2009; 16: 3316-3322
• 9 Cascinu S, Falconi M, Valentini V et al. Pancreatic cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2010; 21 (Suppl. 05) v55-58
• 10 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
• 11 Puli SR, Bechtold ML, Buxbaum JL et al. How good is endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in diagnosing the correct etiology for a solid pancreatic mass? A meta-analysis and systematic review. Pancreas 2013; 42: 20-26
• 12 Hewitt MJ, McPhail MJ, Possamai L et al. EUS-guided FNA for diagnosis of solid pancreatic neoplasms: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 319-331
• 13 Larghi A, Iglesias-Garcia J, Poley JW et al. Feasibility and yield of a novel 22-gauge histology EUS needle in patients with pancreatic masses: a multicenter prospective cohort study. Surg Endosc 2013; 27: 3733-3738
• 14 Iglesias-Garcia J, Poley JW, Larghi A et al. Feasibility and yield of a new EUS histology needle: results from a multicenter, pooled, cohort study. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 1189-1196
• 15 Larghi A, Verna EC, Ricci R et al. EUS-guided fine-needle tissue acquisition by using a 19-gauge needle in a selected patient population: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 504-510
• 16 Hamilton SR, Aaltonen LA eds. World Health Organization Classification of Tumours. Pathology and genetics of tumours of the digestive system. Lyon: IARC Press; 2000 Available from: http://www.iarc.fr/en/publications/pdfs-online/pat-gen/bb2/BB2.pdf
• 17 Bosman FT, Carneiro F, Hruban RH et al. eds. WHO classification of tumors of the digestive system. Lyon: IARC Press; 2010: 285
• 18 Fleiss JL, Cohen J, Everitt BS. Large sample standard errors of kappa and weighted kappa. Psychol Bull 1969; 72: 323-327
• 19 Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1981
• 20 Efron B, Tibshirani R. An introduction to the bootstrap. London: Chapman & Hall; 1993
• 21 Brown H, Prescott R. Applied mixed models in medicine. Chichester (NY): J Wiley & Sons; 1999
• 22 R package version 0.999375–42/r1414. Available from: http://R-Forge.R-project.org/projects/lme4/
• 23 R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing R Foundation for Statistical Computing. 2008 ISBN 3-900051-07-0 Available from: http://wwwR-projectorg
• 24 Edge S, Byrd DR, Compton CC et al. eds. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. New York: Springer; 2010
• 25 Conroy T, Desseigne F, Ychou M et al. FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer. New Engl J Med 2011; 364: 1817-1825
• 26 Heinemann V, Haas M, Boeck S. Neoadjuvant treatment of borderline resectable and non-resectable pancreatic cancer. Ann Oncol 2013; 24: 2484-2492
• 27 Brunner TB. Neoadjuvant therapy for potentially resectable pancreatic cancer: an emerging paradigm?. Curr Oncol Rep 2013; 15: 162-169
• 28 Sinn M, Striefler JK, Sinn BV et al. Does long-term survival in patients with pancreatic cancer really exist? Results from the CONKO-001 study. J Surg Oncol 2013; 108: 398-402
• 29 Riediger H, Keck T, Wellner U et al. The lymph node ratio is the strongest prognostic factor after resection of pancreatic cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 2009; 13: 1337-1344
• 30 Eltoum IA, Eloubeidi MA, Chhieng DC et al. Cytologic grade independently predicts survival of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol 2005; 124: 697-707
• 31 Klöppel G, Lingenthal G, von Bülow M et al. Histological and fine structural features of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas in relation to growth and prognosis: studies in xenografted tumours and clinico-histopathological correlation in a series of 75 cases. Histopathology 1985; 9: 841-856
• 32 Adsay NV, Basturk O, Bonnett M et al. A proposal for a new and more practical grading scheme for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29: 724-733
• 33 Sohn TA, Yeo CJ, Cameron JL et al. Resected adenocarcinoma of the pancreas-616 patients: results, outcomes, and prognostic indicators. J Gastrointest Surg 2000; 4: 567-579