EFSUMB Guidelines on Interventional Ultrasound (INVUS), Part IV – EUS-guided interventions: General Aspects and EUS-guided Sampling (Short Version)

Abstract

The fourth part of the European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (EFSUMB) Guidelines on Interventional Ultrasound describes general aspects of endoscopic ultrasound-guided diagnostic and therapeutic interventions and assesses the evidence for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling. Endoscopic ultrasound combines the most advanced high-resolution ultrasound imaging of lesions within the wall and in the vicinity of the gastrointestinal tract and safe and effective fine needle-based tissue acquisition from these lesions. The guideline addresses the indications, contraindications, techniques, adverse events, training and clinical impact of EUS-guided sampling. Advantages and drawbacks are weighed in comparison with image-guided percutaneous biopsy. Based on the most current evidence, clinical practice recommendations are given for crucial preconditions and steps of EUS-guided sampling as well as for safe performance. Additionally, the guideline deals with the principles and reliability of cytopathological reporting in endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling (short version; the long version is published online).

Zusammenfassung

Der vierte Teil der Leitlinien der European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (EFSUMB) zur interventionellen Sonografie beschreibt allgemeine Aspekte endosonografisch gestützter diagnostischer und therapeutischer Interventionen und bewertet die Evidenz für die endosonografisch gestützte Materialgewinnung. Die Endosonografie vereint fortgeschrittene hochauflösende Ultraschallbildgebung von Läsionen in der Wand des Gastrointestinaltrakts und in dessen Umgebung mit der Möglichkeit, daraus mit Feinnadeltechniken effizient und risikoarm Material für die feingewebliche Diagnostik zu entnehmen. Die Leitlinie thematisiert Indikationen, Kontraindikationen, Techniken, unerwünschte Ereignisse, Training und klinischen Stellenwert der endosonografisch gestützten Materialgewinnung. Dabei werden Vor- und Nachteile im Vergleich zur perkutanen bildgebend gestützten Biopsie abgewogen. Auf der Grundlage der aktuellen Evidenz werden für die klinische Praxis Empfehlungen zu den entscheidenden Voraussetzungen und Schritten sowie für eine sichere Durchführung der endosonografisch gestützten Materialgewinnung gegeben. Ergänzend adressiert die Leitlinie Prinzipien und Verlässlichkeit zytopathologischer Befundung von durch endosonografisch gestützte Biopsie gewonnenem Material (Kurzversion; die Langversion ist online publiziert).

Key words

guideline - endoscopic ultrasound - EUS-guided sampling - EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration - rapid onsite cytopathological evaluation - cytopathological reporting - quality indicators - adverse events

Introduction: Diagnostic and therapeutic EUS-guided interventions

This is the first of two guidelines (parts IV and V) within the framework of the European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (EFSUMB) Guidelines on Interventional Ultrasound describing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. Part IV deals with the indications and clinical impact of EUS-guided sampling[1] and gives evidence-based recommendations for the safe and efficient performance of this technique based on the available evidence at the time of manuscript preparation. It is complemented by a guideline on EUS-guided therapeutic interventions (part V) [1]. Methods of guideline development are described in the introduction to the EFSUMB Guidelines on Interventional Ultrasound (INVUS) [2]. Levels of evidence (LoE) and Grades of Recommendations (GoR) have been assigned according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine criteria (March 2009 edition) [http://www.cebm.net/oxford-centre-evidence-based-medicine-levels-evidence-march-2009].

General considerations

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS; synonym: endosonography)[2] represents an interdisciplinary high-performance imaging method which combines endoscopy and ultrasound by using special transducers mounted at the tip of the endoscope [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. With the introduction of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA)[3] in 1992 [10], it became possible to obtain a definite cytopathological or histopathological diagnosis of mediastinal, abdominal, retroperitoneal and pelvic lesions, establishing EUS-FNA as a crucial procedure. Further advances in 1996, allowed EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis [11], EUS-guided drainage of GI tract-adjacent fluid collections and pancreatic pseudocysts [12]. A first experience with endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial fine-needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA)[4] was reported in 2003 [13].

Equipment and setup

Linear echoendoscopes have an ultrasound examination field in the longitudinal axis of the echoendoscope, allowing performance of needle-based diagnostic and therapeutic interventions through real-time visualization [14]. A wide variety of accessory equipment for EUS-guided interventions is commercially available [15]. For endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) specifically designed linear echoendoscopes based on flexible bronchoscopes are available [16]. A therapeutic echoendoscope with a forward-viewing 90-degree curved array at the front of the scope has a potential advantage of allowing interventions with an axial application of force during needle insertion and stenting, with comparable imaging quality and equal performance in EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts being reported [17] [18] [19].

Both rigid (linear and curved-array) ultrasound probes with a biopsy channel as well as flexible linear and forward-viewing echoendoscopes can be used for transrectal EUS-guided interventions [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27].

Patient preparation and monitoring

Patient preparation is identical to flexible endoscopy, with fasting for 6 hours, detailed informed consent, management of anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy, indication for prophylactic antibiotics, and need for sedation [28]. The American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) has defined several evidence-based preprocedural quality indicators [29].

EUS (including EBUS) can be safely performed using conscious sedation (midazolam) perhaps combined with an opioid (fentanyl or pethidine) [30] [31] [32]. Alternatively, propofol sedation is a more efficient approach, with better patient and operator satisfaction and a good safety profile, especially for lengthy interventions like therapeutic EUS [31] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]. Endoscopist- and nurse-administered propofol sedation has been shown to be safe and effective in EUS and EUS-guided interventions (including EBUS-TBNA) in both average-risk and high-risk patients [36] [37] [42] [43] [44]. National legal restrictions in many countries do not permit non-anaesthesiologist administration of propofol [45] [46].

Platforms for EUS-guided diagnostic and therapeutic interventions

Needles for EUS-guided sampling are available with a size of 25 – 19 Gauge (G) [14] [15] [47] [48] [49]. “Histology needles” include: trucut needles, needles with side fenestration and reverse bevel technology [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] or with shark mouth-like needle tip geometry.

Therapeutic EUS-guided interventions commence with puncture of the targeted lesion for initial access, followed by therapeutic injection or a guidewire-assisted drainage procedure. 19 G needles are normally used, allowing passage of 0.035 inch guidewires.

Indications and contraindications

EUS has evolved as a diagnostic and therapeutic procedure with substantial clinical impact, altering management in a number of patients [3] [29] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63]. Appropriate (evidence-based) indications are listed in [Table 1] [3] [7] [8] [9] [29] [57] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69].

Table 1 Established indications of endoscopic ultrasound.

diagnostic evaluation (including EUS-guided sampling)
pancreatico-biliary disorders	obstructive jaundice/biliary stricture of unknown aetiology
	suspected bile duct stones
	biliary and idiopathic acute pancreatitis
	(early) chronic pancreatitis
	solid and cystic focal pancreatic lesions
oesophagogastroduodenal tumours	subepithelial tumours
	enlarged gastric folds/wall thickening
mediastinal diseases	primary central lung/mediastinal tumours
	mediastinal lymphadenopathy
rectal diseases	fistulas, abscesses, extraluminal tumours, subepithelial tumours
staging of various cancers
upper gastrointestinal cancer	T (tumour) and N (nodal) stage, M (metastatic) stage (celiac trunk lymph nodes, left adrenal, left liver lobe, ascites, etc.)
lung cancer	T and N stage (EUS and EBUS), M stage (abdominal lymph nodes, left adrenal, left liver lobe)
rectal cancer	T and N stage
pancreatico-biliary cancers	T and N stage, M stage (left liver lobe, ascites, mediastinal lymph nodes, etc.); evaluation of resectability and vascular invasion
EUS-guided therapeutic interventions
drainage procedures	transmural drainage of (per-)pancreatic and peri-intestinal fluid collections (pseudocysts, walled-off pancreatic necroses, abscesses, postoperative fluid collections)
	bile duct and gallbladder drainage
	pancreatic duct drainage
injection treatment	celiac plexus/ganglia neurolysis and block
	glue or coil embolization of bleeding varices, visceral pseudoaneurysms, and other vascular lesions
	ethanol ablation of small pancreatic insulinomas
other interventions	placement of fiducials

Absolute contraindications of EUS are similar with those of conventional advanced endoscopy procedures. Specific contraindications of EUS-guided sampling and therapeutic interventions are related to unacceptable risks of bleeding, infection, and perforation ([Table 2]; section 5) [8] [9] [14] [66] [70] [71], which should be assessed prior to the intervention on an individual basis weighing procedural risk vs. clinical impact.

Table 2 Indications and contraindications of EUS-guided sampling.

frequent/established indications	less frequent/ emerging indications	contraindications
pancreatic solid lesions	retroperitoneal masses	absolute
pancreatic cystic lesions	mediastinal masses	no impact on patient management
lymph nodes	perianastomotic masses	lack of informed consent
subepithelial tumours	adrenal gland masses	mediastinal cysts (risk of infection)
	liver masses	relative
	ascites and peritoneal nodules	severe coagulopathy
	gastrointestinal wall thickening	continued oral anticoagulation
	bile duct strictures/lesions	continued treatment with ADP antagonists (clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor)
	kidney masses	large vessels in the expected needle track
	focal splenic lesions

Education and training in endoscopic ultrasound

Preconditions for performing EUS

EUS has evolved into an advanced endoscopic procedure requiring structured training as supported by the ASGE core curriculum for EUS [72]. Certain conditions need to be attained prior to commencing an EUS program; state-of-the-art EUS equipment and accessories should be in place, previous EUS experience and training (> 12 months) with proficiency in basic EUS should be available, the presence of a multidisciplinary team with expertise in gastroenterology, pulmonary medicine, oncology, surgery, imaging and pathology is desired.

Methods and models for training

Various approaches for structured training have been described. Support includes EUS textbooks and atlases, DVDs and online resources [7] [8] [9] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78]. Computer-based simulator training, EUS-guided sampling and therapeutic intervention training with animal models and supervised hands-on may facilitate improved learning for clinical application and may minimize false-negative sampling in patients [73] [76] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93]. Objective assessment tools with rating scales for various steps of EUS-guided sampling have been developed to measure competency for mediastinal staging of NSCLC [83] [85] [90] [91] [94] [95] [96].

Learning curve and minimum number of supervised procedures

Reports on the skill acquisition of individuals for EUS [97] [98] and for EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions [99] [100] challenge the ASGE recommendations that comprehensive competence in all aspects of EUS requires at least 150 supervised cases, including 50 EUS-FNA [101]. Also for EBUS-TBNA, studies show significant variation in learning curves [96] with an acceptable 90 % accuracy achieved after performing 50 – 80 procedures [102] [103] [104] [105].

Quality indicators and benchmarking

Useful quality indicators for EUS-guided sampling may be:

• percentage of appropriate indications for performing EUS-guided sampling due to guidelines ([Table 2]) [29]

• prospective documentation of adverse events after EUS-guided sampling (performance target: > 98 %) [29]

• incidence of adverse events after EUS-guided sampling (performance targets: acute pancreatitis < 2 %, clinically significant bleeding < 1 %) [29] [48] [66]

• frequency of algorithmic EUS-guided sampling of both suspected metastatic disease and the primary tumour in cases, in which results of EUS staging would impact further clinical management (performance target: > 98 %) [29]

• the yield of malignant diagnoses[6] in EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses and the sensitivity for diagnosis of pancreatic cancer (performance targets: ≥ 70 and 85 %, respectively) [29] [48] [57] [66] [106]

• the percentage of adequate samples[7] (performance target: ≥ 85 %) [29] [48] [66] and

• the frequency of inconclusive cytopathological diagnoses[8] (atypical, suspicious: ≤ 10 %) [48] [66] [107].

Particular quality parameters for EUS-guided therapeutic interventions have not as yet been established, but should be derived from those for EUS-guided sampling and advanced endoscopic and interventional procedures [29] [108].

EUS-guided sampling: Indications and clinical impact

General indications of EUS-guided sampling

EUS has high accuracy for the diagnosis and staging of benign and malignant conditions within and outside the gastrointestinal tract ([Table 2]) [61] [62]. EUS-guided sampling relies on its ability to obtain specimens with either fine-needle aspiration (FNA) or fine-needle biopsy (FNB)[9] [57] [66].

Several prospective and retrospective studies and meta-analyses have substantiated the key importance of EUS-guided sampling particularly in suspicious nodal disease for staging, guiding treatment, and predicting outcome in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114], various extrathoracic malignancies [115] [116], upper gastrointestinal cancer [117] [118], rectal cancer [23], as well as proving recurrence of malignancy [20] [119] [120] [121] [122]. Specimen provided by EUS can be examined by immunohistochemical and biological marker analysis to identify specific tumour characteristics, facilitating personalized treatment [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131].

EUS-guided sampling for primary diagnosis

Pancreatic solid lesions

Solid pancreatic lesions suspected as ductal pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are typically targets for EUS-guided sampling. Metastases and/or primary lesion sampling is indicated when the lesion is non-resectable allowing appropriate radiotherapy/chemotherapy. EUS-guided sampling of potentially resectable tumours will follow local protocols to obtain confirmation of malignancy prior to surgical intervention.

EUS has a high positive predictive value (PPV) and a fair negative predictive value (NPV) in diagnosing PDAC. Several studies report a sensitivity between 85 – 93 % and a specificity between 96 – 100 % [132] [133] [134] [135] [136].

EUS-guided sampling is a reliable method to differentiate PDAC from neuroendocrine pancreatic tumours and other rare pancreatic neoplasms (non-PDAC), each with differing outcomes and alternative treatment strategies [137] [138] [139] [140].

Pancreatic cystic lesions

There is a wide differential diagnosis of pancreatic cystic lesions (PCL) including both benign and malignant [141] [142] [143].

EUS-guided sampling aims to differentiate mucinous from non-mucinous and malignant from benign lesions. For best diagnostic accuracy, EUS-FNA cytology and biochemical aspirate assays should be reviewed in combination with the EUS findings, clinical history and other imaging techniques [144] [145] [146].

Levels of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and amylase yield a suboptimal diagnostic accuracy of 60 – 86 % for distinguishing between mucinous and non-mucinous PCL [147] [148] [149] [150]. The specificity of cytological diagnosis of malignant PCL is adequate, but the sensitivity is low (88 – 97 % and 51 – 65 %, respectively) [150] [151] [152] [153]. The combination of molecular analysis and CEA or cytology has a better performance for the diagnosis of neoplastic mucinous PCL than either of the individual tests [154] [155] [156].

Biliary cancer

Several studies report successful EUS-guided sampling of gallbladder wall lesions [157] [158] [159] [160] [161], extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and indeterminate biliary strictures [157] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173], as well as tumours of the papilla of Vater [174], but with wide variation in sensitivity (43 – 100 %) [175]. EUS-guided sampling proved to be successful following failed or negative ERCP-guided brushing or biopsy [163] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [175]. Comparison of EUS-guided sampling with that of ERCP-guided techniques revealed a better outcome for EUS in gallbladder cancer, biliary strictures produced by pancreatic cancer rather than cholangiocarcinoma, and in EUS-visible masses, with a combined approached considered clinically appropriate [159] [161] [164] [173] [175]. EUS-guided sampling of hilar lymph nodes may be used to diagnose and stage suspected biliary cancer [159] [160] [162] [168] [172] [176].

Subepithelial gastrointestinal tumours

Differential diagnosis of gastrointestinal subepithelial tumours (SET) includes leiomyoma, schwannoma, gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST), lipoma, ectopic pancreas, neuroendocrine tumour, cyst and others [177] [178] [179]. Whilst a reliable differential diagnosis is possible on EUS features alone in some SETs, so, with the frequently occurring hypoechoic SET originating from the 4^th layer (muscularis propria), i. e. GIST, leiomyoma and schwannoma, diagnosis may be problematic [177] [178] [179]. EUS-guided sampling combines smear cytology (SC) with immunohistochemistry for maximal diagnostic accuracy. The diagnostic yield remains suboptimal using standard EUS needles of various diameters, ranging from 20 [180] to 93 % [181], as retrieved tissue is not always sufficient to allow immunohistochemical analysis [181] [182] [183] [184] [185] [186] [187] [188] [189] [190] [191] [192] [193] [194] [195]. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline on EUS-guided sampling in gastroenterology states that in hypoechoic SET of the stomach < 20 mm the usefulness of EUS-guided sampling is limited due to the moderate diagnostic yield and lacking capability to determine the mitotic index [59].

Lung cancer

In suspected lung cancer conventional techniques (bronchoscopic or percutaneous-transthoracic biopsy) fail to establish a histological diagnosis in up to ⅓ of patients. EUS allows effective transoesophageal or transbronchial guidance for sampling of centrally located lung masses or lymph nodes adjacent to the oesophagus or the respiratory tract [196] [197] [198] [199] [200] [201] [202] [203]. Subtyping of non-small cell lung cancer is the basis of personalized oncological treatment and is feasible using EUS-guided sampling in 77 – 90.6 % [204] [205] [206]. Genotyping was possible using EUS-/EBUS fine-needle aspirates in 77 – 98.4 % [124] [204] [205] [206] [207] [208] [209].

Mediastinal and abdominal lymphadenopathy of unknown origin

For lymph node classification as malignant or benign, EUS-FNA has a higher accuracy than EUS features alone [210] [211]. A meta-analysis (n = 9310) showed significant improvement in evaluating mediastinal lymphadenopathy with EUS-guided sampling over EUS features of lymph nodes (sensitivity 88 vs. 84.7 %; specificity 96.4 vs. 84.6 %) [212]. Several studies and meta-analyses have demonstrated a high diagnostic yield and accuracy of EUS-guided sampling (EUS-FNA and EBUS-TBNA) for the evaluation of indeterminate mediastinal and abdominal lymphadenopathy, with or without a malignant disease background [114] [116] [120] [212] [213] [214] [215] [216] [217] [218] [219] [220] [221] [222] [223] [224] [225] [226] [227] [228] [229] [230] [231] [232] [233] [234].

EUS-guided sampling for tumour staging

Algorithmic approach

For tumour staging an algorithmic approach of EUS-guided sampling following the TNM classification of the respective malignant tumour is sensible. Potential sites of metastases within reach of EUS-FNA should be examined and sampled first, followed by regional lymph node stations, in which demonstration of metastatic involvement would alter management [76] [235] [236] [237]. This systematic approach in an inverse TNM order meets concerns that needle contamination with tumour cells from the first sampling target, from the instrumental channel or from gastrointestinal fluid could contribute to false-positive results from the subsequent targeted lesions [238] [239] [240] [241].

Mediastinal lymph nodes

In the absence of distant metastases, mediastinal lymph node involvement is the most important factor affecting the management and outcome of patients with NSCLC [236]. Oesophageal EUS has a high sensitivity and specificity for lymph node involvement when found in the posterior mediastinum, aortopulmonary, subcarinal, and periesophageal regions [68] [212] [236] [242] [243] [244]. Meta-analyses report a sensitivity and specificity between 83 – 89 % and 96.4 – 100 %, respectively, for nodal staging of lung cancer by EUS-guided sampling [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [225] [236] [245]. EUS has been shown to be more accurate than CT in defining the disease stage [244] [246] [247]. EUS-guided sampling impacts treatment choice and survival in patients with NSCLC [247] [248] [249] [250]. Oesophageal EUS and EBUS in combination allow targeting of nearly all relevant mediastinal lymph node locations [251] [252] [253] [254]. Several studies and meta-analyses have shown that this combined approach improves lymph node staging, compared with either technique when used alone [112] [114] [236] [237] [250] [255] [256] [257] [258] [259] [260] [261] [262] [263]. There is a 21 % sensitivity increase for mediastinal nodal staging in proven or suspected lung cancer by performing combined endobronchial and oesophageal endosonography-guided sampling compared with the oesophageal approach alone, and a 13 % increase compared with EBUS-TBNA alone [237].

Both oesophageal EUS and EBUS have also been successfully used for the assessment of tumour spread to mediastinal lymph nodes (M1 disease) in a variety of extra-thoracic malignant disease [115] [213] [220] [223] [264] [265] [266] [267] [268]. A meta-analysis (n = 533 patients) showed a sensitivity of 85 % and a specificity of 99 % of EBUS-TBNA for the diagnosis of mediastinal lymph node metastases of extra-thoracic malignancies [116].

EUS-FNA of mediastinal lymph nodes for the N staging of oesophageal cancer is more sensitive and accurate than EUS alone and significantly impacts therapeutic decisions [269] [270] [271].

Abdominal lymph nodes

Previous studies have shown high accuracy and clinical impact of EUS-guided sampling of celiac lymph nodes in oesophageal cancer staging [272] [273] [274]. According to the current TNM classification, these are included in the N category [275], with EUS-guided sampling only being useful in selected cases.

In addition to EUS-guided sampling of mediastinal lymph nodes, sampling of abdominal lymph nodes in gastric cancer may alter staging classification. Malignant involvement of distant lymph nodes is indicative of metastatic disease and resigns the patient to palliative care [117] [118].

Adrenal glands and liver masses

EUS-guided sampling of adrenal masses can provide valuable information for the staging of lung cancer and other malignancies. Particularly in lung cancer, 30 – 80 % of adrenal masses are adenomas [276]. Sampling from the left adrenal gland is viable and safe; sampling from the right adrenal gland has also been reported. The diagnostic yield of EUS-guided sampling ranges from 76 – 100 %. Further management is altered in approximately 50 % of lung cancer patients [277] [278] [279] [280] [281] [282] [283] [284] [285] [286] [287] [288] [289].

EUS and EUS-guided sampling are superior to CT in detecting small liver metastases [290] [291]. The diagnostic yield is reported between 80 – 98 % with a substantial effect on clinical management [292] [293] [294] [295] [296] [297] [298].

Other metastatic locations and diagnosis of recurrent malignant disease

EUS and EUS-guided sampling may play a pivotal role in the detection and diagnosis of disease recurrence or late distant spread of gastrointestinal cancer [299]. A high accuracy with clinical impact of EUS-guided sampling has been shown in establishing recurrent malignancy following curative treatment [20] [119] [120] [121] [122] [300] [301] [302] [303] [304], and metastatic disease, in particular affecting the pancreas [139] [303] [305] [306] [307], spleen [308] [309], pelvis [24] [26] [310] and peritoneal space [297] [311] [312] [313] [314] [315] [316] [317] [318] [319] [320] [321] [322].

EUS-guided sampling: Needle choice, sampling techniques and other factors influencing diagnostic yield

Choice of needle type and diameter

There are four types of needles commercially available for EUS-guided sampling: standard aspiration needles (19 G, 22 G, 25 G for EUS-FNA; 21 G and 22 G for EBUS-TBNA), aspiration needles with a core trap and reverse bevel technology (19 G, 20 G, 22 G, 25 G), aspiration needles with a shark mouth needle tip geometry (19 G, 22 G, 25 G), and trucut needles (19 G).

EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration for cytopathological processing

Standard aspiration needles were originally designed to obtain cellular material for cytopathological examinations [66] [323] [324]. Cytological yield and diagnostic accuracy, in studies using predominantly 22 G aspiration needles, are reported to be high for solid pancreatic lesions and metastatic lymph nodes, satisfactory for biliary mass lesions, but only moderate for gastrointestinal SET and PCL [59] [66] [325] [326]. Currently, the 22 G aspiration needle is most widely used, with increased utilization of 25 G aspiration needles [327] [328] [329].

22 G vs. 25 G aspiration needles

Meta-analyses demonstrate slight superiority of the 25 G over the 22 G aspiration needle for EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions [330] [331].

19 G vs. 22 G and 25 G aspiration needles

There was no difference in diagnostic accuracy between the 19 G and the 22 G aspiration needle by intention-to-treat analysis, but the 19 G was superior to the 22 G needle in terms of the amount of cellular material and diagnostic accuracy by per-protocol analysis (following exclusion of 5 technical failures, all with pancreatic head lesions). Further analysis favoured the 19 G aspiration needle for the sampling of lesions within the pancreatic body and tail [332]. A flexible 19 G aspiration needle has been shown to be effective for procuring aspirates from pancreatic head lesions even by the transduodenal route [333] [334] [335].

21 G vs. 22 G aspiration needles for EBUS-TBNA

A meta-analysis of 5 studies (n = 1720 patients) did not reveal significant differences in the diagnostic yield, sample adequacy, or the mean number of needle passes between the 21 and 22 G needles during EBUS-TBNA [336].

EUS-guided tissue acquisition for histopathological processing

With increasing requirements of histopathological, immunohistochemical and molecular biological diagnosis [337] [338], three types of “histology needles” have been developed to facilitate acquisition of core cylinders suitable for histopathological examination: trucut needles [50] [51] [339] [340], aspiration needles with a side fenestration (core trap) and reverse bevel technology [53] [55] [341] [342] and aspiration needles with a shark mouth design. Acquisition of tissue suitable for histopathological processing is also possible with standard aspiration needles, not just with “histology needles” [54] [59] [66] [323] [324] [343] [344]. The diagnostic yield for histological material is dependent on the needle diameter.

Factors influencing the yield of EUS-guided sampling

Features of the target lesion 

The hypocellular character of the PCL aspirate renders the diagnostic yield and accuracy of EUS-guided sampling of PCL considerably lower than in the case of solid pancreatic lesions.

For gastrointestinal SET the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided sampling (specific diagnosis) is approximately 34 % [187] to 82 % [184], with most studies reporting a yield of 52 – 63 % [179].

Data on the influence of the size and site of solid pancreatic lesions on EUS-FNA accuracy are conflicting [138] [345] [346] [347] [348]. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA for pancreatic cancer is considerably hampered in patients with chronic pancreatitis [349] [350] [351] [352] [353].

There are inconsistent results in studies evaluating the influence of biliary stents on EUS-FNA performance characteristics [354] [355].

Sampling technique 

Fanning technique

Sampling of all parts of solid lesions and lymph nodes (“fanning technique”) is recommended by the ESGE guidelines on EUS-guided sampling in gastroenterology [54]. According to the results of an RCT, significantly fewer passes are required to establish a diagnosis using this particular technique [356].

Suction

Traditionally negative suction pressure using a 5 ml or 10 ml syringe is used to facilitate EUS-guided tissue acquisition. Alternatively, the fine-needle capillary sampling technique [357] or slow removal of the stylet (“slow-pull technique”) [358] may be used to draw cells up into the needle lumen. Applying suction to the needle may increase the cellular yield of the aspirate but, at the same time, potentially increases artefacts and contamination by blood. Applying high negative pressure suction has been suggested to facilitate procurement of core tissue in EUS-FNA and EBUS-TBNA [184] [359] [360] [361] [362] [363].

An RCT demonstrated that EUS-guided lymph node sampling with suction compared with the fine-needle capillary technique did not improve the likelihood of correct diagnosis, but, due to excessive blood contamination, provided smears of significantly poorer quality [364].

For sampling of pancreatic masses using 22 and 25 G aspiration needles, one RCT favoured EUS-guided fine-needle sampling with 10 ml suction over no suction [365]. In a multicentre RCT the adequacy and accuracy of 22 G EUS-FNA from solid pancreatic lesions were significantly better with 20 ml suction compared with 10 ml suction and no suction [366].

Use of a stylet

No advantage of using a stylet in terms of specimen quality and diagnostic yield has been demonstrated [367] [368] [369] [370] [371]. An RCT suggested a lower proportion of adequate samples and a higher probability for blood contamination in needle passes using a stylet compared with needle passes performed without a stylet [367]. A multicentre RCT reported non-inferiority of performing 22 G EUS-FNA of various solid lesions without a stylet compared with using a stylet with respect to the acquisition rate of histological specimens [372].

Number of needle passes

The number of passes is determined based on the results of on-site cytopathological evaluation, should this be available (ROSE)[10] [54] [373] [374]. As an alternative to ROSE-guided sampling, a high number (≥ 7) of needle passes is thought to be a predictor of a high diagnostic sensitivity of EUS-FNA [327].

Pancreatic lesions

ROSE study results indicate that diagnosis of a solid pancreatic lesion using standard aspiration needles may require 5 – 7 passes [375] [376] [377]. When using a 25 G aspiration needle for sampling of a solid pancreatic lesion, 2 – 4 needle passes were adequate for a good diagnostic accuracy [378] [379] [380] [381]. Using a standard 22 G aspiration needle, 1 – 2 needle passes were sufficient to achieve a high diagnostic yield and accuracy in 92 % of cases with solid pancreatic lesions [382].

In the case of PCL with no solid component, a single pass and complete cyst fluid aspiration should be performed to prevent cyst infection [54]. In the case of PCL with a solid component, the diagnostic yield is significantly higher for ≥ 2 needle passes (78 %) compared to one needle pass (44 %) [383].

Non-pancreatic lesions

In the case of lymph nodes, liver metastases and adrenal lesions, a lesser number of needle passes is sufficient to provide a high diagnostic yield. Approximately 3 needle passes were sufficient for EUS-FNA and EBUS-TBNA of lymph nodes [364] [375] [377] [379] [384].

Targeted sampling

EFSUMB guidelines recommend the use of contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound (CE-EUS) and of EUS-elastography to facilitate differential diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions, PCL and lymph nodes [385] [386].

Lymph nodes

EUS-elastography, currently strain elastography, has been shown to increase the discriminatory ability of normal EUS criteria, and to improve the specificity of lymph node staging in gastrointestinal malignancy [386] [387]. A meta-analysis calculated a sensitivity of 88 % and specificity of 85 % with EUS-elastography for differentiating between benign and malignant lymph nodes [388]. EFSUMB guidelines suggest using EUS-elastography for identifying suspicious lymph node and/or harder lymph node regions as targets of EUS-guided sampling [386].

Solid pancreatic lesions

The selection of patients for EUS-guided sampling with a high suspicion of diagnoses other than PDAC is of pivotal importance to avoid unnecessary pancreatic head resection with inherent morbidity and mortality [343].

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and CE-EUS are able to discriminate hypovascular PDAC from other iso- and hypervascular solid pancreatic lesions (non-PDAC) with an accuracy > 85 % [385] [389]. A meta-analysis reported the sensitivity and specificity of CE-EUS to diagnose PDAC at 94 and 89 %, respectively [390]. When there is a high suspicion of non-PDAC, patients with solid pancreatic mass lesions which are hypervascular or isovascular in comparison with the surrounding pancreatic parenchyma should be referred to pre-therapeutic EUS-guided sampling. Negative results of EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions which are hypovascular on CE-EUS should be considered false-negative, initiating repeat sampling or proceeding directly to surgery [391] [392]. An RCT demonstrated that CE-EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic lesions is more efficient than conventional EUS-FNA with fewer needle passes required to obtain a diagnostic sample [393].

EUS-elastography has an high sensitivity, but only a moderate specificity for differentiating malignant from benign solid pancreatic lesions [387]. Meta-analyses report a sensitivity of 95 – 97 % and a specificity of 67 – 76 % [394] [395] [396] [397] [398]. EFSUMB guidelines recommend that in the case of persisting strong clinical suspicion of pancreatic cancer with inconclusive or negative EUS-guided sampling, a hard focal lesion on elastography and/or a hypovascular lesion on CEUS and or CE-EUS indicates the need for repeat EUS-FNA or referral to surgery [386].

Cystic pancreatic lesions

The presence of epithelial mural nodules, thick walls, and septa has been shown to be highly predictive for malignancy in BD-IPMN [399] [400]. International and European guidelines recommend surgical treatment of BD-IPMN in particular if enhancing nodules or “positive cytology” has been verified [144] [145]. Targeted biopsy of the cyst wall and solid components has a significant incremental diagnostic value over cyst-fluid aspiration alone for the diagnosis of mucinous and malignant cystic neoplasms [383] [401] [402] and is recommended by the ESGE guideline on EUS-guided sampling in gastroenterology [54]. EUS and CE-EUS significantly improve the discrimination and characterization of mural nodules in IPMN in comparison with B-mode EUS and CT [403] [404] [405] [406], suggesting that CE-EUS may facilitate EUS-guided sampling of solid components in PCL.

Subepithelial gastrointestinal tumours

Differential diagnosis of hypoechoic gastric SETs by EUS and other imaging techniques is difficult [66] [178] [179] [191] [407]. Preliminary findings suggest that CE-EUS can discriminate GIST (hypervascular) from benign lesions (leiomyoma, lipoma: hypovascular) [408].

EUS-guided sampling: Processing and evaluation of specimen

Techniques for expelling a specimen from the needle

The techniques for expelling a specimen are related to the needle system used. There are three techniques for expelling a specimen from aspiration needles: 1. Air flushing; 2. Saline flushing; 3. Extrusion with the stylet. No differences between air flushing and stylet reinsertion with regard to the number of diagnostic specimens, overall accuracy and specimen quality were found in an RCT, but smears were bloodier following stylet use for the expelling of the sample [365].

Methods for specimen preparation and processing

Optimizing specimen handling and processing may reduce the frequency of non-diagnostic samples [409] [410]. The handling of the specimen depends on the diagnostic methods used and the final cytopathological evaluation.

Cytopathology: conventional smears and liquid-based preparations

For cytological analysis the specimen should be smeared onto slides (smear cytology, SC) or incorporated into special preservation solutions (liquid-based cytology, LBC) for further handling [411] [412]. Prospective comparative trials demonstrated that LBC was less sensitive with material obtained by EUS-guided sampling from lymph nodes and pancreatic lesions compared with traditional SC [413] [414] [415]. A further RCT suggested that LBC may serve as a complementary preparation technique if blood contamination of smears is abundant [414].

Histopathology: cell block and core tissue preparation

In general, histopathological processing including paraffin-embedding, microtome-sectioning, and staining is possible with small coherent tissue cores embedded in a formalin fixative or with CB. A wide variety of ancillary diagnostic techniques (immunohistochemistry, molecular analysis) may be performed on histopathologically processed material [66] [186] [382] [409] [411] [412] [416] [417] [418] [419] [420].

CB may be prepared from any cell suspension (e. g. liquid aspirates, needle rinses, or specimen in preservative solutions for LB). Pellets of artificially aggregated cells are obtained by using repeated centrifugation and/or special cell capturing gels [410] [412] [417] [421].

Small core particles obtained with aspiration needles or “histology needles” can be directly delivered into formalin solution for fixation followed by standard histopathological processing [53] [217] [409] [410] [422] [423]. Alternatively, core particles may be isolated from samples expelled on glass slides or preservation solutions by the stylet method before further cytopathological processing (“split-up” method) [186] [382] [424].

Cytopathological evaluation of a specimen

Cytopathological vs. histopathological evaluation

In most cases of PDAC and lymph node metastases, cytopathological evaluation alone is adequate to establish a diagnosis of malignancy. The diagnostic sensitivity of EUS-FNA cytology is highly dependent on the proficiency and experience of the cytopathologist evaluating the specimen [107] [425] and to a lesser extent on the availability of ROSE.

In a number of clinical settings and target lesions, it is tissue architecture, immunohistochemistry and molecular analysis rather than cellular features that are essential for accurate pathological assessment [419] [420]. For benign diseases, e. g. autoimmune pancreatitis [426] [427], differential diagnosis of SET (GIST vs. leiomyoma or schwannoma) [52] [181] [189] [191] [428] [429], subtyping of NSCLC and malignant lymphoma [217] [266] [430] [431] [432], diagnosis of rare tumours [137] [226] [382], grading of neuroendocrine tumours [433] [434] [435], molecular profiling of solid tumours [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [130] [204] [205] [206] [207] [208] [209] [409] [436] [437] and differential diagnosis of mediastinal lymph node metastases [52] [226] [438], a core sample is preferred to a cytological aspirate [66].

A complementary approach: combining cytopathological and histopathological assessment

There are two reasonable strategies to achieve high diagnostic accuracy in EUS-guided sampling, without the attendance of a cytopathologist: combining cytopathological and histopathological evaluation [52] [138] [192] [231] [382] [415] [424] [439] [440], or relying on core tissue or CB material for histopathological assessment [53] [55] [217] [333] [409] [422] [423] [427] [430] [441] [442] [443] [444]. Several studies have shown an incremental yield of combining SC with CB technique or histological core assessment in terms of diagnostic yield and accuracy [138] [192] [231] [382] [415] [439] [440] [445] [446].

Specimen handling for diagnosis of infectious diseases

Suspected infectious disease (e. g. abscesses, tuberculosis or atypical mycobacteriosis) requires specific handling of the aspirate. Microbiological cultures are possible if samples are placed in saline, whereas a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplifying mycobacterial DNA requires the specimen placed in formalin [447] [448]. A moderate to high accuracy of SC including Ziehl-Neelsen stain for acid-fast bacteria alone for the diagnosis of tuberculosis and its differentiation from sarcoidosis or histoplasmosis has been reported [447] [449] [450] [451] [452] [453] [454]. Further studies showed significantly higher sensitivity of PCR vs. microbiological culture and/or SC, and of microbiological culture vs. SC [448] [455] [456] [457]. In a meta-analysis the overall diagnostic yield of EBUS-TBNA for the diagnosis of mediastinal tuberculous lymphadenitis was 80 % with the culture positive rate (54 %) being significantly higher than the SC positive rate (33 %) [458].

On-site assessment of the adequacy of specimens

Rapid on-site cytopathological evaluation

ROSE is reported to be used in the majority of centres in the United States [106] [329], but on-site cytopathological service is not routinely available in Europe [327] [328]. Positive assessments of the role of ROSE for EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions and for EUS-FNA and EBUS-TBNA of lymph nodes have been documented [138] [375] [413] [459] [460] [461] [462] [463] [464] [465] [466] [467] [468] [469] [470] [471]. A high concordance of preliminary on-site interpretation and final cytopathological diagnoses has been reported [460] [466] [472] [473]. Other studies have suggested that ROSE is not essential for high diagnostic yield and accuracy of EUS-FNA [54] [66] [474] [475] [476]. Only five studies with EUS-FNA of pancreatic lesions used a 2-cohort design with head-to-head comparison of adequacy and accuracy of ROSE vs. non-ROSE. These studies have been included in a meta-analysis, showing that ROSE was associated with a significant 10 % improvement of the per-case adequacy rate only in studies with a low adequacy rate (< 90 %). No significant impact of ROSE on diagnostic yield, accuracy or number of needle passes was observed [477]. In a second meta-analysis of 68 single-cohort and 2 two-cohort studies, ROSE was associated with a low, statistically significant advantage of adequacy rates (2.3 %). [478]. A further meta-analysis showed a non-significantly higher per-case adequacy in ROSE studies compared with studies without ROSE [136]. The largest meta-analysis assessing the diagnostic performance of EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions demonstrated significantly lower heterogeneity among studies with a cytopathologist present on-site, but advantages over studies without ROSE in terms of sensitivity (88 vs. 80 %) and diagnostic odds ratio did not reach statistical significance [132].

Two RCTs showed no benefit of ROSE in EBUS-TBNA for diagnosing lung cancer and in EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions with regard to diagnostic accuracy, procedure time and safety. However, in both trials ROSE-assisted sampling required fewer needle passes to obtain a diagnosis [467] [467].

The relatively small benefit of ROSE has to be balanced against the cost and time expenditure of a permanent on-site cytopathology service [377] [479] [480] [481].

Gross visual inspection and ROSE performed by the endosonographer

In the absence of ROSE, gross visual assessment of a sample to assess the adequacy of EUS-guided sampling is possible [482]. Studies show conflicting levels of the ability of endosonographers and trained EUS and cytology assistants to assess slide adequacy and to differentiate malignant and benign specimens [483]. In a prospective evaluation of the visual assessment of core particles obtained with a 19 G ProCore needle, a core length of ≥ 4 mm was an indicator for an adequate histological sample and for a high overall, histological and cytological diagnostic yield [443].

Studies have demonstrated the improved ability of endosonographers, following completion of structured training, to smear and stain slides, to operate a microscope [484], to judge adequacy of a cytological specimen confidently [485], and to differentiate benign and malignant smears with an accuracy of 89 % [486]. ROSE performed by an experienced endosonographer may be reliable, but requires completion of an intensive structured training program.

Reporting and reliability of cytopathology in EUS-guided sampling

Cytopathological reporting

In most cytopathological laboratories, the diagnostic categories for EUS-cytology follow a Bethesda-like system: unsatisfactory, benign, atypical, suspicious, and positive for malignancy[11] [487] [488]. Based on a standard nomenclature for FNA [489], the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology has developed guidelines on standardized terminology and nomenclature for pancreatobiliary cytopathology, recommending a six-tiered system of diagnostic categories: non-diagnostic, negative, atypical, neoplastic, suspicious, and positive[12]. The category “neoplastic” is unique for pancreatic cytopathology, including benign neoplasms (serous cystadenoma) as well as premalignant mucinous cysts, neuroendocrine tumours and solid pseudopapillary neoplasms [490]. The inconclusive and ill-defined diagnostic categories “atypical” and “suspicious for malignancy”[13] are inconsistently conveyed [491] [492] [493]. Insufficient adherence to standardized nomenclature in cytopathological reporting hampers individual patient management and is a substantial obstacle for the comparison of results between centres and studies [412] [490].

Reliability of negative (“benign”) results and findings positive for malignancy/ neoplasia

A few studies have analysed the reproducibility of cytopathological diagnoses of specimens obtained by EUS-guided sampling. In most studies a good-to-excellent diagnostic agreement between experienced cytopathologists was documented [425] [494] [495].

For clinical decision-making it is important to understand that there is still a significant risk of malignancy with negative findings in EUS-guided sampling, which is considerably high for PCL, solid pancreatic lesions in patients with underlying chronic pancreatitis, indeterminate biliary strictures, and gastrointestinal SET. The major cause for false-negative diagnoses of EUS-guided sampling is sampling error, whereas interpretative error is rare [66] [165] [325] [349] [350] [491] [492] [496] [497] [498] [499] [500] [501].

In studies with good reference standards and long follow-up, false-positive findings have been reported for EUS-guided sampling in 1.1 – 5.3 % when only cases with a positive cytopathological result were considered and in 7.8 % if suspicious cytopathology results were included. False-positive rates seem to be higher in luminal compared with extra-luminal (e. g. pancreatic) primary cancer [238] [502] [503]. False-positive findings may result from procedure-related factors, e. g. traversal of a neoplastic area, needle contamination with tumour cells [240] [241], inadvertent aspiration of cancer-cell contaminated luminal fluid [239], or from cytopathological misinterpretation [66] [325] [491] [496] [497] [498] [501] [502] [504] [505].

Malignancy risk associated with inconclusive findings

Studies have evaluated the malignancy risk related with inconclusive diagnostic cytopathological categories for EUS-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions. The suspicious category is associated with an 80 – 96 % risk of neoplastic or malignant final diagnosis, whereas the atypical category carries a markedly variable and significantly lower malignancy risk [492] [493] [506]. Clinical predictors associated with a high likelihood of a neoplastic diagnosis following an atypical cytopathological diagnosis in pancreatic EUS-FNA can be used to adapt management of patients with inconclusive cytopathological diagnoses: ancillary testing, watchful waiting, repeat EUS-guided sampling, alternative diagnostic techniques, or initiation of a specific treatment [501] [507] [508] [509] [510]. Repeat EUS-guided sampling in patients with high clinical suspicion of malignancy has been shown to yield a conclusive and correct diagnosis in 73 – 84 % of cases with primarily inconclusive cytopathological diagnosis [468] [507] [510] [511] [512].

Adverse events of EUS-guided interventions and their prevention

General considerations

EUS-guided sampling (including EBUS-TBNA) is a safe diagnostic technique. Severe adverse events are rare. There is no evidence that needle size or needle type affects morbidity of EUS-guided sampling [54] [70] [330] [513]. A systematic review of complications of 51 EUS-FNA studies including 10 941 patients describes an overall complication rate of 0.98 %. The procedure-related mortality was estimated at 0.02 % [514].

Morbidity of EUS-guided therapeutic interventions is considerably higher than EUS-guided sampling, with risk and type of complications depending on the type of procedure [71] [515] [516].

Adverse events

Perforation

The majority of perforations associated with EUS-guided sampling are caused by the passage of the gastrointestinal echoendoscope and not the sampling procedure. Multicentre surveys and studies report perforation rates of 0.03 – 0.15 % [516] [517] [518] [519] [520]. The risk of duodenal perforation is higher than oesophageal perforation [70] [516].

Acute pancreatitis

The frequency of acute pancreatitis following EUS-FNA of pancreatic lesions is between 0.19 – 2.35 % [70]. Pancreatitis risk is higher in patients with PCL than in patients with solid pancreatic lesions [70] [514].

Intra- and extraluminal haemorrhage

Severe bleeding following EUS-FNA is a rare event (overall 0.13 %) [514]. There are three reports in the literature of fatal bleeding following pancreatic EUS-FNA [70]. There is indirect evidence that EUS-FNA of PCL may cause a higher risk of bleeding compared with EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions [514] [515] [521] [522] [523]. Guidelines suggest discontinuing oral anticoagulants, heparin and LMWHs in therapeutic dosages as well as ADP-antagonists before EUS-guided sampling, whereas withdrawal of ASA is recommended only before EUS-FNA of PCL [54] [513] [524] [525] [526]. Despite limited evidence for distinct cut-off values, a platelet count < 50 000/ml and an international normalized ratio (INR) > 1.5 are regarded as contraindications to EUS-guided sampling. There is no data regarding needle size, needle type, number of needle passes or other technical factors related to bleeding risk following EUS-guided sampling.

Fever and infection

Bacteremia following upper as well as lower gastrointestinal tract EUS-FNA is a rare event [527] [528] [529] [530]. In large series 0.4 – 1.0 % of patients experienced febrile episodes following EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic masses [359] [531] [532]. For endosonographic sampling of mediastinal lesions, studies report an overall frequency of major infectious complications in 0.07 % of patients [533]. Serious infectious complications have been reported following EUS-FNA of mediastinal cysts [70] [533], ascites [313], perirectal cysts [26], as well as of PCL and (peri-) pancreatic fluid collections [534]. Despite a lack of convincing evidence, several guidelines recommend peri-interventional antibiotic treatment for EUS-FNA of PCL [54] [513] [524]. Due to potentially catastrophic consequences of mediastinal infection, guidelines and reviews regard EUS-FNA of mediastinal cysts to be contraindicated [54] [70] [513] [524] [533].

Tumour cell seeding and needle track metastasis

Several studies agree that EUS-guided sampling for malignant solid and cystic pancreatic tumours and for cholangiocarcinoma is not a risk factor for the development of peritoneal seeding, tumour recurrence, or decreased survival [535] [536] [537] [538] [539] [540] [541]. The risk of peritoneal seeding following biopsy of pancreatic cancer appears to be significantly lower with EUS-FNA compared to percutaneous FNA [542] [543]. However, 11 individual cases of tumour cell seeding caused by EUS-guided sampling of malignant pancreatic neoplasia (n = 8, in 4 cases cystic tumours) [544] [545] [546] [547] [548] [549] [550] [551] and of lymph node metastases (n = 3) [552] [553] [554] suggest cautious use of EUS-guided sampling.

Miscellaneous complications

There are reports of bile peritonitis following EUS-FNA of the gallbladder or of the liver in patients with biliary obstruction [293] [555] [556], of pneumothorax following transoesophageal EUS-FNA of mediastinal lymph nodes [202], pneumoperitoneum following EUS-FNA of a pancreatic tumour [557] and of pancreatic duct leak caused by EUS-FNA of pancreatic mass lesions [558] [559]. One case of phlegmonous gastritis following EUS-FNA has been reported [560]. Two cases of a hypertensive crisis induced by EUS-FNA of retroperitoneal paraganglioma or adrenal phaeochromocytoma have been documented [561] [562].

Risk factors for complications

There are limited data linking complication rates of EUS-FNA with specific target lesions. Data from a systematic review confirmed that EUS-FNA is exceptionally safe for mediastinal lesions (n = 1310; complication rate: 0.38 %), abdominal masses (n = 381; 0.26 %) and adrenal glands (n = 81; 0 %). Procedure-related morbidity seems to be higher for pancreatic lesions (n = 8246: 1.03 %), liver lesions (n = 344; 2.33 %) and perirectal lesions (n = 193: 2.07 %) [514].

Several studies have shown that performing EUS with/without EUS-guided sampling and ERCP in a single session is safe [563] [564] [565] [566] [567] [568] [569] [570].

Observations from high-volume centres suggest that complications are more frequent in the learning phase of the examiners [100] [422] [534].

Acknowledgement

We acknowledge the advice from Lynne Rudd, EFSUMB general secretary, and the support of the EFSUMB INVUS committee.

¹ Term is explained in the addendum on terminology (online version only).

² Term is explained in the addendum on terminology (online version only).

³ Term is explained in the addendum on terminology (online version only).

⁴ Term is explained in the addendum on terminology (online version only)

⁵ Term is explained in the addendum on terminology (online version only).

⁶ Term is explained in the addendum on terminology (online version only).

⁷ Term is explained in the addendum on terminology (online version only).

⁸ Term is explained in the addendum on terminology (online version only).

⁹ Term is explained in the addendum on terminology (online version only).

¹⁰ The terms “number of passes” and ROSE are explained in the addendum on terminology (online version only).

¹¹ Terms are explained in the addendum on terminology (long version only).

¹² Terms are explained in the addendum on terminology (long version only).

¹³ Terms are explained in the addendum on terminology (long version only).

• References(References online)

• 1 Fusaroli P, Jenssen C, Hocke M et al. EFSUMB guidelines on interventional ultrasound, part V. EUS-guided therapeutic interventions. Ultraschall in Med 2015; Epub ahead of print
• 2 Dietrich CF, Lorentzen T, Sidhu PS et al. An introduction into the EFSUMB guidelines on interventional ultrasound. Ultraschall in Med 2015; Epub ahead of print
• 3 Gan SI, Rajan E, Adler DG. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee et al. Role of EUS. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 66: 425-434
• 4 Yusuf TE, Tsutaki S, Wagh MS et al. The EUS hardware store: state of the art technical review of instruments and equipment (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 66: 131-143
• 5 Tierney WM, Adler DG, Chand B. ASGE Technology Committee et al. Echoendoscopes. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 66: 435-442
• 6 Van Dam J, Sivak M eds. Gastrointestinal Endosonography. Philadelphia, London, Toronto, Montreal, Sydney, Tokyo: W.B. Saunders; 1999
• 7 Dietrich CF ed. Endoscopic Ultrasound. An Introductory Manual and Atlas. Stuttgart, New York: Thieme; 2011
• 8 Jenssen C, Gottschalk U, Schachschal G et al. eds. Kursbuch Endosonografie. Stuttgart, New York: Thieme; 2014
• 9 Hawes RH, Fockens P, Varadarajulu S eds. Endosonography. Philadelphia: Elsevier – Saunders; 2015
• 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 Wiersema MJ, Wiersema LM. Endosonography-guided celiac plexus neurolysis. Gastrointest Endosc 1996; 44: 656-662
• 12 Wiersema MJ. Endosonography-guided cystoduodenostomy with a therapeutic ultrasound endoscope. Gastrointest Endosc 1996; 44: 614-617
• 13 Krasnik M, Vilmann P, Larsen SS et al. Preliminary experience with a new method of endoscopic transbronchial real time ultrasound guided biopsy for diagnosis of mediastinal and hilar lesions. Thorax 2003; 58: 1083-1086
• 14 Dietrich CF, Hocke M, Jenssen C. Interventional endosonography. In: Dietrich CF, Nuernberg D, eds. Interventional Ultrasound. A Practical Guide and Atlas. Stuttgart, New York, Delhi, Rio: Thieme; 2015: 224-253
• 15 Adler DG, Conway JD, Coffie JM et al. EUS accessories. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 66: 1076-1081
• 16 Rintoul RC, Ahmed R, Dougherty B et al. Linear endobronchial ultrasonography: a novelty turned necessity for mediastinal nodal assessment. Thorax 2015; 70: 175-180
• 17 Voermans RP, Ponchon T, Schumacher B et al. Forward-viewing versus oblique-viewing echoendoscopes in transluminal drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 1285-1293
• 18 Iwashita T, Nakai Y, Lee JG et al. Newly-developed, forward-viewing echoendoscope: a comparative pilot study to the standard echoendoscope in the imaging of abdominal organs and feasibility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided interventions. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 27: 362-367
• 19 Fusaroli P, Ceroni L, Caletti G. Forward-view Endoscopic Ultrasound: A Systematic Review of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Applications. Endosc Ultrasound 2013; 2: 64-70
• 20 Hunerbein M, Totkas S, Moesta KT et al. The role of transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy in the postoperative follow-up of patients with rectal cancer. Surgery 2001; 129: 164-169
• 21 Varadarajulu S, Drelichman ER. Effectiveness of EUS in drainage of pelvic abscesses in 25 consecutive patients (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 1121-1127
• 22 Uchida N, Galasso D, Seerden TC et al. EUS-FNA of extracolonic lesions by using the forward-viewing linear echoendoscope. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 1321-1323
• 23 Gleeson FC, Clain JE, Rajan E et al. EUS-FNA assessment of extramesenteric lymph node status in primary rectal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 897-905
• 24 Gleeson FC, Clain JE, Karnes RJ et al. Endoscopic-ultrasound-guided tissue sampling facilitates the detection of local recurrence and extra pelvic metastasis in pelvic urologic malignancy. Diagn Ther Endosc 2012; 2012: 219521
• 25 Gleeson FC, Larson DW, Dozois EJ et al. Local recurrence detection following transanal excision facilitated by EUS-FNA. Hepatogastroenterology 2012; 59: 1102-1107
• 26 Mohamadnejad M, Al-Haddad MA, Sherman S et al. Utility of EUS-guided biopsy of extramural pelvic masses. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 146-151
• 27 Levy MJ, Abu Dayyeh BK, Fujii LL et al. Prospective evaluation of adverse events following lower gastrointestinal tract EUS FNA. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109: 676-685
• 28 Gorospe EC, Oxentenko AS. Preprocedural considerations in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Mayo Clin Proc 2013; 88: 1010-1016
• 29 Wani S, Wallace MB, Cohen J et al. Quality indicators for EUS. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 67-80
• 30 Bonta PI, Kok MF, Bergman JJ et al. Conscious sedation for EUS of the esophagus and stomach: a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial comparing midazolam with placebo. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 57: 842-847
• 31 Yarmus LB, Akulian JA, Gilbert C et al. Comparison of moderate versus deep sedation for endobronchial ultrasound transbronchial needle aspiration. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2013; 10: 121-126
• 32 Jeyabalan A, Medford AR. Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: patient satisfaction under light conscious sedation. Respiration 2014; 88: 244-250
• 33 Yusoff IF, Raymond G, Sahai AV. Endoscopist administered propofol for upper-GI EUS is safe and effective: a prospective study in 500 patients. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 60: 356-360
• 34 Agostoni M, Fanti L, Arcidiacono PG et al. Midazolam and pethidine versus propofol and fentanyl patient controlled sedation/analgesia for upper gastrointestinal tract ultrasound endoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Dig Liver Dis 2007; 39: 1024-1029
• 35 Fanti L, Agostoni M, Arcidiacono PG et al. Target-controlled infusion during monitored anesthesia care in patients undergoing EUS: propofol alone versus midazolam plus propofol. A prospective double-blind randomised controlled trial. Dig Liver Dis 2007; 39: 81-86
• 36 Dewitt J, McGreevy K, Sherman S et al. Nurse-administered propofol sedation compared with midazolam and meperidine for EUS: a prospective, randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 68: 499-509
• 37 Fatima H, DeWitt J, LeBlanc J et al. Nurse-administered propofol sedation for upper endoscopic ultrasonography. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 1649-1656
• 38 Trummel JM, Surgenor SD, Cravero JP et al. Comparison of differing sedation practice for upper endoscopic ultrasound using expert observational analysis of the procedural sedation. J Patient Saf 2009; 5: 153-159
• 39 Nayar DS, Guthrie WG, Goodman A et al. Comparison of propofol deep sedation versus moderate sedation during endosonography. Dig Dis Sci 2010; 55: 2537-2544
• 40 Amornyotin S, Leelakusolvong S, Chalayonnawin W et al. Age-dependent safety analysis of propofol-based deep sedation for ERCP and EUS procedures at an endoscopy training center in a developing country. Clin Exp Gastroenterol 2012; 5: 123-128
• 41 Triantafillidis JK, Merikas E, Nikolakis D et al. Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: current issues. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19: 463-481
• 42 Pagano N, Arosio M, Romeo F et al. Balanced Propofol Sedation in Patients Undergoing EUS-FNA: A Pilot Study to Assess Feasibility and Safety. Diagn Ther Endosc 2011; 2011: 542159
• 43 Redondo-Cerezo E, Sanchez-Robaina A, Martinez Cara JG et al. Gastroenterologist-guided sedation with propofol for endoscopic ultrasonography in average-risk and high-risk patients: a prospective series. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 24: 506-512
• 44 Chrissian AA, Bedi H. Bronchoscopist-directed Continuous Propofol Infusion for Targeting Moderate Sedation During Endobronchial Ultrasound Bronchoscopy: A Practical and Effective Protocol. J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol 2015; 22: 226-236
• 45 Dumonceau JM, Riphaus A, Aparicio JR et al. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates, and the European Society of Anaesthesiology Guideline: Non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol for GI endoscopy. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 960-974
• 46 Dumonceau JM, Riphaus A, Beilenhoff U et al. European curriculum for sedation training in gastrointestinal endoscopy: position statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA). Endoscopy 2013; 45: 496-504
• 47 Vilmann P, Saftoiu A. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy: equipment and technique. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006; 21: 1646-1655
• 48 Jenssen C. Diagnostische Endosonografie – State of the Art 2009. Endoskopie heute 2009; 22: 89-104
• 49 Vilmann P, Seicean A, Saftoiu A. Tips to overcome technical challenges in EUS-guided tissue acquisition. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2014; 24: 109-124
• 50 Wiersema MJ, Levy MJ, Harewood GC et al. Initial experience with EUS-guided trucut needle biopsies of perigastric organs. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 56: 275-278
• 51 Levy MJ, Jondal ML, Clain J et al. Preliminary experience with an EUS-guided trucut biopsy needle compared with EUS-guided FNA. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 57: 101-106
• 52 Saftoiu A, Vilmann P, Guldhammer Skov B et al. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided Trucut biopsy adds significant information to EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration in selected patients: a prospective study. Scand J Gastroenterol 2007; 42: 117-125
• 53 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
• 54 Polkowski M, Larghi A, Weynand B et al. Learning, techniques, and complications of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Guideline. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 190-206
• 55 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
• 56 Lachter J. Basic technique in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for solid lesions: What needle is the best?. Endosc Ultrasound 2014; 3: 46-53
• 57 Wani S, Muthusamy VR, Komanduri S. EUS-guided tissue acquisition: an evidence-based approach (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 939-959 e937
• 58 Fusaroli P, Vallar R, Togliani T et al. Scientific publications in endoscopic ultrasonography: a 20-year global survey of the literature. Endoscopy 2002; 34: 451-456
• 59 Dumonceau JM, Polkowski M, Larghi A et al. Indications, results, and clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 897-912
• 60 Fusaroli P, Kypreos D, Alma Petrini CA et al. Scientific publications in endoscopic ultrasonography: changing trends in the third millennium. J Clin Gastroenterol 2011; 45: 400-404
• 61 Fusaroli P, Kypraios D, Eloubeidi MA et al. Levels of evidence in endoscopic ultrasonography: a systematic review. Dig Dis Sci 2012; 57: 602-609
• 62 Fusaroli P, Kypraios D, Caletti G et al. Pancreatico-biliary endoscopic ultrasound: a systematic review of the levels of evidence, performance and outcomes. World J Gastroenterol 2012; 18: 4243-4256
• 63 Fabbri C, Luigiano C, Lisotti A et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided treatments: are we getting evidence based--a systematic review. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20: 8424-8448
• 64 Yamao K, Sawaki A, Mizuno N et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNAB): past, present, and future. J Gastroenterol 2005; 40: 1013-1023
• 65 Prasad P, Wittmann J, Pereira SP. Endoscopic ultrasound of the upper gastrointestinal tract and mediastinum: diagnosis and therapy. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2006; 29: 947-957
• 66 Jenssen C, Dietrich CF. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy and trucut biopsy in gastroenterology – An overview. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2009; 23: 743-759
• 67 Godfrey EM, Rushbrook SM, Carroll NR. Endoscopic ultrasound: a review of current diagnostic and therapeutic applications. Postgrad Med J 2010; 86: 346-353
• 68 Jue TL, Sharaf RN, Appalaneni V. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee et al. Role of EUS for the evaluation of mediastinal adenopathy. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 239-245
• 69 Khashab MA, Varadarajulu S. Endoscopic ultrasonography as a therapeutic modality. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2012; 28: 467-476
• 70 Jenssen C, Alvarez-Sanchez MV, Napoleon B et al. Diagnostic endoscopic ultrasonography: assessment of safety and prevention of complications. World J Gastroenterol 2012; 18: 4659-4676
• 71 Alvarez-Sanchez MV, Jenssen C, Faiss S et al. Interventional endoscopic ultrasonography: an overview of safety and complications. Surg Endosc 2014; 28: 712-734
• 72 DiMaio CJ, Mishra G, McHenry L. ASGE Training Committee et al. EUS core curriculum. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 476-481
• 73 Burmester E, Leineweber T, Hacker S et al. EUS Meets Voxel-Man: three-dimensional anatomic animation of linear-array endoscopic ultrasound images. Endoscopy 2004; 36: 726-730
• 74 Bhutani MS, Deutsch JC eds. EUS Pathology with Digital Anatomy Correlation. Textbook and Atlas. Shelton: People's Medical Publishing House; 2010
• 75 Baron TH. Endoscopic ultrasound training in mid-to-late career: Falling prey to the dark side or the bright side?. Endosc Ultrasound 2014; 3: 200-201
• 76 Konge L, Colella S, Vilmann P et al. How to learn and to perform endoscopic ultrasound and endobronchial ultrasound for lung cancer staging: A structured guide and review. Endosc Ultrasound 2015; 4: 4-9
• 77 Kim GH, Bang SJ, Hwang JH. Learning models for endoscopic ultrasonography in gastrointestinal endoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21: 5176-5182
• 78 Wang MH, Dy F, Vu VK et al. Structured endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) training program improved knowledge and skills of trainees: Results from the Asian EUS Group. Dig Endosc 2015;
• 79 Bhutani MS, Hoffman BJ, Hawes RH. A swine model for teaching endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) imaging and intervention under EUS guidance. Endoscopy 1998; 30: 605-609
• 80 Kefalides PT, Gress F. Simulator training for endoscopic ultrasound. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2006; 16: 543-552, viii
• 81 Barthet M, Gasmi M, Boustiere C et al. EUS training in a live pig model: does it improve echo endoscope hands-on and trainee competence?. Endoscopy 2007; 39: 535-539
• 82 Stather DR, Lamb CR, Tremblay A. Simulation in flexible bronchoscopy and endobronchial ultrasound: a review. J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol 2011; 18: 247-256
• 83 Stather DR, Maceachern P, Rimmer K et al. Validation of an endobronchial ultrasound simulator: differentiating operator skill level. Respiration 2011; 81: 325-332
• 84 Stather DR, MacEachern P, Chee A et al. Wet laboratory versus computer simulation for learning endobronchial ultrasound: a randomized trial. Can Respir J 2012; 19: 325-330
• 85 Stather DR, MacEachern P, Chee A et al. Evaluation of clinical endobronchial ultrasound skills following clinical versus simulation training. Respirology 2012; 17: 291-299
• 86 Stather DR, Chee A, Maceachern P et al. Evaluation of a novel method of teaching endobronchial ultrasound: physician- versus respiratory therapist-proctored simulation training. Can Respir J 2013; 20: 243-247
• 87 Fritscher-Ravens A, Cuming T, Dhar S et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration training: evaluation of a new porcine lymphadenopathy model for in vivo hands-on teaching and training, and review of the literature. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 114-120
• 88 Konge L, Annema J. Assessment of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration performance. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2013; 188: 254
• 89 Konge L, Annema J, Clementsen P et al. Using virtual-reality simulation to assess performance in endobronchial ultrasound. Respiration 2013; 86: 59-65
• 90 Konge L, Clementsen PF, Ringsted C et al. Simulator training for endobronchial ultrasound: a randomised controlled trial. Eur Respir J 2015; Epub ahead of print
• 91 Konge L, Vilmann P, Clementsen P et al. Reliable and valid assessment of competence in endoscopic ultrasonography and fine-needle aspiration for mediastinal staging of non-small cell lung cancer. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 928-933
• 92 Baron TH, DeSimio TM. New ex-vivo porcine model for endoscopic ultrasound-guided training in transmural puncture and drainage of pancreatic cysts and fluid collections (with videos). Endosc Ultrasound 2015; 4: 34-39
• 93 Xu W, Liu Y, Pan P et al. Prior radial-scanning endoscopic ultrasonography training did not contribute to subsequent linear-array endoscopic ultrasonography study performance in the stomach of a porcine model. Gut Liver 2015; 9: 353-357
• 94 Stather DR, Maceachern P, Rimmer K et al. Assessment and learning curve evaluation of endobronchial ultrasound skills following simulation and clinical training. Respirology 2011; 16: 698-704
• 95 Davoudi M, Colt HG, Osann KE et al. Endobronchial ultrasound skills and tasks assessment tool: assessing the validity evidence for a test of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration operator skill. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2012; 186: 773-779
• 96 Konge L, Annema J, Vilmann P et al. Transesophageal ultrasonography for lung cancer staging: learning curves of pulmonologists. J Thorac Oncol 2013; 8: 1402-1408
• 97 Wani S, Hall M, Keswani RN et al. Variation in Aptitude of Trainees in Endoscopic Ultrasonography, Based on Cumulative Sum Analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 13: 1318-1325.e1312
• 98 Wani S, Cote GA, Keswani R et al. Learning curves for EUS by using cumulative sum analysis: implications for American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommendations for training. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 558-565
• 99 Mertz H, Gautam S. The learning curve for EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: 33-37
• 100 Eloubeidi MA, Tamhane A. EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: a learning curve with 300 consecutive procedures. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 700-708
• 101 Eisen GM, Dominitz JA, Faigel DO et al. Guidelines for credentialing and granting privileges for endoscopic ultrasound. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 54: 811-814
• 102 Kemp SV, El Batrawy SH, Harrison RN et al. Learning curves for endobronchial ultrasound using cusum analysis. Thorax 2010; 65: 534-538
• 103 Medford AR. Learning curve for endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration. Chest 2012; 141: 1643 ; author reply 1643–1644
• 104 Fernandez-Villar A, Leiro-Fernandez V, Botana-Rial M et al. The endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle biopsy learning curve for mediastinal and hilar lymph node diagnosis. Chest 2012; 141: 278-279
• 105 Stather DR, Chee A, MacEachern P et al. Endobronchial ultrasound learning curve in interventional pulmonary fellows. Respirology 2015; 20: 333-339
• 106 Savides TJ, Donohue M, Hunt G et al. EUS-guided FNA diagnostic yield of malignancy in solid pancreatic masses: a benchmark for quality performance measurement. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 66: 277-282
• 107 Eltoum IA, Chhieng DC, Jhala D et al. Cumulative sum procedure in evaluation of EUS-guided FNA cytology: the learning curve and diagnostic performance beyond sensitivity and specificity. Cytopathology 2007; 18: 143-150
• 108 Rizk MK, Sawhney MS, Cohen J et al. Quality indicators common to all GI endoscopic procedures. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 3-16
• 109 Micames CG, McCrory DC, Pavey DA et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for non-small cell lung cancer staging: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Chest 2007; 131: 539-548
• 110 Adams K, Shah PL, Edmonds L et al. Test performance of endobronchial ultrasound and transbronchial needle aspiration biopsy for mediastinal staging in patients with lung cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Thorax 2009; 64: 757-762
• 111 Gu P, Zhao YZ, Jiang LY et al. Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration for staging of lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer 2009; 45: 1389-1396
• 112 Zhang R, Ying K, Shi L et al. Combined endobronchial and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for mediastinal lymph node staging of lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer 2013; 49: 1860-1867
• 113 Dong X, Qiu X, Liu Q et al. Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration in the mediastinal staging of non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Thorac Surg 2013; 96: 1502-1507
• 114 Dhooria S, Aggarwal AN, Gupta D et al. Utility and Safety of Endoscopic Ultrasound With Bronchoscope-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration in Mediastinal Lymph Node Sampling: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Respir Care 2015; 60: 1040-1050
• 115 Peric R, Schuurbiers OC, Veselic M et al. Transesophageal endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for the mediastinal staging of extrathoracic tumors: a new perspective. Ann Oncol 2010; 21: 1468-1471
• 116 Yang B, Li F, Shi W et al. Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle biopsy for the diagnosis of intrathoracic lymph node metastases from extrathoracic malignancies: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Respirology 2014; 19: 834-841
• 117 Mortensen MB, Pless T, Durup J et al. Clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in patients with upper gastrointestinal tract malignancies. A prospective study. Endoscopy 2001; 33: 478-483
• 118 Hassan H, Vilmann P, Sharma V. Impact of EUS-guided FNA on management of gastric carcinoma. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 500-504
• 119 Dewitt J, Ghorai S, Kahi C et al. EUS-FNA of recurrent postoperative extraluminal and metastatic malignancy. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: 542-548
• 120 Iwashita T, Yasuda I, Doi S et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in patients with lymphadenopathy suspected of recurrent malignancy after curative treatment. J Gastroenterol 2009; 44: 190-196
• 121 DeWitt J, Sherman S, Al-Haddad M et al. EUS-guided FNA of local recurrence of pancreatic cancer after surgical resection. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 1076-1080
• 122 Ulla-Rocha JL, Vilar-Cao Z, Alvarez-Martinez M et al. Extraparietal or lymphatic late relapse of neoplasms: confirmation by means of EUS-FNA key for the treatment. J Gastrointest Cancer 2012; 43: 490-495
• 123 Ashida R, Nakata B, Shigekawa M et al. Gemcitabine sensitivity-related mRNA expression in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy of unresectable pancreatic cancer. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2009; 28: 83
• 124 Schuurbiers OC, Looijen-Salamon MG, Ligtenberg MJ et al. A brief retrospective report on the feasibility of epidermal growth factor receptor and KRAS mutation analysis in transesophageal ultrasound- and endobronchial ultrasound-guided fine needle cytological aspirates. J Thorac Oncol 2010; 5: 1664-1667
• 125 Wakatsuki T, Irisawa A, Terashima M et al. ATP assay-guided chemosensitivity testing for gemcitabine with biopsy specimens obtained from unresectable pancreatic cancer using endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration. Int J Clin Oncol 2011; 16: 387-394
• 126 Ulivi P, Romagnoli M, Chiadini E et al. Assessment of EGFR and K-ras mutations in fixed and fresh specimens from transesophageal ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration in non-small cell lung cancer patients. Int J Oncol 2012; 41: 147-152
• 127 Eto K, Kawakami H, Kuwatani M et al. Human equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1 and Notch3 can predict gemcitabine effects in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. Br J Cancer 2013; 108: 1488-1494
• 128 Stigt JA, tHart NA, Knol AJ et al. Pyrosequencing analysis of EGFR and KRAS mutations in EUS and EBUS-derived cytologic samples of adenocarcinomas of the lung. J Thorac Oncol 2013; 8: 1012-1018
• 129 Navina S, McGrath K, Chennat J et al. Adequacy assessment of endoscopic ultrasound-guided, fine-needle aspirations of pancreatic masses for theranostic studies: optimization of current practices is warranted. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2014; 138: 923-928
• 130 van der Heijden EH, Casal RF, Trisolini R et al. Guideline for the acquisition and preparation of conventional and endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration specimens for the diagnosis and molecular testing of patients with known or suspected lung cancer. Respiration 2014; 88: 500-517
• 131 Gleeson FC, Kipp BR, Kerr SE et al. Kinase genotype analysis of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor cytology samples using targeted next-generation sequencing. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 13: 202-206
• 132 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
• 133 Chen G, Liu S, Zhao Y et al. Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis. Pancreatology 2013; 13: 298-304
• 134 Chen J, Yang R, Lu Y et al. Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for solid pancreatic lesion: a systematic review. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2012; 138: 1433-1441
• 135 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
• 136 Hebert-Magee S, Bae S, Varadarajulu S et al. The presence of a cytopathologist increases the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration cytology for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a meta-analysis. Cytopathology 2013; 24: 159-171
• 137 Eloubeidi MA, Tamhane AR, Buxbaum JL. Unusual, metastatic, or neuroendocrine tumor of the pancreas: a diagnosis with endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and immunohistochemistry. Saudi J Gastroenterol 2012; 18: 99-105
• 138 Haba S, Yamao K, Bhatia V et al. Diagnostic ability and factors affecting accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for pancreatic solid lesions: Japanese large single center experience. J Gastroenterol 2013; 48: 973-981
• 139 Krishna SG, Bhattacharya A, Ross WA et al. Pretest prediction and diagnosis of metastatic lesions to the pancreas by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 30: 1552-1560
• 140 Krishna SG, Li F, Bhattacharya A et al. Differentiation of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from other neoplastic solid pancreatic lesions: a tertiary oncology center experience. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 370-379
• 141 Kosmahl M, Pauser U, Peters K et al. Cystic neoplasms of the pancreas and tumor-like lesions with cystic features: a review of 418 cases and a classification proposal. Virchows Arch 2004; 445: 168-178
• 142 Basturk O, Coban I, Adsay NV. Pancreatic cysts: pathologic classification, differential diagnosis, and clinical implications. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2009; 133: 423-438
• 143 Nagata N, Kawazoe A, Mishima S et al. Development of Pancreatic Cancer, Disease-specific Mortality, and All-Cause Mortality in Patients with Nonresected IPMNs: A Long-term Cohort Study. Radiology 2015; Epub ahead of print
• 144 Tanaka M, Fernandez-del Castillo C, Adsay V et al. International consensus guidelines 2012 for the management of IPMN and MCN of the pancreas. Pancreatology 2012; 12: 183-197
• 145 Del Chiaro M, Verbeke C, Salvia R et al. European experts consensus statement on cystic tumours of the pancreas. Dig Liver Dis 2013; 45: 703-711
• 146 Jenssen C, Kahl S. Management of incidental pancreatic cystic lesions. Viszeralmedizin 2015; 31: 14-24
• 147 Brugge WR, Lewandrowski K, Lee-Lewandrowski E et al. Diagnosis of pancreatic cystic neoplasms: a report of the cooperative pancreatic cyst study. Gastroenterology 2004; 126: 1330-1336
• 148 van der Waaij LA, van Dullemen HM, Porte RJ. Cyst fluid analysis in the differential diagnosis of pancreatic cystic lesions: a pooled analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 62: 383-389
• 149 de Jong K, Poley JW, van Hooft JE et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic cystic lesions provides inadequate material for cytology and laboratory analysis: initial results from a prospective study. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 585-590
• 150 Thornton GD, McPhail MJ, Nayagam S et al. Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration for the diagnosis of pancreatic cystic neoplasms: a meta-analysis. Pancreatology 2013; 13: 48-57
• 151 Thosani N, Thosani S, Qiao W et al. Role of EUS-FNA-based cytology in the diagnosis of mucinous pancreatic cystic lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Dis Sci 2010; 55: 2756-2766
• 152 Suzuki R, Thosani N, Annangi S et al. Diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA-based cytology distinguishing malignant and benign IPMNs: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pancreatology 2014; 14: 380-384
• 153 Wang QX, Xiao J, Orange M et al. EUS-Guided FNA for Diagnosis of Pancreatic Cystic Lesions: a Meta-Analysis. Cell Physiol Biochem 2015; 36: 1197-1209
• 154 Rockacy M, Khalid A. Update on pancreatic cyst fluid analysis. Ann Gastroenterol 2013; 26: 122-127
• 155 Al-Haddad M, DeWitt J, Sherman S et al. Performance characteristics of molecular (DNA) analysis for the diagnosis of mucinous pancreatic cysts. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 79: 79-87
• 156 Gillis A, Cipollone I, Cousins G et al. Does EUS-FNA molecular analysis carry additional value when compared to cytology in the diagnosis of pancreatic cystic neoplasm? A systematic review. HPB (Oxford) 2015; 17: 377-386
• 157 Meara RS, Jhala D, Eloubeidi MA et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNA biopsy of bile duct and gallbladder: analysis of 53 cases. Cytopathology 2006; 17: 42-49
• 158 Hijioka S, Mekky MA, Bhatia V et al. Can EUS-guided FNA distinguish between gallbladder cancer and xanthogranulomatous cholecystitis?. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 622-627
• 159 Hijioka S, Hara K, Mizuno N et al. Diagnostic yield of endoscopic retrograde cholangiography and of EUS-guided fine needle aspiration sampling in gallbladder carcinomas. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2012; 19: 650-655
• 160 Kim HJ, Lee SK, Jang JW et al. Diagnostic role of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration of gallbladder lesions. Hepatogastroenterology 2012; 59: 1691-1695
• 161 Ogura T, Kurisu Y, Masuda D et al. Can endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration offer clinical benefit for thick-walled gallbladders?. Dig Dis Sci 2014; 59: 1917-1924
• 162 Fritscher-Ravens A, Broering DC, Sriram PV et al. EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration cytodiagnosis of hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a case series. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 52: 534-540
• 163 Fritscher-Ravens A, Broering DC, Knoefel WT et al. EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of suspected hilar cholangiocarcinoma in potentially operable patients with negative brush cytology. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99: 45-51
• 164 Rosch T, Hofrichter K, Frimberger E et al. ERCP or EUS for tissue diagnosis of biliary strictures? A prospective comparative study. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 60: 390-396
• 165 Byrne MF, Gerke H, Mitchell RM et al. Yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of bile duct lesions. Endoscopy 2004; 36: 715-719
• 166 Lee JH, Salem R, Aslanian H et al. Endoscopic ultrasound and fine-needle aspiration of unexplained bile duct strictures. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99: 1069-1073
• 167 Eloubeidi MA, Chen VK, Jhala NC et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy of suspected cholangiocarcinoma. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004; 2: 209-213
• 168 DeWitt J, Misra VL, Leblanc JK et al. EUS-guided FNA of proximal biliary strictures after negative ERCP brush cytology results. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 64: 325-333
• 169 Ohshima Y, Yasuda I, Kawakami H et al. EUS-FNA for suspected malignant biliary strictures after negative endoscopic transpapillary brush cytology and forceps biopsy. J Gastroenterol 2011; 46: 921-928
• 170 Nayar MK, Manas DM, Wadehra V et al. Role of EUS/EUS-guided FNA in the management of proximal biliary strictures. Hepatogastroenterology 2011; 58: 1862-1865
• 171 Mohamadnejad M, DeWitt JM, Sherman S et al. Role of EUS for preoperative evaluation of cholangiocarcinoma: a large single-center experience. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 71-78
• 172 Tummala P, Munigala S, Eloubeidi MA et al. Patients with obstructive jaundice and biliary stricture +/- mass lesion on imaging: prevalence of malignancy and potential role of EUS-FNA. J Clin Gastroenterol 2013; 47: 532-537
• 173 Weilert F, Bhat YM, Binmoeller KF et al. EUS-FNA is superior to ERCP-based tissue sampling in suspected malignant biliary obstruction: results of a prospective, single-blind, comparative study. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 97-104
• 174 Ogura T, Hara K, Hijioka S et al. Can Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Offer Clinical Benefit for Tumors of the Ampulla of Vater? – An Initial Study. Endoscopic Ultrasound 2012; 1: 84-89
• 175 Navaneethan U, Njei B, Venkatesh PG et al. Endoscopic ultrasound in the diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma as the etiology of biliary strictures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf) 2015; 3: 209-215
• 176 Gleeson FC, Rajan E, Levy MJ et al. EUS-guided FNA of regional lymph nodes in patients with unresectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67: 438-443
• 177 Polkowski M. Endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy for the diagnosis of malignant submucosal tumors. Endoscopy 2005; 37: 635-645
• 178 Jenssen C, Dietrich CF. Endoscopic ultrasound of gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions. Ultraschall in Med 2008; 29: 236-256 ; quiz 257–264
• 179 Eckardt AJ, Jenssen C. Current EUS-guided Approach to the Incidental Subepithelial Lesion: Optimal or Optional?. Ann Gastroenterol 2015; 28: 160-172
• 180 Lee JH, Choi KD, Kim MY et al. Clinical impact of EUS-guided Trucut biopsy results on decision making for patients with gastric subepithelial tumors >/= 2 cm in diameter. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 1010-1018
• 181 Larghi A, Fuccio L, Chiarello G et al. Fine-needle tissue acquisition from subepithelial lesions using a forward-viewing linear echoendoscope. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 39-45
• 182 Ando N, Goto H, Niwa Y et al. The diagnosis of GI stromal tumors with EUS-guided fine needle aspiration with immunohistochemical analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 55: 37-43
• 183 Okubo K, Yamao K, Nakamura T et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy for the diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors in the stomach. J Gastroenterol 2004; 39: 747-753
• 184 Akahoshi K, Sumida Y, Matsui N et al. Preoperative diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumor by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration. World J Gastroenterol 2007; 13: 2077-2082
• 185 Sepe PS, Moparty B, Pitman MB et al. EUS-guided FNA for the diagnosis of GI stromal cell tumors: sensitivity and cytologic yield. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 254-261
• 186 Yoshida S, Yamashita K, Yokozawa M et al. Diagnostic findings of ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology for gastrointestinal stromal tumors: proposal of a combined cytology with newly defined features and histology diagnosis. Pathol Int 2009; 59: 712-719
• 187 Philipper M, Hollerbach S, Gabbert HE et al. Prospective comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and surgical histology in upper gastrointestinal submucosal tumors. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 300-305
• 188 DeWitt J, Emerson RE, Sherman S et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided Trucut biopsy of gastrointestinal mesenchymal tumor. Surg Endosc 2011; 25: 2192-2202
• 189 Fernandez-Esparrach G, Sendino O, Sole M et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and trucut biopsy in the diagnosis of gastric stromal tumors: a randomized crossover study. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 292-299
• 190 Watson RR, Binmoeller KF, Hamerski CM et al. Yield and performance characteristics of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for diagnosing upper GI tract stromal tumors. Dig Dis Sci 2011; 56: 1757-1762
• 191 Eckardt AJ, Adler A, Gomes EM et al. Endosonographic large-bore biopsy of gastric subepithelial tumors: a prospective multicenter study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 24: 1135-1144
• 192 Rong L, Kida M, Yamauchi H et al. Factors affecting the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for upper gastrointestinal submucosal or extraluminal solid mass lesions. Dig Endosc 2012; 24: 358-363
• 193 Caglar E, Hatemi I, Atasoy D et al. Concordance of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration diagnosis with the final diagnosis in subepithelial lesions. Clin Endosc 2013; 46: 379-383
• 194 Akahoshi K, Oya M, Koga T et al. Clinical usefulness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for gastric subepithelial lesions smaller than 2 cm. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 2014; 23: 405-412
• 195 Kim GH, Cho YK, Kim EY et al. Comparison of 22-gauge aspiration needle with 22-gauge biopsy needle in endoscopic ultrasonography-guided subepithelial tumor sampling. Scand J Gastroenterol 2014; 49: 347-354
• 196 Varadarajulu S, Hoffman BJ, Hawes RH et al. EUS-guided FNA of lung masses adjacent to or abutting the esophagus after unrevealing CT-guided biopsy or bronchoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 60: 293-297
• 197 Annema JT, Veselic M, Rabe KF. EUS-guided FNA of centrally located lung tumours following a non-diagnostic bronchoscopy. Lung Cancer 2005; 48: 357-361 ; discussion 363–354
• 198 Hernandez A, Kahaleh M, Olazagasti J et al. EUS-FNA as the initial diagnostic modality in centrally located primary lung cancers. J Clin Gastroenterol 2007; 41: 657-660
• 199 Tournoy KG, Rintoul RC, van Meerbeeck JP et al. EBUS-TBNA for the diagnosis of central parenchymal lung lesions not visible at routine bronchoscopy. Lung Cancer 2009; 63: 45-49
• 200 Lee JE, Kim HY, Lim KY et al. Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration in the diagnosis of lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2010; 70: 51-56
• 201 Bugalho A, Ferreira D, Eberhardt R et al. Diagnostic value of endobronchial and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for accessible lung cancer lesions after non-diagnostic conventional techniques: a prospective study. BMC Cancer 2013; 13: 130
• 202 Vazquez-Sequeiros E, Levy MJ, Van Domselaar M et al. Diagnostic yield and safety of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration of central mediastinal lung masses. Diagn Ther Endosc 2013; 2013: 150492
• 203 Verma A, Jeon K, Koh WJ et al. Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration for the diagnosis of central lung parenchymal lesions. Yonsei Med J 2013; 54: 672-678
• 204 Navani N, Brown JM, Nankivell M et al. Suitability of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration specimens for subtyping and genotyping of non-small cell lung cancer: a multicenter study of 774 patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2012; 185: 1316-1322
• 205 Esterbrook G, Anathhanam S, Plant PK. Adequacy of endobronchial ultrasound transbronchial needle aspiration samples in the subtyping of non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2013; 80: 30-34
• 206 Yarmus L, Akulian J, Gilbert C et al. Optimizing endobronchial ultrasound for molecular analysis. How many passes are needed?. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2013; 10: 636-643
• 207 Santis G, Angell R, Nickless G et al. Screening for EGFR and KRAS mutations in endobronchial ultrasound derived transbronchial needle aspirates in non-small cell lung cancer using COLD-PCR. PLoS One 2011; 6: e25191
• 208 Neat MJ, Foot NJ, Hicks A et al. ALK rearrangements in EBUS-derived transbronchial needle aspiration cytology in lung cancer. Cytopathology 2013; 24: 356-364
• 209 Jurado J, Saqi A, Maxfield R et al. The efficacy of EBUS-guided transbronchial needle aspiration for molecular testing in lung adenocarcinoma. Ann Thorac Surg 2013; 96: 1196-1202
• 210 Chen VK, Eloubeidi MA. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration is superior to lymph node echofeatures: a prospective evaluation of mediastinal and peri-intestinal lymphadenopathy. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99: 628-633
• 211 Jamil LH, Kashani A, Scimeca D et al. Can endoscopic ultrasound distinguish between mediastinal benign lymph nodes and those involved by sarcoidosis, lymphoma, or metastasis?. Dig Dis Sci 2014; 59: 2191-2198
• 212 Puli SR, Batapati Krishna Reddy J, Bechtold ML et al. Endoscopic ultrasound: it's accuracy in evaluating mediastinal lymphadenopathy? A meta-analysis and systematic review. World J Gastroenterol 2008; 14: 3028-3037
• 213 Fritscher-Ravens A, Sriram PV, Bobrowski C et al. Mediastinal lymphadenopathy in patients with or without previous malignancy: EUS-FNA-based differential cytodiagnosis in 153 patients. Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95: 2278-2284
• 214 Ribeiro A, Vazquez-Sequeiros E, Wiersema LM et al. EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration combined with flow cytometry and immunocytochemistry in the diagnosis of lymphoma. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 53: 485-491
• 215 Catalano MF, Nayar R, Gress F et al. EUS-guided fine needle aspiration in mediastinal lymphadenopathy of unknown etiology. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 55: 863-869
• 216 Stelow EB, Lai R, Bardales RH et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of lymph nodes: the Hennepin County Medical Center experience. Diagn Cytopathol 2004; 30: 301-306
• 217 Yasuda I, Tsurumi H, Omar S et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy for lymphadenopathy of unknown origin. Endoscopy 2006; 38: 919-924
• 218 Krishna NB, Gardner L, Collins BT et al. Periportal lymphadenopathy in patients without identifiable pancreatobiliary or hepatic malignancy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006; 4: 1373-1377
• 219 Nakahara O, Yamao K, Bhatia V et al. Usefulness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for undiagnosed intra-abdominal lymphadenopathy. J Gastroenterol 2009; 44: 562-567
• 220 Ardengh JC, Bammann RH, Giovani M et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsies for mediastinal lesions and lymph node diagnosis and staging. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2011; 66: 1579-1583
• 221 Dhir V, Mathew P, Bhandari S et al. Endosonography-guided fine needle aspiration cytology of intra-abdominal lymph nodes with unknown primary in a tuberculosis endemic region. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011; 26: 1721-1724
• 222 Luz LP, Moreira DM, Khan M et al. Predictors of malignancy in EUS-guided FNA for mediastinal lymphadenopathy in patients without history of lung cancer. Ann Thorac Med 2011; 6: 126-130
• 223 Navani N, Nankivell M, Woolhouse I et al. Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration for the diagnosis of intrathoracic lymphadenopathy in patients with extrathoracic malignancy: a multicenter study. J Thorac Oncol 2011; 6: 1505-1509
• 224 Navani N, Lawrence DR, Kolvekar S et al. Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration prevents mediastinoscopies in the diagnosis of isolated mediastinal lymphadenopathy: a prospective trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2012; 186: 255-260
• 225 Chandra S, Nehra M, Agarwal D et al. Diagnostic accuracy of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle biopsy in mediastinal lymphadenopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Respir Care 2012; 57: 384-391
• 226 Eloubeidi MA, Khan AS, Luz LP et al. Combined use of EUS-guided FNA and immunocytochemical stains discloses metastatic and unusual diseases in the evaluation of mediastinal lymphadenopathy of unknown etiology. Ann Thorac Med 2012; 7: 84-91
• 227 Korenblit J, Anantharaman A, Loren DE et al. The role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (eus-fna) for the diagnosis of intra-abdominal lymphadenopathy of unknown origin. J Interv Gastroenterol 2012; 2: 172-176
• 228 Nunez AL, Jhala NC, Carroll AJ et al. Endoscopic ultrasound and endobronchial ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of deep-seated lymphadenopathy: Analysis of 1338 cases. Cytojournal 2012; 9: 14
• 229 Coe A, Conway J, Evans J et al. The yield of EUS-FNA in undiagnosed upper abdominal adenopathy is very high. J Clin Ultrasound 2013; 41: 210-213
• 230 Moonim MT, Breen R, Fields PA et al. Diagnosis and subtyping of de novo and relapsed mediastinal lymphomas by endobronchial ultrasound needle aspiration. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2013; 188: 1216-1223
• 231 Kim TH, Choi KH, Song HS et al. Histology combined with cytology by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic mass and intra-abdominal lymphadenopathy. Gut Liver 2013; 7: 605-610
• 232 Mehmood S, Loya A, Yusuf MA. Clinical utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the diagnosis of mediastinal and intra-abdominal lymphadenopathy. Acta Cytol 2013; 57: 436-442
• 233 Mehmood S, Jahan A, Loya A et al. Onsite cytopathology evaluation and ancillary studies beneficial in EUS-FNA of pancreatic, mediastinal, intra-abdominal, and submucosal lesions. Diagn Cytopathol 2015; 43: 278-286
• 234 Zhu T, Zhang X, Xu J et al. Endobronchial ultrasound guided-transbronchial needle aspiration vs. conventional transbronchial needle aspiration in the diagnosis of mediastinal masses: A meta-analysis. Mol Clin Oncol 2014; 2: 151-155
• 235 Tournoy KG, Keller SM, Annema JT. Mediastinal staging of lung cancer: novel concepts. Lancet Oncol 2012; 13: e221-e229
• 236 Silvestri GA, Gonzalez AV, Jantz MA et al. Methods for staging non-small cell lung cancer: Diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 2013; 143: e211S-e250S
• 237 Vilmann P, Clementsen PF, Colella S et al. Combined endobronchial and esophageal endosonography for the diagnosis and staging of lung cancer: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline, in cooperation with the European Respiratory Society (ERS) and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS). Endoscopy 2015; 47: 545-559
• 238 Gleeson FC, Kipp BR, Caudill JL et al. False positive endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration cytology: incidence and risk factors. Gut 2010; 59: 586-593
• 239 Levy MJ, Gleeson FC, Campion MB et al. Prospective cytological assessment of gastrointestinal luminal fluid acquired during EUS: a potential source of false-positive FNA and needle tract seeding. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 1311-1318
• 240 van Hemel BM, Lamprou AA, Weersma R et al. Procedure-related, false-positive cytology results during EUS-guided FNA in patients with esophageal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 1130-1133
• 241 Kwong WT, Coyle WJ, Hasteh F et al. Malignant cell contamination may lead to false-positive findings at endosonographic fine needle aspiration for tumor staging. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 149-152
• 242 Gress FG, Savides TJ, Sandler A et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography, fine-needle aspiration biopsy guided by endoscopic ultrasonography, and computed tomography in the preoperative staging of non-small-cell lung cancer: a comparison study. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 604-612
• 243 Fritscher-Ravens A, Bohuslavizki KH, Brandt L et al. Mediastinal lymph node involvement in potentially resectable lung cancer: comparison of CT, positron emission tomography, and endoscopic ultrasonography with and without fine-needle aspiration. Chest 2003; 123: 442-451
• 244 Wallace MB, Ravenel J, Block MI et al. Endoscopic ultrasound in lung cancer patients with a normal mediastinum on computed tomography. Ann Thorac Surg 2004; 77: 1763-1768
• 245 Schmulewitz N, Wildi SM, Varadarajulu S et al. Accuracy of EUS criteria and primary tumor site for identification of mediastinal lymph node metastasis from non-small-cell lung cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: 205-212
• 246 Eloubeidi MA, Cerfolio RJ, Chen VK et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of mediastinal lymph node in patients with suspected lung cancer after positron emission tomography and computed tomography scans. Ann Thorac Surg 2005; 79: 263-268
• 247 Larsen SS, Vilmann P, Krasnik M et al. Endoscopic ultrasound guided biopsy performed routinely in lung cancer staging spares futile thoracotomies: preliminary results from a randomised clinical trial. Lung Cancer 2005; 49: 377-385
• 248 Annema JT, Versteegh MI, Veselic M et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the diagnosis and staging of lung cancer and its impact on surgical staging. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 8357-8361
• 249 Tournoy KG, De Ryck F, Vanwalleghem LR et al. Endoscopic ultrasound reduces surgical mediastinal staging in lung cancer: a randomized trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2008; 177: 531-535
• 250 Liberman M, Sampalis J, Duranceau A et al. Endosonographic mediastinal lymph node staging of lung cancer. Chest 2014; 146: 389-397
• 251 Rintoul RC, Skwarski KM, Murchison JT et al. Endoscopic and endobronchial ultrasound real-time fine-needle aspiration for staging of the mediastinum in lung cancer. Chest 2004; 126: 2020-2022
• 252 Herth FJ, Lunn W, Eberhardt R et al. Transbronchial versus transesophageal ultrasound-guided aspiration of enlarged mediastinal lymph nodes. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2005; 171: 1164-1167
• 253 Rintoul RC, Skwarski KM, Murchison JT et al. Endobronchial and endoscopic ultrasound-guided real-time fine-needle aspiration for mediastinal staging. Eur Respir J 2005; 25: 416-421
• 254 Vilmann P, Krasnik M, Larsen SS et al. Transesophageal endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) biopsy: a combined approach in the evaluation of mediastinal lesions. Endoscopy 2005; 37: 833-839
• 255 Wallace MB, Pascual JM, Raimondo M et al. Minimally invasive endoscopic staging of suspected lung cancer. JAMA 2008; 299: 540-546
• 256 Annema JT, van Meerbeeck JP, Rintoul RC et al. Mediastinoscopy vs endosonography for mediastinal nodal staging of lung cancer: a randomized trial. JAMA 2010; 304: 2245-2252
• 257 Herth FJ, Krasnik M, Kahn N et al. Combined endoscopic-endobronchial ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of mediastinal lymph nodes through a single bronchoscope in 150 patients with suspected lung cancer. Chest 2010; 138: 790-794
• 258 Hwangbo B, Lee GK, Lee HS et al. Transbronchial and transesophageal fine-needle aspiration using an ultrasound bronchoscope in mediastinal staging of potentially operable lung cancer. Chest 2010; 138: 795-802
• 259 Szlubowski A, Zielinski M, Soja J et al. A combined approach of endobronchial and endoscopic ultrasound-guided needle aspiration in the radiologically normal mediastinum in non-small-cell lung cancer staging--a prospective trial. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2010; 37: 1175-1179
• 260 Ohnishi R, Yasuda I, Kato T et al. Combined endobronchial and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for mediastinal nodal staging of lung cancer. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 1082-1089
• 261 Kang HJ, Hwangbo B, Lee GK et al. EBUS-centred versus EUS-centred mediastinal staging in lung cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Thorax 2014; 69: 261-268
• 262 Lee KJ, Suh GY, Chung MP et al. Combined endobronchial and transesophageal approach of an ultrasound bronchoscope for mediastinal staging of lung cancer. PLoS One 2014; 9: e91893
• 263 Oki M, Saka H, Ando M et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration and endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: Are two better than one in mediastinal staging of non-small cell lung cancer?. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014; 148: 1169-1177
• 264 Tournoy KG, Govaerts E, Malfait T et al. Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle biopsy for M1 staging of extrathoracic malignancies. Ann Oncol 2011; 22: 127-131
• 265 Parmaksiz ET, Caglayan B, Salepci B et al. The utility of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration in mediastinal or hilar lymph node evaluation in extrathoracic malignancy: Benign or malignant?. Ann Thorac Med 2012; 7: 210-214
• 266 Sanz-Santos J, Cirauqui B, Sanchez E et al. Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration in the diagnosis of intrathoracic lymph node metastases from extrathoracic malignancies. Clin Exp Metastasis 2013; 30: 521-528
• 267 Ozgul MA, Cetinkaya E, Tutar N et al. Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration for the diagnosis of intrathoracic lymphadenopathy in patients with extrathoracic malignancy: A study in a tuberculosis-endemic country. J Cancer Res Ther 2013; 9: 416-421
• 268 Senturk A, Kilic H, Hezer H et al. Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle biopsy for the diagnosis of mediastinal lymphadenopathy in patients with extrathoracic malignancies. Turk J Med Sci 2014; 44: 989-995
• 269 Giovannini M, Monges G, Seitz JF et al. Distant lymph node metastases in esophageal cancer: impact of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy. Endoscopy 1999; 31: 536-540
• 270 Marsman WA, Brink MA, Bergman JJ et al. Potential impact of EUS-FNA staging of proximal lymph nodes in patients with distal esophageal carcinoma. Endoscopy 2006; 38: 825-829
• 271 Vazquez-Sequeiros E, Norton ID, Clain JE et al. Impact of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration on lymph node staging in patients with esophageal carcinoma. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 53: 751-757
• 272 Eloubeidi MA, Wallace MB, Reed CE et al. The utility of EUS and EUS-guided fine needle aspiration in detecting celiac lymph node metastasis in patients with esophageal cancer: a single-center experience. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 54: 714-719
• 273 Parmar KS, Zwischenberger JB, Reeves AL et al. Clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of celiac axis lymph nodes (M1a disease) in esophageal cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 2002; 73: 916-920 ; discussion 920–911
• 274 Romagnuolo J, Scott J, Hawes RH et al. Helical CT versus EUS with fine needle aspiration for celiac nodal assessment in patients with esophageal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 55: 648-654
• 275 Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C. UICC: TNM classification of malignant tumors. 7th edition. Oxford: Eiley-Blackwell; 2009
• 276 Jenssen C, Dietrich CF. Ultrasound and endoscopic ultrasound of the adrenal glands. Ultraschall in Med 2010; 31: 228-247 ; quiz 248–250
• 277 Chang KJ, Erickson RA, Nguyen P. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of the left adrenal gland. Gastrointest Endosc 1996; 44: 568-572
• 278 Jhala NC, Jhala D, Eloubeidi MA et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy of the adrenal glands: analysis of 24 patients. Cancer 2004; 102: 308-314
• 279 Ang TL, Chua TS, Fock KM et al. EUS-FNA of the left adrenal gland is safe and useful. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2007; 36: 954-957
• 280 DeWitt J, Alsatie M, LeBlanc J et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of left adrenal gland masses. Endoscopy 2007; 39: 65-71
• 281 DeWitt JM. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of right adrenal masses: report of 2 cases. J Ultrasound Med 2008; 27: 261-267
• 282 Eloubeidi MA. Endoscopic ultrasound in the evaluation of adrenal masses. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y) 2008; 4: 535-537
• 283 Eloubeidi MA, Morgan DE, Cerfolio RJ et al. Transduodenal EUS-guided FNA of the right adrenal gland. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67: 522-527
• 284 Eloubeidi MA, Black KR, Tamhane A et al. A large single-center experience of EUS-guided FNA of the left and right adrenal glands: diagnostic utility and impact on patient management. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 745-753
• 285 Eloubeidi MA, Beydoun M, Jurdi N et al. Transduodenal EUS-guided FNA of the right adrenal gland to diagnose lung cancer where percutaneous approach was not possible. J Med Liban 2011; 59: 173-175
• 286 Bodtger U, Vilmann P, Clementsen P et al. Clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle aspiration of left adrenal masses in established or suspected lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2009; 4: 1485-1489
• 287 Schuurbiers OC, Tournoy KG, Schoppers HJ et al. EUS-FNA for the detection of left adrenal metastasis in patients with lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2011; 73: 310-315
• 288 Uemura S, Yasuda I, Kato T et al. Preoperative routine evaluation of bilateral adrenal glands by endoscopic ultrasound and fine-needle aspiration in patients with potentially resectable lung cancer. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 195-201
• 289 Martinez M, LeBlanc J, Al-Haddad M et al. Role of endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration evaluating adrenal gland enlargement or mass. World J Nephrol 2014; 3: 92-100
• 290 Singh P, Mukhopadhyay P, Bhatt B et al. Endoscopic ultrasound versus CT scan for detection of the metastases to the liver: results of a prospective comparative study. J Clin Gastroenterol 2009; 43: 367-373
• 291 Fujii-Lau LL, Abu Dayyeh BK, Bruno MJ et al. EUS-derived criteria for distinguishing benign from malignant metastatic solid hepatic masses. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 1188-1196 e1181–1187
• 292 Nguyen P, Feng JC, Chang KJ. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) of liver lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 1999; 50: 357-361
• 293 tenBerge J, Hoffman BJ, Hawes RH et al. EUS-guided fine needle aspiration of the liver: indications, yield, and safety based on an international survey of 167 cases. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 55: 859-862
• 294 Hollerbach S, Willert J, Topalidis T et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy of liver lesions: histological and cytological assessment. Endoscopy 2003; 35: 743-749
• 295 DeWitt J, LeBlanc J, McHenry L et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration cytology of solid liver lesions: a large single-center experience. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 1976-1981
• 296 McGrath K, Brody D, Luketich J et al. Detection of unsuspected left hepatic lobe metastases during EUS staging of cancer of the esophagus and cardia. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 1742-1746
• 297 DeWitt J, Yu M, Al-Haddad MA et al. Survival in patients with pancreatic cancer after the diagnosis of malignant ascites or liver metastases by EUS-FNA. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 260-265
• 298 Lee YN, Moon JH, Kim HK et al. Usefulness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling using core biopsy needle as a percutaneous biopsy rescue for diagnosis of solid liver mass: Combined histological-cytological analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 30: 1161-1166
• 299 Jenssen C, Siebert C, Gottschalk U. The Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in M-Staging of Gastrointestinal and Pancreaticobiliary Cancer. Video Journal and Encyclopedia of GI Endoscopy 2013; 1: 105-109
• 300 Giovannini M, Bernardini D, Seitz JF et al. Value of endoscopic ultrasonography for assessment of patients presenting elevated tumor marker levels after surgery for colorectal cancers. Endoscopy 1998; 30: 469-476
• 301 Shami VM, Parmar KS, Waxman I. Clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the management of rectal carcinoma. Dis Colon Rectum 2004; 47: 59-65
• 302 Mehra M, Tamhane A, Eloubeidi MA. EUS-guided FNA combined with flow cytometry in the diagnoses of suspected or recurrent intrathoracic or retroperitoneal lymphoma. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 62: 508-513
• 303 El Hajj II, LeBlanc JK, Sherman S et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy of pancreatic metastases: a large single-center experience. Pancreas 2013; 42: 524-530
• 304 Talebian-Yazdi M, von Bartheld B, Waaijenborg F et al. Endosonography for the diagnosis of malignant lymphoma presenting with mediastinal lymphadenopathy. J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol 2014; 21: 298-305
• 305 Fritscher-Ravens A, Sriram PV, Krause C et al. Detection of pancreatic metastases by EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 53: 65-70
• 306 Gilbert CM, Monaco SE, Cooper ST et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of metastases to the pancreas: A study of 25 cases. Cytojournal 2011; 8: 7
• 307 Hijioka S, Matsuo K, Mizuno N et al. Role of endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in diagnosing metastasis to the pancreas: a tertiary center experience. Pancreatology 2011; 11: 390-398
• 308 Fritscher-Ravens A, Mylonaki M, Pantes A et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of focal lesions of the spleen. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 1022-1027
• 309 Iwashita T, Yasuda I, Tsurumi H et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy for splenic tumor: a case series. Endoscopy 2009; 41: 179-182
• 310 Rzouq F, Brown J, Fan F et al. The utility of lower endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for the diagnosis of benign and malignant pelvic diseases. J Clin Gastroenterol 2014; 48: 127-130
• 311 Chang KJ, Albers CG, Nguyen P. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pleural and ascitic fluid. Am J Gastroenterol 1995; 90: 148-150
• 312 Nguyen PT, Chang KJ. EUS in the detection of ascites and EUS-guided paracentesis. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 54: 336-339
• 313 Kaushik N, Khalid A, Brody D et al. EUS-guided paracentesis for the diagnosis of malignant ascites. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 64: 908-913
• 314 DeWitt J, LeBlanc J, McHenry L et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of ascites. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007; 5: 609-615
• 315 Peter S, Eltoum I, Eloubeidi MA. EUS-guided FNA of peritoneal carcinomatosis in patients with unknown primary malignancy. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 1266-1270
• 316 Rana SS, Bhasin DK, Srinivasan R et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of peritoneal nodules in patients with ascites of unknown cause. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 1010-1013
• 317 Rana SS, Bhasin DK, Gupta R et al. EUS-guided FNA of peritoneal carcinomatosis. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 188-189
• 318 Rana SS, Bhasin DK, Rao C et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of omental deposits in undiagnosed ascites. Dig Endosc 2013; 25: 212-213
• 319 Wardeh R, Lee JG, Gu M. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided paracentesis of ascitic fluid: a morphologic study with ultrasonographic correlation. Cancer Cytopathol 2011; 119: 27-36
• 320 Montgomery MM, Leitman IM. Endoscopic ultrasound and paracentesis in the evaluation of small volume ascites in patients with intra-abdominal malignancies. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20: 10219-10222
• 321 Suzuki R, Irisawa A, Bhutani MS et al. An automated spring-loaded needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided abdominal paracentesis in cancer patients. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 6: 55-59
• 322 Levy MJ, Abu Dayyeh BK, Fujii LL et al. Detection of peritoneal carcinomatosis by EUS fine-needle aspiration: impact on staging and resectability (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 1215-1224
• 323 Fuccio L, Larghi A. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration: How to obtain a core biopsy?. Endosc Ultrasound 2014; 3: 71-81
• 324 Panic N, Larghi A. Techniques for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2014; 24: 83-107
• 325 Jenssen C, Moller K, Wagner S et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy: diagnostic yield, pitfalls, quality management. Part 2: Opportunities of differential diagnosis, pitfalls, and problem solutions. Z Gastroenterol 2008; 46: 897-908
• 326 Eisendrath P, Ibrahim M. How good is fine needle aspiration? What results should you expect?. Endosc Ultrasound 2014; 3: 3-11
• 327 Dumonceau JM, Koessler T, van Hooft JE et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration: Relatively low sensitivity in the endosonographer population. World J Gastroenterol 2012; 18: 2357-2363
• 328 Jenssen C, Burmester E, Will U et al. Erfahrungen mit der endosonographischen Feinnadelpunktion (EUS-FNP) in Deutschland: Deutlich geringere diagnostische Ausbeute als in Studien. Endo heute 2013; 26: FV9
• 329 DiMaio CJ, Buscaglia JM, Gross SA et al. Practice patterns in FNA technique: A survey analysis. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 6: 499-505
• 330 Affolter KE, Schmidt RL, Matynia AP et al. Needle size has only a limited effect on outcomes in EUS-guided fine needle aspiration: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Dis Sci 2013; 58: 1026-1034
• 331 Madhoun MF, Wani SB, Rastogi A et al. The diagnostic accuracy of 22-gauge and 25-gauge needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions: a meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 86-92
• 332 Song TJ, Kim JH, Lee SS et al. The prospective randomized, controlled trial of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration using 22G and 19G aspiration needles for solid pancreatic or peripancreatic masses. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 1739-1745
• 333 Varadarajulu S, Bang JY, Hebert-Magee S. Assessment of the technical performance of the flexible 19-gauge EUS-FNA needle. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 336-343
• 334 Bang JY, Ramesh J, Trevino J et al. Objective assessment of an algorithmic approach to EUS-guided FNA and interventions. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 739-744
• 335 Ramesh J, Bang JY, Hebert-Magee S et al. Randomized Trial Comparing the Flexible 19G and 25G Needles for Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration of Solid Pancreatic Mass Lesions. Pancreas 2015; 44: 128-133
• 336 Giri S, Pathak R, Yarlagadda V et al. Meta-analysis of 21- versus 22-G aspiration needle during endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration. J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol 2015; 22: 107-113
• 337 de la Fuente SG, Arnoletti JP. Beyond cytology: why and when does the oncologist require core tissue?. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2014; 24: 9-17
• 338 Varadarajulu S, Hawes RH. The changing paradigm in EUS-guided tissue acquisition. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2014; 24: 1-7
• 339 Larghi A, Verna EC, Stavropoulos SN et al. EUS-guided trucut needle biopsies in patients with solid pancreatic masses: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: 185-190
• 340 Varadarajulu S, Fraig M, Schmulewitz N et al. Comparison of EUS-guided 19-gauge Trucut needle biopsy with EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration. Endoscopy 2004; 36: 397-401
• 341 Bang JY, Hebert-Magee S, Trevino J et al. Randomized trial comparing the 22-gauge aspiration and 22-gauge biopsy needles for EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic mass lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 321-327
• 342 Iwashita T, Nakai Y, Samarasena JB et al. High single-pass diagnostic yield of a new 25-gauge core biopsy needle for EUS-guided FNA biopsy in solid pancreatic lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 909-915
• 343 Dietrich CF, Jenssen C. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European society of gastrointestinal endoscopy technical guidelines. Endosc Ultrasound 2013; 2: 117-122
• 344 Diehl DL, Johal AS, Khara HS et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy: a multicenter experience. Endosc Int Open 2015; 3: E210-E215
• 345 Rocca R, De Angelis C, Daperno M et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for pancreatic lesions: effectiveness in clinical practice. Dig Liver Dis 2007; 39: 768-774
• 346 Hwang CY, Lee SS, Song TJ et al. Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in diagnosis of pancreatic and peripancreatic lesions: a single center experience in Korea. Gut Liver 2009; 3: 116-121
• 347 Siddiqui AA, Brown LJ, Hong SK et al. Relationship of pancreatic mass size and diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration. Dig Dis Sci 2011; 56: 3370-3375
• 348 Nakai Y, Isayama H, Chang KJ et al. Slow pull versus suction in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic solid masses. Dig Dis Sci 2014; 59: 1578-1585
• 349 Fritscher-Ravens A, Brand L, Knofel WT et al. Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for focal pancreatic lesions in patients with normal parenchyma and chronic pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 2768-2775
• 350 Varadarajulu S, Tamhane A, Eloubeidi MA. Yield of EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic masses in the presence or the absence of chronic pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 62: 728-736 ; quiz 751, 753
• 351 Ardengh JC, Lopes CV, Campos AD et al. Endoscopic ultrasound and fine needle aspiration in chronic pancreatitis: differential diagnosis between pseudotumoral masses and pancreatic cancer. JOP 2007; 8: 413-421
• 352 Krishna NB, Mehra M, Reddy AV et al. EUS/EUS-FNA for suspected pancreatic cancer: influence of chronic pancreatitis and clinical presentation with or without obstructive jaundice on performance characteristics. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 70-79
• 353 Will U, Mueller A, Topalidis T et al. Value of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) in the diagnosis of neoplastic tumor(-like) pancreatic lesions in daily clinical practice. Ultraschall in Med 2010; 31: 169-174
• 354 Ranney N, Phadnis M, Trevino J et al. Impact of biliary stents on EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic mass lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 76-83
• 355 Siddiqui AA, Fein M, Kowalski TE et al. Comparison of the influence of plastic and fully covered metal biliary stents on the accuracy of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Dig Dis Sci 2012; 57: 2438-2445
• 356 Bang JY, Magee SH, Ramesh J et al. Randomized trial comparing fanning with standard technique for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic mass lesions. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 445-450
• 357 Storch IM, Sussman DA, Jorda M et al. Evaluation of fine needle aspiration vs. fine needle capillary sampling on specimen quality and diagnostic accuracy in endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy. Acta Cytol 2007; 51: 837-842
• 358 Paik WH, Park Y, Park do H et al. Prospective evaluation of new 22 gauge endoscopic ultrasound core needle using capillary sampling with stylet slow-pull technique for intra-abdominal solid masses. J Clin Gastroenterol 2015; 49: 199-205
• 359 Voss M, Hammel P, Molas G et al. Value of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses. Gut 2000; 46: 244-249
• 360 Larghi A, Noffsinger A, Dye CE et al. EUS-guided fine needle tissue acquisition by using high negative pressure suction for the evaluation of solid masses: a pilot study. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 62: 768-774
• 361 Ardengh JC, Lopes CV, de Lima LF et al. Diagnosis of pancreatic tumors by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration. World J Gastroenterol 2007; 13: 3112-3116
• 362 Gerke H, Rizk MK, Vanderheyden AD et al. Randomized study comparing endoscopic ultrasound-guided Trucut biopsy and fine needle aspiration with high suction. Cytopathology 2010; 21: 44-51
• 363 Shiroyama T, Okamoto N, Suzuki H et al. Usefulness of high suction pressure for sufficient tissue collection during endobronchial ultrasound guided transbronchial needle aspiration. PLoS One 2013; 8: e82787
• 364 Wallace MB, Kennedy T, Durkalski V et al. Randomized controlled trial of EUS-guided fine needle aspiration techniques for the detection of malignant lymphadenopathy. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 54: 441-447
• 365 Lee JK, Choi JH, Lee KH et al. A prospective, comparative trial to optimize sampling techniques in EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 745-751
• 366 Tarantino I, Di Mitri R, Fabbri C et al. Is diagnostic accuracy of fine needle aspiration on solid pancreatic lesions aspiration-related? A multicentre randomised trial. Dig Liver Dis 2014; 46: 523-526
• 367 Sahai AV, Paquin SC, Gariepy G. A prospective comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration results obtained in the same lesion, with and without the needle stylet. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 900-903
• 368 Rastogi A, Wani S, Gupta N et al. A prospective, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial of EUS-guided FNA with and without a stylet. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 58-64
• 369 Wani S, Gupta N, Gaddam S et al. A comparative study of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration with and without a stylet. Dig Dis Sci 2011; 56: 2409-2414
• 370 Wani S, Early D, Kunkel J et al. Diagnostic yield of malignancy during EUS-guided FNA of solid lesions with and without a stylet: a prospective, single blind, randomized, controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 328-335
• 371 Gimeno-Garcia AZ, Paquin SC, Gariepy G et al. Comparison of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology results with and without the stylet in 3364 cases. Dig Endosc 2013; 25: 303-307
• 372 Abe Y, Kawakami H, Oba K et al. Effect of a stylet on a histological specimen in EUS-guided fine-needle tissue acquisition by using 22-gauge needles: a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; Epub ahead of print
• 373 Schmidt RL, Walker BS, Howard K et al. Rapid on-site evaluation reduces needle passes in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for solid pancreatic lesions: a risk-benefit analysis. Dig Dis Sci 2013; 58: 3280-3286
• 374 Schmidt RL, Kordy MA, Howard K et al. Risk-benefit analysis of sampling methods for fine-needle aspiration cytology: a mathematical modeling approach. Am J Clin Pathol 2013; 139: 336-344
• 375 Erickson RA, Sayage-Rabie L, Beissner RS. Factors predicting the number of EUS-guided fine-needle passes for diagnosis of pancreatic malignancies. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 51: 184-190
• 376 LeBlanc JK, Ciaccia D, Al-Assi MT et al. Optimal number of EUS-guided fine needle passes needed to obtain a correct diagnosis. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: 475-481
• 377 Pellise Urquiza M, Fernandez-Esparrach G, Sole M et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration: predictive factors of accurate diagnosis and cost-minimization analysis of on-site pathologist. Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007; 30: 319-324
• 378 Suzuki R, Irisawa A, Bhutani MS et al. Prospective evaluation of the optimal number of 25-gauge needle passes for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions in the absence of an onsite cytopathologist. Dig Endosc 2012; 24: 452-456
• 379 Wee E, Lakhtakia S, Gupta R et al. Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration of lymph nodes and solid masses: factors influencing the cellularity and adequacy of the aspirate. J Clin Gastroenterol 2012; 46: 487-493
• 380 Kudo T, Kawakami H, Hayashi T et al. High and low negative pressure suction techniques in EUS-guided fine-needle tissue acquisition by using 25-gauge needles: a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 1030-1037 e1031
• 381 Varadarajulu S, Bang JY, Holt BA et al. The 25-gauge EUS-FNA needle: Good for on-site but poor for off-site evaluation? Results of a randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 1056-1063
• 382 Moller K, Papanikolaou IS, Toermer T et al. EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: high yield of 2 passes with combined histologic-cytologic analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 60-69
• 383 Lim LG, Lakhtakia S, Ang TL et al. Factors determining diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic cystic lesions: a multicentre Asian study. Dig Dis Sci 2013; 58: 1751-1757
• 384 Lee HS, Lee GK, Lee HS et al. Real-time endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration in mediastinal staging of non-small cell lung cancer: how many aspirations per target lymph node station?. Chest 2008; 134: 368-374
• 385 Piscaglia F, Nolsoe C, Dietrich CF et al. The EFSUMB Guidelines and Recommendations on the Clinical Practice of Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS): update 2011 on non-hepatic applications. Ultraschall in Med 2012; 33: 33-59
• 386 Cosgrove D, Piscaglia F, Bamber J et al. EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical use of ultrasound elastography. Part 2: Clinical applications. Ultraschall in Med 2013; 34: 238-253
• 387 Dietrich CF, Saftoiu A, Jenssen C. Real time elastography endoscopic ultrasound (RTE-EUS), a comprehensive review. Eur J Radiol 2014; 83: 405-414
• 388 Xu W, Shi J, Zeng X et al. EUS elastography for the differentiation of benign and malignant lymph nodes: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 1001-1009 ; quiz 1115 e1001–1004
• 389 D'Onofrio M, Biagioli E, Gerardi C et al. Diagnostic Performance of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) and Contrast-Enhanced Endoscopic Ultrasound (ECEUS) for the Differentiation of Pancreatic Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Ultraschall in Med 2014; 35: 515-521
• 390 Gong TT, Hu DM, Zhu Q. Contrast-enhanced EUS for differential diagnosis of pancreatic mass lesions: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 301-309
• 391 Fusaroli P, Eloubeidi MA. Diagnosis of pancreatic cancer by contrast-harmonic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS): complementary and not competitive with EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 380-381
• 392 Gincul R, Palazzo M, Pujol B et al. Contrast-harmonic endoscopic ultrasound for the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a prospective multicenter trial. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 373-379
• 393 Sugimoto M, Takagi T, Hikichi T et al. Conventional versus contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration for diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions: A prospective randomized trial. Pancreatology , Conventional versus contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic
• 394 Pei Q, Zou X, Zhang X et al. Diagnostic value of EUS elastography in differentiation of benign and malignant solid pancreatic masses: a meta-analysis. Pancreatology 2012; 12: 402-408
• 395 Ying L, Lin X, Xie ZL et al. Clinical utility of endoscopic ultrasound elastography for identification of malignant pancreatic masses: a meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 28: 1434-1443
• 396 Hu DM, Gong TT, Zhu Q. Endoscopic ultrasound elastography for differential diagnosis of pancreatic masses: a meta-analysis. Dig Dis Sci 2013; 58: 1125-1131
• 397 Mei M, Ni J, Liu D et al. EUS elastography for diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 578-589
• 398 Xu W, Shi J, Li X et al. Endoscopic ultrasound elastography for differentiation of benign and malignant pancreatic masses: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 25: 218-224
• 399 Anand N, Sampath K, Wu BU. Cyst features and risk of malignancy in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas: a meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 11: 913-921 ; quiz e959–960
• 400 Kim KW, Park SH, Pyo J et al. Imaging features to distinguish malignant and benign branch-duct type intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2014; 259: 72-81
• 401 Hong SK, Loren DE, Rogart JN et al. Targeted cyst wall puncture and aspiration during EUS-FNA increases the diagnostic yield of premalignant and malignant pancreatic cysts. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 775-782
• 402 Rogart JN, Loren DE, Singu BS et al. Cyst wall puncture and aspiration during EUS-guided fine needle aspiration may increase the diagnostic yield of mucinous cysts of the pancreas. J Clin Gastroenterol 2011; 45: 164-169
• 403 Ohno E, Hirooka Y, Itoh A et al. Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas: differentiation of malignant and benign tumors by endoscopic ultrasound findings of mural nodules. Ann Surg 2009; 249: 628-634
• 404 Ohno E, Itoh A, Kawashima H et al. Malignant transformation of branch duct-type intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas based on contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasonography morphological changes: focus on malignant transformation of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm itself. Pancreas 2012; 41: 855-862
• 405 Yamashita Y, Ueda K, Itonaga M et al. Usefulness of contrast-enhanced endoscopic sonography for discriminating mural nodules from mucous clots in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms: a single-center prospective study. J Ultrasound Med 2013; 32: 61-68
• 406 Harima H, Kaino S, Shinoda S et al. Differential diagnosis of benign and malignant branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm using contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasonography. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21: 6252-6260
• 407 Dietrich CF, Jenssen C, Hocke M et al. Imaging of gastrointestinal stromal tumours with modern ultrasound techniques – a pictorial essay. Z Gastroenterol 2012; 50: 457-467
• 408 Kannengiesser K, Mahlke R, Petersen F et al. Contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasound is able to discriminate benign submucosal lesions from gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Scand J Gastroenterol 2012; 47: 1515-1520
• 409 Brais RJ, Davies SE, O'Donovan M et al. Direct histological processing of EUS biopsies enables rapid molecular biomarker analysis for interventional pancreatic cancer trials. Pancreatology 2012; 12: 8-15
• 410 Weynand B, Borbath I, Galant C et al. Optimizing specimen collection and laboratory procedures reduces the non-diagnostic rate for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid lesions of the pancreas. Cytopathology 2013; 24: 177-184
• 411 Hebert-Magee S. How can an endosonographer assess for diagnostic sufficiency and options for handling the endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration specimen and ancillary studies. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2014; 24: 29-56
• 412 Jenssen C, Beyer T. Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology. In: Dietrich CF, Nuernberg D, eds. Interventional Ultrasound. A Practical Guide and Atlas. Stuttgart, New York, Delhi, Rio: Thieme; 2015: 49-67
• 413 LeBlanc JK, Emerson RE, Dewitt J et al. A prospective study comparing rapid assessment of smears and ThinPrep for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspirates. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 389-394
• 414 Lee JK, Choi ER, Jang TH et al. A prospective comparison of liquid-based cytology and traditional smear cytology in pancreatic endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration. Acta Cytol 2011; 55: 401-407
• 415 Gauchotte G, Vignaud JM, Menard O et al. A combination of smears and cell block preparations provides high diagnostic accuracy for endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration. Virchows Arch 2012; 461: 505-512
• 416 Stelow EB, Murad FM, Debol SM et al. A limited immunocytochemical panel for the distinction of subepithelial gastrointestinal mesenchymal neoplasms sampled by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration. Am J Clin Pathol 2008; 129: 219-225
• 417 Jhala N, Jhala D. Definitions in tissue acquisition: core biopsy, cell block, and beyond. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2014; 24: 19-27
• 418 Hebert-Magee S. Basic technique for solid lesions: Cytology, core, or both?. Endosc Ultrasound 2014; 3: 28-34
• 419 Layfield LJ, Ehya H, Filie AC et al. Utilization of ancillary studies in the cytologic diagnosis of biliary and pancreatic lesions: The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology Guidelines. Cytojournal 2014; 11: 4
• 420 Layfield LJ, Ehya H, Filie AC et al. Utilization of ancillary studies in the cytologic diagnosis of biliary and pancreatic lesions: the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology guidelines for pancreatobiliary cytology. Diagn Cytopathol 2014; 42: 351-362
• 421 Jain D, Mathur SR, Iyer VK. Cell blocks in cytopathology: a review of preparative methods, utility in diagnosis and role in ancillary studies. Cytopathology 2014; 25: 356-371
• 422 Thomas T, Kaye PV, Ragunath K et al. Efficacy, safety, and predictive factors for a positive yield of EUS-guided Trucut biopsy: a large tertiary referral center experience. Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104: 584-591
• 423 Itoi T, Tsuchiya T, Itokawa F et al. Histological diagnosis by EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy in pancreatic solid masses without on-site cytopathologist: a single-center experience. Dig Endosc 2011; 23 (Suppl. 01) 34-38
• 424 Papanikolaou IS, Adler A, Wegener K et al. Prospective pilot evaluation of a new needle prototype for endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration: comparison of cytology and histology yield. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 20: 342-348
• 425 Skov BG, Baandrup U, Jakobsen GK et al. Cytopathologic diagnoses of fine-needle aspirations from endoscopic ultrasound of the mediastinum: reproducibility of the diagnoses and representativeness of aspirates from lymph nodes. Cancer 2007; 111: 234-241
• 426 Mizuno N, Bhatia V, Hosoda W et al. Histological diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis using EUS-guided trucut biopsy: a comparison study with EUS-FNA. J Gastroenterol 2009; 44: 742-750
• 427 Iwashita T, Yasuda I, Doi S et al. Use of samples from endoscopic ultrasound-guided 19-gauge fine-needle aspiration in diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 10: 316-322
• 428 Polkowski M, Gerke W, Jarosz D et al. Diagnostic yield and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided trucut [corrected] biopsy in patients with gastric submucosal tumors: a prospective study. Endoscopy 2009; 41: 329-334
• 429 Kobara H, Mori H, Rafiq K et al. Analysis of the amount of tissue sample necessary for mitotic count and Ki-67 index in gastrointestinal stromal tumor sampling. Oncol Rep 2015; 33: 215-222
• 430 Yasuda I, Goto N, Tsurumi H et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy for diagnosis of lymphoproliferative disorders: feasibility of immunohistological, flow cytometric, and cytogenetic assessments. Am J Gastroenterol 2012; 107: 397-404
• 431 Tournoy KG, Carprieaux M, Deschepper E et al. Are EUS-FNA and EBUS-TBNA specimens reliable for subtyping non-small cell lung cancer?. Lung Cancer 2012; 76: 46-50
• 432 Jeyabalan A, Shelley-Fraser G, Medford AR. Impact of needle gauge on characterization of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) histology samples. Respirology 2014; 19: 735-739
• 433 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
• 434 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
• 435 Unno J, Kanno A, Masamune A et al. The usefulness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for the diagnosis of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors based on the World Health Organization classification. Scand J Gastroenterol 2014; 49: 1367-1374
• 436 Sakairi Y, Nakajima T, Yasufuku K et al. EML4-ALK fusion gene assessment using metastatic lymph node samples obtained by endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration. Clin Cancer Res 2010; 16: 4938-4945
• 437 Araya T, Demura Y, Kasahara K et al. Usefulness of transesophageal bronchoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the pathologic and molecular diagnosis of lung cancer lesions adjacent to the esophagus. J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol 2013; 20: 121-126
• 438 Lourido-Cebreiro T, Leiro-Fernandez V, Tardio-Baiges A et al. The contribution of cell blocks in the diagnosis of mediastinal masses and hilar adenopathy samples from echobronchoscopy. Arch Bronconeumol 2014; 50: 267-271
• 439 Noda Y, Fujita N, Kobayashi G et al. Diagnostic efficacy of the cell block method in comparison with smear cytology of tissue samples obtained by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration. J Gastroenterol 2010; 45: 868-875
• 440 Kopelman Y, Marmor S, Ashkenazi I et al. Value of EUS-FNA cytological preparations compared with cell block sections in the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumours. Cytopathology 2011; 22: 174-178
• 441 Ardengh JC, Lopes CV, de Lima LF et al. Cell block technique and cytological smears for the differential diagnosis of pancreatic neoplasms after endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration. Acta Gastroenterol Latinoam 2008; 38: 246-251
• 442 Iwashita T, Yasuda I, Doi S et al. The yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for histological diagnosis in patients suspected of stage I sarcoidosis. Endoscopy 2008; 40: 400-405
• 443 Iwashita T, Yasuda I, Mukai T et al. Macroscopic on-site quality evaluation of biopsy specimens to improve the diagnostic accuracy during EUS-guided FNA using a 19-gauge needle for solid lesions: a single-center prospective pilot study (MOSE study). Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 177-185
• 444 Qin SY, Zhou Y, Li P et al. Diagnostic efficacy of cell block immunohistochemistry, smear cytology, and liquid-based cytology in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic lesions: a single-institution experience. PLoS One 2014; 9: e108762
• 445 Iglesias-Garcia J, Dominguez-Munoz E, Lozano-Leon A et al. Impact of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy for diagnosis of pancreatic masses. World J Gastroenterol 2007; 13: 289-293
• 446 Ieni A, Todaro P, Crino SF et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology in pancreaticobiliary carcinomas: diagnostic efficacy of cell-block immunocytochemistry. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2015; 14: 305-312
• 447 Song HJ, Park YS, Seo DW et al. Diagnosis of mediastinal tuberculosis by using EUS-guided needle sampling in a geographic region with an intermediate tuberculosis burden. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 1307-1313
• 448 Sun J, Teng J, Yang H et al. Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration in diagnosing intrathoracic tuberculosis. Ann Thorac Surg 2013; 96: 2021-2027
• 449 Puri R, Vilmann P, Sud R et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology in the evaluation of suspected tuberculosis in patients with isolated mediastinal lymphadenopathy. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 462-467
• 450 Puri R, Mangla R, Eloubeidi M et al. Diagnostic yield of EUS-guided FNA and cytology in suspected tubercular intra-abdominal lymphadenopathy. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 1005-1010
• 451 Berzosa M, Tsukayama DT, Davies SF et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for the diagnosis of extra-pulmonary tuberculosis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2010; 14: 578-584
• 452 Fritscher-Ravens A, Ghanbari A, Topalidis T et al. Granulomatous mediastinal adenopathy: can endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration differentiate between tuberculosis and sarcoidosis?. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 955-961
• 453 Gailey MP, Klutts JS, Jensen CS. Fine-needle aspiration of histoplasmosis in the era of endoscopic ultrasound and endobronchial ultrasound: cytomorphologic features and correlation with clinical laboratory testing. Cancer Cytopathol 2013; 121: 508-517
• 454 Gailey MP, Keeney ME, Jensen CS. A cytomorphometric analysis of pulmonary and mediastinal granulomas: differentiating histoplasmosis from sarcoidosis by fine-needle aspiration. Cancer Cytopathol 2015; 123: 51-58
• 455 Song TJ, Lee SS, Park do H et al. Yield of EUS-guided FNA on the diagnosis of pancreatic/peripancreatic tuberculosis. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 484-491
• 456 Nieuwoudt M, Lameris R, Corcoran C et al. Polymerase chain reaction amplifying mycobacterial DNA from aspirates obtained by endoscopic ultrasound allows accurate diagnosis of mycobacterial disease in HIV-positive patients with abdominal lymphadenopathy. Ultrasound Med Biol 2014; 40: 2031-2038
• 457 Dhasmana DJ, Ross C, Bradley CJ et al. Performance of Xpert MTB/RIF in the diagnosis of tuberculous mediastinal lymphadenopathy by endobronchial ultrasound. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2014; 11: 392-396
• 458 Li W, Zhang T, Chen Y et al. Diagnostic Value of Convex Probe Endobronchial Ultrasound-Guided Transbronchial Needle Aspiration in Mediastinal Tuberculous Lymphadenitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Med Sci Monit 2015; 21: 2064-2072
• 459 Klapman JB, Logrono R, Dye CE et al. Clinical impact of on-site cytopathology interpretation on endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 1289-1294
• 460 Jhala NC, Eltoum IA, Eloubeidi MA et al. Providing on-site diagnosis of malignancy on endoscopic-ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspirates: should it be done?. Ann Diagn Pathol 2007; 11: 176-181
• 461 Alsohaibani F, Girgis S, Sandha GS. Does onsite cytotechnology evaluation improve the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy?. Can J Gastroenterol 2009; 23: 26-30
• 462 Cleveland P, Gill KR, Coe SG et al. An evaluation of risk factors for inadequate cytology in EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic tumors and lymph nodes. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 1194-1199
• 463 Turner BG, Cizginer S, Agarwal D et al. Diagnosis of pancreatic neoplasia with EUS and FNA: a report of accuracy. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 91-98
• 464 Iglesias-Garcia J, Dominguez-Munoz JE, Abdulkader I et al. Influence of on-site cytopathology evaluation on the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of solid pancreatic masses. Am J Gastroenterol 2011; 106: 1705-1710
• 465 Eapen GA, Shah AM, Lei X et al. Complications, consequences, and practice patterns of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: Results of the AQuIRE registry. Chest 2013; 143: 1044-1053
• 466 Nakajima T, Yasufuku K, Saegusa F et al. Rapid on-site cytologic evaluation during endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration for nodal staging in patients with lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 2013; 95: 1695-1699
• 467 Oki M, Saka H, Kitagawa C et al. Rapid on-site cytologic evaluation during endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration for diagnosing lung cancer: a randomized study. Respiration 2013; 85: 486-492
• 467a Wani S, Mullady D, Early DS et al. The Clinical Impact of Immediate On-Site Cytopathology Evaluation During Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration of Pancreatic Masses: A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; Epub ahead of print
• 468 Suzuki R, Lee JH, Krishna SG et al. Repeat endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for solid pancreatic lesions at a tertiary referral center will alter the initial inconclusive result. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 2013; 22: 183-187
• 469 Kim JJ, Walia S, Lee SH et al. Lower yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in patients with pancreatic head mass with a biliary stent. Dig Dis Sci 2015; 60: 543-549
• 470 Lee YN, Moon JH, Kim HK et al. A triple approach for diagnostic assessment of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration in pancreatic solid masses and lymph nodes. Dig Dis Sci 2014; 59: 2286-2293
• 471 Trisolini R, Lazzari Agli L, Tinelli C et al. Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration for diagnosis of sarcoidosis in clinically unselected study populations. Respirology 2015; 20: 226-234
• 472 Eloubeidi MA, Tamhane A, Jhala N et al. Agreement between rapid onsite and final cytologic interpretations of EUS-guided FNA specimens: implications for the endosonographer and patient management. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 2841-2847
• 473 Woon C, Bardales RH, Stanley MW et al. Rapid assessment of fine needle aspiration and the final diagnosis--how often and why the diagnoses are changed. Cytojournal 2006; 3: 25
• 474 Cherian PT, Mohan P, Douiri A et al. Role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic and peripancreatic lesions: is onsite cytopathology necessary?. HPB (Oxford) 2010; 12: 389-395
• 475 Griffin AC, Schwartz LE, Baloch ZW. Utility of on-site evaluation of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration specimens. Cytojournal 2011; 8: 20
• 476 Joseph M, Jones T, Lutterbie Y et al. Rapid on-site pathologic evaluation does not increase the efficacy of endobronchial ultrasonographic biopsy for mediastinal staging. Ann Thorac Surg 2013; 96: 403-410
• 477 Schmidt RL, Witt BL, Matynia AP et al. Rapid on-site evaluation increases endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration adequacy for pancreatic lesions. Dig Dis Sci 2013; 58: 872-882
• 478 Matynia AP, Schmidt RL, Barraza G et al. Impact of rapid on-site evaluation on the adequacy of endoscopic-ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 29: 697-705
• 479 Layfield LJ, Bentz JS, Gopez EV. Immediate on-site interpretation of fine-needle aspiration smears: a cost and compensation analysis. Cancer 2001; 93: 319-322
• 480 Nasuti JF, Gupta PK, Baloch ZW. Diagnostic value and cost-effectiveness of on-site evaluation of fine-needle aspiration specimens: review of 5688 cases. Diagn Cytopathol 2002; 27: 1-4
• 481 Ecka RS, Sharma M. Rapid on-site evaluation of EUS-FNA by cytopathologist: an experience of a tertiary hospital. Diagn Cytopathol 2013; 41: 1075-1080
• 482 Mayall F, Cormack A, Slater S et al. The utility of assessing the gross appearances of FNA specimens. Cytopathology 2010; 21: 395-397
• 483 Nguyen YP, Maple JT, Zhang Q et al. Reliability of gross visual assessment of specimen adequacy during EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic masses. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 1264-1270
• 484 Varadarajulu S, Holt BA, Bang JY et al. Training endosonographers in cytopathology: improving the results of EUS-guided FNA. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 104-110
• 485 Harada R, Kato H, Fushimi S et al. An expanded training program for endosonographers improved self-diagnosed accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology of the pancreas. Scand J Gastroenterol 2014; 49: 1119-1123
• 486 Hocke M, Ignee A, Topalidis T et al. Back to the roots – should gastroenterologists perform their own cytology?. Z Gastroenterol 2013; 51: 191-195
• 487 Crothers BA, Tench WD, Schwartz MR et al. Guidelines for the reporting of nongynecologic cytopathology specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2009; 133: 1743-1756
• 488 Abdelgawwad MS, Alston E, Eltoum IA. The frequency and cancer risk associated with the atypical cytologic diagnostic category in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration specimens of solid pancreatic lesions: a meta-analysis and argument for a Bethesda System for Reporting Cytopathology of the Pancreas. Cancer Cytopathol 2013; 121: 620-628
• 489 Guidelines of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology for fine-needle aspiration procedure and reporting. The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology Task Force on Standards of Practice. Diagn Cytopathol 1997; 17: 239-247
• 490 Pitman MB, Centeno BA, Ali SZ et al. Standardized terminology and nomenclature for pancreatobiliary cytology: the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology guidelines. Diagn Cytopathol 2014; 42: 338-350
• 491 Bergeron JP, Perry KD, Houser PM et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic fine-needle aspiration: potential pitfalls in one institution's experience of 1212 procedures. Cancer Cytopathol 2015; 123: 98-107
• 492 Layfield LJ, Dodd L, Factor R et al. Malignancy risk associated with diagnostic categories defined by the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology pancreaticobiliary guidelines. Cancer Cytopathol 2014; 122: 420-427
• 493 Layfield LJ, Schmidt RL, Hirschowitz SL et al. Significance of the diagnostic categories "atypical" and "suspicious for malignancy" in the cytologic diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses. Diagn Cytopathol 2014; 42: 292-296
• 494 Annema JT, Versteegh MI, Veselic M et al. Endoscopic ultrasound added to mediastinoscopy for preoperative staging of patients with lung cancer. JAMA 2005; 294: 931-936
• 495 Chee A, Khalil M, Stather DR et al. Cytologic assessment of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspirates in sarcoidosis. J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol 2012; 19: 24-28
• 496 Jhala NC, Jhala DN, Chhieng DC et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration. A cytopathologist's perspective. Am J Clin Pathol 2003; 120: 351-367
• 497 Kulesza P, Eltoum IA. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration: sampling, pitfalls, and quality management. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007; 5: 1248-1254
• 498 Jenssen C, Moller K, Wagner S et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy: diagnostic yield, pitfalls, quality management part 1: optimizing specimen collection and diagnostic efficiency. Z Gastroenterol 2008; 46: 590-600
• 499 Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS, Eloubeidi MA et al. The true false negative rates of esophageal and endobronchial ultrasound in the staging of mediastinal lymph nodes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 2010; 90: 427-434
• 500 Woolf KM, Liang H, Sletten ZJ et al. False-negative rate of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic solid and cystic lesions with matched surgical resections as the gold standard: one institution's experience. Cancer Cytopathol 2013; 121: 449-458
• 501 Kurtycz DF, Field A, Tabatabai L et al. Post-brushing and fine-needle aspiration biopsy follow-up and treatment options for patients with pancreatobiliary lesions: The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology Guidelines. Cytojournal 2014; 11: 5
• 502 Schwartz DA, Unni KK, Levy MJ et al. The rate of false-positive results with EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 56: 868-872
• 503 Siddiqui AA, Kowalski TE, Shahid H et al. False-positive EUS-guided FNA cytology for solid pancreatic lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 535-540
• 504 Alsharif M, Andrade RS, Groth SS et al. Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial fine-needle aspiration: the University of Minnesota experience, with emphasis on usefulness, adequacy assessment, and diagnostic difficulties. Am J Clin Pathol 2008; 130: 434-443
• 505 Chen S, Lin J, Wang X et al. EUS-guided FNA cytology of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumour (PanNET): a retrospective study of 132 cases over an 18-year period in a single institution. Cytopathology 2014; 25: 396-403
• 506 Eltoum IA, Chen VK, Chhieng DC et al. Probabilistic reporting of EUS-FNA cytology: Toward improved communication and better clinical decisions. Cancer 2006; 108: 93-101
• 507 Alston E, Bae S, Eltoum IA. Atypical cytologic diagnostic category in EUS-FNA of the pancreas: follow-up, outcomes, and predictive models. Cancer Cytopathol 2014; 122: 428-434
• 508 Yang D, MoezArdalan K, Collins DP et al. Predictors of malignancy in patients with suspicious or indeterminate cytology on pancreatic endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration: a multivariate model. Pancreas 2014; 43: 922-926
• 509 Shi J, Lew M, Zalupski MM et al. Implication of Suspicious Cytology in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration for Pancreatic Cancer. J Gastrointest Cancer 2015; 46: 54-59
• 510 Sun B, Yang X, Ping B et al. Impact of inconclusive endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration results in the management and outcome of patients with solid pancreatic masses. Dig Endosc 2015; 27: 130-136
• 511 Eloubeidi MA, Varadarajulu S, Desai S et al. Value of repeat endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for suspected pancreatic cancer. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 23: 567-570
• 512 Prachayakul V, Sriprayoon T, Asawakul P et al. Repeated endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) improved diagnostic yield of inconclusive initial cytology for suspected pancreatic cancer and unknown intra-abdominal lymphadenopathy. J Med Assoc Thai 2012; 95 (Suppl. 02) S68-S74
• 513 Early DS, Acosta RD, Chandrasekhara V. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee et al. Adverse events associated with EUS and EUS with FNA. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 839-843
• 514 Wang KX, Ben QW, Jin ZD et al. Assessment of morbidity and mortality associated with EUS-guided FNA: a systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 283-290
• 515 Buscarini E, De Angelis C, Arcidiacono PG et al. Multicentre retrospective study on endoscopic ultrasound complications. Dig Liver Dis 2006; 38: 762-767
• 516 Jenssen C, Faiss S, Nurnberg D. Complications of endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic ultrasound-guided interventions – results of a survey among German centers. Z Gastroenterol 2008; 46: 1177-1184
• 517 Rosch T, Dittler H, Fockens P et al. Major complications of endoscopic ultrasonography: results of a survey of 42105 cases (abstract). Gastrointest Endosc 1993; 39: 341, AB370
• 518 Das A, Sivak Jr MV, Chak A. Cervical esophageal perforation during EUS: a national survey. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 53: 599-602
• 519 Mortensen MB, Fristrup C, Holm FS et al. Prospective evaluation of patient tolerability, satisfaction with patient information, and complications in endoscopic ultrasonography. Endoscopy 2005; 37: 146-153
• 520 Eloubeidi MA, Tamhane A, Lopes TL et al. Cervical esophageal perforations at the time of endoscopic ultrasound: a prospective evaluation of frequency, outcomes, and patient management. Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104: 53-56
• 521 Varadarajulu S, Eloubeidi MA. Frequency and significance of acute intracystic hemorrhage during EUS-FNA of cystic lesions of the pancreas. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 60: 631-635
• 522 Carrara S, Arcidiacono PG, Mezzi G et al. Pancreatic endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration: complication rate and clinical course in a single centre. Dig Liver Dis 2010; 42: 520-523
• 523 Tarantino I, Fabbri C, Di Mitri R et al. Complications of endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration on pancreatic cystic lesions: final results from a large prospective multicenter study. Dig Liver Dis 2014; 46: 41-44
• 524 Adler DG, Jacobson BC, Davila RE et al. ASGE guideline: complications of EUS. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 8-12
• 525 Veitch AM, Baglin TP, Gershlick AH et al. Guidelines for the management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. Gut 2008; 57: 1322-1329
• 526 Boustiere C, Veitch A, Vanbiervliet G et al. Endoscopy and antiplatelet agents. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 445-461
• 527 Barawi M, Gottlieb K, Cunha B et al. A prospective evaluation of the incidence of bacteremia associated with EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 53: 189-192
• 528 Levy MJ, Norton ID, Wiersema MJ et al. Prospective risk assessment of bacteremia and other infectious complications in patients undergoing EUS-guided FNA. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 57: 672-678
• 529 Janssen J, Konig K, Knop-Hammad V et al. Frequency of bacteremia after linear EUS of the upper GI tract with and without FNA. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: 339-344
• 530 Levy MJ, Norton ID, Clain JE et al. Prospective study of bacteremia and complications With EUS FNA of rectal and perirectal lesions. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007; 5: 684-689
• 531 Chang KJ, Nguyen P, Erickson RA et al. The clinical utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic carcinoma. Gastrointest Endosc 1997; 45: 387-393
• 532 Eloubeidi MA, Tamhane A, Varadarajulu S et al. Frequency of major complications after EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: a prospective evaluation. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: 622-629
• 533 von Bartheld MB, van Breda A, Annema JT. Complication rate of endosonography (endobronchial and endoscopic ultrasound): a systematic review. Respiration 2014; 87: 343-351
• 534 Wiersema MJ, Vilmann P, Giovannini M et al. Endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy: diagnostic accuracy and complication assessment. Gastroenterology 1997; 112: 1087-1095
• 535 Beane JD, House MG, Cote GA et al. Outcomes after preoperative endoscopic ultrasonography and biopsy in patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy. Surgery 2011; 150: 844-853
• 536 El Chafic AH, Dewitt J, Leblanc JK et al. Impact of preoperative endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration on postoperative recurrence and survival in cholangiocarcinoma patients. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 883-889
• 537 Kudo T, Kawakami H, Kuwatani M et al. Influence of the safety and diagnostic accuracy of preoperative endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for resectable pancreatic cancer on clinical performance. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20: 3620-3627
• 538 Yoon WJ, Daglilar ES, Fernandez-del Castillo C et al. Peritoneal seeding in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas patients who underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration: the PIPE Study. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 382-387
• 539 Ikezawa K, Uehara H, Sakai A et al. Risk of peritoneal carcinomatosis by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for pancreatic cancer. J Gastroenterol 2013; 48: 966-972
• 540 Ngamruengphong S, Xu C, Woodward TA et al. Risk of gastric or peritoneal recurrence, and long-term outcomes, following pancreatic cancer resection with preoperative endosonographically guided fine needle aspiration. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 619-626
• 541 Ngamruengphong S, Swanson KM, Shah ND et al. Preoperative endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration does not impair survival of patients with resected pancreatic cancer. Gut 2015; 64: 1105-1110
• 542 Micames C, Jowell PS, White R et al. Lower frequency of peritoneal carcinomatosis in patients with pancreatic cancer diagnosed by EUS-guided FNA vs. percutaneous FNA. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: 690-695
• 543 Okasha HH, Naga MI, Esmat S et al. Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration versus Percutaneous Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration in Diagnosis of Focal Pancreatic Masses. Endosc Ultrasound 2013; 2: 190-193
• 544 Hirooka Y, Goto H, Itoh A et al. Case of intraductal papillary mucinous tumor in which endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy caused dissemination. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2003; 18: 1323-1324
• 545 Paquin SC, Gariepy G, Lepanto L et al. A first report of tumor seeding because of EUS-guided FNA of a pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 610-611
• 546 Chong A, Venugopal K, Segarajasingam D et al. Tumor seeding after EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic tail neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 933-935
• 547 Ahmed K, Sussman JJ, Wang J et al. A case of EUS-guided FNA-related pancreatic cancer metastasis to the stomach. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 231-233
• 548 Katanuma A, Maguchi H, Hashigo S et al. Tumor seeding after endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of cancer in the body of the pancreas. Endoscopy 2012; 44 (Suppl. 02) UCTN:E160–161.
• 549 Virgilio E, Mercantini P, Ferri M et al. Is EUS-FNA of solid-pseudopapillary neoplasms of the pancreas as a preoperative procedure really necessary and free of acceptable risks?. Pancreatology 2014; 14: 536-538
• 550 Minaga K, Kitano M, Yamashita Y. Surgically resected needle tract seeding following endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in pancreatic cancer. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2015; Epub ahead of print
• 551 Tomonari A, Katanuma A, Matsumori T et al. Resected tumor seeding in stomach wall due to endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21: 8458-8461
• 552 Shah JN, Fraker D, Guerry D et al. Melanoma seeding of an EUS-guided fine needle track. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: 923-924
• 553 Doi S, Yasuda I, Iwashita T et al. Needle tract implantation on the esophageal wall after EUS-guided FNA of metastatic mediastinal lymphadenopathy. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67: 988-990
• 554 Anderson B, Singh J, Jafri SF. Tumor seeding following endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration of a celiac lymph node. Dig Endosc 2013; 25: 344-345
• 555 Chen HY, Lee CH, Hsieh CH. Bile peritonitis after EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 56: 594-596
• 556 Jacobson BC, Waxman I, Parmar K et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder bile aspiration in idiopathic pancreatitis carries a significant risk of bile peritonitis. Pancreatology 2002; 2: 26-29
• 557 Andrews AH, Horwhat JD. Massive pneumoperitoneum after EUS-FNA aspiration of the pancreas. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: 876-877
• 558 Babich JP, Bonasera RJ, Klein J et al. Pancreatic ascites: complication after endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of a pancreatic cyst. Endoscopy 2009; 41 (Suppl. 02) E211-E212
• 559 Reddymasu S, Oropeza-Vail MM, Williamson S et al. Pancreatic leak after endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration managed by transpapillary pancreatic duct stenting. JOP 2011; 12: 489-490
• 560 Itonaga M, Ueda K, Ichinose M. Phlegmonous gastritis caused by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). Dig Endosc 2012; 24: 488
• 561 Akdamar MK, Eltoum I, Eloubeidi MA. Retroperitoneal paraganglioma: EUS appearance and risk associated with EUS-guided FNA. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 60: 1018-1021
• 562 de Vries AC, Poley JW. Hypertensive crisis after endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of the right adrenal gland. Endoscopy 2014; 46 (Suppl. 01) UCTN:E447–448
• 563 Tarantino I, Barresi L, Di Pisa M et al. Simultaneous endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration and endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography: Evaluation of safety. World J Gastroenterol 2007; 13: 3861-3863
• 564 Ross WA, Wasan SM, Evans DB et al. Combined EUS with FNA and ERCP for the evaluation of patients with obstructive jaundice from presumed pancreatic malignancy. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 68: 461-466
• 565 Ascunce G, Ribeiro A, Rocha-Lima C et al. Single-session endoscopic ultrasonography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for evaluation of pancreaticobiliary disorders. Surg Endosc 2010; 24: 1447-1450
• 566 Oppong K, Raine D, Nayar M et al. EUS-FNA versus biliary brushings and assessment of simultaneous performance in jaundiced patients with suspected malignant obstruction. JOP 2010; 11: 560-567
• 567 Aslanian HR, Estrada JD, Rossi F et al. Endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for obstructing pancreas head masses: combined or separate procedures?. J Clin Gastroenterol 2011; 45: 711-713
• 568 Camus M, Trouilloud I, Villacis AL et al. Effectiveness of combined endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy and stenting in patients with suspected pancreatic cancer. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 24: 1281-1287
• 569 Gornals JB, Moreno R, Castellote J et al. Single-session endosonography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for biliopancreatic diseases is feasible, effective and cost beneficial. Dig Liver Dis 2013; 45: 578-583
• 570 Noma Y, Kawamoto H, Kato H et al. The efficacy and safety of single-session endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for evaluation of pancreatic masses. Hepatogastroenterology 2014; 61: 1775-1779