Pathology Unit, ASST Rhodense, Garbagnate Milanese, Italy,
Pathology Unit, ASST Rhodense, Garbagnate Milanese, Italy.
Acta Cytol. 2021;65(1):40-47. doi: 10.1159/000510755. Epub 2020 Oct 23.
Nowadays, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA), and fine needle biopsy (FNB) are considered the best procedures for the diagnosis of biliopancreatic lesions. These methods represent a milestone since they proved to be both safe for the patient and useful to achieve diagnostic material useful to plan the best treatment strategy.
Since in the literature, a debate between cytology and histology supporters is still ongoing and the trend is changing in favor of FNB, we would like to present our experience about the diagnostic yield of FNA and FNB. The aim of our study is to highlight FNA versus FNB diagnostic role of biliopancreatic lesions, highlight advantages, and drawbacks of these procedures, and our view on these 2 procedures and whether they should still be considered complementary or opposing techniques.
We retrospectively reviewed our hospital series of 469 EUS diagnostics procedures of biliopancreatic lesions performed in 419 patients, between 2015 and 2019.
The overall adequacy rates of FNA and FNB were, respectively, 98.9 and 100%. Stratifying cases according to anatomic location of the mass (pancreas vs. biliary system), we detected 168 malignancies out of 349 pancreatic lesions (168/349; 48.1%), while biliary system cases positive for malignancy represented 33.8% (23/68 cases) (p value = 0.045, χ2 test). As for concomitant FNB, our series displayed a high rate of diagnostic concordance (88.8%).
Despite numerous data published, it is still unclear which is the most feasible method to use; therefore, we compared FNA, FNB, or their combination to understand the best applicable technique. Our experience confirmed that FNA is extremely efficient in the diagnosis of biliopancreatic lesions, especially in the hands of expert endoscopists and pathologists. Considering anatomic location, EUS-FNA is more accurate for mass-forming neoplasms in the pancreatic parenchyma rather than for lesions of the biliary system. Moreover, concomitant FNB usually confirmed the cytological diagnosis, allowing a deeper immunohistochemical characterization of the neoplasia. This proves that a "pure" cytology and "pure" histology approach should be looked differently since these are complementary techniques especially if we can obtain a cellblock from FNA.
现如今,内镜超声(EUS)引导下的细针抽吸(FNA)和细针活检(FNB)被认为是诊断胰胆病变的最佳方法。这些方法是一个里程碑,因为它们被证明对患者既安全又有助于获得有助于制定最佳治疗策略的诊断材料。
由于文献中细胞学和组织学支持者之间仍存在争议,且趋势正在转向 FNB 有利,我们想介绍我们关于 FNA 和 FNB 诊断胰胆病变的经验。我们的研究目的是突出 FNA 与 FNB 对胰胆病变的诊断作用,强调这些程序的优点和缺点,以及我们对这两种程序的看法,它们是否仍应被视为互补或对立的技术。
我们回顾性地分析了 2015 年至 2019 年间在 419 名患者中进行的 469 例胰胆病变的 EUS 诊断程序的医院系列。
FNA 和 FNB 的总体充分性率分别为 98.9%和 100%。根据肿块的解剖位置(胰腺与胆道系统)对病例进行分层,我们在 349 例胰腺病变中发现了 168 例恶性肿瘤(168/349;48.1%),而胆道系统恶性肿瘤病例占 33.8%(23/68 例)(p 值=0.045,卡方检验)。对于同时进行的 FNB,我们的系列显示出很高的诊断一致性(88.8%)。
尽管发表了大量数据,但仍不清楚哪种方法最可行;因此,我们比较了 FNA、FNB 或它们的组合,以了解最适用的技术。我们的经验证实,FNA 在诊断胰胆病变方面非常有效,尤其是在有经验的内镜医生和病理学家手中。考虑到解剖位置,EUS-FNA 对胰腺实质中的肿块形成肿瘤比胆道系统中的病变更准确。此外,同时进行的 FNB 通常可确认细胞学诊断,从而可对肿瘤进行更深层次的免疫组织化学特征分析。这证明了“纯”细胞学和“纯”组织学方法应该有所不同,因为这些是互补的技术,特别是如果我们可以从 FNA 获得细胞块的话。