Published online May 21, 2012. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v18.i19.2357
Revised: September 24, 2011
Accepted: April 12, 2012
Published online: May 21, 2012
AIM: To assess the characteristics and quality of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in a large panel of endosonographers.
METHODS: A survey was conducted during the 13th annual live course of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) held in Amsterdam, Netherlands. A 2-page questionnaire was developed for the study. Content validity of the questionnaire was determined based on input by experts in the field and a review of the relevant literature. It contained 30 questions that pertained to demographics and the current practice for EUS-FNA of responders, including sampling technique, sample processing, cytopathological diagnosis and sensitivity of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of solid mass lesions. One hundred and sixty-one endosonographers who attended the course were asked to answer the survey. This allowed assessing the current practice of EUS-FNA as well as the self-reported sensitivity of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of solid mass lesions. We also examined which factors were associated with a self-reported sensitivity of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of solid mass lesions > 80%.
RESULTS: Completed surveys were collected from 92 (57.1%) of 161 endosonographers who attended the conference. The endosonographers had been practicing endoscopy and EUS for 12.5 ± 7.8 years and 4.8 ± 4.1 years, respectively; one third of them worked in a hospital with an annual caseload > 100 EUS-FNA. Endoscopy practices were located in 29 countries, including 13 countries in Western Europe that totaled 75.3% of the responses. Only one third of endosonographers reported a sensitivity for the diagnosis of solid mass lesions > 80% (interquartile range of sensitivities, 25.0%-75.0%). Factors independently associated with a sensitivity > 80% were (1) > 7 needle passes for pancreatic lesions or rapid on-site cytopathological evaluation (ROSE) (P < 0.0001), (2) a high annual hospital caseload (P = 0.024) and (3) routine isolation of microcores from EUS-FNA samples (P = 0.042). ROSE was routinely available to 27.9% of respondents. For lymph nodes and pancreatic masses, a maximum of three needle passes was performed by approximately two thirds of those who did not have ROSE. Microcores were routinely harvested from EUS-FNA samples by approximately one third (37.2%) of survey respondents.
CONCLUSION: EUS-FNA sensitivity was considerably lower than reported in the literature. Low EUS-FNA sensitivity was associated with unavailability of ROSE, few needle passes, absence of microcore isolation and low hospital caseload.