Skip to content

Methods of tissue preparation after Endoscopic Ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration without rapid on-site assessment: results of a randomized study.

A study of tissue preparation methods without rapid on-site assessment following Endoscopic Ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration of patients with upper-gastrointestinal solid mass or lymph nodes.

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ANZCTR
Registry ID
ACTRN12617001649303
Enrollment
60
Registered
2017-12-22
Start date
2017-02-22
Completion date
2017-08-01
Last updated
2018-01-09

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

None listed

Brief summary

EUS guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) or fine-needle biopsy (FNB) is a well-established and accurate method of obtaining tissue for the diagnosis of intra-abdominal or mediastinal lesions. Initial findings, have suggested that rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) using cytological smears (with or without cell block preparation) has the biggest impact with increased diagnostic accuracy and reduced needle passes. However, newer evidence has brought the value of ROSE into question. Recent reports show conflicting results on whether ROSE actually does influence outcome in EUS FNA. Also a recent meta-analysis suggests that ROSE may not result in higher diagnostic yield, specimen adequacy or pooled sensitivity and specificity. The utilization of cell blocks or direct histological processing to prepare FNA specimens, involve placing all needle contents into liquid fixative and therefore do not require ROSE. Reports show high diagnostic yield with both, exceeding 89%. These also avoid the need for smear preparation, which requires training and can result in inadvertent loss of diagnostic material. Prospective randomised data comparing these techniques is lacking and therefore the best method for preparing EUS FNA specimens is unknown. We hypothesize that without ROSE, direct histology or cell block is the tissue preparation technique of choice, as smearing often has low diagnostic yield and may result in loss of diagnostic material. The aim of this study is to compare the diagnostic yield of the different methods for EUS FNA/FNB specimen processing in a randomized fashion and to identify the most optimal method of tissue preparation in the absence of ROSE. All patients who were referred to our unit for EUS guided FNA of a solid mass or lymph nodes in or adjacent to the upper GI tract over an 8-month period were prospectively recruited for the study.

Interventions

The participating subjects underwent standard endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) examination with a linear echo-endoscope (GF180, Olympus, alpha 10, Japan) by an experienced endo-sonographer, who had performed over 5000 EUS procedures. All procedures were performed with anaesthetist-assisted propofol sedation. Once the mass was identified and confirmed to be at least 1cm in size, three passes of EUS FNA were performed without the presence of rapid on-site examination (ROSE). The choice of needle siz

The participating subjects underwent standard endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) examination with a linear echo-endoscope (GF180, Olympus, alpha 10, Japan) by an experienced endo-sonographer, who had performed over 5000 EUS procedures. All procedures were performed with anaesthetist-assisted propofol sedation. Once the mass was identified and confirmed to be at least 1cm in size, three passes of EUS FNA were performed without the presence of rapid on-site examination (ROSE). The choice of needle size (25G, 22G or 20G) and type (fine-needle aspiration (FNA) or fine-needle biopsy (FNB)) was at the discretion of the endo-sonographer. The material derived from each FNA pass was prepared by one of the following 3 tissue preparation techniques: (i) smearing plus cell-block (CS+CB), where material is divided to either CS or CB; (ii) cell-block alone (Pure CB); where material is only used in CB; (iii) direct histology alone (DH). The order of tissue preparation technique was randomized, which was generated by a computer program. The tissue preparation was performed outside the procedure room to blind the endo-sonographer on which specimen processing technique was used. The specimens were sent to the dedicated GI cytopathologist, where the specimens were processed and examined as outlined below. Techniques of tissue preparation: 1. Cytological smears: Using the stylet, 2 drops of specimen from the EUS FNA needle were expelled onto 2 pathology slides (1 drop per slide). The material on the slides was smeared, then fixed with alcohol and air-dried. The smears were done by the investigator who had dedicated training in cytological smearing technique. The remaining material in the FNA needle was expelled in Hank’s solution with 1ml of normal saline for cell-block preparation (see below for description). In the pathology laboratory, the slides were stained using Papanicolaou stain and examined by the dedicated cytopathologist. 2. Cell-block preparation: This technique involved expulsion of contents from the EUS FNA needle into Hank’s solution with 1ml of normal saline, and the specimen was then sent to the laboratory within 2 hours for processing. The contents were centrifuged, removed and fixed into formalin solution. The specimen was centrifuged again and formalin solution was removed before Agar gel was added. This was then embedded in Paraffin wax and cut at 4 microns to create slides. The slides were examined by the dedicated cytopathologist 3. Direct histology: This technique involved expressing the EUS FNA contents directly into Formalin and sending to the pathology laboratory for routine histological processing. 4µm sections were cut from paraffin embedded tissue blocks and stained routinely with Haematoxylin and Eosin. Special stains and immunohistochemistry were done when additional tests were required for diagnostic purposes.

Sponsors

Royal Adelaide Hospital
Lead SponsorHospital

Study design

Allocation
Randomised controlled trial
Primary purpose
Diagnosis

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
All
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

1. Patient referred for EUS-guided FNA of solid mass of lymph nodes in or adjacent to the upper GI tract. 2. The mass lesion had to be at least 1cm in size as measured by EUS.

Exclusion criteria

1. Patients who were deemed to be at high risk of bleeding from the EUS FNA were excluded (ie. coagulopathy with INR >1.4 and/or platelet count <50 x 109/L). 2. Pregnancy. 3. Those who cannot provide informed consent.

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ANZCTR · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026