Clinical Endoscopy

The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (대한소화기내시경학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Clinical utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition for comprehensive genomic profiling of pancreatic cancer

  • Nozomi Okuno (Department of Gastroenterology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital) ;
  • Kazuo Hara (Department of Gastroenterology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital) ;
  • Nobumasa Mizuno (Department of Gastroenterology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital) ;
  • Shin Haba (Department of Gastroenterology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital) ;
  • Takamichi Kuwahara (Department of Gastroenterology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital) ;
  • Yasuhiro Kuraishi (Department of Gastroenterology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital) ;
  • Daiki Fumihara (Department of Gastroenterology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital) ;
  • Takafumi Yanaidani (Department of Gastroenterology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital)
  • Received : 2022.02.22
  • Accepted : 2022.06.30
  • Published : 2023.03.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background/Aims: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) is essential for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. The feasibility of comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) using samples obtained by EUS-TA has been under recent discussion. This study aimed to evaluate the utility of EUS-TA for CGP in a clinical setting. Methods: CGP was attempted in 178 samples obtained from 151 consecutive patients with pancreatic cancer at the Aichi Cancer Center between October 2019 and September 2021. We evaluated the adequacy of the samples for CGP and determined the factors associated with the adequacy of the samples obtained by EUS-TA retrospectively. Results: The overall adequacy for CGP was 65.2% (116/178), which was significantly different among the four sampling methods (EUS-TA vs. surgical specimen vs. percutaneous biopsy vs. duodenal biopsy, 56.0% [61/109] vs. 80.4% [41/51] vs. 76.5% [13/17] vs. 100.0% [1/1], respectively; p=0.022). In a univariate analysis, needle gauge/type was associated with adequacy (22 G fine-needle aspiration vs. 22 G fine-needle biopsy [FNB] vs. 19 G-FNB, 33.3% (5/15) vs. 53.5% (23/43) vs. 72.5% (29/40); p=0.022). The sample adequacy of 19 G-FNB for CGP was 72.5% (29/40), and there was no significant difference between 19 G-FNB and surgical specimens (p=0.375). Conclusions: To obtain adequate samples for CGP with EUS-TA, 19 G-FNB was shown to be the best in clinical practice. However, 19 G-FNB was not still sufficient, so further efforts are required to improve adequacy for CGP.

Keywords

References

  1. Park DH, Lee TH, Paik WH, et al. Feasibility and safety of a novel dedicated device for one-step EUS-guided biliary drainage: a randomized trial. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015;30:1461-1466.
  2. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin 2019;69:7-34.
  3. Sunami K, Ichikawa H, Kubo T, et al. Feasibility and utility of a panel testing for 114 cancer-associated genes in a clinical setting: a hospital-based study. Cancer Sci 2019;110:1480-1490.
  4. Ebi H, Bando H. Precision oncology and the universal health coverage system in Japan. JCO Precis Oncol 2019;3:PO.19.00291.
  5. 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.
  6. Elhanafi S, Mahmud N, Vergara N, et al. Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound tissue acquisition methods for genomic analysis of pancreatic cancer. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;34:907-913.
  7. Takano S, Fukasawa M, Shindo H, et al. Clinical significance of genetic alterations in endoscopically obtained pancreatic cancer specimens. Cancer Med 2021;10:1264-1274.
  8. Kandel P, Nassar A, Gomez V, et al. Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy versus fine-needle aspiration for genomic profiling and DNA yield in pancreatic cancer: a randomized crossover trial. Endoscopy 2021;53:376-382.
  9. Lee KY, Cho HD, Hwangbo Y, et al. Efficacy of 3 fine-needle biopsy techniques for suspected pancreatic malignancies in the absence of an on-site cytopathologist. Gastrointest Endosc 2019;89:825-831.
  10. Cotton PB, Eisen GM, Aabakken L, et al. A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;71:446-454.
  11. Foundation Medicine Inc. FoundationOne CDx. Specimen instructions [Internet]. Cambridge: Foundation Medicine Inc.; 2021 [cited 2022 Feb 22]. Available from: https://assets.ctfassets.net/w98cd481qyp0/6qYLg8jUuEYEvUytoBz8p6/f7764c8e3fcadda9ec1374fe26bb999e/F1CDx_Specimen_Instructions.pdf.
  12. Yatabe Y, Sunami K, Goto K, et al. Multiplex gene-panel testing for lung cancer patients. Pathol Int 2020;70:921-931.
  13. Jones S, Zhang X, Parsons DW, et al. Core signaling pathways in human pancreatic cancers revealed by global genomic analyses. Science 2008;321:1801-1806.
  14. Waddell N, Pajic M, Patch AM, et al. Whole genomes redefine the mutational landscape of pancreatic cancer. Nature 2015;518:495-501.
  15. Collisson EA, Bailey P, Chang DK, et al. Molecular subtypes of pancreatic cancer. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;16:207-220.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. Khan MA, Grimm IS, Ali B, et al. A meta-analysis of endoscopic ultrasound-fine-needle aspiration compared to endoscopic ultrasound-fine-needle biopsy: diagnostic yield and the value of onsite cytopathological assessment. Endosc Int Open 2017;5:E363-E375.
  19. Chhoda A, Rustagi T. EUS-guided needle biopsy for autoimmune pancreatitis. Clin J Gastroenterol 2020;13:669-677.
  20. de Moura DT, McCarty TR, Jirapinyo P, et al. EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling versus FNA in the diagnosis of subepithelial lesions: a large multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2020;92:108-119.
  21. Oppong KW, Bekkali NL, Leeds JS, et al. Fork-tip needle biopsy versus fine-needle aspiration in endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses: a randomized crossover study. Endoscopy 2020;52:454-461.
  22. Karsenti D, Palazzo L, Perrot B, et al. 22G Acquire vs. 20G Procore needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy of pancreatic masses: a randomized study comparing histologic sample quantity and diagnostic accuracy. Endoscopy 2020;52:747-753.
  23. Sugimoto M, Irie H, Takagi T, et al. Efficacy of EUS-guided FNB using a Franseen needle for tissue acquisition and microsatellite instability evaluation in unresectable pancreatic lesions. BMC Cancer 2020;20:1094.
  24. Park JK, Lee JH, Noh DH, et al. Factors of Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition for successful next-generation sequencing in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Gut Liver 2020;14:387-394.
  25. Larson BK, Tuli R, Jamil LH, et al. Utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy for next-generation sequencing of pancreatic exocrine malignancies. Pancreas 2018;47:990-995.