Introduction: Early detection and accurate pathological assessment are critical to improving prognosis of pancreatic cancer. EUS has been widely used in diagnosing pancreatic lesions and can obtain histological diagnosis by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). However, comprehensive assessment of the interobserver agreement (IOA) among cytopathologists evaluating EUS-FNA specimens is still limited. Therefore, this study evaluated IOA among cytopathologists for EUS-FNA specimens of solid pancreatic lesions, especially in false-negative cases of cytological diagnosis and analyzed the factors that influence cytological diagnosis of EUS-FNA so as to improve the diagnostic efficiency of EUS-FNA. Methods: We retrieved EUS-FNA samples of pancreatic solid lesions from 2017 to 2021 and collected their clinical/cytological data. Two cytopathologists independently reviewed these cases using a quoted, novel standardized cytology scoring tool. Ultimately, we calculated IOA among cytopathologists and performed a binary logistic regression analysis to evaluate factors influencing the cytological diagnosis of EUS-FNA. Results: 161 patients were included, and 60 cases with a clinical diagnosis of pancreatic cancer but a cytological diagnosis of benign and atypical constituted the false-negative group. IOAs for cytological diagnosis of overall patients and the false-negative group were in perfect/moderate agreement with Kendall’s W values of 0.896 and 0.462, respectively. The number of diagnostic cells in the scoring tool had the highest level of agreement (κ = 0.721) for overall patients. There was at best moderate agreement on other quantity and quality parameters for both all cases and false-negative group. Logistic regression analysis showed the number of diagnostic cells (OR = 6.110, p < 0.05) and amount of blood (OR = 0.320, p < 0.05) could influence cytological diagnosis. Conclusions: The false-negative rate of our study as high as 37.26% (60/161) is mainly related to strict standards of cytopathologists, and their ability to standardize pancreatic cytology is still improving. Suboptimal agreement among cytopathologists for cytological diagnosis and the number of diagnostic cells may be associated with the occurrence of false-negative diagnosis. Further regression analysis confirmed that the number of diagnostic cells and obscuring blood were important factors in cytological diagnosis. Therefore, refinement of cytological diagnostic criteria, standardization of specimen quality evaluation, and training of cytopathologists may improve the agreement of cytopathologists, thus improving the repeatability of cytological diagnosis and reducing the occurrence of false-negative events.

Keywords:
Interobserver agreement, False negative, Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration, Solid pancreatic lesions
1.
Khalaf N, El-Serag HB, Abrams HR, Thrift AP. Burden of pancreatic cancer: from epidemiology to practice. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;19(5):876–84.
2.
Pawlik TM. Pancreatic cancer. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2021 Oct;30(4):xiii–v.
3.
Canto MI, Harinck F, Hruban RH, Offerhaus GJ, Poley JW, Kamel I, et al. International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening (CAPS) Consortium summit on the management of patients with increased risk for familial pancreatic cancer. Gut. 2013;62(3):339–47.
4.
Zhang L, Sanagapalli S, Stoita A. Challenges in diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2018;24(19):2047–60.
5.
Kitano M, Yoshida T, Itonaga M, Tamura T, Hatamaru K, Yamashita Y. Impact of endoscopic ultrasonography on diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. J Gastroenterol. 2019;54(1):19–32.
6.
Yoo J, Kistler CA, Yan L, Dargan A, Siddiqui AA. Endoscopic ultrasound in pancreatic cancer: innovative applications beyond the basics. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2016;7(6):1019–29.
7.
Nagtegaal ID, Odze RD, Klimstra D, Paradis V, Rugge M, Schirmacher P, et al. The 2019 WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system. Histopathology. 2020;76(2):182–8.
8.
Larghi A, Correale L, Ricci R, Abdulkader I, Monges G, Iglesias-Garcia J, et al. Interobserver agreement and accuracy of preoperative endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy for histological grading of pancreatic cancer. Endoscopy. 2015;47(4):308–14.
9.
Mounzer R, Yen R, Marshall C, Sams S, Mehrotra S, Said MS, et al. Interobserver agreement among cytopathologists in the evaluation of pancreatic endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration cytology specimens. Endosc Int Open. 2016;4(7):E812–9.
10.
Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–74.
11.
Del Vecchio Blanco G, Palmieri G, Giannarelli D, Formica V, Portarena I, Nardecchia A, et al. Factors influencing diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in pancreatic and biliary tumors. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2021;56(4):498–504.
12.
Woolf KM, Liang H, Sletten ZJ, Russell DK, Bonfiglio TA, Zhou Z. 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(8):449–58.
13.
Wani S, Early D, Kunkel J, Leathersich A, Hovis CE, Hollander TG, 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(2):328–35.
14.
Madhoun MF, Wani SB, Rastogi A, Early D, Gaddam S, Tierney WM. 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(2):86–92.
15.
Bang JY, Magee SH, Ramesh J, Trevino JM, Varadarajulu S. Randomized trial comparing fanning with standard technique for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic mass lesions. Endoscopy. 2013;45(6):445–50.
16.
Chen JY, Ding QY, Lv Y, Guo W, Zhi FC, Liu SD. Slow-pull and different conventional suction techniques in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic solid lesions using 22-gauge needles. World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22(39):8790–7.
17.
Wang Y, Wang RH, Ding Z, Tan SY, Chen Q, Duan YQ, et al. Wet- versus dry-suction techniques for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid lesions: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy. 2020;52(11):995–1003.
18.
Haba S, Yamao K, Bhatia V, Mizuno N, Hara K, Hijioka S, 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(8):973–81.
19.
Bang JY, Varadarajulu S. Neoplasia in chronic pancreatitis: how to maximize the yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration. Clin Endosc. 2014;47(5):420–4.
20.
Iglesias-Garcia J, Dominguez-Munoz JE, Abdulkader I, Larino-Noia J, Eugenyeva E, Lozano-Leon A. 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(9):1705–10.
21.
Iglesias-Garcia J, Lariño-Noia J, Abdulkader I, Domínguez-Muñoz JE. Rapid on-site evaluation of endoscopic-ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration diagnosis of pancreatic masses. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(28):9451–7.
© 2022 S. Karger AG, Basel
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
2022
You do not currently have access to this content.