Comparison of the diagnostic yield of rapid versus non-rapid onsite evaluation in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology of solid pancreatic lesions.

Abstract

Background: The role of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of pancreatic lesions is debatable. In this study, we aimed to compare the diagnostic yield of ROSE vs. non-ROSE in solid pancreatic lesions.

Methods: This retrospective single-center study included patients undergoing EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions from 2019-2021. Patients with cystic lesions, those undergoing fine-needle core biopsy, those undergoing repeat procedures, and patients with non-diagnostic smears with less than 6-month follow up were excluded. The diagnostic yield, need for repeat procedures and number of passes required with and without ROSE were analyzed in these patients.

Results: Of the 111 patients included, 56 underwent ROSE. The majority of lesions were malignant in both groups (79.6% ROSE vs. 75% non-ROSE). The diagnostic yield was 96.4% in the ROSE group and 94.5% in the non-ROSE group. Repeat samples were needed in 1 ROSE and 2 non-ROSE patients. The median number of passes made was significantly fewer in the ROSE group (3.5, interquartile range - 3,4) compared with the non-ROSE group (4, interquartile range - 3,5) P=0.01. However, the frequency of procedure-related complications was similar in both groups.

Conclusion: The utilization of ROSE during EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions does not affect the diagnostic yield or the need for repeat samples, but reduces the number of passes needed for acquiring samples.