Clin Endosc > Volume 50(4); 2017 > Article
Lee and Kim: Is a Cytopathologist Always Needed during Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Tissue Acquisition?
See "Rapid On-Site Evaluation by Endosonographers during Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration for Diagnosis of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors" by Takashi Tamura, Yasunobu Yamashita, Kazuki Ueda, et al., 372-378.
Gastrointestinal (GI) subepithelial tumors (SETs) detected during routine endoscopy demonstrate a prevalence of 0.36%, which is found to increase with age [1]. Based on a recent Korean multicenter study that included 87,578 subjects undergoing routine screening endoscopy, the incidence of SETs in the upper GI tract was noted to be 3.1% (unpublished data). GI SETs include malignant tumors (such as GI stromal tumors, neuroendocrine tumors, or lymphomas), as well as benign tumors (such as leiomyomas, lipomas, heterotopic pancreas, or cysts). Although surgical resection is the primary diagnostic and therapeutic modality used for management of SETs, particularly for symptomatic or large tumors, it might not be needed for all cases with SETs. Although endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is the best diagnostic modality for evaluation of SETs, it cannot be a substitute for a histopathological diagnosis. Because a histopathological diagnosis plays an important role in determining the most appropriate treatment strategy, EUS-guided tissue acquisition such as fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is attempted in many clinical settings.
EUS-FNA is a well-known and useful diagnostic modality for the management of solid pancreatic lesions. Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) performed by an attending cytopathologist can improve the adequacy rate of FNA specimens, resulting in a higher diagnostic yield of EUS and can reduce the number of needle passes required/performed [2,3]. ROSE can also be performed by endoscopists instead of cytopathologists. A retrospective study compared the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA with ROSE performed by endoscopists and cytopathologists and found no statistically significant differences between the two groups (endoscopists and cytopathologists) with respect to the mean number of passes required (4.0±1.6 vs. 3.4±1.5, p=0.06) and specimen adequacy (97.4% vs. 97.1%, p=0.51) [4]. Another recent study showed that endoscopists who participated in pathologist-guided training programs could improve the adequacy of specimens (from 75% to 98%) and diagnostic accuracy (from 61% to 82%) [5].
However, a recent, multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial using EUS-FNA for pancreatic lesions, showed that the diagnostic yield and proportion of inadequate specimens did not differ between EUS-FNA performed with and without ROSE [6]. A meta-analysis comprising seven studies involving 1,299 patients, compared EUS-FNA performed with and without ROSE and showed that ROSE did not significantly affect the cytological adequacy or diagnostic yield [7]. This is because, due to rapidly advancing technology, EUS-FNA has become a widely used diagnostic procedure, and endoscopists are now better equipped to target lesions and obtain samples even from very small pancreatic lesions along with maintaining proper positioning of the needle under direct visualization while the sample is being collected. Thus, on-site assistance from pathologists has become less relevant [8]. Additionally, recent studies using a newly developed ProCore needle (Cook Medical Inc., Bloomington, IN, USA) has shown similar results [9,10].
Reportedly, the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA for GI SETs is 50%–70% in GI mesenchymal tumors [11-13]. Immunohistochemical staining is mandatory for accurate diagnosis of GI SETs, especially GI mesenchymal tumors such as GI tumors, schwannomas, or leiomyomas. This technique necessitates acquisition of histologically optimal core samples. Thus, several new EUS-guided tissue acquisition needles, such as the ProCore or Shark Core (Beacon™ Endoscopy; Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) have been developed. A recent, prospective, multicenter study investigating GI SETs showed that EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy using a ProCore needle significantly decreased the median number of needle passes required (4 vs. 2) and additionally increased the diagnostic sufficiency rate (75% vs. 20%) compared to EUS-FNA [14].
In this issue of Clinical Endoscopy, Tamura et al. report that ROSE performed by endosonographers during an EUS-FNA for GI SETs resulted in a higher diagnostic accuracy and need for a fewer number of needle passes [15]. It is notable that ROSE performed by endosonographers and not by cytopathologists could improve the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA in management of GI SETs. As stated above, newly developed needles, such as the ProCore needle can also reproduce the merits of ROSE. However, if after obtaining appropriate training, endosonographers can independently perform ROSE for evaluation of histopathological specimens, the combined use of newer instruments and ROSE would have a synergistic effect in increasing the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided tissue acquisition in management of GI SETs.


Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no financial conflicts of interest.


1. Hedenbro JL, Ekelund M, Wetterberg P. Endoscopic diagnosis of submucosal gastric lesions. The results after routine endoscopy. Surg Endosc 1991;5:20-23.
crossref pmid
2. Iglesias-Garcia J, Dominguez-Munoz JE, Abdulkader I, et al. 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;106:1705-1710.
crossref pmid pdf
3. Schmidt RL, Walker BS, Howard K, Layfield LJ, Adler DG. Rapid onsite evaluation reduces needle passes in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for solid pancreatic lesions: a risk-benefit analysis. Dig Dis Sci 2013;58:3280-3286.
crossref pmid
4. Hikichi T, Irisawa A, Bhutani MS, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic masses with rapid on-site cytological evaluation by endosonographers without attendance of cytopathologists. J Gastroenterol 2009;44:322-328.
crossref pmid
5. Harada R, Kato H, Fushimi S, et al. An expanded training program for endosonographers improved self-diagnosed accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology of the pancreas. Scand J Gastroenterol 2014;49:1119-1123.
crossref pmid
6. Wani S, Mullady D, Early DS, et al. The clinical impact of immediate on-site cytopathology evaluation during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic masses: a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2015;110:1429-1439.
crossref pmid pdf
7. Kong F, Zhu J, Kong X, et al. Rapid on-site evaluation does not improve endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration adequacy in pancreatic masses: a meta-analysis and systematic review. PLoS One 2016;11:e0163056.
crossref pmid pmc
8. Cermak TS, Wang B, DeBrito P, Carroll J, Haddad N, Sidawy MK. Does on-site adequacy evaluation reduce the nondiagnostic rate in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic lesions? Cancer Cytopathol 2012;120:319-325.
crossref pmid
9. Kim HJ, Jung YS, Park JH, et al. Endosonographer’s macroscopic evaluation of EUS-FNAB specimens after interactive cytopathologic training: a single-center prospective validation cohort study. Surg Endosc 2016;30:4184-4192.
crossref pmid pdf
10. Fabbri C, Fuccio L, Fornelli A, et al. The presence of rapid on-site evaluation did not increase the adequacy and diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic lesions with core needle. Surg Endosc 2017;31:225-230.
crossref pmid pdf
11. Fernández-Esparrach G, Sendino O, Solé M, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and trucut biopsy in the diagnosis of gastric stromal tumors: a randomized crossover study. Endoscopy 2010;42:292-299.
crossref pmid
12. Eckardt AJ, Adler A, Gomes EM, et al. Endosonographic large-bore biopsy of gastric subepithelial tumors: a prospective multicenter study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;24:1135-1144.
crossref pmid
13. Moon JS. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration in submucosal lesion. Clin Endosc 2012;45:117-123.
crossref pmid pmc
14. Kim GH, Cho YK, Kim EY, et al. Comparison of 22-gauge aspiration needle with 22-gauge biopsy needle in endoscopic ultrasonography-guided subepithelial tumor sampling. Scand J Gastroenterol 2014;49:347-354.
crossref pmid
15. Tamura T, Yamashita Y, Ueda K, et al. Rapid on-site evaluation by endosonographers during endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration for diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Clin Endosc 2017;50:372-378.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
PDF Links  PDF Links
PubReader  PubReader
ePub Link  ePub Link
Full text via DOI  Full text via DOI
Download Citation  Download Citation
CrossRef TDM  CrossRef TDM
Related articles
Present and Future of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition in Solid Pancreatic Tumors  2019 November;52(6)
Will New Instruments for Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition Make Us Happy?  2018 November;51(6)
Future Perspectives on Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Therapy for Pancreatic Neoplasm  2018 May;51(3)
Fine-Needle Biopsy: Should This Be the First Choice in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition?  2014 September;47(5)
Extramedullary Plasmacytoma of the Pancreas Diagnosed Using Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration  2014 January;47(1)
Editorial Office
Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
#817, 156 Yanghwa-ro(LG Palace, Donggyo-dong), Mapo-gu, Seoul, 04050, Korea
TEL: +82-2-335-1552   FAX: +82-2-335-2690    E-mail:
Copyright © Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.                 Developed in M2PI
Close layer