SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.82 issue5Epidemiology of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in a University hospitalType 2 Diabetes. Is it possible to achieve the glycemic goal in real life? author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Journal

Article

Indicators

  • Have no cited articlesCited by SciELO

Related links

  • Have no similar articlesSimilars in SciELO

Share


Medicina (Buenos Aires)

Print version ISSN 0025-7680On-line version ISSN 1669-9106

Medicina (B. Aires) vol.82 no.5 Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires Oct. 2022

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Diagnostic yield of computed tomography guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic cancer

Rendimiento diagnóstico de la aspiración con aguja fina guiada por tomografía computarizada para el cáncer de páncreas

Ariel Tchercansky1 

Joaquín Fernandez Alberti1 

Ramiro Arrechea Antelo1  * 

Mariano L. Bregante1 

Daniel E. Pirchi1 

1 Departamento de Cirugía General, Hospital Británico de Buenos Aires, Argentina

Abstract

Fine-needle aspiration (FNA) for the histological diagnosis of occupying lesions in the pancreas as opposed to tru-cut needle biopsy to obtain tissue for analysis has been associated with a lower incidence of post-procedure complications, with almost immediate recovery and no need for hospital stay. Nev ertheless, the question of the diagnostic effectiveness of percutaneous computed axial tomography (CT)-guided FNA in solid pancreatic lesions has been raised. The aim of this study was to confirm the diagnostic effectivity of percutaneous CT-guided FNA in pancreatic space-occupying lesions and to assess short-term complications. All percutaneous CT-guided FNA with real-time monitoring, performed between April 2010 and December 2015, were retrospectively analyzed. In all cases 21-gauge needles were used. All FNA were performed in the pres ence of a pathologist who immediately stained and reported as adequate for analysis in all cases. The diagnosis was confirmed by histopathological evaluation. Of 54 FNA performed, final histopathological evaluation revealed neoplastic cells compatible with adenocarcinoma in 52 patients (96%) and was negative for neoplastic cells in two patients (4%). The sensitivity was 94%, and the specificity 100%. Post-FNA morbidity was observed in four patients, consisting of epigastric pain in two and abdominal wall hematoma in two other patients. Percutaneous CT-guided FNA of pancreatic space-occupying lesions was found to be a good, minimally invasive and safe method with low morbidity. The presence of the pathologist in the procedure allowed for immediate cytological diagnosis.

Key words: Percutaneous; Fine-needle aspiration biopsy; Pancreatic cancer; Minimally invasive

Resumen

El uso de la punción-aspiración con aguja fina (PAAF) en el diagnóstico histológico de lesiones ocupantes de páncreas es una alternativa frente al uso de agujas tru-cut en la obtención de tejido para su análisis, con una incidencia más baja de complicaciones y una recuperación casi inmediata sin necesidad de internación. El objetivo fue valorar la efectividad diagnóstica de las PAAF de lesiones ocupantes pancreáticas guiadas por tomografía axial computada (TAC) por vía percutánea, y su tasa de complicaciones a corto plazo. Se analizaron de forma retrospectiva todas las PAAF realizadas mediante guía tomográfica por vía percutánea con control en tiempo real, entre abril 2010 y diciembre 2015. Todas las PAAF se realizaron en presencia de un patólogo que inmediatamente tiñó e informó como adecuado para el análisis. La confirmación diagnóstica se hizo con el análisis anatomopatológico diferido. De las 54 PAAF realizadas, el diagnóstico anatomopatológico informó positivo para células neoplásicas compatible con adenocarcinoma en 52 pacientes (96%) y en otros dos (4%) como negativo para células neoplásicas. La sensibilidad del método fue 94% y la especificidad del 100%. Se registraron 4 casos de morbilidad post punción (2 dolores epigástricos y 2 hematomas de pared abdominal). Las punciones percutáneas de lesiones ocupantes pancreáticas guiadas por TC pueden considerarse un buen método diagnóstico mini invasivo, seguro, con una morbilidad post punción baja. La presencia del patólogo en el procedimiento permitió el diagnóstico citológico inmediato.

Palabras clave: Percutáneo; Punción aspiración con aguja fina; Cáncer de páncreas; Mini invasivo

KEY POINTS

• The percutaneous computed tomography-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic lesions is a valid alter native for histological diagnosis. It might have lower morbidity rate than tru cut needle biopsy, associated with an earlier patient recovery. The purpose of our study was to retrospectively confirm the diagnostic effective ness of percutaneous CT-guided fine-needle aspiration in unresectable solid lesions of the pancreas and to assess the short-term complication rate.

• In our experience, computed tomography-guided fine-needle aspiration is a safe and accurate method for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions. The procedure is associated with a high sensitivity and low morbidity. Close clinical and imaging monitoring is warranted. The choice of one biopsy method over another should be made based on operator preference and equipment availability.

Pancreatic cancer is one of the main causes of cancer-related deaths both in Europe and the United States1,2. Surgical resection is the only potentially curative treatment; however, only 20% of pancreas tumors are localized and amenable to curative surgery. In spite of advances in the multimodal management of pancreatic cancer, surgical treatment remains a crucial element in the therapeutic algorithm for these patients3. Currently, 5-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer is 5%. Nevertheless, tumor resec tion combined with adjuvant therapy increases survival rate to 15-21%4-8.

Curative intent surgery is not recommended in patients with pancreatic cancer with distant metastasis or involve ment of the hepatic artery or superior mesenteric artery. Therefore, imaging-based stratification is necessary to provide information on tumor location and extension. One of the most commonly used imaging studies is the CT scan with intravenous contrast administration according to a protocol tailored for evaluation of the pancreas9-11.

In potentially resectable tumors, the need for biopsy is controversial. Those in favor recommend biopsy to confirm the presence of pancreatic carcinoma previous to surgical resection in order to prevent unnecessary surgeries and reduce hospital costs12-14. Those against, however, sug gest surgical exploration when malignancy is suspected to diminish delay to surgery and avoid tumor seeding along the needle tract15-18.

On the other hand, in patients who have unresect able tumors or those that are not candidates for surgery, histopathological confirmation is needed. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for pancreatic adenocarcinoma strongly recommend histologi cal confirmation in all patients with pancreatic cancer pre vious to non-surgical treatment19. In borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, the possibility of neoadjuvant treatment may be considered, and biopsy would also be indicated.

There are different methods to obtain a specimen of pan creatic lesions, including endoscopic ultrasonographic, surgi cal, and percutaneous (CT- or ultrasound-guided) biopsy.

Surgical biopsies of the pancreas may be performed by a conventional approach (laparotomy) or by laparoscopy (with the disadvantage that tactile sensation of the lesion is lost). The procedure is both diagnostic and stratifying, as perito neal implants or liver metastasis that cannot be visualized by CT scan (especially lesions in the body or tail) may be identified. Importantly, one of the goals of the management of pancreatic cancer is to avoid unnecessary surgeries20,21.

CT- or ultrasound-guided biopsies are percutaneous procedures involving the use of a 20-25-gauge (FNA) or 14-19-gauge (core biopsy) needle for the acquisition of pancreatic mass through the abdominal wall.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) of pancreatic lesions involves the use of an endoscope that is passed down to the stomach or duodenum. Subsequently, a needle is advanced and punctured through the wall of the gastrointestinal tract towards the pancreatic mass. Although EUS-FNA is the technique of choice to biopsy patients with potentially resectable tumors due to its better diagnostic yield, safety, and lower risk of tumor seeding into the peritoneum22-24, the necessary equipment is not always available at all centers. In addition, the sedation required during the procedure increases hospital costs. Considering these factors, the percutaneous approach can be preferred over the EUS-guided approach for the biopsy of unresectable pancreatic cancer whenever this last one is not available or even to avoid sedation24.

FNA of solid pancreatic lesions using a percutaneous approach under ultrasonographic or CT guidance is a minimally invasive procedure that may be performed on an outpatient basis without the need for general anesthesia or sedation. Furthermore, the morbidity rate associated with percutaneous FNA is low, while the equipment is less ex pensive reducing hospital costs. Although ultrasonography is more commonly available than CT scan, and the latter is associated with the risk of radiation, our general surgery team has more experience with percutaneous CT-guided FNA for biopsies of pancreatic lesions.

The purpose of this study was to retrospectively verify the diagnostic effectivity of percutaneous CT-guided FNA in unresectable solid lesions of the pancreas and to assess the short-term complication rate.

Materials and methods

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained data base was conducted including demographic data (sex, age, BMI), perioperative and postoperative data. A total of 54 patients underwent percutaneous CT-guided FNA of solid pan creatic tumors at Hospital Británico in Buenos Aires, Argentina, between April 2010 and December 2015. All pancreatic lesions were evaluated by a multi-slice CT scanner (Phillips Diamond Select Brilliance 16-slice CT) and radiation exposure was simi lar to standard abdominal CT scans. Inclusion criteria for the study was the suspicion of an unresectable solid lesion of the pancreas. Exclusion criteria were cystic lesions, coagulopathy (INR > 1.5), thrombocytopenia (<50 000 platelets), BMI >30kg/ m2, metastasis, or disease classified as unresectable.

All FNA were performed by one percutaneous specialist surgeon through the anterior abdominal wall with the patient in dorsal decubitus position in the CT scan. Following infiltra tion with 2% xylocaine, a 21-gauge needle was used for the aspiration after the pancreatic lesion was localized by CT scan. In all cases, post-aspiration CT-scan was performed to rule out bleeding or other possible complications. Patients were subsequently monitored in the outpatient recovery room and discharged when tolerating food and after spontaneous void with adequate pain management. All patients were followed on an outpatient basis at 7 and 30 days post-biopsy when the final cytopathology results were available. Complications were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo into minor (grades I-II) and major (grades III-IV) complications.

Quality and quantity of the sample obtained were evaluated onsite by the pathologist following fixation of the smears in 96% alcohol and staining with toluidine blue. The presence of the pathologist in the procedure allowed for immediate cytological diagnosis. Whenever possible, excess specimen was fixed in formalin embedded in paraffin and stained with hematoxylin/ eosin. Representative cytology smears were subsequently stained using the Papanicolaou technique for final diagnosis.

Cytology results were classified into negative for malig nancy, positive for malignancy, and insufficient material. The samples were considered to be diagnostic when the histology report was officially endorsed. A result was considered true positive (TP) when the cytological findings were positive for or highly suggestive of malignancy.

A result was considered a true negative (TN) when the cytological findings were negative for malignancy and there were no findings suggestive of malignancy on clinical and imaging follow-up. A result was considered a false negative (FN) if cytological examination was negative for malignancy but findings suggestive of malignancy were observed during clinical and imaging follow-up. A result was considered a false positive (FP) if cytological analysis was reported to be positive for malignancy but no disease progression was observed dur ing follow-up or findings suggested benign disease.

Ethical approval was waived by the local Ethics Comittee of Hospital Británico in Buenos Aires in view of the retrospective nature of the study, and all the procedures being performed were part of the routine care.

Due to the retrospective nature of the study, the Ethics Comittee waived the requirement for written informed consent; however, all patients signed the surgical consent form.

Results

Overall, 54 patients with a mean age of 68 years (range, 41-92 years) of whom 64.8% were male, were included in the study. Mean lesion size was 3.2 cm (1.5-5 cm). In 64.8% the lesions were located in the head and uncinate process of the pancreas, 29.6% in the body, and 5.6% in the tail. Tables 1a and b show the sociodemographic features of the patients (Table 1a) and pancreatic lesion location (Table 1b).

Table 1a Sociodemographic features 

Table 1b Pancreatic lesion location distribution 

A mean of four FNA were performed in each patient (range, 2-7). The percutaneous approach was direct in 43, transhepatic in nine, and transgastric in two (Table 2).

Table 2 Type of approach distribution 

Overall, 49 samples were defined as TP for malignan cy. Two samples were defined as TN for pancreatic cancer after a two-year follow-up with tumor marker monitoring and CT scans.

Three results were considered to be FN for malignancy. In two of these cases, the final diagnosis was made based on liver metastasis on follow-up imaging studies. In both cases, percutaneous biopsy with a tru-cut needle was performed. A histological diagnosis of neuroendocrine tumor and adenocarcinoma of the pancreas was made, respectively. The third case was a clear-cell tumor diag nosed by surgical biopsy. No FP results were observed. Tables 3a and 3b show the diagnostic results.

Table 3a Histologically malignant results (True positive) 

Table 3b Histologically non-malignant results 

CT-guided FNA was found to have a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 100%.

Regarding post-FNA morbidity, complications were observed in four patients (7.4%). Two of them presented with epigastric pain without elevated pancreatic enzyme levels or significant clinical or imaging findings and two developed abdominal-wall hematomas seven days after the intervention. When analyzing the tumor location, we found that 3 (5.5%) of these patients had a head/uncinated process and 1 (1.8%) a body tumor. Considering the ap proach, 3 (5.5%) were directly biopsied whereas 1 (1.8%) was by a transhepatic way. All of them were treated on an outpatient basis without the need for invasive procedures. No severe complications occurred. Table a lists length of hospital stay and post-FNA complications and their cor relation with the approach used.

Table 4 Post-operative data 

Discussion

Currently, the need for and effectivity of preoperative biopsies for pancreatic lesions remains controversial. Consensus exists on the fact that patients with systemic disease or peritoneal metastasis are not candidates for surgical resection. Those with unresectable systemic or advanced disease require histological confirmation before starting palliative treatment19. As liver metastasis is easier accessible to biopsy and provides a higher cell yield than primary pancreatic tumor, percutaneous liver biopsies are commonly performed23. Similarly, in patients with advanced but potentially resectable local disease a cytological or histological sample is needed to confirm ma lignancy before undergoing neoadjuvant therapy. Around 20% of pancreas cancers are resectable; therefore, we might say that the remaining 80% are candidates for a biopsy to determine further management.

Preoperative biopsy in patients with potentially resect able tumor is controversial, because of the significant number of non-diagnostic samples and the risk of tumor dissemination through the biopsy tract. Based on these arguments, a biopsy to confirm tumor malignancy would not be mandatory for surgery with a curative intent if the tumor appears to be malignant and resectable on imag ing studies15,16,24,25. Nevertheless, if a biopsy is decided to be performed, EUS-FNA is the technique of choice in patients with potentially resectable tumors due to its better diagnostic yield, safety, and lower risk of tumor seeding into the peritoneum22-24.

Percutaneous FNA of the pancreas was first described in 197526,27. The largest series was reported by Di Stasi et al. in a multicenter study14. In different studies, accuracy of ultrasound- or CT-guided percutaneous FNA was reported to be between 61% and 98%15,27-34. In our study, accuracy was found to be 96%. Table 5 shows the results of percutaneous FNA in solid lesions of the pancreas published by different studies.

Table 5 Comparison of studies reporting ultrasound- or CT-guided percutaneous fine-needle aspiration 

Generally, specificity of percutaneous FNA is reported to be high; however, sensitivity is relatively low because adequate diagnosis does not only depend on the experi ence of the pathologist, but also on the procurement of an adequate sample. In addition, percutaneous FNA is associated with a high rate of FN, ranging 23 to 100%. Therefore, FN results should be evaluated with caution and close monitoring of the patient is warranted35.

In case of metastatic disease, the biopsy should pref erably be obtained from the extrapancreatic metastasis, as accessibility of the latter is usually better with a higher cytological yield and a complication rate less than or equal to that of a biopsy of the primary pancreatic lesion36.

Percutaneous FNA of the pancreas is considered to be one of the easiest techniques to perform and is associ ated with a high sensitivity for the detection of malignant lesions when located in the pancreatic body or tail37. Nevertheless, the anterior approach may be complicated by the interposition of the colon, mesenteric vessels, or spleen. Therefore, a posterior or transhepatic approach may facilitate the procedure.

Complication rate for CT-guided FNA is low, ranging from 3 to 6.7%13,15,37,38. Although in our study occurrence of post-FNA morbidity was low (7.4%), the rate is high compared to previous reports, probably due to the small number of patients included.

Our study has some limitations. Firstly, our analysis was retrospective. Secondly, procedures were performed by only one surgeon at one institution.

In conclusion, CT-guided FNA is a safe and accurate method for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions. The procedure is associated with a high sensitivity and low morbidity and may facilitate the planning of either neoad juvant or palliative treatment.

Due to the high FN rate and the slightly higher pos sibility of malignant seeding, EUS guided FNA could be preferred over CT- guided FNA in patients with potentially resectable tumors, when tissue may be the issue24. In lesions that are classified as benign, malignancy cannot be definitively ruled out; therefore, close clinical and im aging monitoring is warranted and repeat biopsy should be considered in patients with unresectable lesions if malignancy is suspected.

The on-site presence of a pathologist at the time of the procedure favors high-quality sample procurement for diagnosis while reducing the number of passes and the rate of false-positive results.

The choice of one biopsy method over another should be made based on operator preference and equipment availability. Randomized studies with a larger number of cases are necessary to confirm these findings and draw more robust and objective conclusions.

References

1. Ferlay J, Autier P, Boniol M, Heanue M, Colombet M, Boyle P. Estimates of the cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2006. Ann Oncol 2007; 18: 581-92. [ Links ]

2. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Murray T, Xu J, Thun MJ. Can cer statistics, 2007. CA Cancer J Clin 2007; 57: 43-66. [ Links ]

3. Tamburrino D, Partelli S, Crippa S, Manzoni A, Maurizi A, Falconi M. Selection criteria in resectable pancreatic cancer: a biological and morphological approach. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20: 11210-5. [ Links ]

4. Wagner M, Redaelli C, Lietz M, Seiler CA, Friess H, Bu chler MW. Curative resection is the single most important factor determining outcome in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Br J Surg 2004; 91: 586-94. [ Links ]

5. Butturini G, Stocken DD, Wente MN, et al. Influence of resection margins and treatment on survival in patients with pancreatic cancer: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Surg 2008; 143: 75-83. [ Links ]

6. Neoptolemos JP, Stocken DD, Friess H, et al. A random ized trial of chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy after resection of pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med 2004; 350: 1200-10. [ Links ]

7. Cameron JL, Riall TS, Coleman J, Belcher KA. One thou sand consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies. Ann Surg 2006; 244: 10-5. [ Links ]

8. Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Lillemoe KD, et al. Pancreatico-duodenectomy for cancer of the head of the pancreas. 201 patients. Ann Surg 1995; 221: 721-31. [ Links ]

9. Freeny PC. Pancreatic carcinoma: what is the best imaging test? Pancreatology 2001; 1: 604-9. [ Links ]

10. Soriano A, Castells A, Ayuso C, et al. Preoperative staging and tumor resectability assessment of pancreatic cancer: prospective study comparing endoscopic ultrasonogra phy, helical computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and angiography. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99: 492-501. [ Links ]

11. Al-Hawary MM, Francis IR, Chari ST, et al. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma radiology reporting template: con sensus statement of the Society of Abdominal Radiology and the American Pancreatic Association. Gastroenterol ogy 2014; 146: 291-304.e291. [ Links ]

12. Harewood GC, Wiersema MJ. A cost analysis of endo scopic ultrasound in the evaluation of pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96: 2651-6. [ Links ]

13. Chen VK, Arguedas MR, Kilgore ML, Eloubeidi MA. A cost-minimization analysis of alternative strategies in diagnosing pancreatic cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99: 2223-34. [ Links ]

14. Di Stasi M, Lencioni R, Solmi L, et al. Ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy of pancreatic masses: results of a multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 1998; 93: 1329-33. [ Links ]

15. Tillou A, Schwartz MR, Jordan PH Jr. Percutaneous needle biopsy of the pancreas: when should it be per formed? World J Surg 1996; 20: 283-6. [ Links ]

16. Nakamura R, Machado R, Amikura K, Ruebner B, Frey CF. Role of fine needle aspiration cytology and endoscopic biopsy in the preoperative assessment of pancreatic and peripancreatic malignancies. Int J Pancreatol 1994; 16: 17-21. [ Links ]

17. Kahl S, Malfertheiner P. Role of endoscopic ultrasound in the diagnosis of patients with solid pancreatic masses. Dig Dis 2004; 22: 26-31. [ Links ]

18. Cahn M, Chang K, Nguyen P, Butler J. Impact of en doscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration on the surgical management of pancreatic cancer. Am J Surg 1996; 172: 470-2. [ Links ]

19. Tempero MA, Malafa MP, Al-Hawary M, et al. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma, version 2.2017. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 2017;15: 1028-61. [ Links ]

20. Ahmed SI, Bochkarev V, Oleynikov D, Sasson AR. Patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma benefit from staging laparoscopy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2006; 16: 458-63. [ Links ]

21. Allen VB, Gurusamy KS, Takwoingi Y, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of laparoscopy following computed tomography (CT) scanning for assessing the resectability with curative intent in pancreatic and periampullary cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 11:CD009323. [ Links ]

22. Brugge WR, De Witt J, Klapman JB, et al. Techniques for cytologic sampling of pancreatic and bile duct lesions: The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology guidelines. Cytojournal 2014; 11(Suppl 1): 2. [ Links ]

23. Micames C, Jowell PS, White R, et al. Lower frequency of peritoneal carcinomatosis in patients with pancreatic cancer diagnosed by EUS-guided FNA vs. percutaneous FNA. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58 :690-5. [ Links ]

24. Chaya C, Nealon WH, Bhutani MS. EUS or percutaneous CT/US-guided FNA for suspected pancreatic cancer: when tissue is the issue. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: 976-8. [ Links ]

25. Michl P, Pauls S, Gress TM. Evidence-based diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2006; 20: 227-51. [ Links ]

26. Hancke S, Holm HH, Koch F. Ultrasonically guided percuta neous fine needle biopsy of the pancreas. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1975; 140: 361-4. [ Links ]

27. Smith EH, Bartrum RJ Jr, Chang YC, et al. Percutaneous aspiration biopsy of the pancreas under ultrasonic guid ance. N Engl J Med 1975; 292: 825-8. [ Links ]

28. Horwhat JD, Paulson EK, McGrath K, et al. A randomized comparison of EUS-guided FNA versus CT or US-guided FNA for the evaluation of pancreatic mass lesions. Gas trointest Endosc 2006; 63: 966-75. [ Links ]

29. Erturk SM, Mortele KJ, Tuncali K, Saltzman JR, Lao R, Silverman SG. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy of solid pancreatic masses: comparison of CT and endoscopic sonography guidance. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 187: 1531-5. [ Links ]

30. Mallery JS, Centeno BA, Hahn PF, Chang Y, Warshaw AL, Brugge WR. Pancreatic tissue sampling guided by EUS, CT/US, and surgery: a comparison of sensitivity and specificity. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 56: 218-24. [ Links ]

31. David O, Green L, Reddy V, Kluskens L, et al. Pancreatic masses: a multi-institutional study of 364 fine-needle aspiration biopsies with histopathologic correlation. Diagn Cytopathol 1998; 19: 423-7. [ Links ]

32. Linder S, Blasjo M, Sundelin P, von Rosen A. Aspects of percutaneous fine-needle aspiration biopsy in the diag nosis of pancreatic carcinoma. Am J Surg 1997; 174: 303-6. [ Links ]

33. Lerma E, Musulen E, Cuatrecasas M, Martinez A, Montser rat E, Prat J. Fine needle aspiration cytology in pancreatic pathology. Acta Cytol 1996; 40: 683-6. [ Links ]

34. Enayati PG, Traverso LW, Galagan K, et al. The meaning of equivocal pancreatic cytology in patients thought to have pancreatic cancer. Am J Surg 1996; 171: 525-8. [ Links ]

35. Hartwig W, Schneider L, Diener MK, et al. Preoperative tissue diagnosis for tumours of the pancreas. Br J Surg 2009; 96: 5-20. [ Links ]

36. Matsubara J, Okusaka T, Morizane C, Ikeda M, Ueno H. Ultrasound-guided percutaneous pancreatic tumor biopsy in pancreatic cancer: a comparison with metastatic liver tumor biopsy, including sensitivity, specificity, and com plications. J Gastroenterol 2008; 43: 225-32. [ Links ]

37. Brandt KR, Charboneau JW, Stephens DH, Welch TJ, Goellner JR. CT- and US-guided biopsy of the pancreas. Radiology 1993; 187: 99-104. [ Links ]

38. Rodriguez J, Kasberg C, Nipper M, Schoolar J, Riggs MW, Dyck WP. CT-guided needle biopsy of the pancreas: a retrospective analysis of diagnostic accuracy. Am J Gastroenterol 1992; 87: 1610-3. [ Links ]

Received: March 08, 2022; Accepted: April 28, 2022

*Postal address: Ramiro Arrechea Antelo, Hospital Británico de Buenos Aires, Perdriel 74, 1280 Buenos Aires, Argentina e-mail: arrechea_94@hotmail.com

Creative Commons License This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License