On-site Cytopathology EUS-FNA

Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) plays an integral role in the diagnosis of suspected pancreatic cancer, and the EUS findings are crucial for determining the course of future management and potential treatment options for these patients. EUS is the most sensitive imaging modality for the detection of pancreatic masses, and has a sensitivity of greater than or equal to 90%. Furthermore, EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) plays an important role in accurate staging of pancreatic cancer with a sensitivity of 85% and specificity close to 100%. EUS-FNA is considered to be cost-effective by virtue of its impact on therapeutic management. In particular, real-time tissue sampling by EUS-FNA is possible when a cytopathologist (pathologist skilled in evaluating fine needle aspiration specimens) is able to be present at the time of FNA in order to review the biopsy slides and make a preliminary diagnosis. The availability of an on-site cytopathologist has the potential to provide quick diagnostic and predictive information to confirm the presence and staging of suspected malignancy. The rationale for an on-site cytopathologist includes increasing the adequacy and yield of biopsy tissue/aspirate which can decrease the need for additional passes to obtain a diagnostic yield of tissue. This hypothesis, however, has not been formally examined. In this proposed randomized controlled multicenter trial, the investigators hypothesize that an on-site cytopathologist during EUS-FNA for pancreatic masses improves diagnostic yield, accuracy, and lowers the duration, complications and the need for repeat procedures. This hypothesis will be explored in the context of the following specific aims. Specific aim #1: To compare the diagnostic yield of malignancy and proportion of inadequate specimens between the two groups. Specific aim #2: To compare the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of EUS-FNA between the two groups using histologic diagnosis or cytologic diagnosis in conjunction with clinical and/or imaging follow-up as the gold standard. Specific aim #3: To compare the duration, rate of complications and repeat procedures between the two groups.