Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Gastroenterology
Published in: Journal of Gastroenterology 11/2023

Open Access 12-09-2023 | Aspiration | Review

Current status and issues in genomic analysis using EUS-FNA/FNB specimens in hepatobiliary–pancreatic cancers

Authors: Yoshinori Ozono, Hiroshi Kawakami, Naomi Uchiyama, Hiroshi Hatada, Souichiro Ogawa

Published in: Journal of Gastroenterology | Issue 11/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Comprehensive genomic profiling based on next-generation sequencing has recently been used to provide precision medicine for various advanced cancers. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) play essential roles in the diagnosis of abdominal masses, mainly pancreatic cancers. In recent years, CGP analysis using EUS-FNA/FNB specimens for hepatobiliary–pancreatic cancers has increased; however, the success rate of CGP analysis is not clinically satisfactory, and many issues need to be resolved to improve the success rate of CGP analysis. In this article, we review the transition from EUS-FNA to FNB, compare each test, and discuss the current status and issues in genomic analysis of hepatobiliary–pancreatic cancers using EUS-FNA/FNB specimens.
Literature
1.
Wani S, Muthusamy VR, Komanduri S. EUS-guided tissue acquisition: an evidence-based approach (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;80:939-59.e7.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Banafea O, Mghanga FP, Zhao J, et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography with fine-needle aspiration for histological diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses: a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMC Gastroenterol. 2016;16:108.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
3.
Matsumoto K, Takeda Y, Onoyama T, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy—recent topics and technical tips. World J Clin Cases. 2019;7:1775–83.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
4.
Khan MA, Grimm IS, Ali B, et al. A meta-analysis of endoscopic ultrasound-fine-needle aspiration compared to endoscopic ultrasound-fine-needle biopsy: diagnostic yield and the value of onsite cytopathological assessment. Endosc Int Open. 2017;5:E363–75.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
5.
Tiriac H, Bucobo JC, Tzimas D, et al. Successful creation of pancreatic cancer organoids by means of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling for personalized cancer treatment. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;87:1474–80.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
6.
Puli SR, Bechtold ML, Buxbaum JL, et al. How good is endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in diagnosing the correct etiology for a solid pancreatic mass?: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Pancreas. 2013;42:20–6.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Yang Y, Li L, Qu C, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle core biopsy for the diagnosis of pancreatic malignant lesions: a systematic review and Meta-Analysis. Sci Rep. 2016;6:22978.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
8.
Madhoun MF, Wani SB, Rastogi A, et al. 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;45:86–92.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Capurso G, Archibugi L, Petrone MC, et al. Slow-pull compared to suction technique for EUS-guided sampling of pancreatic solid lesions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Endosc Int Open. 2020;8:E636–43.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
10.
Wang J, Xu H, Xu C, et al. Stylet slow-pull versus standard suction for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy of pancreatic solid masses: a meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2021;55:103–9.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Nakai Y, Hamada T, Hakuta R, et al. A meta-analysis of slow pull versus suction for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition. Gut Liver. 2021;15:625–33.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
12.
Storm AC, Lee LS. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided techniques for diagnosing pancreatic mass lesions: can we do better? World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22:8658–69.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
13.
Fabbri C, Luigiano C, Maimone A, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy of small solid pancreatic lesions using a 22-gauge needle with side fenestration. Surg Endosc. 2015;29:1586–90.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Kanno A, Masamune A, Hanada K, et al. Multicenter study of early pancreatic cancer in Japan. Pancreatology. 2018;18:61–7.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Li Z, Liu W, Xu X, et al. A meta-analysis comparing endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy. J Clin Gsatroenterol. 2022;56:668–78.CrossRef
16.
Riet PA, Erler NS, Bruno MJ, et al. Comparison of fine-needle aspiration and fine-needle biopsy devices for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid lesions: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy. 2021;53:411–23.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Facciorusso A, Bajwa HS, Menon K, et al. Comparison between 22G aspiration and 22G biopsy needles for EUS-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: a meta-analysis. Endosc Ultrasound. 2020;9:167–74.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Facciorusso A, Wani S, Triantafyllou K, et al. Comparative accuracy of needle sizes and designs for EUS tissue sampling of solid pancreatic masses: a network meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019;90:893-903.e7.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Li H, Li W, Zhou QY, et al. Fine needle biopsy is superior to fine needle aspiration in endoscopic ultrasound guided sampling of pancreatic masses: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97: e0207.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Wang J, Zhao S, Chen Y, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration versus endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle biopsy in sampling pancreatic masses: a meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96: e7452.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Renelus BD, Jamorabo DS, Boston I, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy needles provide higher diagnostic yield compared to endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration needles when sampling solid pancreatic lesions: a meta-analysis. Clin Endosc. 2021;54:261–8.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Pouw RE, Barret M, Biermann K, et al. Endoscopic tissue sampling—part 1: upper gastrointestinal and hepatopancreatobiliary tracts. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy. 2021;53:1174–88.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Chen YI, Chatterjee A, Berger R, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle biopsy alone vs. EUS-guided fine needle aspiration with rapid onsite evaluation in pancreatic lesions: a multicenter randomized trial. Endoscopy. 2022;54:4–12.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Kanno A, Yasuda I, Irisawa A, et al. Adverse events of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for histologic diagnosis in Japanese tertiary centers: multicenter retrospective study. Dig Endosc. 2021;33:1146–57.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Wang KX, Ben QW, Jin ZD, et al. Assessment of morbidity and mortality associated with EUS-guided FNA: a systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:283–90.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Facciorusso A, Crinò SF, Gkolfakis P, et al. Needle tract seeding after endoscopic ultrasound tissue acquisition of pancreatic lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022;12:2113.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
27.
Kawabata H, Miyazawa Y, Sato H, et al. Genetic analysis of postoperative recurrence of pancreatic cancer potentially owing to needle tract seeding during EUS-FNB. Endosc Int Open. 2019;7:E1768–72.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
28.
Nakatsubo R, Yamamoto K, Itoi T, et al. Histopathological evaluation of needle tract seeding caused by EUS-fine-needle biopsy based on resected specimens from patients with solid pancreatic masses: an analysis of 73 consecutive cases. Endosc Ultrasound. 2021;10:207–13.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
29.
Ishigaki K, Nakai Y, Oyama H, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition by 22-Gauge Franseen and standard needles for solid pancreatic lesions. Gut Liver. 2020;14:817–25.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
30.
Dumonceau JM, Deprez PH, Jenssen C, et al. Indications, results, and clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline—Updated January 2017. Endoscopy. 2017;49:695–714.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Cheng B, Zhang Y, Chen Q, et al. Analysis of fine-needle biopsy vs fine-needle aspiration in diagnosis of pancreatic and abdominal masses: a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;16:1314–21.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Tian L, Tang AL, Zhang L, et al. Evaluation of 22G fine-needle aspiration (FNA) versus fine-needle biopsy (FNB) for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: a prospective comparison study. Surg Endosc. 2018;32:3533–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
33.
Zhou W, Li SY, Jiang H, et al. Optimal number of needle passes during EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions with 22G ProCore needles and different suction techniques: a randomized controlled trial. Endosc Ultrasound. 2021;10:62–70.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
34.
Jones S, Zhang X, Parsons DW, et al. Core signaling pathways in human pancreatic cancers revealed by global genomic analyses. Science. 2008;321:1801–6.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
35.
Kameta E, Sugimori K, Kaneko T, et al. Diagnosis of pancreatic lesions collected by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration using next-generation sequencing. Oncol Lett. 2016;12:3875–81.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
36.
Dreyer SB, Jamieson NB, Evers L, et al. Feasibility and clinical utility of endoscopic ultrasound guided biopsy of pancreatic cancer for next-generation molecular profiling. Chin Clin Oncol. 2019;8:16.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Elhanafi S, Mahmud N, Vergara N, et al. Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound tissue acquisition methods for genomic analysis of pancreatic cancer. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;34:907–13.PubMedCrossRef
38.
39.
Yang J, Li J, Zhu R, et al. K-ras mutational status in cytohistological tissue as a molecular marker for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Markers. 2014;2014: 573783.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
40.
Gleeson FC, Kerr SE, Kipp BR, et al. Targeted next generation sequencing of endoscopic ultrasound acquired cytology from ampullary and pancreatic adenocarcinoma has the potential to aid patient stratification for optimal therapy selection. Oncotarget. 2016;7:54526–36.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
41.
Young G, Wang K, He J, et al. Clinical next-generation sequencing successfully applied to fine-needle aspirations of pulmonary and pancreatic neoplasms. Cancer Cytopathol. 2013;121:688–94.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Mas L, Lupinacci RM, Cros J, et al. Intraductal papillary mucinous carcinoma versus conventional pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a comprehensive review of clinical-pathological features, outcomes, and molecular insights. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22:6756.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
43.
44.
Fujikura K, Hosoda W, Felsenstein M, et al. Multiregion whole-exome sequencing of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms reveals frequent somatic KLF4 mutations predominantly in low-grade regions. Gut. 2021;70:928–39.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Omori Y, Ono Y, Tanino M, et al. Pathways of progression from intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm to pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma based on molecular features. Gastroenterology. 2019;156:647–61.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Yachida S, Totoki Y, Noë M, et al. Comprehensive genomic profiling of neuroendocrine carcinomas of the gastrointestinal system. Cancer Discov. 2022;12:692–711.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
47.
Konukiewitz B, Jesinghaus M, Kasajima A, et al. Neuroendocrine neoplasms of the pancreas: diagnosis and pitfalls. Virchows Arch. 2022;480:247–57.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Larson BK, Tuli R, Jamil LH, et al. Utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy for next-generation sequencing of pancreatic exocrine malignancies. Pancreas. 2018;47:990–5.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Kandel P, Nassar A, Gomez V, et al. Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy versus fine-needle aspiration for genomic profiling and DNA yield in pancreatic cancer: a randomized crossover trial. Endoscopy. 2021;53:376–82.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Gan Q, Roy-Chowdhuri S, Duose DY, et al. Adequacy evaluation and use of pancreatic adenocarcinoma specimens for next-generation sequencing acquired by endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNA and FNB. Cancer Cytopathol. 2022;130:275–83.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Kondo T, Matsubara J, Quy PN, et al. Comprehensive genomic profiling for patients with chemotherapy-naïve advanced cancer. Cancer Sci. 2021;112:296–304.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Ishizawa T, Makino N, Matsuda A, et al. Usefulness of rapid on-site evaluation specimens from endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for cancer gene panel testing: a retrospective study. PLoS ONE. 2020;15: e0228565.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
53.
Park JK, Lee JH, Noh DH, et al. Factors of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition for successful next-generation sequencing in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Gut Liver. 2020;14:387–94.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Lowery MA, Jordan EJ, Basturk O, et al. Real-time genomic profiling of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: potential actionability and correlation with clinical phenotype. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23:6094–100.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Valero V 3rd, Saunders TJ, He J, et al. Reliable detection of somatic mutations in fine needle aspirates of pancreatic cancer with next-generation sequencing: implications for surgical management. Ann Surg. 2016;263:153–61.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Rodriguez SA, Impey SD, Pelz C, et al. RNA sequencing distinguishes benign from malignant pancreatic lesions sampled by EUS-guided FNA. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;84:252–8.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Takano S, Fukasawa M, Shindo H, et al. Clinical significance of genetic alterations in endoscopically obtained pancreatic cancer specimens. Cancer Med. 2021;10:1264–74.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
58.
Habib JR, Zhu Y, Yin L, et al. Reliable detection of somatic mutations for pancreatic cancer in endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspirates with next-generation sequencing: implications from a prospective cohort study. J Gastrointest Surg. 2021;25:3149–59.PubMedCrossRef
59.
Semaan A, Bernard V, Lee JJ, et al. Defining the comprehensive genomic landscapes of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma using real-world endoscopic aspiration samples. Clin Cancer Res. 2021;27:1082–93.PubMedCrossRef
60.
Carrara S, Soldà G, Di Leo M, et al. Side-by-side comparison of next-generation sequencing, cytology, and histology in diagnosing locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;93:597–604.PubMedCrossRef
61.
Hisada Y, Hijioka S, Ikeda G, et al. Proportion of unresectable pancreatic cancer specimens obtained by endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition meeting the OncoGuide™ NCC Oncopanel System analysis suitability criteria: a single-arm, phase II clinical trial. J Gastroenterol. 2022;57:990–8.PubMedCrossRef
62.
Ikeda G, Hijioka S, Nagashio Y, et al. Fine-needle biopsy with 19G needle is effective in combination with endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition for genomic profiling of unresectable pancreatic cancer. Dig Endosc. 2023;35:124–33.PubMedCrossRef
63.
Kubota Y, Kawakami H, Natsuizaka M, et al. CTNNB1 mutational analysis of solid-pseudopapillary neoplasms of the pancreas using endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and next-generation deep sequencing. J Gastroenterol. 2015;50:203–10.PubMedCrossRef
64.
Kimura R, Ohtsuka T, Kubo M, et al. FoundationOne® CDx gene profiling in Japanese pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients: a single-institution experience. Surg Today. 2021;51:619–26.PubMedCrossRef
65.
Sone M, Arai Y, Sugawara S, et al. Feasibility of genomic profiling with next-generation sequencing using specimens obtained by image-guided percutaneous needle biopsy. Ups J Med Sci. 2019;124:119–24.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
66.
Facciorusso A, Prete VD, Buccino VR, et al. Diagnostic yield of Franseen and Fork-Tip biopsy needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition: a meta-analysis. Endosc Int Open. 2019;7:E1221–30.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
67.
Asokkumar R, Ka CY, Loh T, et al. Comparison of tissue and molecular yield between fine-needle biopsy (FNB) and fine-needle aspiration (FNA): a randomized study. Endosc Int Open. 2019;7:E955–63.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
68.
Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Integrated genomic characterization of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Cancer Cell. 2017;32:185–203.CrossRef
69.
70.
71.
Takahashi K, Yasuda I, Hanaoka T, et al. Comparison of histological sample volumes among various endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy needles. J Clin Med. 2021;10:3560.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
72.
Gheorghiu M, Seicean A, Bolboacă SD, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy versus fine-needle aspiration in the diagnosis of focal liver lesions: prospective head-to-head comparison. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022;12:2214.PubMedCrossRef
73.
Noh DH, Choi K, Gu S, et al. Comparison of 22-gauge standard fine needle versus core biopsy needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of suspected pancreatic cancer: a randomized crossover trial. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2018;53:94–9.PubMedCrossRef
74.
Alatawi A, Beuvon F, Grabar S, et al. Comparison of 22G reverse-beveled versus standard needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions. United European Gastroenterol J. 2015;3:343–52.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
75.
Eso Y, Kou T, Nagai H, et al. Utility of ultrasound-guided liver tumor biopsy for next-generation sequencing-based clinical sequencing. Hepatol Res. 2019;49:579–89.PubMedCrossRef
76.
Chun SM, Sung CO, Jeon H, et al. Next-generation sequencing using S1 nuclease for poor-quality formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor specimens. J Mol Diagn. 2018;20:802–11.PubMedCrossRef
77.
Pishvaian MJ, Blais ME, Brody JR, et al. Overall survival in patients with pancreatic cancer receiving matched therapies following molecular profiling: a retrospective analysis of the know your tumor registry trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21:508–18.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
78.
Singhi AD, George B, Greenbowe JR, et al. Real-time targeted genome profile analysis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas identifies genetic alterations that might be targeted with existing drugs or used as biomarkers. Gastroenterology. 2019;156:2242-2253.e4.PubMedCrossRef
79.
Hayashi H, Tanishima S, Fujii K, et al. Genomic testing for pancreatic cancer in clinical practice as real-world evidence. Pancreatology. 2018;18:647–54.PubMedCrossRef
80.
81.
82.
Umemoto K, Yamamoto H, Oikawa R, et al. The molecular landscape of pancreatobiliary cancers for novel targeted therapies from real-world genomic profiling. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2022;114:1279–86.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
83.
Javle M, Bekaii-Saab T, Jain A, et al. Biliary cancer: utility of next-generation sequencing for clinical management. Cancer. 2016;122:3838–47.PubMedCrossRef
84.
85.
Nakamura H, Arai Y, Totoki Y, et al. Genomic spectra of biliary tract cancer. Nat Genet. 2015;47:1003–10.PubMedCrossRef
86.
Guo L, Zhou F, Liu H, et al. Genomic mutation characteristics and prognosis of biliary tract cancer. Am J Transl Res. 2022;14:4990–5002.PubMedPubMedCentral
87.
Silverman IM, Hollebecque A, Friboulet L, et al. Clinicogenomic analysis of FGFR2-rearranged cholangiocarcinoma identifies correlates of response and mechanisms of resistance to pemigatinib. Cancer Discov. 2021;11:326–39.PubMedCrossRef
88.
Chakrabarti S, Kamgar M, Mahipal A. Targeted therapies in advanced biliary tract cancer: an evolving paradigm. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12:2039.PubMedCrossRef
89.
90.
Lowery MA, Ptashkin R, Jordan E, et al. Comprehensive molecular profiling of intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas: potential targets for intervention. Clin Cancer Res. 2018;24:4154–61.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
91.
Aitcheson G, Mahipal A, John BV. Targeting FGFR in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma [iCCA]: leading the way for precision medicine in biliary tract cancer [BTC]? Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2021;30:463–77.PubMedCrossRef
92.
Prete MG, Cammarota A, D’Alessio A. Current options and future directions of systemic therapy for advanced biliary tract cancer. Explor Target Antitumor Ther. 2021;2:416–33.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
93.
Takada K, Kubo T, Kikuchi J, et al. Effect of comprehensive cancer genomic profiling on therapeutic strategies and clinical outcomes in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer: a prospective multicenter study. Front Oncol. 2022;12: 988527.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
94.
Silverman IM, Li M, Murugesan K, et al. Validation and characterization of FGFR2 rearrangements in cholangiocarcinoma with comprehensive genomic profiling. J Mol Diagn. 2022;24:351–64.PubMedCrossRef
95.
Okawa Y, Ebata N, Kim NKD, et al. Actionability evaluation of biliary tract cancer by genome transcriptome analysis and Asian cancer knowledgebase. Oncotarget. 2021;12:1540–52.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
96.
Kanai M. Current clinical practice of precision medicine using comprehensive genomic profiling tests in biliary tract cancer in Japan. Curr Oncol. 2022;29:7272–84.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
97.
Moura DTH, Moura EGH, Bernardo WM, et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography versus endoscopic ultrasound for tissue diagnosis of malignant biliary stricture: systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Ultrasound. 2018;7:10–9.PubMedCrossRef
98.
Moura DTH, Moura EGH, Matuguma SE, et al. EUS-FNA versus ERCP for tissue diagnosis of suspect malignant biliary strictures: a prospective comparative study. Endosc Int Open. 2018;6:E769–77.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
99.
Lee YN, Moon JH, Choi HJ, et al. Tissue acquisition for diagnosis of biliary strictures using peroral cholangioscopy or endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration. Endoscopy. 2019;51:50–9.PubMedCrossRef
100.
Hirata K, Kuwatani M, Suda G, et al. A novel approach for the genetic analysis of biliary tract cancer specimens obtained through endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration using targeted amplicon sequencing. Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2019;10: e00022.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
101.
Kai Y, Ikezawa K, Takada R, et al. Success rate of microsatellite instability examination and complete response with pembrolizumab in biliary tract cancer. JGH Open. 2021;5:712–6.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
102.
Maruki Y, Morizane C, Arai Y, et al. Molecular detection and clinicopathological characteristics of advanced/recurrent biliary tract carcinomas harboring the FGFR2 rearrangements: a prospective observational study (PRELUDE Study). J Gastroenterol. 2021;56:250–60.PubMedCrossRef
103.
Choi HJ, Moon JH, Kim HK, et al. KRAS mutation analysis by next-generation sequencing in endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling for solid liver masses. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;32:154–62.PubMedCrossRef
104.
Kawakami H, Kuwatani M, Etoh K, et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography versus peroral cholangioscopy to evaluate intraepithelial tumor spread in biliary cancer. Endoscopy. 2009;41:959–64.PubMedCrossRef
105.
Singhi AD, Nikiforova MN, Chennat J, et al. Integrating next-generation sequencing to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-obtained biliary specimens improves the detection and management of patients with malignant bile duct strictures. Gut. 2020;69:52–61.PubMedCrossRef
106.
Kuwatani M, Kawakubo K, Sakamoto N, et al. Promising genomic testing for biliary tract cancer using endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy Specimens. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022;12:900.PubMedCrossRef
107.
Fujii T, Uchiyama T, Matsuoka M, et al. Evaluation of DNA and RNA quality from archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue for next-generation sequencing—retrospective study in Japanese single institution. Pathol Int. 2020;70:602–11.PubMedCrossRef
108.
Balla A, Hampel KJ, Sharma MK, et al. Comprehensive validation of cytology specimens for next-generation sequencing and clinical practice experience. J Mol Diagn. 2018;20:812–21.PubMedCrossRef
109.
Santos GC, Saieg MA. Preanalytic specimen triage: smears, cell blocks, cytospin preparations, transport media, and cytobanking. Cancer Cytopathol. 2017;125:455–64.CrossRef
110.
Wani S, Muthusamy VR, McGrath CM, et al. AGA white paper: optimizing endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition and future directions. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;16:318–27.PubMedCrossRef
111.
Huggett JF, Cowen S, Foy CA. Considerations for digital PCR as an accurate molecular diagnostic tool. Clin Chem. 2015;61:79–88.PubMedCrossRef
112.
Matsumoto K, Kato H, Nouso K, et al. Evaluation of local recurrence of pancreatic cancer by KRAS mutation analysis using washes from endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration. Dig Dis Sci. 2020;65:2907–13.PubMedCrossRef
113.
114.
Llovet JM, Kelley RK, Villanueva A, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2021;7:6.PubMedCrossRef
115.
Nakagawa H, Fujita M, Fujimoto A, et al. Genome sequencing analysis of liver cancer for precision medicine. Semin Cancer Biol. 2019;55:120–7.PubMedCrossRef
116.
117.
Takano Y, Noda J, Yamawaki M, et al. Comparative study of an ultrasound-guided percutaneous biopsy and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for liver tumors. Intern Med. 2021;60:1657–64.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
118.
Ozeki Y, Kanogawa N, Ogasawara S, et al. Liver biopsy technique in the era of genomic cancer therapies: a single-center retrospective analysis. Int J Clin Oncol. 2022;27:1459–66.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Current status and issues in genomic analysis using EUS-FNA/FNB specimens in hepatobiliary–pancreatic cancers
Authors
Yoshinori Ozono
Hiroshi Kawakami
Naomi Uchiyama
Hiroshi Hatada
Souichiro Ogawa
Publication date
12-09-2023
Publisher
Springer Nature Singapore
Published in
Journal of Gastroenterology / Issue 11/2023
Print ISSN: 0944-1174
Electronic ISSN: 1435-5922
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00535-023-02037-z

Other articles of this Issue 11/2023

Journal of Gastroenterology 11/2023 Go to the issue

Original Article―Liver, Pancreas, and Biliary Tract

The association between phosphate level at admission and early mortality in acute pancreatitis

Original Article—Alimentary Tract

Analysis of the development of gastric cancer after resecting colorectal lesions using large-scale health insurance claims data

Original Article―Liver, Pancreas, and Biliary Tract

Efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma patients with esophageal–gastric varices

Correction

Correction: Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for irritable bowel syndrome 2020

Correction

Correction: Partial splenic embolization combined with endoscopic therapies and vasoconstrictive drugs reduces rebleeding in cirrhosis patients with acute variceal bleeding and hypersplenism: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

Original Article—Alimentary Tract

Application of polyglycolic acid sheets and basic fibroblast growth factor to prevent esophageal stricture after endoscopic submucosal dissection in pigs
Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Reserve your place

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

Read more

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Pediatric Cardiology Video

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

Cardiopulmonary Comorbidity Video

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Valvular Heart Disease Video

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Heart Failure Video

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Heart Failure Video

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.

Watch now

Semaglutide benefits people with type 2 diabetes and obesity-related heart failure

16-04-2024 Type 2 Diabetes News

Incentivised to exercise

11-04-2024 Lifestyle Modifications News

New intervention for STEMI-related cardiogenic shock

10-04-2024 Myocardial Infarction News

» View more highlights on the ACC 2024 congress hub page

Image Credits