# Diagnostic Assessment of Endoscopic Ultrasonography–Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology in the Pancreas: A Comparison between Liquid-Based Preparation and Conventional Smear

## TL;DR

This study compares two methods for analyzing pancreatic cell samples and finds that certain features are more important for diagnosis depending on the method used.

## Contribution

The study identifies method-specific diagnostic features in EUS-FNAC for pancreatic samples using LBP and CS.

## Key findings

- LBP and CS showed a 49.1% diagnostic concordance rate in EUS-FNAC cases.
- Nuclear atypia did not significantly affect diagnosis in categories III, VI, and VII.
- Cellularity, mitosis, and necrotic background were more impactful in CS than LBP.

## Abstract

Background and Objectives: This study aimed to elucidate the cytologic characteristics and diagnostic usefulness of endoscopic ultrasonography–fine needle aspiration cytology (EUS-FNAC) by comparing it with liquid-based preparation (LBP) and conventional smear (CS) in pancreas. Methods: The diagnostic categories (I through VII) were classified according to the World Health Organization Reporting System for Pancreaticobiliary Cytopathology. Ten cytologic features, including nuclear and additional features, were evaluated in 53 cases subjected to EUS-FNAC. Nuclear features comprised irregular nuclear contours, nuclear enlargement, hypochromatic nuclei with parachromatin clearing, and nucleoli. Additional cellular features included isolated atypical cells, mucinous cytoplasm, drunken honeycomb architecture, mitosis, necrotic background, and cellularity. A decision tree analysis was conducted to assess diagnostic efficacy. Results: The diagnostic concordance rate between LBP and CS was 49.1% (26 out of 53 cases). No significant differences in nuclear features were observed between categories III (atypical), VI (suspicious for malignancy), and VII (malignant). The decision tree analysis of LBP indicated that cases with moderate or high cellularity and mitosis could be considered diagnostic for those exhibiting nuclear atypia. Furthermore, in CS, mitosis, isolated atypical cells, and necrotic background exerted a more significant impact on the diagnosis of EUS-FNAC. Conclusions: Significant parameters for interpreting EUS-FNAC may differ between LBP and CS. While nuclear atypia did not influence the diagnosis of categories III, VI, and VII, other cytopathologic features, such as cellularity, mitosis, and necrotic background, may present challenges in diagnosing EUS-FNAC.