Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 25, 2026

Using the Endoscope for Endobronchial Ultrasound in the Esophagus
Published on: November 21, 2023
Comparison of methods to detect neoplasia in patients undergoing endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration
Michael J Levy1, Trynda N Oberg, Michael B Campion
1Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota 55905, USA. levy.michael@mayo.edu
Background & Aims:
Digital image analysis (DIA) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) can be used to evaluate biliary strictures with greater accuracy than conventional cytology (CC). We performed a prospective evaluation of the accuracy of CC, compared with that of DIA and FISH, in detection of malignancy in patients undergoing endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) fine-needle aspiration (FNA).
Methods:
We collected a minimum of 6 FNA samples from each of 250 patients during EUS. CC or DIA and FISH analyses were performed on every other specimen (from every other FNA pass); patients were randomly assigned to the first test performed. CC slides were reviewed by gastrointestinal cytopathologists who were blinded to all data. Findings from cytohistologic analysis, after a minimum 24-month follow-up period, were used as the standard (n = 202; median age, 65 years).
Results:
Aspirates were collected from lymph nodes (n = 111), pancreas (n = 61), gastrointestinal lumen wall (n = 9), periluminal mass (n = 4), liver (n = 8), and miscellaneous sites (n = 9). Matched samples provided a mean of 3.2 passes for CC and 1.6 passes for DIA and FISH. The data indicate a potential lack of utility for DIA. The combination of CC and FISH detected malignancy with 11% greater sensitivity than CC alone (P = .0002), but specificity was reduced from 100% to 96%.
Conclusions:
FISH analysis identifies neoplastic lesions with significantly greater sensitivity than CC in patients with diverse pathologies who underwent EUS with FNA, despite limited tissue sampling for FISH analysis.
