High single-pass diagnostic yield of a new 25-gauge core biopsy needle for EUS-guided FNA biopsy in solid pancreatic lesions

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical and Technology Review

This Technical and Technology Review from the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) represents an update of the previous document on the technical aspects of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology, including the available types of needle, technical aspects of tissue sampling, new devices, and specimen handling and processing. Among the most important new recommendations are:ESGE recommends end-cutting fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles over reverse-bevel FNB or fine-needle aspiration (FNA) needles for tissue sampling of solid pancreatic lesions; FNA may still have a role when rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) is available.ESGE recommends EUS-FNB or mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) equally for tissue sampling of subepithelial lesions ≥20 mm in size. MIAB could represent the first choice for smaller lesions (<20 mm) if proper expertise is available.ESGE does not recommend the use of antibiotic prophylaxis before EUS-guided tissue sampling of solid masses and EUS-FNA of pancreatic cystic lesions.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation of pancreatic tumors

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Surgery is a cornerstone in the management of pancreatic cancer and precancerous pancreatic lesions. However, many patients are not suitable candidates for surgery at the time of diagnosis for various reasons. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA) appears to be a promising treatment option for patients who are ineligible for surgery for management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC), and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs), and pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs).

RECENT FINDINGS

EUS-RFA may serve as an adjunct to chemotherapy or palliative measures for inoperable cases of PDAC. Given its feasibility and efficacy, EUS-RFA has an evolving niche as a minimally invasive and potentially definitive treatment for PNETs and high-risk PCLs such as intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs). EUS-RFA is a generally well tolerated procedure, with abdominal pain and acute pancreatitis being the most common adverse effects, though the risk can be mitigated through prophylactic measures.

SUMMARY

There is an increasing body of evidence to support the use of EUS-RFA in managing pancreatic lesions, either as definitive, adjunctive, or palliative treatment, depending on lesion type.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic cystic lesions: a comprehensive review

Advancements in diagnostic radiology have amplified the incorporation of these techniques into routine clinical practice. Concurrently, the frequency of incidentally identifying pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) has surged. PCLs encompass diverse categories contingent upon their origin. Among them, branch duct-intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (BD-IPMN) and mucinous cystic neoplasms (MCN) are categorized as mucinous cystic lesions that have malignant potential. Even solid neoplasms occasionally show cystic degeneration. Therefore, precise differential PCL diagnosis is crucial to optimize clinical management strategies and detect malignant transformations. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) affords comprehensive visualization of the pancreas with high-resolution ultrasound, complemented by fine-needle aspiration (FNA) under real-time EUS guidance, which is a minimally invasive procedure for obtaining pathological samples. This synergy has established EUS and EUS-FNA as vital procedures in the management of PCLs, enabling differentiation of PCLs. Cyst fluid analysis has played a pivotal role in deciding the optimal management strategy. The efficacy of cytological analysis is limited by scant cytologic material. The "string sign" test evaluates fluid viscosity, and its simplicity warrants initial consideration. Amylase and tumor markers, such as CEA, have been studied, but they yield varied sensitivity and specificity. Glucose and genetic mutations (KRAS, GNAS) exhibit promise, while comprehensive genomic profiling underscores genetic insights. Through-the-needle biopsy and needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy also show high diagnostic yield. EUS-FNA, however, entails risks like infection and needle tract seeding, emphasizing the need for proper utilization. Pancreatic cyst fluid analysis augments diagnostic accuracy and informs clinical decisions, making it a valuable adjunct to imaging.

22-gauge Co-Cr versus stainless-steel Franseen needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition in patients with solid pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) using Franseen needles is reportedly useful for its high diagnostic yield. This study compared the diagnostic yield and puncturing ability of EUS-TA using 22-gauge cobalt-chromium (CO-Cr) needles with those of stainless-steel Franseen needles in patients with solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

Outcomes were compared between the 22-gauge Co-Cr Franseen needle (December 2019 to November 2020; group C) and stainless-steel needle (November 2020 to May 2022; group S).

RESULTS

A total of 155 patients (group C, 75; group S, 80) were eligible. The diagnostic accuracy was 92.0% in group C and 96.3% in group S with no significant intergroup differences (p=0.32). The rate of change in the operator (from training fellows to experts) was 20.0% (15/75) in group C and 7.5% (6/80) in group S. Stainless-steel Franseen needles showed less inter-operator difference than Co-Cr needles (p=0.03).

CONCLUSION

Both Co-Cr and stainless-steel Franseen needles showed high diagnostic ability. Stainless-steel Franseen needles are soft and flexible; therefore, the range of puncture angles can be widely adjusted, making them suitable for training fellows to complete the procedure.

Optimal sampling technique for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions using a 25-gauge ProCore needle: A multicenter randomized crossover superiority study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

It remains unclear whether the use of the stylet slow-pull (SP) and wet suction (WS) can improve the yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy compared to standard suction (SS). The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic efficacy of the three sampling techniques when using 25G ProCore needles for solid pancreatic lesions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This multicenter single-blind randomized crossover superiority trial enrolled patients with solid pancreatic lesions (n = 300) from four digestive endoscopic centers in China. All three sampling techniques were performed on each patient using a 25G ProCore needle in a randomized sequence. The diagnostic efficacy, the specimen yield, and quality of each technique, the overall technical success rate and diagnostic yield of the 25G ProCore needle, and rate of adverse events were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 291 patients were analyzed. No significant difference was found in diagnostic efficiency among the three techniques (sensitivity, 82.14% vs. 75.00% vs. 77.86, P = 0.1186; accuracy, 82.82% vs. 75.95% vs. 78.69%, P = 0.1212). The SP had an inferior tissue integrity compared to the SS and WS techniques (71.82% vs. 62.55% vs. 69.76%, P = 0.0096). There was no significant difference in the degree of blood contamination among the three groups (P = 0.2079). After three passes, the overall sensitivity was 93.93%, and the accuracy was 94.16%.

CONCLUSIONS

SS and WS techniques are better choices than SP technique for 25G ProCore needle, for they could provide higher specimen adequacy without increasing the amount of blood contamination. The 25G ProCore needle can provide a satisfactory diagnostic yield for solid pancreatic lesions.

Comparison of diagnostic performances of slow-pull suction and standard suction in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy for gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors

Background/Aims

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is integral to the diagnosis of gastrointestinal (GI) subepithelial tumors (SETs). The impact of different EUS-FNB tissue sampling techniques on specimen adequacy and diagnostic accuracy in SETs has not been fully evaluated. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic outcomes of slow-pull (SP) and standard suction (SS) in patients with GI SETs.

Methods

In this retrospective comparative study, 54 patients were enrolled. Medical records were reviewed for location and size of the target lesion, FNB needle type/size, technical order, specimen adequacy, diagnostic yield, and adverse events. The acquisition rate of adequate specimens and diagnostic accuracy were compared according to EUS-FNB techniques.

Results

The mean lesion size was 42.6±36.4 mm, and most patients were diagnosed with GI stromal tumor (75.9%). The overall diagnostic accuracies of the SP and SS techniques were 83.3% and 81.5%, respectively (p=0.800). The rates of obtaining adequate core tissue were 79.6% and 75.9%, respectively (p=0.799). No significant clinical factors affected the rate of obtaining adequate core tissue, including lesion location and size, FNB needle size, and final diagnosis.

Conclusions

SP and SS had comparable diagnostic accuracies and adequate core tissue acquisition for GI SETs via EUS-FNB.

Comparison of 22-gauge standard and Franseen needles in EUS-guided tissue acquisition for diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This large multicenter randomized controlled trial compared the diagnostic yields of 22-gauge standard and 22-gauge Franseen needles for EUS-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) of solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with solid pancreatic lesions were prospectively randomized to EUS-TA using standard or Franseen needles. Samples obtained with the first needle pass and with second and subsequent passes were evaluated separately. The primary endpoint was the rate of accuracy for diagnosis of malignancy. Other endpoints were technical success rate, sample cellularity, adverse events, diagnostic accuracy in patient subgroups, and the diagnostic accuracy and numbers of second and subsequent needle passes.

RESULTS

Of 523 patients undergoing EUS-TA, 260 were randomized to using standard 22-gauge needles and 263 to 22-gauge Franseen needles. The technical success rate in each group was 99.6%, with similar adverse event rates in the standard (1.5%) and Franseen (.8%) needle groups. First-pass EUS-TA using the Franseen needle resulted in significantly greater diagnostic accuracy (84.0% vs 71.2%, P < .001) and sensitivity (82.4% vs 66.7%, P < .001) than first-pass EUS-TA using a standard needle and also resulted in superior diagnostic accuracy in patients requiring immunostaining. Second and subsequent EUS-TA using Franseen needles showed significantly greater accuracy (94.7% vs 90.0%, P = .049) and sensitivity (94.0% vs 88.6%, P = .047) and required fewer needle passes (1.81 vs 2.03, P = .008) than using standard needles.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-TA with the Franseen needle is superior to EUS-TA with a standard needle with respect to diagnostic accuracy per pass, particularly in patients who require immunostaining, and number of passes when using macroscopic on-site evaluation. (Clinical trial registration numbers: UMIN000030634 and jRCTs052180062.).

Endoscopic ultrasonography‐guided tissue acquisition for small solid pancreatic lesions: Does the size matter?

Endoscopic ultrasonography‐guided tissue acquisition (EUS‐TA) is now an established technique to obtain the pathological diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs), but the diagnosis of small SPLS by EUS‐TA can still be difficult. We conducted a literature review and a meta‐analysis on the diagnostic yield of EUS‐TA according to the tumor size. In a meta‐analysis of 33 studies with 6883 cases, a pooled odds ratio (OR) of sensitivity was significantly higher in SPLs of >20 mm (OR 1.64, p = 0.02) and in SPLs of >10 mm (OR 3.05, p = 0.01), but not in SPLs of >30 mm (OR 1.18, p = 0.46). The meta‐analysis of accuracy also showed a similar trend: OR of 1.59 in SPLs of >20 mm (p < 0.01) and OR of 3.27 in SPLs of >10 mm (p < 0.01) and OR of 1.03 in SPLs of >30 mm (p = 0.87). The use of a 25‐gauge needle tended to improve sensitivity in small SPLs, though not statistically significant: OR of 1.25 and 2.82 in studies with and without a 25‐gauge needle (p = 0.08). The use of fine needle biopsy needles, slow pull method, and rapid on‐site evaluation did not significantly improve sensitivity in small SPLs. EUS‐TA for small SPLs, especially neuroendocrine neoplasms, is reported to have a high risk of adverse events. In summary, the diagnostic yield and safety of EUS‐TA for small (<20 mm) SPLs still needs improvement, and the best needle and technique for small SPLs should be further investigated.

A comparison between 25-gauge and 22-gauge Franseen needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of pancreatic and peripancreatic masses: a randomized non-inferiority study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (FNB) are the current standard of care for sampling pancreatic and peripancreatic masses. Recently, a 22G EUS-FNB needle with Franseen geometry was developed, and this device was also introduced in a 25G platform. We compared the performance of the 25G and 22G Franseen needles for EUS-guided sampling of pancreatic and peripancreatic solid masses.

METHODS

We conducted a parallel-group randomized non-inferiority trial at a tertiary-care center from November 2018 to May 2019. The primary outcome was the quality of the histologic core assessed using the Gerke score. The optimal histologic core is indicated by a Gerke score of 4 or 5, which enables optimal histologic interpretation. The overall diagnostic accuracy and adverse event rate were also evaluated.

RESULTS

140 patients were enrolled and randomized (1:1) to the 25G and 22G groups. Tissue acquisition by EUS-FNB was successful in all patients. The optimal histologic core procurement rate was 87.1 % (61/70) for the 25G needle vs. 97.1 % (68/70) for the 22G; difference -10 % (95 % confidence interval -17.35 % to -2.65 %). High quality specimens were more frequently obtained in the 22G group than in the 25G group (70.0 % [49/70] vs. 28.6 % [20 /70], respectively; P < 0.001). The overall diagnostic accuracy did not differ between the groups (97.4 % for 25G vs. 100 % for 22G).

CONCLUSIONS

The 25G Franseen needle was inferior to the 22G needle in histologic core procurement. Therefore, for cases in which tissue architecture is pivotal for diagnosis, a 22G needle, which procures relatively higher quality specimens than the 25G needle, should be used.

Optimal Techniques for EUS-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration of Pancreatic Solid Masses at Facilities without On-Site Cytopathology: Results from Two Prospective Randomised Trials

Background: EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has emerged as the primary modality for the cytologic diagnosis of pancreatic solid masses. The aim of this study is to determine whether technical factors including suction (S), non-suction (NS), capillary sampling with stylet slow-pull (CSSS), and the number of needle actuations (to-and-fro needle movements) may affect the accuracy of EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid masses at facilities without on-site cytopathology. Methods: The diagnostic yield of malignancy, blood contamination and cellularity at each sample acquired from EUS-FNA with or without S and different numbers of actuation (10, 15 and 20) were measured (study I). The optimal actuation number was determined and a head-to-head comparison trial between S and CSSS was performed (study II). Results: In study I, significant blood contamination was seen using S with 20 compared with 15 actuations (p = 0.002). Diagnostic yield of malignancy was not significantly different between 10, 15, and 20 actuations with S, whereas it was statistically higher for 15 actuations compared with 10 actuations with NS (p = 0.001). In study II, no difference was noted in diagnostic yield with 15 actuations between S and CSSS (88% vs. 90%, p = 0.74). Conclusions: Increasing actuation in NS resulted in a better diagnostic yield for EUS-FNA without significant blood contamination, whereas increasing actuation in S did not change the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA while causing significant blood contamination. With 15 actuations, the diagnostic yield was comparable between S and CSSS.

Advanced Endoscopic Techniques for the Diagnosis of Pancreatic Cancer and Management of Biliary and GastricOutlet Obstruction

Following high-quality imaging studies for staging, endoscopic ultrasound examination fine needle aspiration/biopsy is the preferred modality for tissue diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with metal stent placement is used for palliation of malignant biliary obstruction. Metal stents can be placed in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer in whom surgery is going to be delayed. For palliation of gastric outlet obstruction, endoscopic enteral stenting is often selected because of its less invasiveness. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage for malignant biliary obstruction or gastrojejunostomy for gastric outlet obstruction are emerging less invasive techniques as compared with palliative surgery.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition by 22-Gauge Franseen and Standard Needles for Solid Pancreatic Lesions

Background/Aims

Recently, a three-plane symmetric needle with Franseen geometry was developed for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). In this retrospective study, tissue acquisition per pass was compared between 22-gauge Franseen FNB and standard fine needle aspiration (FNA) needles in patients with solid pancreatic lesions.

Methods

Consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB for solid pancreatic lesions between October 2014 and March 2018 were retrospectively studied. The tissue acquisition rate and the diagnostic performance per session, per pass, and at first pass were compared.

Results

A total of 663 passes (300 by the FNB needle and 363 by the standard FNA needle) were performed in 154 patients (71 FNB and 83 FNA). The tissue acquisition rate per session and at first pass in the FNB and FNA groups was 100% and 95% (p=0.13) and 87% and 69% (p=0.007), respectively. The multivariate analysis revealed that among the patients, EUS-FNB (odds ratio, 3.07; p=0.01) was associated with a higher first-pass tissue acquisition rate. While the tissue acquisition rate reached a plateau after the 4th pass with FNA, it reached a plateau after the 2nd pass with FNB. Among the 129 malignant cases, the histological tissue acquisition rate per session was similar (100% and 94%), but the sensitivity by histology alone per session was higher for FNB than for FNA (93% and 73%, p<0.01).

Conclusions

The results of our retrospective analysis indicated that compared with a standard FNA needle, a 22-gauge Franseen FNB needle was associated with a higher first-pass tissue acquisition rate.

Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle biopsy was not more cost-effective than fine-needle aspiration with rapid on-site evaluation in gastrointestinal lesions diagnosis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Cost-effectiveness comparison between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided acquisition techniques by fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) in gastrointestinal lesions is still scarce. EUS-FNB has been shown to be more cost-effective than EUS-FNA, however, when adding rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) to EUS-FNA, it is unclear whether EUS-FNB remains more cost-effective. Our aim was to assess cost-efficacy of EUS-FNB as compared to EUS-FNA with ROSE in gastrointestinal lesions.

METHOD

All patients who underwent EUS-FNA with ROSE or EUS-FNB at Galilee Medical Center were retrospectively reviewed. Cost-effectiveness analysis was based on the additional EUS sessions needed and on the average cost expenditure to achieve one final pathological diagnosis.

RESULTS

Seventy-four cases were included in the final analysis. Of them, 21 patients (28.4%) were in the EUS-FNB group (group A), as compared to 53 patients (71.6%) who underwent EUS-FNA with ROSE (group B). Additional EUS sessions needed to achieve one final pathological diagnosis were needed in 14.3% of group A patients vs 9.4% in group B patients (P = .5). and, the average cost for achieving one final pathological diagnosis was similar in both groups (1226 ± 369$ for group A vs 1158 ± 309.6.7$ for group B, P = .2). Notably, even after analyzing pancreatic and non-pancreatic gastrointestinal lesions separately, there was no cost benefit of EUS-FNB over EUS-FNA with ROSE.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost-effectiveness analysis was not different between EUS-FNB vs EUS-FNA with ROSE. Thus, the preference of one modality over the other should be based on availability and local expertise.

A Meta-analysis of Slow Pull versus Suction for Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition

Background/Aims

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition is widely utilized as a diagnostic modality for intra-abdominal masses, but there remains debate regarding which suction technique, slow pull (SP) or conventional suction (CS), is better. A meta-analysis of reported studies was conducted to compare the diagnostic yields of SP and CS during EUS-guided tissue acquisition.

Methods

We conducted a systematic electronic search using MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify clinical studies comparing SP and CS. We meta-analyzed accuracy, sensitivity, blood contamination and cellularity using the random-effects model.

Results

A total of 17 studies (seven randomized controlled trials, four prospective studies, and six retrospective studies) with 1,616 cases were included in the analysis. Compared to CS, there was a trend toward better accuracy (odds ratio [OR], 1.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 2.27; p=0.07) and sensitivity (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.93; p=0.08) with SP and a significantly lower rate of blood contamination (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.69; p<0.01). However, there was no significant difference in cellularity between SP and CS, with an OR of 1.28 (95% CI, 0.68 to 2.40; p=0.45). When the use of a 25-gauge needle was analyzed, the accuracy and sensitivity of SP were significantly better than those of CS, with ORs of 4.81 (95% CI, 1.99 to 11.62; p<0.01) and 4.69 (95% CI, 1.93 to 11.40; p<0.01), respectively.

Conclusions

Compared to CS, SP appears to provide better accuracy and sensitivity in EUS-guided tissue acquisition, especially when a 25-gauge needle is used.

Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration vs fine needle biopsy for pancreatic masses, subepithelial lesions, and lymph nodes

Endoscopic ultrasound tissue acquisition, in the form of both fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB), is utilized for pancreatic mass lesions, subepithelial lesions, and lymph node biopsy. Both procedures are safe and yield high diagnostic value. Despite its high diagnostic yield, EUS-FNA has potential limitations associated with cytological aspirations, including inability to determine histologic architecture, and a small quantitative sample for further immunohistochemical staining. EUS-FNB, with its larger core biopsy needle, was designed to overcome these potential limitations. However, it remains unclear which technique should be used and for which lesions. Comparative trials are plagued by heterogeneity at every stage of comparison; including variable needles used, and different definitions of endpoints, which therefore limit generalizability. Thus, we present a review of prospective trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses on studies examining EUS-FNA vs EUS-FNB. Prospective comparative trials of EUS-FNA vs EUS-FNB primarily focus on pancreatic mass lesions, and yield conflicting results in terms of demonstrating the superiority of one method. However, consistent among trials is the potential for diagnosis with fewer passes, and a larger quantity of sample achieved for next generation sequencing. With regard to subepithelial lesions and lymph node biopsy, fewer prospective trials exist, and larger prospective studies are necessary. Based on the available literature, we would recommend EUS-FNB for peri-hepatic lymph nodes.

The Impact of Recent Advances in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition on the Management of Pancreatic Cancer

Over the last few decades, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition has become the method of choice for the pathological diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions. Due to its high diagnostic yield and low complication rate, EUS-guided tissue acquisition has surpassed percutaneous sampling techniques. For many years, EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) was traditionally used to obtain cytological aspirates of solid pancreatic lesions, with sensitivity values ranging from 80 to 90% for the diagnosis of malignancy. Nevertheless, despite numerous technical advances, EUS-FNA still presents some limitations. Therefore, EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) has been introduced to provide tissue core biopsies, allowing histological assessment. A newly developed generation of FNB needles has demonstrated an outstanding diagnostic accuracy of over 95% for solid pancreatic lesions and provides samples appropriate for ancillary testing, such as immunohistochemistry and tumour molecular profiling. As a result, EUS-FNB is rapidly replacing EUS-FNA and is now the recommended technique for EUS-guided tissue acquisition in pancreatic cancer. Furthermore, with the recent expansion of neoadjuvant treatment criteria and with the advent of novel and personalised anti-cancer therapies, EUS-FNB is gaining a pivotal role in pancreatic cancer management and might soon be generalised to all patients, independent of disease stage. In this article, the authors present an updated review of the role of EUS-guided tissue acquisition in pancreatic cancer. Current indications, several technical aspects and new applications of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB are discussed.

Comparison of fine-needle aspiration and fine-needle biopsy devices for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid lesions: a systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition is extensively used, but the optimal sampling device is still a matter of debate. We performed meta-analyses on studies comparing fine-needle aspiration (FNA) with fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles, and studies comparing different FNB needles.

METHODS

Online databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 50 cases with a suspected solid pancreatic or nonpancreatic lesion that compared FNA with FNB needles. Outcome measures included diagnostic accuracy, adequacy, number of passes, presence of tissue cores, and adverse events. We also performed meta-regression analysis on the effect of FNB design on diagnostic accuracy. Quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool.

RESULTS

18 RCTs comparing FNA with FNB needles were included. FNB provided a higher pooled diagnostic accuracy (87 % vs. 80 %; P = 0.02) and tissue core rate (80 % vs. 62 %; P = 0.002), and allowed diagnosis with fewer passes (P = 0.03), in both pancreatic and nonpancreatic lesions. A total of 93 studies were included comparing different FNB devices. Pooled diagnostic accuracy was higher for forward-facing bevel needles than for the reverse bevel needle. In this analysis, study quality was low and heterogeneity was high (I2  = 80 %).

CONCLUSION

FNB outperformed FNA when sampling pancreatic and nonpancreatic lesions. Forward-facing bevel FNB needles seemed to outperform the reverse bevel FNB needle, but the low quality of evidence prevents us from making strong recommendations on the optimal FNB design.

Stylet Slow-pull Versus Standard Suction for Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Aspiration/Biopsy of Pancreatic Solid Masses: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM

There is limited evidence on the diagnostic performance of the stylet slow-pull (SP) method for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy. The aim of this study was to compare the SP method with standard suction (SS) for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy of solid pancreatic masses.

METHODS

A computerized bibliographic search of the main databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Science Citation Index, was performed through February 2020. The main outcome measurements were diagnostic accuracy, cellularity, low blood contamination, adequate core tissue acquisition, and technical success rate.

RESULTS

Eleven studies (including 6 randomized trials) were included, with a total of 504 patients who underwent SP and 551 who underwent SS. Diagnostic accuracy was significantly superior in the SP group, compared with the SS group [odds ratio (OR)=1.60; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.14-2.26]. The SP group had higher pooled rates of low blood contamination (OR=1.93; 95% CI, 1.29-2.87) and adequate core tissue acquisition (OR=1.91; 95% CI, 1.11-3.26) than the SS group. There was no significant difference between groups in the adequacy of cellularity (OR=0.99; 95% CI, 0.63-1.57; P=0.98) or technical success rate (OR=0.38; 95% CI, 0.13-1.15; P=0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

The authors provide evidence that SP is superior to SS in diagnostic accuracy, low blood contamination, and adequate core tissue acquisition, without reducing adequacy of cellularity or technical success rate.

IS THE NEW PROCORE 20G DOUBLE FORWARD-BEVEL NEEDLE CAPABLE TO OBTAIN BETTER HISTOLOGICAL SAMPLES BY ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND FOR DIAGNOSING SOLID PANCREATIC LESIONS?

BACKGROUND

Fine needle biopsy (FNB) histological samples by endoscopic ultrasound. It is important to obtain representative histological samples of solid biliopancreatic lesions without a clear indication for resection. The role of new needles in such task is yet to be determined.

AIM

To compare performance assessment between 20G double fine needle biopsy (FNB) and conventional 22G fine needle aspiration (FNA) needles for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biopsy.

METHODS

This prospective study examined 20 patients who underwent the random puncture of solid pancreatic lesions with both needles and the analysis of tissue samples by a single pathologist.

RESULTS

The ProCore 20G FNB needle provided more adequate tissue samples (16 vs. 9, p=0.039) with better cellularity quantitative scores (11 vs. 5, p=0.002) and larger diameter of the histological sample (1.51±1.3 mm vs. 0.94±0.55 mm, p=0.032) than the 22G needle. The technical success, puncture difficulty, and sample bleeding were similar between groups. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy were 88.9%, 100%, and 90% and 77.8%, 100%, and 78.9% for the 20G and 22G needles, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The samples obtained with the ProCore 20G FNB showed better histological parameters; although there was no difference in the diagnostic performance between the two needles, these findings may improve pathologist performance.

Effectiveness of introducing a 20-gauge core biopsy needle with a core trap in EUS-FNA/B for diagnosing pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) is a standard method for pathological diagnosis of pancreatic solid lesions. The EchoTip ProCore 20G® (PC20), a 20-gauge biopsy needle with a forward-bevel core trap, has been available in Japan since 2015.

METHODS

We compared the efficacy of the PC20 with that of the EchoTip ProCore 22G® (PC22) and Acquire 22G® (AC22) in EUS-FNA/B for diagnosing pancreatic cancer. This retrospective study included 191 patients with pancreatic cancer who underwent EUS-FNA/B using the PC20, PC22, or AC22 at our facility from April 2013 to October 2019. We investigated the patients' clinical characteristics and the diagnostic accuracy and safety of each needle.

RESULTS

A sufficient stroke length of puncture was secured in all patients. The maximum length under EUS was shorter with the AC22 (22.1 ± 2.2 mm) than PC20 (30.6 ± 0.7 mm, p < 0.01) and PC22 (30.3 ± 0.8 mm, p < 0.01). The histological accuracy was 96.4% with the PC20 but only 58.8% with the PC22 (adjusted p (p-adj) < 0.0001) and 75.0% with the AC22 (p-adj = 0.06). The diagnostic accuracy of the combination of histology and cytology was 96.4% with the PC20, while it was 72.1% with the PC22 (p-adj < 0.0001) and 91.7% with the AC22 (p-adj > 0.99). One patient (0.9%) in the PC20 group developed mild pancreatitis, but no adverse events occurred with the other needles.

CONCLUSIONS

The PC20 showed better diagnostic capability than the PC22. The diagnostic efficacy was similar between the PC20 and AC22. The high histological accuracy of the PC20 could be advantageous for lesions in which histological assessment is critical.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pelvic lesions via the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract approaches

BACKGROUND

Combining upper and lower gastrointestinal tract (GI) approaches allows expansion of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) indications for pelvic lesions. The upper GI approach has been used for pelvic lesions around the level of the aortoiliac bifurcation in our institution. The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and safety of EUS-FNA for pelvic lesions via the upper and lower GI approaches.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNA for the pelvic lesion between January 2008 and December 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Pelvic lesions were defined as lesions located around and below the aortoiliac bifurcation level. The primary outcome was technical success rate, and the secondary outcomes were the diagnostic capability of EUS-FNA for malignancy and the safety.

RESULTS

EUS-FNA for pelvic lesions was performed in 49 patients: upper and lower GI approaches were used in 28 and 21 patients, respectively. The technical success rates were 91.8% (45/49) in all patients: 89.3% (25/28) and 95.2% (20/21) with the upper and lower GI approaches, respectively. Among patients who achieved technical success, the diagnostic accuracy for malignancy was 97.8% (44/45) in all patients: 100% (25/25) and 95.0% (19/20) with the upper and lower GI approaches, respectively. One (2.0%) patient developed an adverse event of sigmoid colon perforation.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNA for pelvic lesions via the upper and lower GI approaches was a safe, feasible, and effective method, although careful endoscopic manipulation is required to avoid perforation, especially with the lower GI approach. Further large-scale, well-designed studies are needed to validate our findings.

Utility of a 20G needle with a core trap in EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy for gastric submucosal tumors: A multicentric prospective trial

Background and Objectives

Differential diagnosis to estimate the malignant potential of gastric submucosal tumor (g-SMT) is important for decision-making. This study evaluated the use of a 20G needle with a core trap for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for g-SMT.

Methods

This multicentric prospective trial was registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN000021410). Consecutive patients with g-SMT who presented at one of the nine Japanese Referral Centers between June 2017 and November 2018 were enrolled. All patients underwent EUS-FNB using a 20G needle with a core trap. Samples obtained with the first-needle pass were used for central pathological review. EUS-FNB was evaluated in terms of (i) technical success rate, (ii) adequacy for histological evaluation, (iii) rate of complications, (iv) accuracy for histological diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST), and (v) concordance between GIST mitotic index determined by EUS-FNB and after tumor resection.

Results

The study included 52 patients. The technical success rate of EUS-FNB was 100%. The adequacy rate for histological evaluation was 90.4% (P < 0.001). There were no complications related to EUS-FNB. Of the 38/52 patients who underwent surgical resection, 36 were finally diagnosed with GIST. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of EUS-FNB for the histological diagnosis of g-SMT were 80.6%, 100%, and 81.6%, respectively. The concordance rate between the mitotic index on EUS-FNB and that after analysis of the resected tumor was 89.7%.

Conclusions

EUS-FNB using a 20G needle with a core trap is feasible, providing histological samples of sufficient quality for diagnosing g-SMT.

A randomized noninferiority trial comparing the diagnostic yield of the 25G ProCore needle to the standard 25G needle in suspicious pancreatic lesions

Background and Objectives

The aim of the study was to perform the first randomized trial comparing the diagnostic yield, bloodiness, and cellularity of the 25G standard needle (25S) and the 25G ProCore™ needle (25P).

Materials and Methods

All patients referred to the tertiary care referral center for EUS guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of suspicious solid pancreatic lesions were eligible. EUS-FNA was performed in each lesion with both 25S and 25P needles (the choice of the first needle was randomized), using a multipass sampling pattern, without stylet or suction. Rapid on-site evaluation was used when possible. Pap-stained slides were read by a single experienced cytopathologist, blinded to the needle type.

Results

One hundred and forty-three patients were recruited. Samples were positive for cancer in 122/143 (85.3%) with the 25S needle versus 126/143 (88.1%) with the 25P needle, negative in 17/143 (11.9%) with the 25S needle versus 13/143 (9.1%) with the 25P needle, and suspicious in 4/143 (2.8%) with each needle. There was no difference in any outcome based on the type of the first needle. No carryover effect was detected (P = 0.214; NS). Cumulative logistic regression analyses showed no associations between the type of needle and diagnostic yield for cancer, cellularity, or bloodiness. The difference in the yield for cancer was 2.9% (-4.2; 10.1%); with the confidence interval upper within the predetermined noninferiority margin of 15%.

Conclusion

The 25S needle is noninferior to the 25P needle for diagnosing cancer in suspicious pancreatic lesions.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The sensitivity of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) varies considerably. The optimal number of passes through a solid pancreatic lesion with a 22G FNB needle during EUS-FNB is controversial. This prospective randomized controlled study aimed to determine the optimal number of needle passes during EUS-FNB of solid pancreatic lesions, with 22G FNB needles and different sampling techniques.

METHODS

Pancreatic masses were sampled using 22G FNB needles with either the stylet slow-pull (SP) technique or the standard-suction (SS) technique. We determined the number of needle passes required to obtain a diagnostic accuracy of >90%. Differences between the two techniques in terms of technical success rate, cytological acquisition, core tissue acquisition, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 120 patients were randomly assigned to either SP or SS group. Three patients who were lost to follow-up and one who did not complete 5 passes due to bent needle head were excluded from the study. Fifty-six cases in the SP group and 60 cases in the SS group were included in the analysis. For SP technique, the cumulative accuracy of passes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 was 44.83%, 76.79%, 87.50%, 92.86%, and 94.64%, respectively. For SS technique, the cumulative accuracy of passes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 was 71.67%, 85.0%, 90.0%, 93.33%, and 95.0%, respectively. For each group, there was no statistically significant difference in accuracy after 3 and 4 passes. After 4 passes, the pooled sensitivity (92.59% vs. 93.10%), accuracy (92.86% vs. 93.10%), and specificity (100% vs. 100%) were similar (P > 0.05) in the SP and SS groups, respectively. In addition, positive cytological diagnoses (83.9% vs. 85.0%) and positive histological diagnoses (71.4% vs. 78.3%) were comparable (P > 0.05) in the SP and SS groups, respectively. No statistically significant factor was found associated with diagnostic sensitivity for each group.

CONCLUSION

When on-site cytological evaluation is unavailable, we recommend that at least 3 passes with 22G ProCore needles be performed during EUS-FNB using the SS technique, at least 4 passes when using SP technique. The SS technique showed potential advantages over SP technique in tissue acquisition and diagnostic capabilities.

Wet- versus dry-suction techniques for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid lesions: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The optimal sampling techniques for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) remain unclear and have not been standardized. The aim of this study was to compare the wet-suction and dry-suction techniques for sampling solid lesions in the pancreas, mediastinum, and abdomen.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, crossover, randomized controlled trial with randomized order of sampling techniques. The 296 consecutive patients underwent EUS-FNA with 22G needles and were randomized in a ratio of 1:1 into two separate groups that received the dry-suction and wet-suction techniques in a different order. The primary outcome was to compare the histological diagnostic accuracy of dry suction and wet suction for malignancy. The secondary outcomes were to compare the cytological diagnostic accuracy and specimen quality.

RESULTS

Among the 269 patients with pancreatic (n = 161) and non-pancreatic (n = 108) lesions analyzed, the wet-suction technique had a significantly better histological diagnostic accuracy (84.9 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 79.9 % - 89.0 %] vs. 73.2 % [95 %CI 67.1 % - 78.7 %]; P = 0.001), higher specimen adequacy (94.8 % vs. 78.8 %; P < 0.001), and less blood contamination (P < 0.001) than the dry-suction technique. In addition, sampling non-pancreatic lesions with two passes of wet suction provided a histological diagnostic accuracy of 91.6 %.

CONCLUSIONS

The wet-suction technique in EUS-FNA generates better histological diagnostic accuracy and specimen quality than the dry-suction technique. Furthermore, sampling non-pancreatic lesions with two passes of EUS-FNA with wet suction may provide a definitive histological diagnosis when rapid on-site evaluation is not routinely available.

Histological diagnosis and grading of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy using a 25-gauge needle with a core trap: A multicenter prospective trial

OBJECTIVES

Preoperative grading of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNET) is challenging. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the use of a 25-gauge needle with a core trap for diagnosis and grading of PanNET.

METHODS

This multicenter prospective trial was registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN000021409). Consecutive patients with suspected PanNET between June 2016 and November 2017 were enrolled. All patients underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) using a 25-gauge needle with a core trap. Samples obtained after the first needle pass were used for central pathological review. EUS-FNB was evaluated in terms of (i) technical success rate, (ii) adequacy for histological evaluation, (iii) complication rate during the procedure, and (iv) concordance between PanNET grading on EUS-FNB and that after analysis of the resected tumor.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients were enrolled. Of the 36/52 patients who underwent surgical resection, 31 were finally diagnosed with PanNET and were eligible for analysis. The technical success rate of EUS-FNB was 100%. The rate of adequacy for histological evaluation was 90.3%. There were no complications related to EUS-FNB. The concordance rate between PanNET grading on EUS-FNB and that after analysis of the resected tumor was 82.6% (95% confidence interval = 61.22-95.05, P = 0.579).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNB using a 25-gauge needle with a core trap is feasible, providing histological samples are of sufficient quality for diagnosis and grading of PanNET.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition with or without macroscopic on-site evaluation: randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The use of macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) to estimate the adequacy of a specimen for histological diagnosis during endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle tissue acquisition (FNTA) has recently been advocated. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic yield of MOSE compared with conventional EUS-FNTA without rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE).

METHODS

This was an international, multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled study. After providing informed consent, consecutive adult patients referred for EUS-FNTA for solid lesions larger than 2 cm were randomized to a MOSE arm or to a conventional arm without ROSE. A designated cytopathologist from each center performed all cytopathological examinations for that center and was blinded to the randomization results. The primary outcome measure was the diagnostic yield, and the secondary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, diagnostic accuracy, and the rate of procedure-related complications.

RESULTS

244 patients (122 conventional, 122 MOSE) were enrolled during the study period. No significant differences between the two arms were found in procedure time or rate of procedure-related adverse events. The diagnostic yield for the MOSE technique (92.6 %) was similar to that for the conventional technique (89.3 %; P  = 0.37), with significantly fewer passes made (median: conventional 3, MOSE 2; P  < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNTA with the MOSE technique provided a similar diagnostic yield to conventional EUS-FNTA technique in the absence of ROSE but with fewer passes. This technique can be used when ROSE is not available.

An international, multi-institution survey on performing EUS-FNA and fine needle biopsy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) are effective techniques that are widely used for tissue acquisition. However, it remains unclear how to obtain high-quality specimens. Therefore, we conducted a survey of EUS-FNA and FNB techniques to determine practice patterns worldwide and to develop strong recommendations based on the experience of experts in the field.

METHODS

This was a worldwide multi-institutional survey among members of the International Society of EUS Task Force (ISEUS-TF). The survey was administered by E-mail through the SurveyMonkey website. In some cases, percentage agreement with some statements was calculated; in others, the options with the greatest numbers of responses were summarized. Another questionnaire about the level of recommendation was designed to assess the respondents' answers.

RESULTS

ISEUS-TF members developed a questionnaire containing 17 questions that was sent to 53 experts. Thirty-five experts completed the survey within the specified period. Among them, 40% and 54.3% performed 50-200 and more than 200 EUS sampling procedures annually, respectively. Some practice patterns regarding FNA/FNB were recommended.

CONCLUSION

This is the first worldwide survey of EUS-FNA and FNB practice patterns. The results showed wide variations in practice patterns. Randomized studies are urgently needed to establish the best approach for optimizing the FNA/FNB procedures.

Randomized trial comparing fork-tip and side-fenestrated needles for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The aim of this study was to compare the performance of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy using fork-tip or side-fenestrated needles in patients with solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

A randomized controlled study was conducted in a single academic center on patients who underwent sampling with fork-tip or side-fenestrated 22-gauge or 25-gauge needles. Three passes were performed, each independently evaluated by a blinded pathologist and by endosonographers for macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE). The primary outcome was histologic yield; secondary aims were safety, diagnostic yield, sample quality, number of needle passes required to establish a diagnosis, and reliability of MOSE.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-two patients were enrolled. Both 22-gauge and 25-gauge fork-tip needles retrieved significantly higher rates of histologic samples than side-fenestrated needles (P < .013). Safety and diagnostic accuracy were comparable in the 2 arms, whereas sample quality (tissue integrity and blood contamination) was significantly better in the fork-tip group (P < .0001). The median number of diagnostic passes was lower using fork-tip needles (P = .054). The agreement between MOSE and pathologic evaluation was almost perfect in the fork-tip group and fair in the side-fenestrated group.

CONCLUSIONS

Both needles showed equivalent safety and diagnostic accuracy. However, fork-tip needles provided a higher rate of extremely good-quality histologic samples and required fewer needle passes to reach a diagnosis. MOSE is a highly reliable tool when fork-tip needles are used compared with side-fenestrated needles. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03622229.).

Current status of newer generation endoscopic ultrasound core needles in the diagnostic evaluation of gastrointestinal lesions

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition is now an imperative technique for the diagnosis of multiple diseases in the gastrointestinal tract and nearby structures. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and fine needle biopsy via dedicated FNB needles (EUS-FNB) are two standard-essential tools for tissue acquisition. The choice of needle type is an important factor determining appropriate tissue acquisition. Multiple studies have compared EUS-FNA versus EUS-FNB on different lesions also there are several studies evaluated different needles in terms of sampling adequacy and cytological and histological accuracy. Prior studies comparing prior-generation FNB needles to FNA did not show an increased diagnostic yield with FNB. However, the newer-generation needles have demonstrated enhanced performance compared with their predecessors. As they may provide a large amount of tissue for the cytological and histological evaluation, rapid onsite specimen evaluation (ROSE), and immunohistochemical and molecular analyses, which may be very important for targeted therapy. In this review, we discuss current evidence and literature on the use of the newer generation needles for pancreatic and non-pancreatic lesions.

Current Status of Needles in the Optimization of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Procedures

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is among the most important tools for the evaluation of gastrointestinal tumors and affected areas around the gastrointestinal tract. It enables the acquisition of material from abnormal lesions via the gastrointestinal wall for tissue confirmation via endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). EUS-FNA has played a vital role in oncological care and has become the standard method for tissue sampling. The choice of needle type is an important factor determining tissue acquisition and has been evaluated by many researchers. New needles are introduced into the market almost every year, and opinions vary regarding proper needle selection. While there are diverse opinions but no definitive recommendations about the use of one particular device, fine-needle biopsy needles may provide detailed information on a tissue’s architecture based on greater sample yields. This permits additional analyses, including genetic sequencing and phenotyping, thereby enabling the provision of more personalized treatment plans. Furthermore, other EUS-guided procedures have been developed, including interventional EUS and through-the-needle devices. Given the continued attempts to improve the diagnostic ability and therapeutic techniques, we review in detail the available types of puncture needles to provide guidance on the selection of the appropriate needle types.

Diagnostic efficacy of three suction techniques for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions: protocol for a multicenter randomized cross-over clinical trial

BACKGROUND

How suction technique affects endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) remains unclear. A standardized protocol is currently lacking, with most previous studies being restricted to EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). The research related to EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is sparse.

AIMS

The aim of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy, cellularity, tissue acquisition, blood contamination and adverse event rate of three common suction techniques (standard suction, slow-pull, and wet suction) used for EUS-FNB of solid pancreatic masses.

METHODS

This is a multicenter single-blind randomized cross-over superiority trial. A total of 300 patients with suspected pancreatic malignancy will be enrolled from digestive endoscopic centers at five large tertiary hospitals in China. All three suction techniques will be performed on each patient using a 25G ProCore needle, with the sequence of suction techniques determined by randomization. Cytological and histological specimens obtained with each of the three techniques will be assessed independently. Outcomes among the three suction techniques will be compared.

DISCUSSION

To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest multicenter randomized cross-over trial designed to determine the optimal suction technique for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses. This study may contribute to standardizing the suction technique for EUS-FNB.

Suction versus slow-pull for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic tumors: a prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Suction (S) is commonly used to improve cell acquisition during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). Slow-pull (SP) sampling is another technique that might procure good quality specimens with less bloodiness. We aimed to determine if SP improves the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses.

METHODS

Patients with pancreatic solid masses were randomized to four needle passes with both techniques in an alternate fashion. Sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values were calculated. Cellularity and bloodiness of cytological samples were assessed and compared according to the technique.

RESULTS

Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of suction vs. SP were 95.2% vs. 92.3%; 100% vs. 100; 95.7% vs. 93%, respectively. As to the association of methods, they were 95.6, 100 and 96%, respectively. Positive predictive values for S and SP were 100%. There was no difference in diagnostic yield between S and SP (p = 0.344). Cellularity of samples obtained with SP and Suction were equivalent in both smear evaluation (p = 0.119) and cell-block (0.980). Bloodiness of SP and suction techniques were similar as well.

CONCLUSIONS

S and SP techniques provide equivalent sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. Association of methods seems to improve diagnostic yield. Suction does not increase the bloodiness of samples compared to slow-pull.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy Using 22-Gauge Franseen Needle for the Histological Diagnosis of Solid Lesions: A Multicenter Prospective Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Recently, a novel 22-gauge needle with three symmetric needle points and crown-shaped cutting heels, known as a Franseen needle, has been developed for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB).

AIM

To assess the histological material acquisition rate and histological diagnostic capability of the 22-gauge Franseen needle (AC22) during EUS-FNB for solid lesions.

METHODS

This study was designed as an open-label, multicenter, prospective, single-arm pilot study of EUS-FNB using AC22 for the diagnosis of solid lesions. Three passes of FNB using AC22 were performed for all lesions. The primary endpoints were the histological material acquisition rate and histological diagnostic capability. The secondary endpoints were the technical success rate, quality of histological samples, number of passes for diagnosis, and safety.

RESULTS

Between September 2017 and May 2018, 75 patients were enrolled. The final diagnoses were malignancy in 65 and benign in 10. Three passes of FNB were technically successful in all patients. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for the malignancy of histological analyses were 92.3% (60/65), 100% (10/10), and 93.3% (70/75), respectively, for the first pass and 95.4% (62/65), 100% (10/10), and 96% (72/75), respectively, for combined three passes. The diagnostic yield plateaued after the second pass. Sufficient tissue samples for histological interpretation were obtained in 96% (72/75) and 100% (75/75) patients for the single pass and combined three passes, respectively. Two patients (2.7%) developed mild pancreatitis as an adverse event.

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNB using AC22 showed high histological diagnostic capability with the high first pass yield.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY

UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN ID: UMIN000036641).

Stylet slow-pull vs. standard suction technique for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy in pancreatic solid lesions using 20 Gauge Procore™ needle: A multicenter randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Standard suction and slow-pull techniques have been utilized during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic solid lesions, but the correct sampling technique remains unclear. New needles designed to obtain samples suitable for histological evaluation have become available. We performed a study comparing the two sampling methods during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) in patients with pancreatic solid lesions.

METHODS

We performed EUS-FNB with a 20 Gauge FNB needle using slow-pull or standard suction techniques in a prospective, randomized, multicenter study. The primary aim was bloodiness of the collected specimens. Secondary aims were technical success and performance of the two techniques.

RESULTS

110 patients were included (55 per group). No difference in blood contamination was observed (slow-pull 80% vs. suction 74%, p = 0.917). Technical success was 95% (96% vs. 94%, p = 0315). Sensitivity (96% vs. 93%), specificity (100% vs. 100%), positive likelihood ratio (NA), negative likelihood ratio (0.04 vs. 0.07), diagnostic accuracy (96 vs. 93%) did not differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNB with slow-pull and standard suction techniques are comparable in terms of blood contamination providing similar high diagnostic sensitivity and accuracy in pancreatic solid lesions. The use of the new generation FNB needle allows to reach such high level of diagnostic adequacy regardless of the technique utilized.

Agreement on endoscopic ultrasonography-guided tissue specimens: Comparing a 20-G fine-needle biopsy to a 25-G fine-needle aspiration needle among academic and non-academic pathologists

BACKGROUND AND AIM

A recently carried out randomized controlled trial showed the benefit of a novel 20-G fine-needle biopsy (FNB) over a 25-G fine-needle aspiration (FNA) needle. The current study evaluated the reproducibility of these findings among expert academic and non-academic pathologists.

METHODS

This study was a side-study of the ASPRO (ASpiration versus PROcore) study. Five centers retrieved 74 (59%) consecutive FNB and 51 (41%) FNA samples from the ASPRO study according to randomization; 64 (51%) pancreatic and 61 (49%) lymph node specimens. Samples were re-reviewed by five expert academic and five non-academic pathologists and rated in terms of sample quality and diagnosis. Ratings were compared between needles, expert academic and non-academic pathologists, target lesions, and cytology versus histological specimens.

RESULTS

Besides a higher diagnostic accuracy, FNB also provided for a better agreement on diagnosing malignancy (ĸ = 0.59 vs ĸ = 0.76, P < 0.001) and classification according to Bethesda (ĸ = 0.45 vs ĸ = 0.61, P < 0.001). This equally applied for expert academic and non-academic pathologists and for pancreatic and lymph node specimens. Sample quality was also rated higher for FNB, but agreement ranged from poor (ĸ = 0.04) to fair (ĸ = 0.55). Histology provided better agreement than cytology, but only when a core specimen was obtained with FNB (P = 0.004 vs P = 0.432).

CONCLUSION

This study shows that the 20-G FNB outperforms the 25-G FNA needle in terms of diagnostic agreement, independent of the background and experience of the pathologist. This endorses use of the 20-G FNB needle in both expert and lower volume EUS centers.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration vs core needle biopsy for solid pancreatic lesions: Comparison of diagnostic accuracy and procedural efficiency

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided core needle biopsies (CNB) are increasingly being performed to diagnose solid pancreatic lesions. However, studies have been conflicting in terms of CNB improving diagnostic accuracy and procedural efficiency vs fine-needle aspiration (FNA), which this study aims to elucidate.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected on consecutive patients with solid pancreatic or peripancreatic lesions at a single tertiary care center from November 2015 to November 2016 that underwent either FNA or CNB. Patient demographics, characteristics of lesions, diagnostic accuracy, final and follow-up pathology, use of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), complications, and procedure variables were obtained.

RESULTS

A total of 75 FNA and 48 CNB were performed; of these, 13 patients had both. Mean passes were lower with CNB compared to FNA (2.4 vs 2.9, P = .02). Use of ROSE was higher for FNA (97.3% vs 68.1%, P = .001). Mean procedure time was shorter with CNB (34.1 minutes vs 51.2 minutes, P = .02) and diagnostic accuracy was similar (89.2% vs 89.4%, P = .98). There was no difference in diagnostic accuracy when ROSE was performed for CNB vs not performed (93.5% vs 85.7%, P = .58). Additionally, diagnostic accuracy of combined FNA and CNB procedures was 92.3%, which was comparable to FNA (P = .73) or CNB (P = .52) alone.

CONCLUSION

FNA and CNB had comparable safety and diagnostic accuracy. Use of CNB resulted in less number of passes and shorter procedure time as compared to FNA. Moreover, diagnostic accuracy for CNB with or without ROSE was similar.

EUS-guided core biopsies of pancreatic solid masses using a new fork-tip needle: A multicenter prospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling (EUS sampling) is a safe and effective technique. The study aim was to evaluate the presence of a histological core from pancreatic lesions using a new 25G fork-tip needle.

METHODS

Observational multicenter prospective and analytical study, including consecutive patients with solid pancreatic masses referred for EUS-guided sampling. At each needle pass, the endoscopist performed macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE). The primary outcome was the histological core procurement rates. Secondary outcomes were the evaluation of interobserver agreement between endoscopists and pathologists, adequacy of EUS samples for the diagnosis and post-procedure adverse events.

RESULTS

100 patients were enrolled in 3 centers. The mean size of the lesions was 28.5 mm (SD 11.7). Final diagnoses were adenocarcinoma (68%), neuroendocrine tumor (21%), inflammatory mass/benign lesions (8.0%), and pancreatic metastasis (3.0%). The pathologists described the presence of a core in 67 samples (67.0% of patients), with poor agreement with MOSE (kappa, 0. 12; 95% CI: 0.03-0.28). The diagnostic accuracy was 93%. We observed 6% of mild adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The new 25-gauge core needle showed good overall adequacy and a good rate of histological specimens during EUS sampling of solid pancreatic masses, with a minimum number of passes and no major complications. Clinicaltrial.gov number, NCT02946840.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses: the fine needle aspiration or fine needle biopsy dilemma. Is the best needle yet to come?

Fine needle aspiration (FNA) is currently the standard of care for sampling pancreatic solid masses by using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). The accuracy of the technique is reported to be high, especially if coupled with the rapid on site evaluation (ROSE), and it has a high safety profile. However, FNA presents some limitations, such as the small amount of tissue that can be collected and the inability of obtaining a core tissue with intact histological architecture, which is relevant to perform immunohistochemical analysis, molecular profiling and, therefore, targeted therapies. Moreover, the presence of the ROSE by an expert cytopathologist is very important to maximize the diagnostic yield of FNA technique; however, it is not widely available, especially in small centers. Hence, the introduction of EUS fine needle biopsy (FNB) with a new generation of needles, which show a high safety profile too and a satisfying diagnostic accuracy even in the absence of ROSE, could be the key to overcome the limitations of FNA. However, FNB has not yet shown diagnostic superiority over FNA. Considering all the technical aspects of FNA and FNB, the different types of needle currently available, comparisons in term of diagnostic yield, and the different techniques of sampling, a tailored approach should be used in order to determine the needle that is most appropriate for the different specific scenarios.

Establishment of pancreatic cancer cell lines with endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy via conditionally reprogrammed cell culture

Recent studies have identified the mutational landscape of pancreatic cancer and suggested tumor-specific subtypes. However, the major hurdle against personalized treatment is the difficulty to obtain sufficient cancer tissues from most inoperable cases. We investigated whether patient-derived conditionally reprogrammed cells (CRCs) can be constructed using a small piece of tumor tissue using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle biopsy (FNB). Thirty patients with pancreatic solid mass (mean size, 34.6 mm) were enrolled prospectively. Among 22 patients who were diagnosed with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, we established patient-derived pancreatic cancer cell lines from eight patients (36.4%). Immunofluorescence colony staining for CRCs showed that the cytoplasm of cancer cells was clearly stained with anti-cytokeratin 19 monoclonal antibody. In the soft agar colony formation assay, CRCs formed colonies compared with the negative control by day 15. In vivo, implanted CRCs showed tumor engraftment and hematoxylin and eosin staining showed pancreatic cancer ductal structure. All established CRCs showed a KRAS mutation. In conclusion, we established patient-derived pancreatic cancer cell lines with a small tumor tissue obtained by EUS-FNB. With in vitro drug sensitivity and genomic studies, established patient-derived cell lines can be used in identification of new targets for diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic cancer.

High diagnostic adequacy and accuracy of the new 20G procore needle for EUS-guided tissue acquisition: Results of a large multicentre retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy has become the standard for tissue sampling. A new 20G ProCore™ (PC) needle has been developed to overcome the limitations of tissue acquisition of the smaller needles (22G, 25G) and the rigidity of the larger one (19G). The aim of this study is to assess the performance of the 20G PC needle.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent EUS-guided tissue acquisition with the 20G PC needle of pancreatic and extra-pancreatic mass lesions were retrospectively identified at three Italian centers (Bologna, Fermo, and Palermo). Diagnostic adequacy, accuracy, and tissue core acquisition were the outcome measures. All the cases were performed without rapid on-site evaluation.

RESULTS

A total of 384 patients with pancreatic (62.2%) and extra-pancreatic lesions were included in the study. For pancreatic lesions, adequacy, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 92.4%, 91.5%, 90.8%, and 100%, respectively, with a number needed to misdiagnose (NNM) of 11.8. The tissue core was obtained in 72% of cases. Transduodenal approach was performed in 150 pancreatic lesions; adequacy, accuracy, and tissue core acquisition were 88.7%, 90%, and 66%, respectively (NNM 10). For extrapancreatic lesions, adequacy, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and tissue core sampling were 95.3%, 95.3%, 92.6%, 100%, and 84.5% (NNM 21.3).

CONCLUSIONS

The 20G PC needle showed high diagnostic adequacy and accuracy, regardless the access route.

A prospective, randomized, multicenter clinical trial comparing 25-gauge and 20-gauge biopsy needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND

Various core biopsy needles have previously been developed for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). However, the properties of needle gauge in the diagnostic outcomes of solid pancreatic lesions remain unknown. This trial compared the procurement rates of histologic cores from solid pancreatic lesions with EUS-FNB using 20- and 25-gauge (G) FNB needles.

METHODS

In a prospective randomized multicenter clinical trial, patients with solid pancreatic lesions underwent EUS-FNB with either a 20-gauge or a 25-gauge FNB needle. The rates of histologic core procurement, overall diagnostic accuracy, and adverse events were compared between the two groups (20-gauge or 25-gauge FNB needle).

RESULTS

In total, 88 patients (48 men, 40 women, mean age 65.7 years) were enrolled. No significant differences were found in the demographic characteristics between the two groups (20-gauge or 25-gauge FNB needle). The procurement rate of histologic cores in the 20-guage FNB needle group (41/45, 91.1%) was significantly higher than that in the 25-guage FNB needle group (32/43, 74.4%, P = 0.037). However, no significant differences were found in the overall diagnostic accuracy between 20-guage FNB needle (40/45, 88.9%) and 25-guage FNB needle (34/43, 79.1%, P = 0.208). No procedure-related adverse events were observed in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Although both FNB needles provided high overall diagnostic accuracy, the reliability of the 20-guage FNB needle is better than the 25-guage FNB needle when retrieving samples for histological analysis.

EUS-FNB with or without on-site evaluation for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions (FROSENOR): Protocol for a multicenter randomized non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) of cytological specimensacquired with EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) represents the most accurate available technique to reach a definitive diagnosis in patients with pancreatic solid masses. Recently, needles with high histological yield have been developed for EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB), with which the need for ROSE can be potentially overcome.

AIMS

The primary aim is to compare the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB with or without ROSE. The main endpoint will be measured against the gold standard diagnosis (surgical pathology whenever available or diagnostic work-up in agreement with a clinical course of at least six months). Secondary endpoints include: (a) safety; (b) presence of tissue core; (c) quality of specimens; (d) time of the sampling procedure. Reliability of macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) by endosonographers will be also assessed.

METHODS

FROSENOR is an international randomized non-inferiority ongoing study at sixteen centers in four continents. Eight hundred patients will be randomized in two arms (EUS-FNB + ROSE vs. EUS-FNB alone) and outcomes compared. Sample size has been calculated in order to demonstrate the non-inferiority of FNB alone. Randomization and data collection will be performed online.

DISCUSSION

This study will ascertain if ROSE is still needed when performing EUS-FNB of solid pancreatic lesions.

A multicenter randomized trial comparing a 25-gauge EUS fine-needle aspiration device with a 20-gauge EUS fine-needle biopsy device

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Several studies have compared EUS-guided FNA with fine-needle biopsy (FNB), but none have proven superiority. We performed a multicenter randomized controlled trial to compare the performance of a commonly used 25-gauge FNA needle with a newly designed 20-gauge FNB needle.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with a solid lesion were randomized in this international multicenter study between a 25-gauge FNA (EchoTip Ultra) or a 20-gauge FNB needle (ProCore). The primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy for malignancy and the Bethesda classification (non-diagnostic, benign, atypical, malignant). Technical success, safety, and sample quality were also assessed. Multivariable and supplementary analyses were performed to adjust for confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 608 patients were allocated to FNA (n = 306) or FNB (n = 302); 312 pancreatic lesions (51%), 147 lymph nodes (24%), and 149 other lesions (25%). Technical success rate was 100% for the 25-gauge FNA and 99% for the 20-gauge FNB needle (P = .043), with no differences in adverse events. The 20-gauge FNB needle outperformed 25-gauge FNA in terms of histologic yield (77% vs 44%, P < .001), accuracy for malignancy (87% vs 78%, P = .002) and Bethesda classification (82% vs 72%, P = .002). This was robust when corrected for indication, lesion size, number of passes, and presence of an on-site pathologist (odds ratio, 3.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.55-8.56; P = .004), and did not differ among centers (P = .836).

CONCLUSION

The 20-gauge FNB needle outperformed the 25-gauge FNA needle in terms of histologic yield and diagnostic accuracy. This benefit was irrespective of the indication and was consistent among participating centers, supporting the general applicability of our findings. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02167074.).

Analysis of the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration in patients with a suspected pancreatic malignancy

OBJECTIVES

to determine the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for suspected pancreatic malignancy. As well as to identify factors that affect the incidence of false-negative cases and evaluate the value of repeated EUS-FNA in patients with inconclusive results.

METHODS

we retrospectively evaluated the data of patients who underwent EUS-FNA due to a suspected pancreatic malignancy in our hospital from January 2015 to December 2016.

RESULTS

a total of 194 EUS-FNA procedures performed and 175 cases were analyzed. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy were 83.4% (151/181), 100% (13/13), 100% (151/151), 30.2% (13/43), and 84.5% (164/194), respectively. The combination of cytological and histological examination significantly increased the diagnostic performance compared to either method alone. The diagnostic sensitivity in metastatic tumors was significantly lower than that for adenocarcinoma. EUS-FNA performed using standard needles combined with the "slow-pull" technique had a lower sensitivity than other methods. According to the multivariate analysis, neither the combination of needle type and suction technique nor final diagnosis were independent factors that affected the diagnostic sensitivity. The sensitivity of repeated EUS-FNA was 50.0% (8/16). Definitive results after a repeated puncture were more likely for pancreatic body and tail masses, heterogeneous lesions and poorly demarcated lesions. However, the difference was not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNA was accurate for the evaluation of a suspected pancreatic malignancy. Metastatic tumors and the use of a standard needle in combination with the slow-pull technique may increase the incidence of false-negative results. Repeated EUS-FNA has limited value but should be considered for selected cases where the suspicion of malignancy persists.

Endoscopic foregut surgery and interventions: The future is now. The state-of-the-art and my personal journey

In this paper, I reviewed the emerging field of endoscopic surgery and present data supporting the contention that endoscopy can now be used to treat many foregut diseases that have been traditionally treated surgically. Within each topic, the content will progress as follows: "lessons learned", "technical considerations" and "future opportunities". Lessons learned will provide a brief background and update on the most current literature. Technical considerations will include my personal experience, including tips and tricks that I have learned over the years. Finally, future opportunities will address current unmet needs and potential new areas of development. The foregut is defined as "the upper part of the embryonic alimentary canal from which the pharynx, esophagus, lung, stomach, liver, pancreas, and part of the duodenum develop". Foregut surgery is well established in treating conditions such as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), achalasia, esophageal diverticula, Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal cancer, stomach cancer, gastric-outlet obstruction, and obesity. Over the past decade, remarkable progress in interventional endoscopy has culminated in the conceptualization and practice of endoscopic foregut surgery for various clinical conditions summarized in this paper. Regarding GERD, there are now several technologies available to effectively treat it and potentially eliminate symptoms, and the need for long-term treatment with proton pump inhibitors. For the first time, fundoplication can be performed without the need for open or laparoscopic surgery. Long-term data going out 5-10 years are now emerging showing extended durability. In respect to achalasia, per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) which was developed in Japan, has become an alternative to the traditional Heller's myotomy. Recent meta-analysis show that POEM may have better results than Heller, but the issue of post-POEM GERD still needs to be addressed. There is now a resurgence of endoscopic treatment of Zenker's diverticula with improved technique (Z-POEM) and equipment; thus, patients are choosing flexible endoscopic treatment as opposed to open or rigid endoscopy options. In regard to BE, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) which is well established in Asia, is now becoming more mainstream in the West for the treatment of BE with high grade dysplasia, as well as early esophageal cancer. In combination with all the ablation technologies (radiofrequency ablation, cryotherapy, hybrid argon plasma coagulation), the entire spectrum of Barrett's and related dysplasia and early cancer can be managed predominantly by endoscopy. Importantly, in regard to early gastric cancer and submucosal tumors (SMTs) of the stomach, ESD and full thickness resection (FTR) can excise these lesions en-bloc and endoscopic suturing is now used to close large defects and perforations. For treatment of patients with malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO), endoscopic gastro-jejunostomy is now showing better results than enteral stenting. G-POEM is also emerging as a treatment option for patients with gastroparesis. Obesity has become an epidemic in many western countries and is becoming also prevalent in Asia. Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is now becoming an established treatment option, especially for obese patients with body mass index between 30 and 35. Data show an average weight loss of 16 kg after ESG with long-term data confirming sustainability. Finally, in respect to endo-hepatology, there are many new endoscopic interventions that have been developed for patients with liver disease. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided liver biopsy and EUS-guided portal pressure measurement are exciting new frontiers for the endo-hepatologists.

The impact of macroscopic on-site evaluation using filter paper in EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy

Background and Objectives

EUS-guided tissue acquisition with rapid on-site cytologic evaluation (ROSE) has been used to increase the diagnostic yield. However, ROSE is not available in many centers. To date, only a few studies have assessed the adequacy of histologic cores in macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) during EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). Blood contamination of histologic core specimens lowers the sample quality and the diagnostic yield. Therefore, we evaluated the efficacy of MOSE using filter paper to increase the adequacy of histologic core specimens while minimizing blood contamination.

Materials and Methods

Seventy-nine consecutive patients with an intraabdominal mass underwent EUS-FNB between March 2017 and October 2018. Histologic specimens obtained using EUS-FNB were expelled onto filter paper, and the histologic procurement rate on MOSE was evaluated.

Results

EUS-FNB using a 20-gauge Procore needle or a 22-gauge Acquire needle was successful in all patients. The mean number of needle passes was 2.8 ss0.8. Visible histologic cores were observed in 94.9% (75/79) of the patients. Blood-contaminated specimens with scanty histologic cores were obtained in 5.1% (4/79) of the patients. On microscopic examination, 92.4% (73/79) of the histologic samples were graded as optimal. The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 94.5%, 94.3%, and 100%, respectively. Mild postprocedural adverse events occurred in 2 patients (2.5%: n = 1, transient fever; n = 1, acute pancreatitis).

Conclusions

MOSE using filter paper provided adequate histologic samples while minimizing blood contamination. MOSE can also increase the diagnostic accuracy when ROSE is not available.