EUS-guided tissue acquisition: an evidence-based approach (with videos)

Diagnostic yield of endoscopic and EUS-guided biopsy techniques in subepithelial lesions of the upper GI tract: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Obtaining adequate tissue samples in subepithelial lesions (SELs) remains challenging. Several biopsy techniques are available, but a systematic review including all available techniques to obtain a histologic diagnosis of SEL is lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield and adverse event rates of endoscopic biopsies, EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA), EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB) (EUS-FNB), and mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) for SELs in the upper GI tract.

METHODS

A search strategy in multiple databases was performed. The primary outcome was diagnostic yield, defined as the percentage of procedures in which histology was obtained and resulted in a definitive histopathologic diagnosis. Secondary outcome measures included reported procedure-related adverse events, which were graded according to the AGREE (Adverse Events in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy) classification.

RESULTS

A total of 94 original articles were included. Studies were classified per endoscopic technique to obtain histopathology. This resulted in 8 included studies for endoscopic biopsy methods, 55 studies for EUS-FNA, 33 studies for EUS-FNB, and 26 studies for MIAB. Pooled rates for diagnostic yield were 40.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 30.8-51.2) for endoscopic biopsy, 74.6% (95% CI, 69.9-78.7) for EUS-FNA, 84.2% (95% CI, 80.7-87.2) for EUS-FNB, and 88.2% (95% CI, 84.7-91.1) for MIAB. Reported procedure-related adverse events graded AGREE II or higher were 2.8% to 3.9% for endoscopic biopsies, 1.0% to 4.5% for EUS-FNA, .9% to 7.7% for EUS-FNB, and 1.9% to 7.9% for MIAB.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, MIAB and EUS-FNB seem to be most effective in terms of achieving a high diagnostic yield, with similar rates of adverse events.

Comparison of 19-gauge conventional and Franseen needles for the diagnosis of lymphadenopathy and classification of malignant lymphoma using endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) using a 19-gauge needle is an efficient sampling method for the diagnosis of lymphadenopathy. This study compared 19-gauge conventional and Franseen needles for the diagnosis of lymphadenopathy and classification of malignant lymphoma (ML).

METHODS

Patient characteristics, number of needle passes, puncture route, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of cytology/histology for lymphadenopathy were analyzed in patients diagnosed with lymphadenopathy by EUS-FNA using conventional or Franseen needles.

RESULTS

Between 2012 and 2022, 146 patients met the inclusion criteria (conventional [n=70] and Franseen [n=76]). The median number of needle passes was significantly lower in the conventional group than in the Franseen group (3 [1-6] vs. 4 [1-6], p=0.023). There were no significant differences in cytological/histological diagnoses between the two groups. For ML, the immunohistochemical evaluation rate, sensitivity of flow cytometry, and cytogenetic assessment were not significantly different in either group. Bleeding as adverse events (AEs) were observed in three patients in the Franseen group.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the 19-gauge conventional and Franseen needles showed high accuracy in lymphadenopathy and ML classification. Considering sufficient tissue collection and the avoidance of AEs, the use of 19-gauge conventional needles seems to be a good option for the diagnosis of lymphadenopathy.

Comparing fine needle biopsy techniques in solid pancreatic lesions: A prospective randomized study

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsies (EUS-FNB) are the best technique for sampling solid pancreatic lesions. However, the most appropriate biopsy technique has not been standardized using Fine Needle Biopsy (FNB) needles. The aim of this work was to identify the best biopsy technique to achieve the best tissue integrity and cause the least blood contamination.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients ≥18 years of age with solid pancreatic lesions who underwent EUS-FNB at our institution from January 2020 to May 2021 were consecutively selected. Three passes were performed with each of the threee techniques to obtain tissue: suction with 10 ml of vacuum, capillary, and wet. An independent pathologist evaluated the received tissue integrity and the degree of blood contamination of each sample according to scales.

RESULTS

Seventy-five patients were recruited for our study. A superior tissue integrity was observed using the wet-suction technique in lesions located in the body and/or tail of the pancreas, and an average score of 4.40 (p = 0.027) was assigned for this technique. Regarding the contamination of the sample in the whole cohort, the simple-suction technique shown a higher contamination, 1.55 (p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference among the techniques when evaluating tissue integrity or contamination in lesions larger or smaller than 3 cm.

CONCLUSION

When performing EUS-FNB for solid pancreatic lesions located in the head/uncinated process, the three methods provided similar diagnostic yields. The wet-suction technique had a higher score in tissue integrity when lesions were located in the body and/or tail of the pancreas.

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

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.

Anesthesia care provider sedation versus conscious sedation for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

We aimed to study the effects of sedation on endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study evaluating the role of sedation in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition by comparing two groups: anesthesia care provider (ACP) sedation and endoscopist-directed conscious sedation (CS).

RESULTS

Technical success was achieved in 219/233 (94.0%) in the ACP group and 114/136 (83.8%) in the CS group (p=0.0086). In multivariate analysis, the difference in technical success between the two groups was not significant (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.234-1.069; p=0.0738). A successful diagnostic yield was present in 146/196 (74.5%) in the ACP group and 66/106 (62.3%) in the CS group, respectively (p=0.0274). In multivariate analysis, the difference in diagnostic yield between the two groups was not significant (aOR, 0.643; 95% CI, 0.356-1.159; p=0.142). A total of 33 adverse events (AEs) were observed. The incidence of AEs was significantly lower in the CS group (5/33 CS vs. 28/33 ACP; OR, 0.281; 95% CI, 0.095-0.833; p=0.022).

CONCLUSION

CS provided equivalent technical success and diagnostic yield for malignancy in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition. Increased AEs were associated with anesthesia for the endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition.

Esophageal submucosal tumor diagnosed with EBUS-guided transbronchial mediastinal cryobiopsy: A case report

Cryobiopsy is advantageous for collecting larger specimens with minimum crushing compared to forceps biopsy and transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA), but it has not been widely used for mediastinal tumors. In this report, a leiomyoma of the thoracic esophagus was diagnosed with endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial mediastinal cryobiopsy (EBUS-cryo). An asymptomatic 49-year-old woman had a 2.6-cm sized submucosal tumor (SMT) of the esophagus adjacent to the trachea and left main bronchus. EBUS-TBNA and EBUS-guided intranodal forceps biopsy were performed, followed by EBUS-cryo. The biopsy forceps could not be inserted into the tumor, but the cryoprobe was smoothly inserted. EBUS-TBNA could not obtain enough spindle-shaped tumor cells for immunohistochemical staining, but EBUS-cryo provided sufficient specimens for diagnosing the leiomyoma. Adding EBUS-cryo to EBUS-TBNA has recently been reported to achieve high diagnostic yields for lymphomas, uncommon tumors, and benign diseases. EBUS-cryo seems a valid diagnostic option for esophageal SMTs that are difficult to diagnose with needles and forceps.

Efficacy, Feasibility, and Safety of Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Biopsy for the Diagnosis of Gastrointestinal Subepithelial Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle biopsy (FNB) has become an efficient method for diagnosing gastrointestinal (GI) subepithelial lesions (SELs). However, recent guidelines have not regarded FNB as the primary strategy for diagnosing GI SELs. We performed this study to systematically measure the efficacy, feasibility, and safety of EUS-FNB in diagnosing GI SELs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Relevant studies were searched in PubMed and EMBASE and published after January 2015 were included. The overall rates of diagnostic yield, technical success, and adverse events were calculated as outcome measures. The Jadad scale and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to evaluate the quality of the trials, funnel plots and Egger's test were used to measure publication bias, and sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed to explore the variance of heterogeneity and sensitivity, respectively.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies analyzing 969 patients between 2015 and 2020 were included. Studies showed little change in sensitivity, and 13 were considered high quality. A certain degree of publication bias existed in the diagnostic accuracy rate. The overall rates of diagnostic yield, technical success, and adverse events were [85.69% (95% confidence interval (CI): 82.73-88.22, I2=41.8%), 98.83% (95% CI: 96.73-99.97, I2=54.3%), and 1.26% (95% CI: 0.35-2.54, I2=0.0%)]. No clinical influencing factors were identified in the subgroup analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNB is a promising technology with a relatively superior diagnostic yield, technical success, and security, which is an optimal option for the diagnosis of SELs.

Impact of rapid on-site evaluation on diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions: experience from a single center

BACKGROUND

The use of ROSE in EUS-FNA pancreatic lesions is still controversial in many centers. In this study, we aimed to demonstrate the contribution of ROSE to the diagnostic accuracy, as well as its assistance to the pathologist/cytopathologist.

METHODS

162 EUS-FNA biopsies were included in the study. EUS-FNA cytology results were reported according to the six-tiered system of Papanicolaou Cytopathology Society and compared to their final diagnosis with histopathology and/or clinical follow-ups regarding malignancy. The diagnostic yield, the difference in diagnostic accuracy, and the contribution of ROSE to providing the pathologist with adequate tissue uptake (number of slides and cell blocks) for further examination were compared in the ROSE and non-ROSE patient groups.

RESULTS

In the non-ROSE group, the diagnostic accuracy according to the final diagnoses was 96% and the sensitivity was 94.44%, specificity 100%, PPV 100%, NPV 87.50%; while diagnostic accuracy was 97.09%, sensitivity 97.47%, specificity 95.83%, PPV 98.77%, NPV 92% in patients with ROSE. There was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between those with and without ROSE (p: 0.078). In diagnostic cases, the number of passes, slides and cell blocks were significantly higher in patients with ROSE than those without ROSE (p: 0.003, p: 0.007, p: 0.012, respectively). ROSE was independently associated with diagnostic yield when evaluated by number of passes, slides, cell blocks in regression analysis (p: 0.001, OR: 5.07, confidence interval: 1.89-13.5).

CONCLUSION

ROSE may increase the acquisition of sufficient tissue, but it does not have an advantage in diagnostic accuracy. ROSE may raise the number of slides, which may assist the pathologist for the diagnosis. If the lesion is solid and/or contains a solid component, diagnostic yield is higher in patients where ROSE is available. Therefore, ROSE still maintains its applicability in terms of increasing the diagnostic efficiency and making the final diagnosis.

Macroscopic visible core length can predict the histological sample quantity in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition: Multicenter prospective study

OBJECTIVES

Measurement of the macroscopic visible core (MVC) length during macroscopic on-site quality evaluation (MOSE) may allow estimation of sample adequacy for next-generation sequencing (NGS), and prediction of correct diagnosis in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) of pancreatic masses.

METHODS

This multicenter prospective study included consecutive patients who underwent EUS-TA for pancreatic masses using a 22-G Franseen needle. MVC length and pathological samples obtained from two needle passes were analyzed on a per-pass basis. Outcome measures included respective correlations of MVC length with histological sample quantity and diagnostic yields.

RESULTS

The analysis included 204 passes from 102 EUS-TAs. MVC length correlated positively with histological sample quantity (P < 0.01). On the receiver operating characteristic curve for MVC length, the cut-off value and area under the curve for obtaining a candidate sample for NGS were 30 mm and 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-0.83), respectively. On multivariate analysis, MVC length ≥30 mm was a significant factor affecting suitability for NGS (odds ratio 6.19; 95% CI 2.72-14.10). Histologic diagnostic yield correlated positively with MVC length (P = 0.01); however, there was no positive correlation between MVC length and overall (histology plus cytology) diagnostic yield.

CONCLUSIONS

Measuring MVC length to predict histological sample quantity on MOSE may be of clinical significance during EUS-TA using a 22-G Franseen needle. It may be an effective method, particularly while submitting samples for NGS.

REGISTRATION

University Hospital Medical Information Network Trials Registry (UMIN000036528).

Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration in the Evaluation of Abdominal Lymphadenopathy of Unknown Etiology

Background/Aims

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a standard procedure for obtaining tissue from lesions near the gastrointestinal lumen. However, there is a scarcity of information on the diagnostic performance of EUS-FNA for abdominal lymphadenopathy of unknown causes. To assess the accuracy of EUS-FNA in diagnosing abdominal lymphadenopathy of unknown etiology.

Methods

The EUS records of patients with undiagnosed abdominal lymphadenopathy between 2010 and 2015 were reviewed.

Results

A total of 42 patients were included in this study. Adequate specimens were obtained from 40 patients (95%). The final diagnoses were metastatic cancer (n=16), lymphoma (n=9), tuberculosis (n=8), inflammatory changes (n=6), and amyloidosis (n=1). For diagnosing malignancy, EUS-FNA had a sensitivity of 84.6%, specificity of 95.7%, positive predictive value of 91.7%, negative predictive value of 91.7%, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.901. For the diagnosis of lymphoma, EUS-FNA was 100% accurate when combined with cytologic evaluation and immunohistochemical staining. The diagnostic sensitivity decreased to 75%, whereas the specificity remained 100%, for tuberculosis. The overall AUROC was 0.850. No procedure-related complications occurred.

Conclusions

EUS-FNA showed high diagnostic performance for abdominal lymphadenopathy of unknown causes, especially malignancy, lymphoma, and tuberculosis. Therefore, it is a crucial diagnostic tool for this patient population.

Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Prediction of Malignant Potential of Gastric Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This study aimed to investigate whether AI via a deep learning algorithm using endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) images could predict the malignant potential of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs).

METHODS

A series of patients who underwent EUS before surgical resection for gastric GISTs were included. A total of 685 images of GISTs from 55 retrospectively included patients were used as the training data set for the AI system. Convolutional neural networks were constructed to build a deep learning model. After applying the synthetic minority oversampling technique, 70% of the generated images were used for AI training and 30% were used to test AI diagnoses. Next, validation was performed using 153 EUS images of 15 patients with GISTs. In addition, conventional EUS features of 55 patients in the training cohort were evaluated to predict the malignant potential of GISTs and mitotic index.

RESULTS

The overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the AI system for predicting malignancy risk were 83%, 94%, and 82% in the training dataset, and 75%, 73%, and 66% in the validation cohort, respectively. When patients were divided into low-risk and high-risk groups, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy increased to 99% in the training dataset and 99.7%, 99.7%, and 99.6%, respectively, in the validation cohort. No conventional EUS features were found to be associated with either malignant potential or mitotic index (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

AI via a deep learning algorithm using EUS images could predict the malignant potential of gastric GISTs with high accuracy.

Two Needle Passes Achieve Similar Diagnostic Yield Compared to Three Passes Regarding Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration

Current guidelines advocate 3–4 passes with a fine-needle aspiration (FNA) to achieve high rates of diagnostic samples for malignancy when performing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions, in the absence of on-site cytologic evaluation. The aim of this study is to compare 2 vs. 3 needle passes in EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic lesions in terms of incremental diagnostic yield and to identify factors associated with the procedure’s outcome. In this retrospective study, 2 passes of EUS-FNA were found to have similar diagnostic yield compared to 3 passes for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses, suggesting that there might be no significant incremental tissue yield when 3 passes are performed.

EUS-Guided Biopsy with a Novel Puncture Biopsy Forceps Needle-Feasibility Study

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with fine needle aspiration (FNA) or biopsy (FNB) to diagnose lesions in the gastrointestinal tract is common. Demand for histology sampling to identify treatment-specific targets is increasing. Various core biopsy FNB needles to obtain tissue for histology are currently available, however, with variable (37-97%) histology yields. In this multicenter study, we evaluated performance, safety, and user experience of a novel device (the puncture biopsy forceps (PBF) needle). Twenty-four procedures with the PBF needle were performed in 24 patients with a suspected pancreatic lesion (n = 10), subepithelial lesion (n = 10), lymph node (n = 3), or pararectal mass (n = 1). In 20/24 (83%) procedures, the PBF needle yielded sufficient material for interpretation (sample adequacy). In 17/24 (71%), a correct diagnosis was made with the material from the PBF needle (diagnostic accuracy). All participating endoscopists experienced a learning curve. (Per)procedural technical issues occurred in four cases (17%), but there were no adverse events. The PBF needle is a safe and potentially useful device to obtain an EUS-guided biopsy specimen. As the design of the PBF needle is different to core biopsy FNB needles, specific training will likely further improve the performance of the PBF needle. Furthermore, the design of the needle needs further improvement to make it more robust in clinical practice.

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.

Impact of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition on Decision-Making in Precision Medicine for Pancreatic Cancer: Beyond Diagnosis

Precision medicine in cancer treatment refers to targeted therapy based on the evaluation of biomarkers. Although precision medicine for pancreatic cancer (PC) remains challenging, novel biomarker-based therapies, such as pembrolizumab, olaparib, and entrectinib, have been emerging. Most commonly, endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) had been used for the diagnosis of PC until now. However, advances in EUS-TA devices and biomarker testing, especially next-generation sequencing, have opened up the possibility of sequencing of various genes even in limited amounts of tissue samples obtained by EUS-TA, and identifying potential genetic alterations as therapeutic targets. Precision medicine benefits only a small population of patients with PC, but biomarker-based therapy has shown promising results in patients who once had no treatment options. Now, the role of EUS-TA has extended beyond diagnosis into decision-making regarding the treatment of PC. In this review, we mainly discuss tissue sampling by EUS-TA for biomarker testing and the current status of precision medicine for PC.

Intermittent endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions. Pilot study

Background and purpose of the study: endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the method of choice for sampling pancreatic solid lesions. However, there is significant heterogeneity in terms of the technique used. Intermittent aspiration has not been evaluated in pancreatic solid lesions and could improve the diagnostic performance.

METHODS

Single-blind, non-inferiority pilot study. Patients with solid pancreatic lesions and indication for EUS-FNA were prospectively included. Patients were randomly assigned to intermittent (IS) or continuous (CS) suction techniques. Diagnostic performance, cellularity, blood contamination and number of passes required to reach diagnosis were evaluated.

MAIN RESULTS

33 patients were assigned to CS (16 patients) or IS (17 patients). Diagnostic performance was 87.5% for CS and 94.1% for IS (OR 2.29, 95%CI 0.19-27.99, p = 0.51). In the IS group samples had higher cellularity (OR 1.83, 95%CI 0.48-6.91, p = 0.37) and lower blood contamination (OR 0.38, 95%CI 0.09-1.54, p = 0.18). The number of passes required to reach diagnosis was 2.12 for CS and 1.94 for IS (p = 0.64). Liquid cytology was obtained in 73.3% of IS and 61.5% of CS (OR 1.72, 95%CI 0.35-8.50).

CONCLUSIONS

The IS technique was not inferior to CS in terms of diagnostic accuracy in the evaluation of pancreatic solid lesions, with a tendency to obtain higher cellularity, lower blood contamination and frequent presence of cell block.

Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration and Biopsy Device for Lymphadenopathy

Background

Accurate diagnosis of benign and malignant lymphadenopathy is important for determining the appropriate treatment and prognosis. This study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy and usefulness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) with a conventional needle compared to endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) with a Franseen needle for diagnosing lymphadenopathy.

Methods

Patients who underwent EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB for mediastinal or abdominal lymphadenopathy between July 2013 and August 2020 were enrolled in the study. The outcomes between EUS-FNA patients (July 2013 to January 2017; 22-gauge conventional needle; Group A) and EUS-FNB patients (February 2017 to August 2020; 22-gauge Franseen needle; Group B) were compared.

Results

A total of 154 patients (Group A: 83; Group B: 71) were analyzed. The diagnostic accuracy (differentiating between malignant and benign lesions) was 88.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 79.2–93.3%) in Group A and 95.8% (95% CI, 88.3–98.8%) in Group B. Group B had high diagnostic accuracy, but there was no difference between the groups (p = 0.14). Group B had significantly fewer passes (median 2, interquartile range (IQR): 2-4) than Group A (median 3, IQR: 3-4) (p < 0.001). No procedural adverse events occurred in either group.

Conclusions

Although the diagnostic accuracy between the groups was not statistically significant, EUS-FNB with a Franseen needle provided high diagnostic accuracy and required fewer passes to establish a diagnosis. Thus, EUS-FNB is useful for diagnosing lymphadenopathy.

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

BACKGROUND

 National guidelines recommend genomic profiling of tumor tissue to guide precision therapy. We compared the specimen adequacy for genomic profiling and yield of DNA between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB) and EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA).

METHODS

 In our tandem, randomized controlled trial, consecutive patients undergoing EUS for evaluation of pancreatic masses underwent both conventional EUS-FNA with a 25-gauge needle and paired EUS-FNB (19 or 22-gauge needle), with the order randomized (EUS-FNA first followed by EUS-FNB, or vice versa). A minimum of one pass with each needle was obtained for histology. Second and third passes were performed to collect DNA. Specimens were evaluated by a cytopathologist blinded to the needle type. Specimen adequacy for genomic profiling was calculated based on FoundationOne clinical diagnostic (CDx) adequacy requirements. We compared the adequacy for genomic profiling DNA (quantity) and histology yields with both needles.

RESULTS

 Analysis included 50 patients (25 men; mean age 68 [standard deviation (SD) 13] years), with a mean lesion size of 38 (SD 17) mm; 37 lesions (74 %) were pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The mean DNA concentrations in PDAC by FNB and FNA needles were 5.930 (SD 0.881) µg/mL vs. 3.365 (SD 0.788) µg/mL, respectively (P = 0.01). The median standardized histology score per pass with EUS-FNB was 5 (sufficient for histology) and for EUS-FNA was 2 (enough for cytology). Specimen adequacy for genomic profiling and yield of DNA was significantly higher with FNB than with FNA needles.

CONCLUSIONS

 In this study, adequacy for genomic profiling, DNA, and histology yield were considerably superior using an EUS-FNB needle compared with an EUS-FNA needle.

Does ProCore Fine-Needle Biopsy Really Improve the Clinical Outcome of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Sampling of Pancreatic Masses?

INTRODUCTION

Fine-needle biopsy (FNB) has been suggested to provide better histological samples as compared to endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). However, studies comparing EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for pancreatic lesions reported contrasting results. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical performance of EUS-FNA versus EUS-FNB with the ProCore needle for the investigation of pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

We reviewed all patients undergoing EUS for the investigation of pancreatic lesions from August 2012 to September 2018. From August 2012 to January 2015, all procedures were performed with standard needles, whereas from February 2015 to September 2018, the use of ProCore needles had been introduced. Data on diagnostic accuracy, number of needle passes, and/or adverse events were collected.

RESULTS

Three hundred twenty-four patients were retrospectively evaluated: 190 (58.6%) underwent EUS-FNA and 134 (41.4%) EUS-FNB. Both EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB showed high diagnostic accuracy for malignancy (94% [95% CI: 89-97%] vs. 94% [95% CI: 89-98%]). Notably, there were no differences between EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio, histological core tissue retrieval, adverse events, or number of needle passes. However, subgroup analysis noted a higher diagnostic accuracy for 25G EUS-FNB as compared to 25G EUS-FNA (85.7 vs. 55.5%; *p = 0.023).

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNB with the ProCore needle is safe and feasible in pancreatic lesions. The ProCore needle did not provide any advantage in terms of diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and/or negative likelihood ratio, or acquisition of the core specimen; therefore, its routine application is not supported.

Randomized controlled trial comparing the Franseen needle with the Fork-tip needle for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EUS-guided FNA primarily provides cytologic samples. EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB) with needles that provide histologic specimens may enhance diagnostic yield and facilitate accessory tissue staining. Several different needle designs are currently available and design superiority is unknown. We designed a randomized controlled trial to compare 2 commonly used EUS-FNB needles in their ability to provide histologic tissue samples (primary endpoint) and to reach an accurate diagnosis (secondary endpoint).

METHODS

A total of 150 lesions from 134 patients (November 2018 to June 2019) were randomized 1:1 between biopsy with a Franseen needle and a Fork-tip needle. The groups were compared regarding the quality of the tissue samples and diagnostic accuracy.

RESULTS

Of 150 lesions, 75 were pancreatic and 75 were other solid lesions in and around the GI tract. There was no statistically significant difference between the Franseen needle and the Fork-tip needle in the yield of adequate histologic samples, 71 of 75 (94.7%) versus 72 of 75 (96%), (P = 1.00), an absolute difference of -1.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], -8.1% to 5.4%). The 2 groups were similar in the diagnostic accuracy of histologic analysis, 64 of 75 (85.3%) versus 68 of 75 (90.7%) (P = .45), absolute difference -5.4% (95% CI, -15.7% to 5%); and in the diagnostic accuracy of combined cytologic and histologic analysis, 65 of 75 (86.7%) versus 69 of 75 (92%) (P = .43), absolute difference -5.3% (95% CI, -15.2% to 4.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in the performance of the Franseen needle versus the Fork-tip needle. Both needles achieved a high yield of histologic tissue samples and high diagnostic accuracy. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03672032.).

An exclusive fine-needle biopsy approach to sampling solid lesions under EUS guidance: a prospective cohort study

Background

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is increasingly utilized to enhance the cytological yield of sampling solid lesions, but its superiority over existing fine-needle aspiration (FNA) platforms has not been clearly demonstrated. The aim of our study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy and procedural outcomes of FNB using a new Franseen-tip needle to that of a traditional FNA in sampling solid lesions under EUS guidance.

Methods

Consecutive patients with solid lesions referred for EUS-FNB sampling were included. Procedure-related outcomes were collected prospectively including patient demographics, number of passes performed, diagnostic sample adequacy, adverse events, and recovery time. The Acquire needle was used to sample all lesions in the study group. Consecutive EUS-FNA procedures performed to sample solid lesions using the Expect needle were utilized as controls.

Results

There were 180 patients undergoing EUS-FNB compared to 183 patients undergoing EUS-FNA procedures for solid-lesion sampling. The procedure time was significantly shorter in patients who underwent FNB compared to FNA (mean: 37.4 vs 44.9 minutes, P < 0.001). Significantly fewer passes were performed in the FNB cohort compared to the FNA group (mean: 2.9 vs 3.8, P < 0.001). The cytologic diagnostic yield was significantly higher in the FNB group compared to the FNA group (98.3% vs 90.2%, P = 0.003). No significant difference in the incidence of adverse events was observed between the FNB and FNA groups (1.1% vs 0.5%, P = 0.564).

Conclusions

An FNB-exclusive approach to sampling solid lesions under EUS guidance is safe and feasible, and may result in fewer overall passes, shorter procedure time, and improved diagnostic adequacy. FNB may replace FNA as the primary sampling modality of choice in all solid lesions.

Factors associated with diagnostic accuracy, technical success and adverse events of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is used to diagnose lesions within or adjacent to the digestive tract. However, there is no report on the overall diagnostic accuracy, technical success, and adverse events of FNB. The aims of this study were to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to comprehensively assess the diagnostic accuracy, technical success, and adverse events of FNB.

METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant articles published in English from January 1998 to May 2019 (No. CRD42019141647). Primary outcomes were EUS-FNB related diagnostic accuracy rate, technical success rate, and adverse event rate.

RESULTS

A total of 51 articles including 5330 patients met our criteria. The overall EUS-FNB related diagnostic accuracy rate, technical success rate, and adverse event rate was 90.82% [95% confidence interval (CI) 88.69-92.76%], 99.71% [95% CI 99.35-99.93%], and 0.59% [95% CI 0.29-1.0%], respectively. Biopsy with 22G needle could increase the diagnostic accuracy rate and technical success rate to 92.17% [95% CI 89.32-94.61%] and 99.88% [95% CI 99.64-99.99%], respectively, and decrease the adverse event to 0.37% [95% CI 0.08-0.87%]. Moreover, it showed that 22G needle was an independent factor associated with a higher diagnostic accuracy rate and technical success rate and a lower adverse event rate (P = 0.04, P < 0.001, and P = 0.04, respectively) by univariate and multivariate meta-regression analyses.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy is a feasible and safe procedure for lesions within or adjacent to the digestive tract. Biopsy using 22G needle could increase the diagnostic accuracy rate and technical success rate and decrease adverse event rate during the FNB procedure.

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.

Efficacy of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy in Gastric Subepithelial Tumors Located in the Cardia

BACKGROUND

In cases of subepithelial tumors (SETs) located in the cardiac area, a preoperative histologic diagnosis might be helpful in determining the requirement of surgery.

AIM

To investigate the efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) in gastric SETs located in the cardia.

METHODS

The data of 107 patients who underwent EUS-FNB, from 2012 to 2017, for tissue sampling of gastric SETs located in the cardia were collected. The clinicopathological data, EUS-related parameters, and surgical outcomes were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

The EUS-FNB results were diagnostic in 86.9% (93/107) and nondiagnostic in 13.1% (14/107) of the patients. Immunostaining of the FNB specimens led to the diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) in 25 SETs (23.4%), leiomyoma in 62 SETs (57.9%), heterotopic pancreas in 3 SETs (2.8%), and schwannoma in 2 SETs (1.9%). In the multivariate analysis, patients with GISTs showed significantly more inhomogeneous echogenicity [odds ratio (OR), 8.867], more cystic foci (OR, 26.98), and older age (OR, 1.087). In 26 patients who underwent surgical resection, the agreement between EUS-FNB and surgical pathological findings was 100% with respect to the diagnosis of GISTs (n = 20) and leiomyoma (n = 7). Among these cases, the proportion of high-risk GISTs was 20.0% (4/20), and no leiomyosarcoma was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Although a majority of the subepithelial lesions in the cardia of the stomach are benign, 20% of the cases diagnosed with GIST have a high malignant potential. Preoperative EUS-FNB might be a useful tool for decision-making regarding the ultimate management and outcomes of these lesions.

Comparison of the Diagnostic Yield of the Standard 22-Gauge Needle and the New 20-Gauge Forward-Bevel Core Biopsy Needle for Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition from Pancreatic Lesions

Background/Aims

To compare the diagnostic yield of 20-gauge forward-bevel core biopsy needle (CBN) and 22-gauge needle for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) of solid pancreatic masses.

Methods

The use of 20-gauge CBN was prospectively evaluated for 50 patients who underwent EUS-FNA from June 2016 to December 2016. Data were compared with those obtained by a retrospective study of 50 consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNA using standard 22-gauge needles between December 2016 and April 2017. At least two punctures were performed for each patient; the sample from the first pass was used for cytology with or without histology and that from the second pass was used for histology. Sample quantity was evaluated using the sample obtained from the second pass.

Results

There was no significant difference in the diagnostic accuracy rate between the first and second passes (20-gauge CBN: 96% [48/50]; standard 22-gauge needle: 88% [44/50]). Samples >10× power fields in length were obtained from 90% (43/48) and 60% (30/50) of patients using the 20-gauge CBN and standard 22-gauge needle, respectively (p=0.01). Technical failure occurred for two patients with the 20-gauge CBN.

Conclusions

Diagnostic accuracy of the 20-gauge CBN was comparable to that of the 22-gauge needle. However, two passes with the 20-gauge CBN yielded a correct diagnosis for 100% of patients when technically feasible. Moreover, the 20-gauge CBN yielded core tissue for 90% patients, which was a performance superior to that of the 22-gauge needle.

Comparison between two types of needles for Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine aspiration biopsy of pancreatic and upper gastrointestinal masses

BACKGROUND

EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) has long been the main method for sampling pancreatic lesions. Recently, the method of fine-needle biopsy (FNB) was introduced in practice, allowing for the acquisition of tissue cores while aspirating the lesion. We hereby report our experience with a new FNB needle compared with the standard FNA needle.

METHODS

Retrospective data from our department were collected on patients who underwent FNB using the Acquire EUS-FNB needle (Boston Scientific, Massachusetts) and FNA using the EchoTip Ultra EUS-FNA Needle (Cook Medical, Indiana) between January 2017 and February 2018. The cases were reviewed independently by two cytopathologists and evaluated for the presence of cell block or core tissue material, adequacy for potential ancillary testing, and number of passes.

RESULTS

The number of passes ranged from 1 to 16, with a mean of 5.52 ± 3.74 in the FNA group, and from 1 to 6, with a mean of 2.74 ± 1.11 passes in the FNB group (P < .0001). Tissue cores were present in 87.23% of the FNB needle samples. A cell block was adequate in 36.36% of cases using the FNA needle. The diagnostic yield as well as the adequacy for ancillary testing were significantly different between the two groups (P = .0001). The tumor size, location and patients' demographics were not statistically significant between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Compared with the conventional needle, the new FNB needle was associated with a lower number of passes and a better yield for histological material.

Present and Future of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition in Solid Pancreatic Tumors

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) is a well-established method for pathological diagnosis of solid pancreatic neoplasm. It can be performed either as EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) or EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUSFNB). The incidence of adverse events related to EUS-TA is less than 1%. The factors that affect the diagnostic accuracy and specimen adequacy include the techniques used, type and size of the needle, competency of endosonographers, presence of cytopathologists/ cytotechnologists, and rapid on-site examination. EUS-TA may contribute to precision medicine through obtaining tissue samples for next-generation sequencing. The current status, several clinical issues for diagnostic yield and adverse events, and future perspectives of EUS-FNA/FNB for diagnosing pancreatic neoplasm have been discussed in this review article.

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.

New Era of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition: Next-Generation Sequencing by Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Sampling for Pancreatic Cancer

Pancreatic cancer is a lethal cancer with an increasing incidence. Despite improvements in chemotherapy, patients with pancreatic cancer continue to face poor prognoses. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) is the primary method for obtaining tissue samples of pancreatic cancer. Due to advancements in next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies, multiple parallel sequencing can be applied to EUS-TA samples. Genomic biomarkers for therapeutic stratification in pancreatic cancer are still lacking, however, NGS can unveil potential predictive genomic biomarkers of treatment response. Thus, the importance of NGS using EUS-TA samples is becoming recognized. In this review, we discuss the recent advances in EUS-TA application for NGS of pancreatic cancer.

Noninvasive prediction model for diagnosing gastrointestinal stromal tumors using contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasound

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Subepithelial tumors (SETs) are difficult to diagnose accurately without invasive pathological confirmation. We created a noninvasive prediction model for diagnosing gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) using contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasound (CEH-EUS).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 176 patients who underwent CEH-EUS from October 2011 to August 2017. Seventy patients with a diagnosis of GIST (n = 37) or leiomyoma (n = 33) were included. The long-to-short axis ratio (LSR) and enhancement patterns (vascularity, diffuse enhancement) on CEH-EUS were assessed. Logistic regression and classification and regression tree (CART) analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The mean age of all patients was 54.9 ± 13.68 years. The GIST group showed significantly higher rates of positive vascularity (81.1% vs. 15.2%, p < 0.001) and diffuse enhancement (51.4% vs. 15.2%, p = 0.001), and lower LSR (1.30 vs. 1.76, p < 0.001). In multivariate logistic regression, positive vascularity (odds ratio [OR] 27.765, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.336-144.458) and low LSR (OR 18.940, 95% CI 3.623-99.007) were independent predictors of GIST. A noninvasive prediction model for GISTs was developed using the CART model, by allocating patients according to statistically significant variables.

CONCLUSIONS

The LSR and vascularity of SETs on CEH-EUS can be used as parameters for a noninvasive prediction model of GISTs. This model may be helpful in the early identification and treatment of GISTs.

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.

Impact of calcifications on diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Chronic calcific pancreatitis (CCP) is a major risk factor for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and is common in southern India. Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is useful for tissue acquisition in patients with solid pancreatic lesions. Multiple factors may affect the diagnostic yield of FNA samples. The present study was performed to assess the impact of pancreatic calcifications on the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA in PDAC.

METHODS

All patients with confirmed PDAC from January 2013 to December 2017 were included. CCP was diagnosed based on typical imaging characteristics with or without evidence of pancreatic insufficiency along with surgical histopathology reports showing features of chronic pancreatitis. The diagnostic yield and adequacy of cellularity were  assessed by a pathologist who was blinded and were compared between the two groups: group 1: PDAC patients with no evidence of CCP and, group 2: PDAC patients with CCP.

RESULTS

A total of 122 patients were included in the study. The diagnostic yield was lower in patients in group 2 (n = 42, 25 [59.52%]) as compared to those in group 1 (n = 80, 63 [78.75%]) (p-value = 0.01). On multivariate analysis, only the presence of calcifications was found to have an independent association with diagnostic yield (odds ratio 3.83 [95% confidence interval 1.22-11.9]).

CONCLUSIONS

CCP had a significant impact on the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Novel techniques and newer technology that may mitigate the negative effect of calcification on diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA in patients with CCP.

Impact of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy on the diagnosis of subepithelial tumors: A propensity score-matching analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Immunohistological evaluations are essential for diagnosing subepithelial tumors (SET). However, endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling using fine-needle aspiration (FNA) needles is limited in its ability to procure core tissue for immunostaining. Fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles may mitigate this limitation. The present study aimed to examine the efficacy of FNB needles for procuring samples that enable the diagnosis of SET.

METHODS

One hundred sixty patients were included in the study and separated into those whose samples were obtained using FNB needles (FNB group) and those whose samples were procured using FNA needles (FNA group). Groups were compared regarding the conclusive diagnosis rate and unwarranted resection rate. Propensity score matching was introduced to reduce selection bias.

RESULTS

Rates at which conclusive diagnoses were reached through adequate immunohistological evaluations were 82% and 60% in the FNB and FNA groups, respectively; this difference was significant (P = 0.013). Unwarranted resection rate was significantly lower in the FNB group (2%) than in the FNA group (14%; P = 0.032). Multivariate analyses showed that lesions ≤20 mm were a significant risk factor for lower conclusive diagnosis rates following the use of FNB needles (P = 0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

Fine-needle biopsy needles can be useful for obtaining samples that facilitate the diagnosis of SET and for avoiding unwarranted resections. However, FNB needles may be less advantageous for small SET.

Pancreatic granular cell tumor diagnosed by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy

Pancreatic granular cell tumors (GCTs) are rare and making an imaging diagnosis of pancreatic GCT is difficult because it has no definite characteristics on contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) owing to varying findings. We report about a 32-year-old woman who presented with an incidental finding of a pancreatic tumor with a past history of excision of a right forearm GCT nodule 12 years ago. CE-CT revealed a 23-mm-sized homogeneous low enhancement tumor in the arterial phase in the pancreatic body. Abdominal MRI revealed a lobulated hypointense mass in T1WI and high signal in DWI. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) revealed that the tumor was oval, hypoechoic with posterior echo enhancement, and had a well-defined border. Although EUS-guided fine needle aspiration revealed benign granular cells of the pancreas, she underwent laparoscopic surgery because the metastatic tumor from the past lesion was not excluded. The pathological finding was benign GCT of the pancreas and it was considered as an original lesion. In the previous reports, most of the resected cases were considered to be pancreatic cancer or neuroendocrine tumor preoperatively. Compared to CE-CT and MRI, EUS imaging and EUS-FNA are more reliable diagnosis tools for pancreatic GCT. Although malignant GCT accounts for approximately 1-2% of all cases, surgical resection or strict follow-up should be considered because it is difficult to predict its biological behavior.

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 Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition: Techniques and Challenges

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS FNA) has made pathological diagnosis of pancreatic neoplasms, diseases involving lymph nodes at various mediastinal and abdominal sites, gastrointestinal submucosal lesions, perirectal lesions, adrenal lesions, and mediastinal masses easy. EUS-guided FNA is a multistep procedure that involves assessment of proper clinical indication, correct selection of FNA needles, and adoption of evidence-based techniques for tissue sampling. EUS FNA is done by needles that are available in different sizes, mainly 25, 22, and 19-gauge needle. The need of onsite cytopathologist, dependence on histology/core biopsy occasionally to get a diagnosis, and inability to reliably assess for molecular markers are important limitations of EUS FNA. EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (FNB) that samples the core of tissue is an exciting new development in the field of diagnostic EUS. FNB needles are expensive than FNA needles, and although the initial results are encouraging, more studies with robust evidence proving their superiority beyond any doubt are needed before they can be widely used.

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.

Recent advancement in EUS-guided fine needle sampling

EUS-guided tissue acquisition technique plays an essential role for evaluation of gastrointestinal tumors. Several components affect the yield of EUS-guided tissue acquisition outcomes such as sampling techniques, use of ROSE (rapid onsite evaluation), training and experience, and needle designs. In this review we discuss advancement in EUS-guided fine needle sampling.

Benefit of high negative pressure during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with standard 22-gauge needles for pancreatic lesions: a retrospective comparative study

OBJECTIVES

Few studies are available on high negative pressure (HNP) during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). This study compared the diagnostic yield between HNP and normal negative pressure (NNP) during EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic masses.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with pancreatic masses who underwent EUS-FNA using a 22-G needle with either HNP or NNP for both the first and second passes were retrospectively examined for diagnostic yield. Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) was unavailable at our center. The main outcome measures were the number of passes, diagnostic accuracy and quantity of histological samples.

RESULTS

Two hundred patients underwent EUS-FNA (n = 97, HNP; n = 103, NNP) over a 22-month period. A significantly lower median number of passes was required for HNP than for NNP (2 vs. 3; p < .001). There was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between the two groups. The rate of obtaining a histological sample larger than a 10× power field in length was significantly higher for HNP than for NNP (76.4% vs. 59.6%; p = .0019). In the multivariate analysis, a large tumor size (>20 mm) and HNP were identified as factors influencing the acquisition of a larger histological sample.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between HNP and NNP. HNP required fewer passes without ROSE and was related to the acquisition of a larger histological sample. HNP may be useful when few samples are available for EUS-FNA with NNP or a larger histological sample is needed.

Gross visual inspection by endosonographers during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

A clear criterion for terminating endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) without rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) has not been established. However, a possible solution includes gross visual inspection (GVI) of the sample obtained with EUS-FNA. We performed a retrospective study to elucidate the efficacy of GVI for the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA.

METHODS

Patients who underwent EUS-FNA of a pancreatic mass using a standard 22-G needle from January 2017 to December 2017 were included in the study. At least two punctures were performed for each patient, and GVI was performed for each pass by endoscopists. The correlation between GVI and pathological findings were investigated per needle pass for the first two passes. Regarding GVI, we evaluated the presence of a visible core (with or without) and the sample quantity (large or small).

RESULTS

We evaluated 126 EUS-FNA specimens and analyzed 252 needle passes. A final diagnosis of malignancy was made for 119 patients (94%). Accuracy rates were 92.5% with a visible core and 70.0% without a visible core (p < 0.01), and 85.2% for large sample quantities and 70.2% for small sample quantities (p < 0.01). Univariate analysis indicated that the presence of a visible core and large sample quantity were associated with accuracy. Multivariate analysis indicated that only the presence of a visible core was significant.

CONCLUSIONS

GVI can predict the correct diagnosis when ROSE is unavailable. Evaluating the presence of a visible core is more sensitive than assessing the quantity of the sample obtained.

A retrospective histological comparison of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy using a novel franseen needle and a conventional end-cut type needle

Background and Objectives:

Recently, a 22G Franseen needle for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) with three novel symmetric heels has been developed to adequately obtain a core tissue.

Methods:

All 38 consecutive patients with pancreatic masses who underwent EUS-FNB using a Franseen needle were investigated retrospectively to assess the efficacy and safety of EUS-FNB using the Franseen needle. Then, the EUS-FNB outcomes and histological assessments of the tissue obtained by EUS-FNB using the Franseen needle and EUS-FNA using the conventional end-cut type needle for each of the 30 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma cases were compared.

Results:

An accurate histological diagnosis of the Franseen needle was achieved with a mean of 2 passes in 97.4% of patients. Although the accurate histological diagnosis rate of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma was not significantly different (96.7% vs. 93.3%, P = 0.55), the mean number of passes in the Franseen needle was significantly less than that in the conventional needle (2.1 ± 0.4 vs. 3.2 ± 0.8, P < 0.001). The presence of desmoplastic fibrosis with neoplastic cellular elements and venous invasion were significantly higher (96.7% vs. 40.0%, P < 0.001 and 23.3% vs. 0%, P < 0.01, respectively) and the amount of obtained tissue was significantly larger with the Franseen needle (2.13 mm²vs. 0.45 mm², P < 0.001).

Conclusions:

EUS-FNB using the Franseen needle enables the acquisition of a larger amount of tissue sample and achieves an accurate histological diagnosis with a smaller number of passes than the conventional end-cut type needle.

Touch imprint cytology on endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle biopsy provides comparable sample quality and diagnostic yield to standard endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration specimens in the evaluation of solid pancreatic lesions

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the gold standard for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs). Cytological samples can also be obtained using touch imprint cytology (TIC) on EUS fine-needle biopsy (FNB) specimens. We aimed to compare sample quality and diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA-standard cytology (EUS-FNA-SC) to that of EUS-FNB-TIC in a series of patients with SPLs.

METHODS

Thirty-two consecutive patients referred for EUS-tissue acquisition of SPLs who underwent rapid on-site evaluation of both EUS-FNA-SC and paired EUS-FNB-TIC during the same endoscopic session were retrospectively identified. Sample quality (evaluated in terms of blood contamination, presence of clots, tissue casts, cellularity, and necrosis) and diagnostic yield were compared between the techniques.

RESULTS

The mean number of passes to reach diagnosis at rapid on-site evaluation was similar between EUS-FNA-SC and EUS-FNB-TIC (1.09 ± 0.3 vs 1.13 ± 0.34, P = .711). EUS-FNA-SC scores of sample quality were comparable to those of EUS-FNB-TIC (blood contamination, 2.47 ± 1.11 vs 2.25 ± 1.14, P = .109; clots, 1.25 ± 0.76 vs 1.19 ± 0.69, P = .624; tissue casts, 3.56 ± 0.88 vs 3.59 ± 1.09, P = .872; cellularity, 2.84 ± 1.11 vs 3.09 ± 1.09, P = .244; necrosis, 2.25 ± 1.08 vs 2.53 ± 1.02 P = .059; total score, 12.38 ± 2.88 vs 17.66 ± 2.38, P = .536). Adequacy, sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy of the two sampling techniques were equal (93.7%, 90.6% and 90.6%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNB-TIC provides comparable samples to those of EUS-FNA-SC and combines the benefits of cytology and histology for the evaluation of SPLs by employing a single needle during the same endoscopic procedure.

Prospective Comparison of Intraductal Ultrasonography-Guided Transpapillary Biopsy and Conventional Biopsy on Fluoroscopy in Suspected Malignant Biliary Strictures

Background/Aims

In suspected malignant biliary strictures (MBSs), the diagnostic yield of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-based tissue sampling is limited. Transpapillary forceps biopsy (TPB) under intraductal ultrasonography (IDUS) guidance is expected to improve the diagnostic accuracy in patients with indeterminate biliary strictures. We evaluated the usefulness of IDUS-guided TPB in patients with suspected MBS.

Methods

Consecutive patients with suspected MBS were prospectively enrolled in the study. ERCP with IDUS was performed in all patients. Both conventional TPB and IDUS-guided TPB on fluoroscopy were performed in each patient. The primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy of conventional TPB and IDUS-guided TPB.

Results

The technical success rate of IDUS-guided TPB was 97.0% (65/67 patients). Of these 65 patients, the final diagnosis was malignancy in 61 patients (93.8%). On IDUS, the most common finding of IDUS was an intraductal infiltrating lesion in 29 patients (47.5%). The overall diagnostic accuracy was significantly higher using IDUS-guided TPB than that using conventional TPB (90.8% vs 76.9%, p=0.027). According to the subgroup analysis based on the tumor morphology, IDUS-guided TPB had a significantly higher cancer detection rate than conventional TPB for intraductal infiltrating lesions (89.6% vs 65.5%, p=0.028).

Conclusions

IDUS-guided TPB appears to improve the accuracy of histological diagnosis in patients with MBS.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition Using Fork-Tip Needle Improves Histological Yield, Reduces Needle Passes, Without On-Site Cytopathological Evaluation

Background and Aim: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle biopsy (FNB) and fine needle aspiration (FNA) are established methods in tissue acquisition. A new fork-tip FNB needle has been used to obtain core tissue samples. We compared the performance of the FNB using fork-tip needles with that of the FNA using conventional needles in patients who had solid neoplastic lesions within and around the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract.

Methods: In this retrospective single-center study, patients who underwent EUS examinations for solid neoplastic lesions between October 2013 and February 2017 were included. The procedures were performed in the absence of an on-site cytologist. The main objectives were to compare the diagnostic yield and average number of passes of FNB using fork-tip needles versus those of FNA using conventional needles.

Results: EUS/FNA and EUS/FNB were performed on 181 solid neoplastic lesions primarily in the pancreas and GI tract walls. There was no significant difference in patient's age, gender, tumor location, or tumor size. The mean number of needle passes was significantly lower in the fork-tip needle group than in the conventional needle group (3.8 vs. 5.9; p < 0.0001). There was a trend toward higher sensitivity (89.9% vs. 81%) using the fork-tip needles than when using the conventional needles (p = 0.119). No significant difference in rates of adverse events between two groups was found.

Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that, compared with FNA using conventional needles, FNB using fork-tip needles required significantly fewer needle passes while achieving a relatively higher diagnostic yield due to its superior capacity in tissue acquisition from solid neoplastic lesions in and around GI tract walls without on-site cytological assessment.

Performance of a new needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy in patients with pancreatic solid lesions: A retrospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Procurement of tissue core biopsy samples may overcome some of the limitations of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration. We aimed at assessing the safety, histological sample procurement yield, and diagnostic accuracy of a newly available histology needle.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from consecutive patients with pancreatic solid lesions who underwent EUS-fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) using the 22-gauge Acquire™ needle were retrospectively retrieved from four tertiary care centers database.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine patients (mean age 68 ± 12 years; male/female 29/30) with pancreatic solid lesions underwent EUS-FNB using the 22-gauge Acquire™ needle. The biopsy was done transgastrically in 22 (37.3%) patients and transduodenally in 37 (62.7%) cases. A mean of 2.8 ± 0.45 needle passes per lesion site were performed, without any major complication. A tissue core biopsy sample for histological evaluation was obtained in 55 (93.2%) cases. In the additional four cases, the specimen obtained resulted adequate for cytological evaluation. Considering malignant versus nonmalignant disease, sensitivity, specificity, negative likelihood ratio, positive likelihood ratio, and diagnostic accuracy were 98.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90.6-99.7), 100% (95% CI, 43.6-100), 0.018 (95% CI, 0.003-0.125), 295.6 (95% CI, 0-9.3 × 1010), and 98.3% (95% CI, 94.9-100), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNB using the 22-gauge Acquire™ needle is able to reach a very high procurement yield and diagnostic accuracy. Large prospective studies are warranted to further evaluate the utility of this newly developed needle.

Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Fine-Needle Aspiration and Endoscopic Ultrasound-Fine-Needle Biopsy for Solid Lesions in a Multicenter, Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is the standard of care for tissue sampling of solid lesions adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract. Fine-needle biopsy (FNB) may provide higher diagnostic yield with fewer needle passes. The aim of this study was to assess the difference in diagnostic yield between FNA and FNB.

METHODS

This is a multicenter, prospective randomized clinical trial from 6 large tertiary care centers. Patients referred for tissue sampling of solid lesions were randomized to either FNA or FNB of the target lesion. Demographics, size, location, number of needle passes, and final diagnosis were recorded.

RESULTS

After enrollment, 135 patients were randomized to FNA (49.3%), and 139 patients were randomized to FNB (50.7%).The following lesions were sampled: mass (n = 210, 76.6%), lymph nodes (n = 46, 16.8%), and submucosal tumors (n = 18, 6.6%). Final diagnosis was malignancy (n = 192, 70.1%), reactive lymphadenopathy (n = 30, 11.0%), and spindle cell tumors (n = 24, 8.8%). FNA had a diagnostic yield of 91.1% compared with 88.5% for FNB (P = .48). There was no difference between FNA and FNB when stratified by the presence of on-site cytopathology or by type of lesion sampled. A median of 1 needle pass was needed to obtain a diagnostic sample for both needles.

CONCLUSIONS

FNA and FNB obtained a similar diagnostic yield with a comparable number of needle passes. On the basis of these results, there is no significant difference in the performance of FNA compared with FNB in the cytologic diagnosis of solid lesions adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01698190.

Analysis of Fine-Needle Biopsy vs Fine-Needle Aspiration in Diagnosis of Pancreatic and Abdominal Masses: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needles with side fenestrations are used to collect aspirates for cytology analysis and biopsy samples for histologic analysis. We conducted a large, multicenter study to compare the accuracy of diagnosis via specimens collected with fine-needle biopsy (FNB) versus fine-needle aspiration (FNA) for patients with pancreatic and nonpancreatic masses.

METHODS

We performed a prospective single-blind study at 5 tertiary care centers in China. The study comprised 408 patients undergoing EUS for a solid mass (>1 cm) in the pancreas, abdomen, mediastinum, or pelvic cavity, from December 2014 through January 2016. Patients were randomly assigned to groups (1:1) for assessment by FNA (n = 190) or FNB (n = 187). After lesions were identified by EUS, samples were collected in a total of 4 passes by each needle. All procedures were performed by experienced endosonographers; cytologists and pathologists were blinded to the sample collection method. Patients were followed for at least 48 weeks, and final diagnoses were obtained after surgery, imaging analysis, or resolution of lesion. The primary aim was to compare diagnostic yields of EUS-FNA with EUS-FNB for all solid masses, then separately as pancreatic and nonpancreatic masses. The secondary endpoint was the quality of histologic specimen.

RESULTS

Findings from FNB analysis were accurate for 91.44% of all cases, compared with 80.00% for all FNA cases, based on final patient diagnoses (P = .0015). In patients with pancreatic masses (n = 249), findings from histologic analysis of FNBs were accurate for 92.68% of the cases, compared with 81.75% for FNAs (P = .0099). In cytology analysis of pancreatic masses, samples collected by FNB accurately identified 88.62% of all pancreatic lesions, whereas samples collected by FNA accurately identified 79.37% (P = .00468). Analyses of samples of nonpancreatic masses collected by FNA versus FNB produced similar diagnostic yields.

CONCLUSIONS

In a prospective study of patients with pancreatic masses, we found EUS-guided FNB samples to produce more accurate diagnoses than samples collected by EUS-guided FNA samples. No difference in diagnostic yield was seen between EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for nonpancreatic masses. Clinical Trials.gov no: NCT02327065.

Prospective Assessment of the Performance of a New Fine Needle Biopsy Device for EUS-Guided Sampling of Solid Lesions

Background/Aims

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) remains the most common EUS-guided tissue acquisition technique. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of a new Franseen tip fine needle biopsy (FNB) device for EUSguided sampling of solid lesions and compare it with the historical FNA technique.

Methods

Acquire^® 22 G FNB needle (Boston Scientific Co., Natick, MA, USA) was used for solid tumor sampling (Study group). Tissue was collected for rapid on-site evaluation, and touch and crush preparations were made. Historical EUS-FNA samples obtained using Expect^® 22 G FNA needle (Boston Scientific Co.) were used as controls (Control group). All specimens were independently evaluated by two cytopathologists blinded to the formal cytopathological diagnosis.

Results

Mean cell block histology scores were significantly higher (p=0.046) in the FNB group (51 samples) despite a significantly lower (p<0.001) mean number of passes compared to the FNA group (50 specimens). The overall diagnostic yields for the FNB vs. FNA groups were 96% vs. 88%. The degree of tumor differentiation was adequately assessed in all cell block qualifying lesions in the FNB group. Two patients developed post-FNB abdominal pain.

Conclusions

The new Franseen tip FNB device provides histologically superior and cytologically comparable specimens to those obtained by FNA, but with fewer passes.