Diagnostic yield of Franseen and Fork-Tip biopsy needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition: a meta-analysis

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.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy using a three-prong asymmetry tip needle for pancreatic tumors and peridigestive tract lesions: Retrospective single-center study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition is vital for diagnosing pancreatic and peridigestive tract lesions. A new three-prong asymmetry tip needle has been developed for this procedure. In this study, we retrospectively assessed the diagnostic ability, tissue collection volume, and procedural adverse events of the three-prong asymmetry tip needle for solid pancreatic, subepithelial, and other organ lesions.

METHODS

We analyzed the data of 58 consecutive patients who underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition using a three-prong asymmetry tip needle between August 2022 and April 2023 at a single care center.

RESULTS

The tissue collection rate was 91.4% with 89.7% accuracy, 89.3% sensitivity, 100% specificity, 100% positive predictive value, and 25% negative predictive value. No significant differences in collection rates or diagnostic performance were observed based on the target organ, puncture route, or lesion size. Using our original assessment method, the average histological core tissue score was 3.1 ± 0.8, whereas the blood contamination volume was 2.5 ± 0.8. Only one of 58 patients (1.7%) developed a pancreatic fistula of moderate severity as an adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

The three-prong asymmetry tip needle demonstrated good diagnostic capability and adequate sample volume with safety for pancreatic, subepithelial, and other organ lesions.

Consensus statements on endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition. Guidelines from the Asian Endoscopic Ultrasound Group

OBJECTIVES

This consensus was developed by the Asian EUS Group (AEG), who aimed to formulate a set of practice guidelines addressing various aspects of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA).

METHODS

The AEG initiated the development of consensus statements and formed an expert panel comprising surgeons, gastroenterologists, and pathologists. Three online consensus meetings were conducted to consolidate the statements and votes. The statements were presented and discussed in the first two consensus meetings and revised according to comments. Final voting was conducted at a third consensus meeting. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system was adopted to define the strength of the recommendations and quality of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 20 clinical questions and statements regarding EUS-TA were formulated. The committee recommended that fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles be preferred over conventional fine-needle aspiration (FNA) needles for EUS-TA of subepithelial lesions. For solid pancreatic masses, rapid on-site evaluation is not routinely recommended when FNB needles are used. For dedicated FNB needles, fork-tip and Franseen-tip needles have essentially equivalent performance.

CONCLUSION

This consensus provides guidance for EUS-TA, thereby enhancing the quality of EUS-TA.

Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Diagnosis of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the most common (90%) type of solid pancreatic neoplasm. Due to its late presentation and poor survival rate, early diagnosis and timely treatment is of utmost importance for better clinical outcomes. Endoscopic ultrasound provides high-resolution images of the pancreas and has excellent sensitivity in the diagnosis of even small (<2 cm) pancreatic lesions. Apart from imaging, it also has an advantage of tissue acquisition (EUS fine-needle aspiration, FNA; or fine-needle biopsy, FNB) for definitive diagnoses. EUS-guided tissue acquisition plays a crucial role in genomic and molecular studies, which in today's era of personalized medicine, are likely to become important components of PDAC management. With the use of better needle designs and technical advancements, EUS has now become an indispensable tool in the management of PDAC. Lastly, artificial intelligence for the detection of pancreatic lesions and newer automated needles for tissue acquisition will obviate observer dependency in the near future, resulting in the wider dissemination and adoption of this technology for improved outcomes in patients with PDAC.

UK and Ireland Joint Advisory Group (JAG) consensus statements for training and certification in diagnostic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

International endoscopy societies vary in their approach for credentialing individuals in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) to enable independent practice; however, there is no consensus in this or its implementation. In 2019, the Joint Advisory Group on GI Endoscopy (JAG) commissioned a working group to examine the evidence relating to this process for EUS. The aim of this was to develop evidence-based recommendations for EUS training and certification in the UK.

METHODS

Under the oversight of the JAG quality assurance team, a modified Delphi process was conducted which included major stakeholders from the UK and Ireland. A formal literature review was made, initial questions for study were proposed and recommendations for training and certification in EUS were formulated after a rigorous assessment using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool and subjected to electronic voting to identify accepted statements. These were peer reviewed by JAG and relevant stakeholder societies before consensus on the final EUS certification pathway was achieved.

RESULTS

39 initial questions were proposed of which 33 were deemed worthy of assessment and finally formed the key recommendations. The statements covered four key domains, such as: definition of competence (13 statements), acquisition of competence (10), assessment of competence (5) and postcertification mentorship (5). Key recommendations include: (1) minimum of 250 hands-on cases before an assessment for competency can be made, (2) attendance at the JAG basic EUS course, (3) completing a minimum of one formative direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS) every 10 cases to allow the learning curve in EUS training to be adequately studied, (4) competent performance in summative DOPS assessments and (5) a period of mentorship over a 12-month period is recommended as minimum to support and mentor new service providers.

CONCLUSIONS

An evidence-based certification pathway has been commissioned by JAG to support and quality assure EUS training. This will form the basis to improve quality of training and safety standards in EUS in the UK and Ireland.

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.

Comprehensive review on endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition techniques for solid pancreatic tumor

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is speculated to become the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality by 2030, a high mortality rate considering the number of cases. Surgery and chemotherapy are the main treatment options, but they are burdensome for patients. A clear histological diagnosis is needed to determine a treatment plan, and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition (TA) is a suitable technique that does not worsen the cancer-specific prognosis even for lesions at risk of needle tract seeding. With the development of personalized medicine and precision treatment, there has been an increasing demand to increase cell counts and collect specimens while preserving tissue structure, leading to the development of the fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needle. EUS-FNB is rapidly replacing EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) as the procedure of choice for EUS-TA of pancreatic cancer. However, EUS-FNA is sometimes necessary where the FNB needle cannot penetrate small hard lesions, so it is important clinicians are familiar with both. Given these recent dev-elopments, we present an up-to-date review of the role of EUS-TA in pancreatic cancer. Particularly, technical aspects, such as needle caliber, negative pressure, and puncture methods, for obtaining an adequate specimen in EUS-TA are discussed.

EUS-guided fine needle biopsy is able to provide diagnosis in rare osteoclast-like giant cells undifferentiated carcinoma of the pancreas: Report of two cases

Undifferentiated carcinoma of the pancreas with osteoclast-like giant cells (UC-OGC) is a rare subtype of pancreatic cancer, accounting for less than 1% of all pancreatic tumors. Preoperative diagnosis is cumbersome as cross-sectional imaging is often not capable to distinguish between UCOGC and other pancreatic tumors such as pancreatic adenocarcinoma, mucinous carcinoma or neuroendocrine tumors and specific tumor markers seem to be lacking. Endoscopic ultrasound r `m(EUS) with tissue acquisition via fine-needle aspiration (FNA) or biopsy (FNB) with microscopic HE staining and immunohistochemistry allows for an accurate diagnosis, thus influencing further treatment. We present herein the cases of two patients with osteoclast-like giant cells tumors of the pancreas diagnosed by EUS-guided fine needle biopsy and perform a literature review on the role of EUS-guided biopsy for diagnosis.

ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Biliary Strictures

A biliary stricture is an abnormal narrowing in the ductal drainage system of the liver that can result in clinically and physiologically relevant obstruction to the flow of bile. The most common and ominous etiology is malignancy, underscoring the importance of a high index of suspicion in the evaluation of this condition. The goals of care in patients with a biliary stricture are confirming or excluding malignancy (diagnosis) and reestablishing flow of bile to the duodenum (drainage); the approach to diagnosis and drainage varies according to anatomic location (extrahepatic vs perihilar). For extrahepatic strictures, endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition is highly accurate and has become the diagnostic mainstay. In contrast, the diagnosis of perihilar strictures remains a challenge. Similarly, the drainage of extrahepatic strictures tends to be more straightforward and safer and less controversial than that of perihilar strictures. Recent evidence has provided some clarity in multiple important areas pertaining to biliary strictures, whereas several remaining controversies require additional research. The goal of this guideline is to provide practicing clinicians with the most evidence-based guidance on the approach to patients with extrahepatic and perihilar strictures, focusing on diagnosis and drainage.

Wet-suction versus slow-pull technique for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy: a multicenter, randomized, crossover trial

BACKGROUND : It is unknown whether there is an advantage to using the wet-suction or slow-pull technique during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) with new-generation needles. We aimed to compare the performance of each technique in EUS-FNB.

METHODS

 This was a multicenter, randomized, single-blind, crossover trial including patients with solid lesions of ≥ 1 cm. Four needle passes with 22 G fork-tip or Franseen-type needles were performed, alternating the wet-suction and slow-pull techniques in a randomized order. The primary outcome was the histological yield (samples containing an intact piece of tissue of at least 550 μm). Secondary end points were sample quality (tissue integrity and blood contamination), diagnostic accuracy, and adequate tumor fraction.

RESULTS

 Overall, 210 patients with 146 pancreatic and 64 nonpancreatic lesions were analyzed. A tissue core was retrieved in 150 (71.4 %) and 129 (61.4 %) cases using the wet-suction and the slow-pull techniques, respectively (P = 0.03). The mean tissue integrity score was higher using wet suction (P = 0.02), as was the blood contamination of samples (P < 0.001). In the two subgroups of pancreatic and nonpancreatic lesions, tissue core rate and tissue integrity score were not statistically different using the two techniques, but blood contamination was higher with wet suction. Diagnostic accuracy and tumor fraction did not differ between the two techniques.

CONCLUSION

 Overall, the wet-suction technique in EUS-FNB resulted in a higher tissue core procurement rate compared with the slow-pull method. Diagnostic accuracy and the rate of samples with adequate tumor fraction were similar between the two techniques.

The role of rectal endoscopic ultrasonography plus fine needle aspirartion and fine needle biopsy in pelvic masses

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The diagnostic role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) of pelvic masses has not been well established. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of EUS plus FNA/FNB in suspected local recurrence of pelvic masses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All consecutive patients with a history of lower gastrointestinal and pelvic mass undergone EUS-FNA/FNB were included in the study.

RESULTS

In total 34 patients who underwent EUS-guided FNA or FNB of a perirectal mass were enrolled. The sampled lesion was a mass in 22 patients (64.7%) and a lymph node in 10 patients (29.4%). The univariate logistic regression analysis for diagnostic accuracy showed lesion size as a significant predictor of diagnostic accuracy [odds ratio (OR), 1.61; 1.08-2.27; P  = 0.02]. Diagnostic sensitivity was 100% (71.5-100%) with EUS-FNB and 75% (34.9-96.8%) with EUS-FNA ( P  = 0.12); specificity was 100% in both groups ( P  = 1.0). Sample adequacy was 94.1% in the whole cohort, with 20/20 adequacy rate (100%) in the EUS-FNB group and 12/14 (85.7%) in the EUS-FNA group ( P  = 0.28).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study demonstrating the diagnostic yield of EUS plus FNA/FNB in patients with pelvic masses comparing the two needles. Our results highlight the relevance of this technique, especially in undefined masses during oncological follow-up.

Diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling by macroscopic on-site evaluation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Assessment of EUS-guided fine-needle tissue acquisition by macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) is gathering attention. Studies report good diagnostic parameters with MOSE; however, the overall data are limited. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to report on the pooled diagnostic assessment parameters of EUS-guided tissue acquisition by MOSE using fine-needle biopsy sampling (FNB).

METHODS

Multiple databases were searched (from inception to December 2021), and studies that reported on the diagnostic assessment of EUS-guided tissue acquisition by MOSE were selected. Pooled diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated by standard meta-analysis methods following the random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed by I² statistics.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included in the analysis, and 1508 lesions were biopsy sampled in 1489 patients undergoing EUS-guided tissue acquisition. MOSE definition included a visible core of tissue with opacity and "wormlike" features of adequate size and length (≥4 mm). The pooled accuracy of FNA and/or FNB specimens in yielding a pathologic diagnosis by MOSE was 91.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 88.6-93.3; I² = 66%), pooled sensitivity was 91.5% (95% CI, 88.6-93.6; I² = 66%), pooled specificity was 98.9% (95% CI, 96.6-99.7; I² = 80%), pooled positive predictive value was 98.8% (95% CI, 97.4-99.5; I² = 33%), and pooled negative predictive value was 55.5% (95% CI, 46.9-63.9; I² = 95%). Subgroup analyses by newer-generation FNB needles demonstrated similar pooled rates, with minimal adverse events (2.5%; 95% CI, 1.5-3.9; I² = 21%).

CONCLUSIONS

Excellent pooled diagnostic accuracy parameters were demonstrated in EUS-guided tissue acquisition by FNB using the MOSE method.

Franseen Needles May Be Promising for Improving the Sampling Adequacy of EUS-FNA for Subepithelial Lesions

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is useful in diagnosing subepithelial lesions (SELs), and adequate tissue sampling is necessary to differentiate between benign and malignant diseases to determine therapeutic strategies. This study aimed to evaluate sampling adequacy and diagnostic performance of EUS-FNA for SELs with Franseen needles. This retrospective study enrolled 130 patients who underwent EUS-FNA with a 22-gauge needle for SELs from January 2010 to March 2021. We compared sampling adequacy and predictive factors influencing the sampling adequacy of EUS-FNA for SELs between Franseen and conventional needles. The sampling adequacy rates were 95.0% (38/40) with Franseen needles and 76.7% (69/90) with conventional needles (p = 0.011). The mean number of punctures with Franseen needles (2.80) was significantly less than that with conventional needles (3.42) (p < 0.001). In the multivariate analysis, the use of Franseen needles (p = 0.029; odds ratio [OR], 5.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18−23.36) was an independent factor influencing the sampling adequacy. Compared to conventional needles, the Franseen needle could play a vital role in accurately diagnosing SELs by yielding better sampling adequacy and reducing the number of passes.

Transesophageal endoscopic ultrasound in the diagnosis of the lung masses: a multicenter experience with fine-needle aspiration and fine-needle biopsy needles

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Intraparenchymal lung masses inaccessible through bronchoscopy or endobronchial ultrasound guidance pose a diagnostic challenge. Furthermore, some fragile or hypoxic patients may be poor candidates for transbronchial approaches. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNA/FNB) offers a potential diagnostic approach to lung cancers adjacent to the esophagus. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility, accuracy, and safety of trans-esophageal EUS-FNA/FNB for tissue sampling of pulmonary nodules.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data from patients with pulmonary lesions who underwent EUS-FNA/FNB between March 2015 and August 2021 at eight Italian endoscopic referral centers.

RESULTS

A total of 47 patients (36 male; mean age 64.47 ± 9.05 years) were included (22 EUS-FNAs and 25 EUS-FNBs). Overall diagnostic accuracy rate was 88.9% (76.3-96.2%). The sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy were superior for EUS FNB sampling versus EUS-FNA (100% vs. 78.73%); P = 0.05, and (100% vs. 78.57%); P = 0.05, respectively. Additionally, sample adequacy was superior for EUS-FNB sampling versus EUS-FNA (100% vs. 78.5%); P = 0.05. Multivariate logistic regression analysis for diagnostic accuracy showed nodule size at the cutoff of 15 mm (OR 2.29, 1.04-5.5, P = 0.05) and use of FNB needle (OR 4.33, 1.05-6.31, P = 0.05) as significant predictors of higher diagnostic accuracy. There were no procedure-related adverse events.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the efficacy and safety of EUS-FNA/FNB as a minimally invasive procedure for diagnosing and staging peri-esophageal parenchymal lung lesions. The diagnostic yield of EUS-FNB was superior to EUS-FNA.

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.

Comparative diagnostic performance of end-cutting fine-needle biopsy needles for EUS tissue sampling of solid pancreatic masses: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Evidence is limited on the comparative diagnostic performance of newer end-cutting fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles for tissue sampling of pancreatic masses. We performed a systematic review with network meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic accuracy of available FNB needles for sampling of solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (Medline and Cochrane Database) was conducted for studies evaluating the accuracy of newer FNB needles in adults undergoing EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were sample adequacy, diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and adverse event rate. We performed pairwise and network meta-analyses and appraised the quality of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology.

RESULTS

Overall, 16 RCTs (1934 patients) were identified. On network meta-analysis, Franseen needles (Acquire; Boston Scientific, Marlborough, Mass, USA) significantly outperformed reverse-bevel needles (risk ratio [RR], 1.21 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.05-1.40] for accuracy and 1.31 [95% CI, 1.05-1.22] for adequacy) and FNA needles (RR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.01-1.25] for accuracy and 1.07 [95% CI, 1.02-1.13] for adequacy). Likewise, the Fork-tip needle (SharkCore; Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland) was significantly superior to the reverse-bevel needle (RR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.03-1.33] for accuracy and 1.09 [95% CI, 1.02-1.16] for adequacy) and to the FNA needle (RR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.01-1.19] for accuracy and 1.03 [95% CI, 1.01-1.07] for adequacy). Other comparisons did not achieve statistical significance. As a consequence, Franseen (surface under the cumulative ranking score, .89 for accuracy and .94 for adequacy) and Fork-tip needles (surface under the cumulative ranking score, .76 for accuracy and .73 for adequacy) ranked as the 2 highest-performing FNB needles. When considering different needle sizes, 25-gauge Franseen and 25-gauge Fork-tip needles were not superior to 22-gauge reverse-bevel needles (RR, 1.18 [95% CI, .96-1.46] and 1.04 [95% CI, .62-1.52]). None of the tested needles was significantly superior to the other FNB devices or to FNA needles when rapid onsite cytologic evaluation was available.

CONCLUSIONS

Franseen and Fork-tip needles, particularly 22-gauge size, showed the highest performance for tissue sampling of pancreatic masses, with low confidence in estimates.

Comparison between endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy and bite-on-bite jumbo biopsy for sampling of subepithelial lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

A direct comparison between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle biopsy (FNB) and current endoscopic biopsy techniques in patients with subepithelial lesions (SELs) is still lacking. Aim of this multicenter study was to compare the diagnostic performance and safety profile between EUS-FNB and bite-on-bite jumbo biopsy.

METHODS

Out of 416 patients undergoing endoscopic sampling of SELs between 2017 and 2021, after propensity score matching two groups were compared: 120 undergoing EUS-FNB and 120 sampled with bite-on-bite jumbo biopsy. Primary outcome was sample adequacy. Secondary outcomes were diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Median age was 61 years and most patients were male in both groups. Final diagnosis was GIST in 65 patients (54.1%) in the EUS-FNB group and 62 patients in the bite-on-bite biopsy group (51.6%; p = 0.37). Sample adequacy was significantly higher in the EUS-FNB group as compared to the bite-on-bite biopsy group (94.1% versus 77.5%, p<0.001). EUS-FNB outperformed bite-on-bite biopsy also in terms of diagnostic accuracy (89.3% versus 67.1%, p<0.001) and sensitivity (89% vs 64.5%; p<0.001), whereas specificity was 100% in both groups (p = 0.89). These findings were confirmed in subgroup analysis according to SEL location, final diagnosis, and wall layers of the sampled SEL. Adverse event rate was 6.6% in the EUS-FNB group and 30% in the bite-on-bite biopsy group (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNB outperforms bite-on-bite biopsy both in terms of diagnostic yield and safety profile.

Comparison between Two Types of 22-Gauge Fine-Needle Biopsy for Solid Pancreatic Tumors

Background

Tissue sampling using endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration is the gold standard for diagnosing malignant pancreatic tumors; however, its sensitivity and specificity are highly variable. Thus, fine-needle biopsy using cutting needles has been developed to overcome current limitations and improve diagnostic yield. Our study compared two fine-needle biopsy needles for tissue sampling for pancreatic solid lesions.

Materials and Methods

Samples obtained from patients with pancreatic solid lesions using the 22-gauge fine-needle biopsy needles (Franseen needle or reverse bevel needle) were retrospectively analyzed. The primary outcomes were diagnostic yield and sample adequacy. The secondary outcome was diagnostic performance. The analysis was performed using 2 × 2 tables to calculate sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy for each needle type. Proportions were compared using the Z test. For quantitative variables, a comparative analysis was performed using Student's t test. Qualitative and unpaired outcome variables were described using Fisher's exact test.

Results

Sixty-three patients with pancreatic lesions were included in the analysis. The fine-needle biopsy Franseen and reverse bevel groups included 33 and 30 patients, respectively. An adequate sample was obtained in 97% of patients in the Franseen needle group versus 80% in the reverse bevel needle group; the diagnostic yields in these groups were 93.9 and 66.7%, respectively. Neither differences between needle passes nor complications were noted. The sensitivity and specificity were 93.5 and 100%, respectively, in the fine-needle biopsy Franseen group, versus 71 and 100%, respectively, in the reverse bevel needle group.

Conclusions

The Franseen needle was more effective for sampling pancreatic tumors than the reverse bevel needle.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy Using 22G Franseen Needles without Rapid On-Site Evaluation for Diagnosis of Intraabdominal Masses

Background: The impact of rapid on-site cytologic evaluation (ROSE) on endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is widely debated. This study aims to assess the diagnostic performance of EUS-FNB in the absence of ROSE in abdominal masses. Methods: Patients with abdominal masses undergoing EUS-FNB using 22-gauge Franseen needles and the slow-pull technique were prospectively enrolled in this study. Macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) was performed without ROSE. Results: 100 patients were recruited between 2018 and 2020. Seventy-eight patients had neoplasms, and twenty-two patients had benign diseases. Common diagnoses included pancreatic cancer (n = 27), mesenchymal tumors (n = 17), and metastatic tumors (n = 14). The mean mass size was 3.9 ± 2.6 cm. The median pass number was three. Eighty-nine percent had adequate specimens for histologic evaluation. Malignancy increased the odds of obtaining adequate tissue (OR 5.53, 95% CI, 1.36–22.5). For pancreatic cancer, FNB had a sensitivity of 92.3%, a specificity of 100%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 100%, a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97%, and an AUROC of 0.96. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and AUROC for mesenchymal cell tumors were 100%, 95.9%, 84.2%, 100%, and 0.98, respectively. For metastatic tumors, FNB was 100% sensitive and specific, with an AUROC of 1.00. There were no procedure-related complications. Conclusions: 22-gauge Franseen needles with the slow-pull technique and MOSE without ROSE provide excellent diagnostic performances for malignant lesions. Thus, MOSE should be implemented in real-world practice, and ROSE can be obviated when EUS-FNB is employed.

Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle biopsy vs fine-needle aspiration for lymph nodes tissue acquisition: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition represents the choice of methods for suspected lymph nodes (LNs) located next to the gastrointestinal tract. This study aimed to compare the pooled diagnostic performance of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) and fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for LNs sampling.

Methods

We searched PubMed/MedLine and Embase databases through August 2021. Primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy; secondary outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, sample adequacy, optimal histological core procurement, number of passes, and adverse events. We performed a pairwise meta-analysis using a random-effects model. The results are presented as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference along with 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

We identified nine studies (1,276 patients) in this meta-analysis. Among these patients, 66.4% were male; the median age was 67 years. Diagnostic accuracy was not significantly different between the two approaches (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.81–2.10; P = 0.270). The accuracy of EUS-FNB was significantly higher when being performed with newer end-cutting needles (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.17–3.00; P = 0.009) and in abdominal LNs (OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.52–4.05; P &lt; 0.001) than that of EUS-FNA. No difference in terms of sample adequacy was observed between the two approaches (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.46–4.26; P = 0.550); however, histological core procurement and diagnostic sensitivity with EUS-FNB were significantly higher than those with EUS-FNA (OR, 6.15; 95% CI, 1.51–25.07; P = 0.010 and OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.27–2.74, P = 0.001). The number of needle passes needed was significantly lower in the EUS-FNB group than in the EUS-FNA group (mean difference, −0.54; 95% CI, −0.97 to −0.12; P = 0.010).

Conclusions

EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB perform similarly in LN sampling; however, FNB performed with end-cutting needles outperformed FNA in terms of diagnostic accuracy.

Single fiber reflectance spectroscopy for pancreatic cancer detection during endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle biopsy: a prospective cohort study

This study aimed to determine the ability of single fiber reflectance (SFR) spectroscopy incorporated in endoscopic ultrasound fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) procedures in the pancreas to distinguish benign and malignant pancreatic tissue in patient with pancreatic masses suspected for malignancy. Methods: This study was designed as a prospective observational single center study and included consecutive adult patients, who were scheduled for EUS-FNB of a solid pancreatic mass suspected for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). In total, seven optical parameters, derived from the absorption acquired spectra, were analyzed: blood volume fraction (BVF), microvascular saturation, average vessel diameter, bilirubin concentration (BIL), Mie amplitude, Mie slope and Rayleigh amplitude. Results: Forty-five patients with a suspicious pancreatic lesion undergoing EUS-FNB were included, of which most of the patients (N=34) were ultimately diagnosed with PDAC. Finally, 27 out of 45 (60.0%) patients were used for the final analysis of the optical parameters. The median (IQR) BVF differed significantly in benign compared to malignant tissue (0.86 [0.30-2.03] and 4.49 [1.28-15.47]; p=0.046). Combining BVF and BIL to a new parameter (θ) improved the discrimination between PDAC and benign pancreatic tissue (p=0.026). The area under the curve of θ was 0.84, resulting in a 92.8%, 75.0%, 97.5%, 50.0% and 91.3% sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy for detection of PDAC. Conclusion: Differentiation between PDAC and benign pancreatic tissue using SFR spectroscopy during EUS-FNB procedures is promising. Future work should focus on comparing the diagnostic performance combining SFR spectroscopy with EUS-FNB and EUS-FNB alone.

Usefulness of a Fork-Tip Needle in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy for Gastric Subepithelial Lesions

The sample adequacy and diagnostic accuracy of an endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for gastric subepithelial lesions (SELs) have been reported to be imperfect. To resolve these issues, a fork-tip needle as an EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needle has been developed. This study was conducted to evaluate the usefulness of a fork-tip needle in an EUS-FNB for gastric SELs. Seventy-nine patients who received an EUS-FNA or FNB using a fork-tip needle for gastric SELs were included in the study. The sample adequacy and diagnostic accuracy were compared between the EUS-FNB with the fork-tip needle group (fork-tip group, n = 13) and the EUS-FNA with FNA needle group (FNA group, n = 66). In addition, a multivariate analysis of the factors influencing diagnostic accuracy was conducted. Regarding sample adequacy, there was no significant difference between the groups (100% vs. 90.9%, respectively; p = 0.582). The diagnostic accuracy of the fork-tip group was numerically higher than that of the FNA group (92.3% vs. 81.8%, respectively; p = 0.682). In a multivariate analysis, the diagnostic accuracy was related to the tumor size and location of the SEL but not to the needle type. In conclusion, this study does not show statistical superiority, but suggests the useful potential of a fork-tip needle.

A prospective multicenter study of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy using a 22-gauge Franseen needle for pancreatic solid lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIM

While encouraging data of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) using a 22-gauge Franseen needle have been reported, large-scale data of per pass and quantitative analyses are still lacking.

METHODS

This was a multicenter prospective study of EUS-FNB using the 22-gauge Franseen needle for a pancreatic solid lesion. Cytological and histological analyses per pass were evaluated and semi-quantitative analyses were performed on core tissue and blood contamination. Primary end-point was diagnostic accuracy per session. Prognostic factors were analyzed for diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, core tissue, and blood contamination.

RESULTS

A total of 629 passes were performed in 244 cases at 14 centers between 2018 and 2019. The median tumor size was 29 mm, and the puncture was transduodenal in 43%. The median pass number was 2. Diagnostic accuracy per session, at a first pass, and per pass were 93%, 90%, and 88%. In 198 cases with pancreatic cancer, diagnostic sensitivity per session, at a first pass, and per pass were 94%, 89%, and 89%. The rates of core tissue score of 4 and blood contamination score of 3 were 50% and 47%. The adverse event rate was 1.6%. In the multivariate analysis, tumor size ≤20 mm (odds ratio [OR] of 0.46, P = 0.03), transduodenal puncture (OR of 0.53, P = 0.04), and suction (OR of 0.16, P = 0.01) were associated with lower diagnostic accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

The EUS-FNB using the 22-gauge Franseen needle for pancreatic solid lesions showed high per pass and overall diagnostic accuracy.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Biopsy With or Without Rapid On-site Evaluation for Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions: A Randomized Controlled Non-Inferiority Trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The benefit of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) on the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) has never been evaluated in a randomized study. This trial aimed to test the hypothesis that in solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs), diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB without ROSE was not inferior to that of EUS-FNB with ROSE.

METHODS

A noninferiority study (noninferiority margin, 5%) was conducted at 14 centers in 8 countries. Patients with SPLs requiring tissue sampling were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo EUS-FNB with or without ROSE using new-generation FNB needles. The touch-imprint cytology technique was used to perform ROSE. The primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy, and secondary endpoints were safety, tissue core procurement, specimen quality, and sampling procedural time.

RESULTS

Eight hundred patients were randomized over an 18-month period, and 771 were analyzed (385 with ROSE and 386 without). Comparable diagnostic accuracies were obtained in both arms (96.4% with ROSE and 97.4% without ROSE, P = .396). Noninferiority of EUS-FNB without ROSE was confirmed with an absolute risk difference of 1.0% (1-sided 90% confidence interval, -1.1% to 3.1%; noninferiority P < .001). Safety and sample quality of histologic specimens were similar in both groups. A significantly higher tissue core rate was obtained by EUS-FNB without ROSE (70.7% vs. 78.0%, P = .021), with a significantly shorter mean sampling procedural time (17.9 ± 8.8 vs 11.7 ± 6.0 minutes, P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNB demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy in evaluating SPLs independently on execution of ROSE. When new-generation FNB needles are used, ROSE should not be routinely recommended. (ClinicalTrial.gov number NCT03322592.).

Endoscopic Ultrasound Fine-Needle Biopsy versus Fine-Needle Aspiration for Tissue Sampling of Abdominal Lymph Nodes: A Propensity Score Matched Multicenter Comparative Study

Simple Summary

Lymph node (LN) sampling or staging is crucial to the management of malignancies. The use of endoscopic ultrasound for lymph node sampling can be performed with EUS fine-needle aspiration (FNA) or EUS fine-needle biopsy (FNB). However, it remains unclear whether EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB is superior for sampling of abdominal lymph nodes. In this study, we retrospectively compared a large volume of patients who underwent lymph node sampling using EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB. Most patients were diagnosed with metastatic colorectal disease. We found that EUS-FNB had a higher diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity compared to EUS-FNA. Both modalities had no adverse events. Thus, the results support the use of EUS-FNB for abdominal lymph node sampling.

Abstract

There is a paucity of evidence on the comparison between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle biopsy (FNB) and fine-needle aspiration (FNA) for lymph node (LNs) sampling. The aim of this study was to compare these two approaches in a multicenter series of patients with abdominal tumors. Out of 502 patients undergoing EUS sampling, two groups following propensity score matching were compared: 105 undergoing EUS-FNB and 105 undergoing EUS-FNA. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, sample adequacy, optimal histological core procurement, number of passes, and adverse events. Median age was 64.6 years, and most patients were male in both groups. Final diagnosis was LN metastasis (mainly from colorectal cancer) in 70.4% of patients in the EUS-FNB group and 66.6% in the EUS-FNA group (p = 0.22). Diagnostic accuracy was significantly higher in the EUS-FNB group as compared to the EUS-FNA group (87.62% versus 75.24%, p = 0.02). EUS-FNB outperformed EUS-FNA also in terms of diagnostic sensitivity (84.71% vs. 70.11%; p = 0.01), whereas specificity was 100% in both groups (p = 0.6). Sample adequacy analysis showed a non-significant trend in favor of EUS-FNB (96.1% versus 89.5%, p = 0.06) whereas the histological core procurement rate was significantly higher with EUS-FNB (94.2% versus 51.4%; p < 0.001). No procedure-related adverse events were observed. These findings show that EUS-FNB is superior to EUS-FNA in tissue sampling of abdominal LNs.

Contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration versus standard fine-needle aspiration in pancreatic masses: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

It is still unclear whether endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) contrast-enhanced fine-needle aspiration (CH-EUS-FNA) determines superior results in comparison to standard EUS-FNA in tissue acquisition of pancreatic masses. Aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the diagnostic outcomes of these two techniques.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed/Medline and Embase database through October 2020 and identified 6 studies, of which 2 randomized controlled trials (recruiting 701 patients). We performed pairwise meta-analysis through a random effects model and expressed data as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Pooled diagnostic sensitivity was 84.6% (95% CI 80.7%-88.6%) with CH-EUS-FNA and 75.3% (67%-83.5%) with EUS-FNA, with evidence of a significant superiority of the former (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.26-2.40; p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis confirmed the superiority of CH-EUS-FNA over EUS-FNA only in larger lesions. Pooled diagnostic accuracy was 88.8% (85.6%-91.9%) in CH-EUS-FNA group and 83.6% (79.4%-87.8%) in EUS-FNA group (OR 1.52, 1.01-2.31; p = 0.05). Pooled sample adequacy was 95.1% (91.1%-99.1%) with CH-EUS-FNA and 89.4% (81%-97.8%) with EUS-FNA (OR 2.40, 1.38-4.17; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

CH-EUS-FNA seems to be superior to standard EUS-FNA in patients with pancreatic masses. Further trials are needed to confirm these results.

Diagnostic Yield of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Liver Biopsy in Comparison to Percutaneous Liver Biopsy: A Two-Center Experience

Simple Summary

Traditionally, liver biopsy has been performed by percutaneous radiology-guided methods. Advances in endoscopic ultrasound have demonstrated the efficacy of endoscopic based techniques for liver biopsy. Studies comparing both methods are scarce and have conflicting results. Our study compares percutaneous and endoscopic ultrasound methods for liver biopsy. Our analysis shows no evidence to support the wide use of endoscopic ultrasound. Percutaneous liver biopsy remains the sampling method of choice in this field.

Abstract

There is scarce and conflicting evidence on the comparison between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and percutaneous (PC)-guided liver biopsy (LB). The aim of this study was to compare the two approaches in a series of patients with parenchymal and focal liver lesions. Fifty-four patients undergoing EUS-LB in two high-volume centers between 2017 and 2021 were compared to 62 patients who underwent PC-LB. The primary outcome was diagnostic adequacy rate. The secondary outcomes were diagnostic accuracy, total sample length (TSL), number of complete portal tracts (CPTs), procedural duration, and adverse events. Variables were compared using the Chi-square and Mann–Whitney test. Median age was 56 years (interquartile range 48–69) in the EUS-LB group and 54 years (45–67) in the PC-LB group with most patients being male. Indication for LB was due to parenchymal disease in 50% of patients, whereas the other patients underwent LB due to focal liver lesions. Diagnostic adequacy was 100% in PC-LB and 94.4% in the EUS-LB group (p = 0.74), whereas diagnostic accuracy was 88.8% in the EUS-LB group and 100% in the PC-LB group (p = 0.82). Median TSL was significantly greater in the PC-LB group (27.4 mm, IQR 21–29) when compared to the EUS-LB group (18.5 mm, 10.1–22.4; p = 0.02). The number of complete portal tracts was 21 (11–24) in the PC-LB group and 18.5 (10–23.2) in EUS-LB group (p = 0.09). EUS-LB was a significantly longer procedure (7 min, 5–11 versus 1 min, 1–3 of PC-LB; p < 0.001) and no evidence of adverse events was observed in any of the study groups. These results were confirmed in the subgroup analysis performed according to an indication for LB (parenchymal disease versus focal lesion). Although PC-LB yielded specimens with greater TSL, diagnostic adequacy and accuracy were similar between the two procedures.

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 Two Specialized Histology Needles for Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-Guided Liver Biopsy: A Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

EUS-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) has been shown to be a safe and effective alternative to percutaneous liver biopsy. The optimal needle device and technique for EUS-LB is still evolving. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of two second-generation 19G fine-needle biopsy (FNB) (Franseen- and Fork-tip) devices for EUS-LB.

METHODS

This is a repeated-measure crossover study with a prospectively maintained cohort of patients. We performed EUS-LB with a one-pass and single-actuation method using two 19G FNB needles in 22 consecutive patients between 10/2018 and 9/2019. Patients were randomized to left vs right liver lobes to be biopsied as well as the needle sequence. The specimens obtained were evaluated for adequacy for histologic diagnosis. The primary outcome was number of complete portal tracts (CPTs), post-fix aggregate, and longest specimen length. Secondary outcomes were prefix aggregate specimen length and the specimen adequacy judged by two expert pathologists.

RESULTS

A total of 44 liver biopsies were performed in 22 patients. The CPTs were higher in the Franseen-tip needle group compared to the Fork-tip needle group (14.4 vs 9.5, p = 0.043). Post-fix aggregate specimen length (44.9 mm vs 34.6 mm, p = 0.097), the post-fix longest specimen length (19.9 mm vs 13.7 mm, p = 0.175), and prefix aggregate specimen length (51.7 mm vs 45 mm, p = 0.265) were not significantly different. Both needles showed similarly high histologic adequacy (100% vs 95.5%, p = 0.312). Interestingly, the right of the liver showed higher yield of CPTs with both needles (Franseen, 16.2 vs. 12.8, p = 0.003, the Fork-tip, 12.8 vs. 7.0, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

EUS-guided liver biopsy using the 19G Franseen-tip needle may provide more CPTs than 19G Fork-tip needle on a single-pass, single-actuation comparison.

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.

Comparison between EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology and EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy histology for the evaluation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Studies comparing EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) with EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for the evaluation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) are lacking. We aimed at comparing EUS-FNA with EUS-FNB in terms of Ki-67 proliferative index (PI) estimation capability, cellularity of the samples, and reliability of Ki-67 PI/tumor grading compared with surgical specimens.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with pNETs on EUS and/or surgical specimens were retrospectively identified. Specimens were re-evaluated to assess Ki-67 PI feasibility, sample cellularity by manual counting, and determination of Ki-67 PI value. Outcomes in the EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB groups were compared. Kendall rank test was used for Ki-67 PI correlation between EUS and surgical specimens. Subgroup analysis including small (≤20 mm), non-functioning pNETs was performed.

RESULTS

Three-hundred samples from 292 lesions were evaluated: 69 EUS-FNA cytology and 231 EUS-FNB histology. Ki-67 PI feasibility was similar for EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB (91.3% vs. 95.7%, p = 0.15), while EUS-FNB performed significantly better in the subgroup of 179 small pNETs (88.2% vs. 96.1%, p = 0.04). Rate of poor cellulated (<500 cells) specimens was equal between EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB. A significant correlation for Ki-67 PI values between EUS and 92 correspondent surgical specimens was found in both groups, but it was stronger with EUS-FNB (tau = 0.626, p < 0.0001 vs. tau = 0.452, p = 0.031). Correct grading estimation was comparable between the two groups (p = 0.482).

CONCLUSION

Our study showed stronger correlation for Ki-67 values between EUS-FNB and surgical specimens, and that EUS-FNB outperformed EUS-FNA in the evaluation of small pNETs. EUS-FNB should become standard of care for grading assessment of suspected pNETs.

The Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Pancreatic Cancer Staging in the Era of Neoadjuvant Therapy and Personalised Medicine

Precise staging of pancreatic cancer is crucial for treatment choice. In clinical practice, this includes the TNM staging and determination of tumour resectability, based on a multimodality imaging workup. International guidelines recommend multi-detector computed tomography (CT), with a dedicated pancreatic protocol, as the first-line tool for TNM staging and evaluation of tumour-vessel relationships. In non-metastatic disease upon initial CT assessment, both magnetic resonance imaging and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) may add relevant information, potentially changing treatment sequence. EUS may have distinct advantages in pancreatic cancer diagnosis and staging when compared with other modalities, being particularly valuable in the determination of portal venous confluence involvement (particularly in small and ill-defined/isoattenuating tumours on CT), in locoregional nodal staging and in the detection of ascites. As we step forward to a more frequent use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and to personalised medicine, the importance of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) also increases. The recent availability of third-generation biopsy needles significantly increased the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, providing diagnostic cell blocks in approximately 95% of cases with only two dedicated passes and allowing ancillary testing, such as immunohistochemistry and molecular profiling of the tumour. In this article, the authors present an updated perspective of the place of EUS and EUS-FNB in the staging algorithm of pancreatic cancer. Data supporting the increasing role of neoadjuvant therapy and the importance of a patient-tailored treatment selection, based on tumoural subtyping and molecular profiling, are also discussed.

Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition in autoimmune pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  There is limited evidence on the diagnostic performance of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition in autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP). The aim of this meta-analysis was to provide a pooled estimate of the diagnostic performance of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (FNB) in patients with AIP. Patients and methods  Computerized bibliographic search was performed through January 2020. Pooled effects were calculated using a random-effects model by means of DerSimonian and Laird test. Primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy compared to clinical diagnostic criteria. Additional outcomes were definitive histopathology, pooled rates of adequate material for histological diagnosis, sample adequacy, mean number of needle passes. Diagnostic sensitivity and safety data were also analyzed. Results  Fifteen studies with 631 patients were included, of which four were prospective series and one randomized trial. Overall diagnostic accuracy of EUS tissue acquisition was 54.7 % (95 % confidence interval, 40.9 %-68.4 %), with a clear superiority of FNB over FNA (63 %, 52.7 % to 73.4 % versus 45.7 %, 26.5 %-65 %; p < 0.001). FNB provided level 1 of histological diagnosis in 44.2 % of cases (30.8 %-57.5 %) as compared to 21.9 % (10 %-33.7 %) with FNA ( P  < 0.001). The rate of definitive histopathology of EUS tissue sampling was 20.7 % (12.9 %-28.5 %) and it was significantly higher with FNB (24.3 %, 11.8 %-36.8 %) as compared to FNA (14.7 %, 5.4 %-23.9 %; P  < 0.001). Less than 1 % of subjects experienced post-procedural acute pancreatitis. Conclusion  The results of this meta-analysis demonstrate that the diagnostic performance of EUS-guided tissue acquisition is modest in patients with AIP, with an improved performance of FNB compared to FNA.

Interventional Endoscopic Ultrasound: Current Status and Future Directions

The evolution of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) from a diagnostic to a therapeutic procedure has resulted in a paradigm shift toward endoscopic management of disease states that previously required percutaneous or surgical approaches. The past few years have seen additional techniques and devices that have enabled endoscopists to expand its diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities. Some of these techniques initially were reported more than a decade ago; however, with further device development and refinement in techniques there is potential for expanding the application of these techniques and new technologies to a broader group of interventional gastroenterologists. Lack of formalized training, devices, and prospective data regarding their use in addition to a scarcity of guidelines on implementation of these technologies into clinical practice are contributing factors impeding the growth of the field of interventional EUS. In April 2019, the American Gastroenterological Association's Center for Gastrointestinal Innovation and Technology conducted its annual Tech Summit and a key session focused on interventional EUS. This article is a White Paper generated from the conference, discusses the published literature pertaining to the topic of interventional EUS, and outlines a proposed framework for the implementation of interventional EUS techniques into clinical practice. Three primary areas of interventional EUS are addressed: (1) EUS-guided access; (2) EUS-guided tumor ablation; and (3) endohepatology. There was general agreement among participants on several key components. The introduction of these novel interventions requires better tools, more data on safety/outcomes, and improved training for endoscopists. Participants also agreed that widespread implementation and use of these techniques will require support from Gastrointestinal Societies and other key stakeholders including payers. Continued work by the Gastrointestinal Societies and manufacturers to provide training programs, appropriate equipment/work environments, and policies that motivate endoscopists to adopt new techniques is essential for growing the field of interventional EUS.

Quality in pancreatic endoscopic ultrasound: what's new in 2020?

Quality assessment and improvement of an endoscopic service has emerged as a basic component of everyday gastrointestinal endoscopy. In order to ensure a high level of quality, a series of actions must be adopted when performing an endoscopic examination. Nonetheless, quality still remains a qualitative parameter; thus, implementation of specific indicators of quality is warranted. Irrespective of the nature of the endoscopic procedure, quality indicators usually refer to either structural properties of an endoscopy unit (e.g., examination availability), procedural factors (e.g., diagnostic accuracy), or patient outcomes (e.g., occurrence of an adverse event related to performance of an endoscopic procedure). Moreover, they are usually classified into 3 distinct sections, according to the phase of the procedure they relate to: i.e., before, during, and after the examination. The aim of this review is to present measures that need to be adopted in order to reach an optimal quality level during an endoscopic ultrasound examination and to provide up-to-date data regarding the respective quality indicators implicated.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration (EUS-FNA) with Image Enhancement

Although endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is useful in the differential diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions, lymph nodes, and liver lesions, inadequate sampling may result in an incorrect pathological diagnosis. The accuracy of EUS for the evaluation of pancreatobiliary lesions may be increased by image enhancement technologies, including contrast-enhanced harmonic (CH)-EUS and EUS-elastography. These methods can provide information that complement EUS-FNA for the diagnosis and staging of pancreatobiliary cancer, and can help to identify the EUS-FNA target, reducing the requirement for repeat FNA.

Endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle biopsies of pancreatic lesions: Prospective study of histology quality using Franseen needle

BACKGROUND

The introduction of fine needle biopsies (FNB) to clinical practice presents a changing trend towards histology in the endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA).

AIM

To evaluate the clinical performance of a new FNB needle, the 22-gauge (22G) Franseen needle, when sampling pancreatic solid lesions.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with an indication for EUS-TA for the assessment of pancreatic solid lesions were included in this prospective, single-center, single-arm trial. Each patient underwent a puncture of the lesion two times using the 22G Franseen needle and the obtained samples were directly placed into formalin for histological analysis. The primary study endpoint was the rate of high-quality obtained specimen. Secondary endpoints included the length and diameter of the core specimen, the diagnostic accuracy and the complication rate.

RESULTS

From June 2017 to December 2018, forty patients with pancreatic solid lesions (22 females; mean age 67.2 years) were enrolled. Tissue acquisition was achieved in all cases. High-quality histology, rated with Payne score 3, was obtained in 37/40 cases (92.5%) after two needle passes. The mean size of the acquired histological core tissue was 1.54 mm × 0.39 mm. The diagnostic accuracy for the correct diagnosis was 85% (34/40). Only one adverse event was occurred, consisting of a self-limiting bleeding in the puncture site.

CONCLUSION

The 22G Franseen needle achieved according to our standardized protocol a high rate of histological core procurement, and a high diagnostic accuracy, with one minor adverse event reported.

Efficacy and Safety of Non-Anesthesiologist Administration of Propofol Sedation in Endoscopic Ultrasound: A Propensity Score Analysis

In spite of promising preliminary results, evidence supporting the use of non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation (NAAP) in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) procedures is still limited. The aim of this manuscript was to examine the safety and efficacy of NAAP as compared to anesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation in EUS procedures performed in a referral center. Out of 832 patients referred to our center between 2016 and 2019, after propensity score matching two groups were compared: 305 treated with NAAP and 305 controls who underwent anesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation. The primary outcome was the rate of major complications. The median age was 67 years and the proportion of patients with comorbidities was 31.8% in both groups. One patient in each group (0.3%) experienced a major complication, whereas minor complications were observed in 13 patients in the NAAP group (4.2%) and 10 patients in the control group (3.2%; p = 0.52). Overall pain during the procedure was 2.3 ± 1 in group 1 and 1.8 ± 1 in group 2 (p = 0.67), whereas pain/discomfort upon awakening was rated as 1 ± 0.5 in both groups (p = 0.72). NAAP is safe and effective even in advanced EUS procedures. Further randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are warranted to confirm these findings.

Contrast-Enhanced Harmonic Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration versus Standard Fine-Needle Aspiration in Pancreatic Masses: A Propensity Score Analysis

Background: Whether endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) contrast-enhanced fine-needle aspiration (CH-EUS-FNA) determines superior results in comparison to standard EUS-FNA in tissue acquisition of pancreatic masses remains unclear. The aim of this study was to compare these two techniques on a series of patients with solid pancreatic lesions. Methods: 362 patients underwent EUS-FNA (2008–2019), after the propensity score matching of two groups were compared; 103 treated with CH-EUS-FNA (group 1) and 103 with standard EUS-FNA (group 2). The primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and sample adequacy. Results: Diagnostic sensitivity was 87.6% in group 1 and 80% in group 2 (p = 0.18). The negative predictive value was 56% in group 1 and 41.5% in group 2 (p = 0.06). The specificity and positive predictive values were 100% for both groups. Diagnostic accuracy was 89.3% and 82.5%, respectively (p = 0.40). Sample adequacy was 94.1% in group 1 and 91.2% in group 2 (p = 0.42). The rate of adequate core histologic samples was 33% and 28.1%, respectively (p = 0.44), and the number of needle passes to obtain adequate samples were 2.4 ± 0.6 and 2.7 ± 0.8, respectively (p = 0.76). These findings were confirmed in subgroup analyses, conducted according to lesion size and contrast enhancement pattern. Conclusions: CH-EUS-FNA does not appear to be superior to standard EUS-FNA in patients with pancreatic masses.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy Needles Provide Higher Diagnostic Yield Compared to Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Needles When Sampling Solid Pancreatic Lesions: A Meta-Analysis

Background/Aims

Studies comparing the utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for solid pancreatic lesions have been inconclusive with no clear superiority. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the diagnostic accuracy and safety between the two sampling techniques.

Methods

We performed a systematic search of randomized controlled trials published between 2012 and 2019. The primary outcome was overall diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes included adverse event rates, cytopathologic and histopathologic accuracy, and the mean number of passes required to obtain adequate tissue between FNA and FNB needles. Fixed and random effect models with pooled estimates of target outcomes were developed.

Results

Eleven studies involving 1,365 participants were included for analysis. When compared to FNB, FNA had a significant reduction in diagnostic accuracy (81% and 87%, p=0.005). In addition, FNA provided reduced cytopathologic accuracy (82% and 89%, p=0.04) and an increased number of mean passes required compared to FNB (2.3 and 1.6, respectively, p<0.0001). There was no difference in adverse event rate between FNA and FNB needles (1.8% and 2.3% respectively, p=0.64).

Conclusions

FNB provides superior diagnostic accuracy without compromising safety when compared to FNA. FNB should be readily considered by endosonographers when evaluating solid pancreatic masses.

Small core needle biopsies in cytology practice: a survey of members of the American Society of Cytopathology

INTRODUCTION

The introduction of a new generation of core needle biopsies (CNBs) for endoscopic procedures has prompted reconsideration of the role of cytopathologists in the handling of small biopsies. The American Society of Cytopathology (ASC) has therefore conducted a survey with the intention of elucidating current practices regarding the handling of small CNBs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The membership of the ASC was invited by email to participate in an online survey over a 2-month period. The survey consisted of 20 multiple choice questions with 2-8 possible responses per question.

RESULTS

Of 2651 members contacted by e-mail, 282 (10.6%) responded to the survey questions, including 196 pathologists (69.5%) and 86 cytotechnologists (30.5%). Of these, 265 respondents were from the US/Canada (94.0%), with 156 from academic institutions (58.9%) and 109 from non-academic practices (41.1%); 17 were from other countries (6.0%). In 18.8% of all practices, cytopathologists sign out >90% of small CNBs from endoscopic and radiologically guided procedures; in 36.5% of practices >90% are signed out by surgical pathologists; the remainder have such cases divided more evenly between cytopathologists and surgical pathologists. Responses show that 78.0% of all respondents are interested in signing out more small biopsies in the future, and 80.5% desire increased small biopsy-related resources from the ASC.

CONCLUSIONS

The survey responses indicate that practices currently vary widely across institutions. Most indicated an interest in greater incorporation of small biopsies into the practice of cytopathology.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling of pancreatic lesions

Important advancements in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling techniques and development of new needle designs have improved the diagnostic yield of pancreatic lesions. This innovation in endoscopic ultrasound has also opened the door for early diagnosis and precision therapy in the management of cancer patients. Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle biopsy is an invaluable tool and newer biopsy designs will probably play a pivotal role in the management of pancreatic lesions in the next future. Aim of the current review was to provide an overview on the available techniques and devices for the endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of pancreatic solid and cystic lesions.

Superiority of mucosal incision-assisted biopsy over ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in diagnosing small gastric subepithelial lesions: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Gastric subepithelial lesions, including gastrointestinal stromal tumors, are often found during routine gastroscopy. While endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNAB) has been the gold standard for diagnosing gastric subepithelial lesions, alternative open biopsy procedures, such as mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) has been reported useful. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of MIAB for the diagnosis of gastric SELs compared with EUS-FNAB.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed medical records of 177 consecutive patients with gastric SELs who underwent either MIAB or EUS-FNAB at five hospitals in Japan between January 2010 and January 2018. Diagnostic yield, procedural time, and adverse event rates for the two procedures were evaluated before and after propensity-score matching.

RESULTS

No major procedure-related adverse events were observed in either group. Both procedures yielded highly-accurate diagnoses once large enough samples were obtained; however, such successful sampling was more often accomplished by MIAB than by EUS-FNAB, especially for small SELs. As a result, MIAB provided better diagnostic yields for SELs smaller than 20-mm diameter. The diagnostic yields of both procedures were comparable for SELs larger than 20-mm diameter; however, MIAB required significantly longer procedural time (approximately 13 min) compared with EUS-FNAB.

CONCLUSIONS

Although MIAB required longer procedural time, it outperformed EUS-FNAB when diagnosing gastric SELs smaller than 20-mm diameter.

EUS tissue acquisition: From A to B

EUS-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) has made rapid development since its introduction in the early 1990s. The technique is widely accepted and invaluable for staging and diagnosis of a variety of upper gastrointestinal and mediastinal lesions. Fine-needle aspiration (FNA) has long been the gold standard, but due to its limitations such as the inability to retain stroma and associated cellular architecture, novel biopsy needles (FNB) were designed. Overall, FNA and FNB needles perform seemingly equally in terms of diagnostic accuracy, however, the second-generation FNB needles require less passes. The third-generation FNB needles (crown-cut needle types) seem to be preferable to FNA needles as well as to the second-generation FNB needles, when larger histological specimens and preserved tissue architecture are required. EUS-TA is constantly under development, and new applications of this technique include tumor risk stratification according to its genetic profile as well as minimally invasive creation of patient-derived organoids, hallmarks of personized medicine. It remains yet to be shown, whether these applications will lead to a decisive shift from aspiration to biopsy, i.e., from A to B.

Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration: A single-center analysis

Background: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNAB) has become an important modality for identification of intra-abdominal masses. This study analyzed the accuracy of EUS-FNAB in a single medical center and explored factors related to positive diagnosis. Materials and methods: In total, 77 patients with EUS-FNAB were retrospectively reviewed from July 2016 to February 2020. "Atypical (tends to be neoplasm/malignancy)," "suspicious (first consider neoplasm/malignancy)," and "malignant" were defined as positive cytology. The final diagnoses were based on histopathologic examination. The positive rate of EUS-FNAB for the diagnosis of neoplasm and its associations with age, sex, target puncture mass size, liver function, tumor markers, albumin, hypertension, and diabetes were examined. Results: Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of EUS-FNAB cytologic diagnoses in all patients were 77.9% (60/77), 76.1% (54/71), 100%, 100%, and 26.1% (6/23), respectively. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of EUS-FNAB cytologic diagnoses in the pancreas were 80.0% (48/60), 79.3% (46/58), 100%, 100%, and 14.3% (2/14), respectively. The results of EUS-FNAB in pancreatic masses showed that the level of CA19-9 was higher in the true positive group than in the false-negative group (p<0.05). There were no factors associated with the true positive cytologic diagnoses (p>0.05). Conclusions: Our single-medical center study showed that EUS-FNAB is an accurate diagnostic procedure for the evaluation of intra-abdominal masses. Further follow-up is required to explore factors associated with the true positive cytology.