A comprehensive review of endoscopic ultrasound core biopsy needles

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

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

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Pancreatic Tissue Sampling: Lesion Assessment, Needles, and Techniques

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue sampling includes the techniques of fine needle aspiration (FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB), and both procedures have revolutionized specimen collection from the gastrointestinal tract, especially from remote/inaccessible organs. EUS-FNB has replaced FNA as the procedure of choice for tissue acquisition in solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs) across various society guidelines. FNB specimens provide a larger histological tissue core (preserving tissue architecture) with fewer needle passes, and this is extremely relevant in today's era of precision and personalized molecular medicine. Innovations in needle tip design are constantly under development to maximize diagnostic accuracy by enhancing histological sampling capabilities. But, apart from the basic framework of the needle, various other factors play a role that influence diagnostic outcomes, namely, sampling techniques (fanning, aspiration or suction, and number of passes), collection methods, on-site evaluation (rapid, macroscopic, or visual), and specimen processing. The choice taken depends strongly on the endoscopist's preference, available resources at the disposal, and procedure objectives. Hence, in this review, we explicate in detail the concepts and available literature at our disposal on the topic of EUS-guided pancreatic tissue sampling to best guide any practicing gastroenterologist/endoscopist in a not-to-ideal set-up, which EUS-guided tissue acquisition technique is the "best" for their case to augment their diagnostic outcomes.

Diagnostic Endoscopic Ultrasound

The last two decades have seen the emergence of endoscopic technologies and techniques allowing for minimally invasive modalities for assessing and sampling lesions inside and outside of the gastrointestinal lumen, including the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. Incorporating these new endoscopic approaches has revolutionized the diagnosis and staging of intraluminal and extraluminal lesions and enabled more accessible and safer tissue acquisition.

Combined fine needle aspiration cytology and core needle biopsy in the same setting: A two-years' experience

INTRODUCTION

Fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) combined with rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) and ancillary techniques is an accurate diagnostic tool for many pathologies. However, in some cases, it may not be sufficient for actionable diagnoses or molecular testing, especially for cases that require large immunohistochemical panels or cases in which histological features are mandatory for the diagnosis. Core needle biopsy (CNB), on the contrary, provides samples that are suitable for histological features and sufficient for all ancillary studies. However, CNB is often performed by radiologists or clinicians without the direct participation of cytopathologists, which can lead to missed or delayed diagnoses. This study reports on the experience of combining FNAC and CNB performed in one setting by cytopathologists. The aim was to evaluate the impact of CNB on FNAC and the diagnostic efficiency of the combined procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred forty-two FNAC and CNB procedures performed in the same setting over a period of 2 years were analysed. The FNAC diagnoses were compared and integrated with the subsequent CNB diagnoses. The impact of CNB was categorized as follows: non-contributory, in cases of inadequate samples; confirmed, when the CNB and FNAC diagnoses were the same; improved, when the CNB diagnosis was consistent with the FNAC diagnosis and further specified the corresponding entity; allowed, when CNB produced a diagnosis that could not be reached by FNAC; changed, when the CNB changed the previous FNAC diagnosis.

RESULTS

CNB confirmed the FNAC diagnosis in 40.1% of cases (n = 57/142). CNB improved the FNAC diagnosis in 47.2% of cases (n = 67/142). CNB allowed a diagnosis that could not be performed on FNAC in 2.1% of cases (n = 3/142). CNB changed a previous FNAC diagnosis in 2.1% of cases (n = 3/142). CNB was non-contributory in 8.4% of cases (n = 12/142). CNB produced a positive impact on the whole diagnostic procedure in 51.4% of total cases (n = 73/142). The combined FNAC and CNB resulted in actionable diagnoses in 91.5% of all cases (n = 130/142). A complete molecular assessment was successfully performed in 14.7% of cases (n = 21/142) utilizing either FNAC or CNB material.

CONCLUSIONS

The combined use of FNAC and CNB in one setting improves the diagnostic accuracy of both procedures. This approach exploits the advantages of each procedure, enhancing the accuracy of the final diagnosis.

Endoscopic Diagnosis of Extra-Luminal Cancers

The last 2 decades have seen an emergence of endoscopic technologies and techniques allowing for minimally invasive modalities for assessing and sampling lesions outside of the gastrointestinal lumen, including the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. Incorporating these new endoscopic approaches has revolutionized the diagnosis and staging of extra-luminal malignancies and has enabled more accessible and safer tissue acquisition.

Endoscopic Ultrasound Biopsy Needle

In the past few years, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) has superseded EUS-fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for EUS-guided tissue acquisition. EUS-FNA does not retain the stroma as well as the surrounding tissue architecture and therefore had limitations in achieving a definitive diagnosis. Development of EUS-FNB needles had improved the diagnostic ability of EUS by providing core tissue sample that not only preserves surrounding tissue architecture but also provides adequate material for molecular typing and gene profiling of sampled lesions. At present, there are three commercially available third-generation EUS-FNB needles with unique needle tip designs. In this review, we aim to elucidate the technical aspects of the available EUS-FNB needles.

Current role of endoscopic ultrasound for gastrointestinal and abdominal tuberculosis

A high incidence of tuberculosis (TB), especially in endemic countries, makes this infectious disease a concern. Abdominal TB contributes to 10% of extrapulmonary TB. Due to nonspecific clinical, radiological, and endoscopic findings, diagnosing abdominal TB continues to be a challenge. Hence, a precise diagnosis is needed. The diagnosis of gastrointestinal disease using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is often performed due to its high resolution and ability to provide a real-time visual representation of the gastrointestinal tract and extramural structures. EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (FNB) have helped diagnose TB as they offer an adequate specimen for cytology or histopathological examination. This method is considered safer, more effective, and more efficient. The capacity of EUS to diagnose abdominal TB based on the affected organs was examined via a literature search. We reviewed the role of EUS in diagnosing esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, peripancreatic, hepatosplenic, peritoneal, and intestinal TB. Generally, EUS aids in diagnosing abdominal TB. In some organs, it is superior to other diagnostic modalities. However, further examinations, such as cytology or histopathology and microbial, are still needed. We also studied the roles of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB. EUS-FNA has shown a high diagnostic yield in esophageal (94.3-100%), pancreatic and peripancreatic (76.2%), and intestinal TB (84.1%). As minimally invasive methods, EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB can successfully provide sufficient samples. EUS is a functional diagnostic modality for abdominal TB. EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB provide sufficient samples safely and efficiently for further cytology, histopathology, and microbial examinations.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy for Pancreatic Lesions is the Way Forward: Here is the Evidence!

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS TA) has increasingly become imperative for pancreatic pathology in arriving at the correct diagnosis because of its simplicity, cost-effectiveness, and availability at high-volume centers. The advent of EUS fine-needle biopsy (FNB) has revolutionized EUS TA by providing samples that are larger and more diagnostic compared with fine-needle aspiration (FNA). Rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE) has been conventionally used for improving the cytological yield as well as diagnostic accuracy of EUS FNA. The development of FNB has obviated the need for ROSE, and evidence from retrospective and comparative studies has suggested that FNB is as good as FNA with ROSE in terms of diagnostic accuracy and reduced costs. However, strong evidence in the form of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) was missing. In this news and views, we discuss a multicenter RCT that has compared the diagnostic accuracy of EUS FNB alone to EUS FNA with ROSE in patients with solid pancreatic lesions. This study has reemphasized that EUS FNB has a diagnostic accuracy comparable to EUS + ROSE at a comparable cost and requires fewer passes and has a shorter procedure time.

A Meta-Analysis Comparing Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Aspiration With Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Biopsy

BACKGROUND

The superiority between endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is still a debate. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the diagnostic value and safety of these 2 needles in sampling of all solid lesions and separately pancreatic lesions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library were searched for randomized controlled studies that reported the comparison of FNA and FNB in solid mass. Outcome measures included diagnostic accuracy, number of needle passes, diagnostic adequacy, presence of tissue cores, and adverse events. Standard error, upper and lower confidence intervals at 95% confidence interval for the risk were obtained using Review Manager Version 5.3 which was also used to generate forest plots for pooled analysis. The random or fixed effect model was applied depending on the heterogeneity ( I2 ).

RESULTS

Eighteen randomized control trial studies with a total of 2718 patients (1141 patients with EUS-FNA, 1108 with EUS-FNB, and remaining 469 patients were sampled with both needles alternatively) were included in the meta-analysis.FNB group has relatively good diagnostic accuracy relative risk (RR): 0.94, 0.92-0.97; P =0.0002), diagnostic adequacy (RR: 0.95, 0.9-1.0; P =0.04) and high quality histologic yield compared (RR: 0.77, 0.64-0.93; P =0.007) with the FNA group in solid gastrointestinal lesions, and the number of needle passes to obtain sufficient tissue (mean difference: 0.54, 0.45-0.64; P <0.00001) was lower in the FNB group. For solid pancreatic disease only, there was no difference in diagnostic accuracy (RR: 0.97, 0.93-1.01, P =0.13) or quality histologic yield (RR: 0.60, 0.29-1.23; P =0.16). The rate of adverse events (RR: 1.04, 0.48-2.29; P =0.92) did not significantly differ between FNA and FNB groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In solid gastrointestinal lesions, FNB is associated with a relatively better diagnostic adequacy, diagnostic adequacy and tissue cores rates, and less number of needle passes. For solid pancreatic disease only, there is no difference in diagnostic accuracy or tissue cores rates.

EUS-FNA Biopsies to Guide Precision Medicine in Pancreatic Cancer: Results of a Pilot Study to Identify KRAS Wild-Type Tumours for Targeted Therapy

Background

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a leading cause of cancer death and lacks effective treatment options. Diagnostic endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) biopsies represent an appealing source of material for molecular analysis to inform targeted therapy, as they are often the only available tissue for patients presenting with PDAC irrespective of disease stage. However, EUS-FNA biopsies are typically not used to screen for precision medicine studies due to concerns about low tissue yield and quality. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibition has shown promise in clinical trials of unselected patients with advanced pancreatic cancer, but has not been prospectively tested in KRAS wild-type patients. Here, we examine the clinical utility of EUS-FNA biopsies for molecular screening of KRAS wild-type PDAC patients for targeted anti-EGFR therapy to assess the feasibility of this approach.

Patients and Methods

Fresh frozen EUS-FNA or surgical biopsies from PDAC patient tumours were used to screen for KRAS mutations. Eligible patients with recurrent, locally advanced, or metastatic KRAS wild-type status who had received at least one prior line of chemotherapy were enrolled in a pilot study (ACTRN12617000540314) and treated with panitumumab at 6mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was 4-month progression-free survival (PFS).

Results

275 patient biopsies were screened for KRAS mutations, which were detected in 88.3% of patient samples. 8 eligible KRAS wild-type patients were enrolled onto the interventional study between November 2017 and December 2020 and treated with panitumumab. 4-month PFS was 14.3% with no objective tumour responses observed. The only grade 3/4 treatment related toxicity observed was hypomagnesaemia.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates proof-of-principle feasibility to molecularly screen patients with pancreatic cancer for targeted therapies, and confirms diagnostic EUS-FNA biopsies as a reliable source of tumour material for molecular analysis. Single agent panitumumab was safe and tolerable but led to no objective tumour responses in this population.

Comparative diagnostic accuracy of EUS needles in solid pancreatic masses: a network meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue sampling is the standard of care for diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions. While many two-way comparisons between needle types have been made in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it is unclear which size and type of needle offers the best probability of diagnosis. We therefore performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare different sized and shaped needles to rank the diagnostic performance of each needle. Methods  We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases through August, 2020 for RCTs that compared the diagnostic accuracy of EUS fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and biopsy (FNB) needles in solid pancreatic masses. Using a random-effects NMA under the frequentist framework, RCTs were analyzed to identify the best needle type and sampling technique. Performance scores (P-scores) were used to rank the different needles based on pooled diagnostic accuracy. The NMA model was used to calculate pairwise relative risk (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals. Results  Review of 2577 studies yielded 29 RCTs for quantitative synthesis, comparing 13 different needle types. All 22G FNB needles had an RR > 1 compared to the reference 22G FNA (Cook) needle. The highest P-scores were seen with the 22G Medtronic FNB needle (0.9279), followed by the 22G Olympus FNB needle (0.8962) and the 22G Boston Scientific FNB needle (0.8739). Diagnostic accuracy was not significantly different between needles with or without suction. Conclusions  In comparison to FNA needles, FNB needles offer the highest diagnostic performance in sampling pancreatic masses, particularly with 22G FNB needles.

Architectural aspects of cell-blocks as small biopsies

Cell-block preparations have become an essential part of integrated cytology diagnosis. They are essentially microbiopsies that are formalin fixed and embedded in paraffin. This has become more prevalent with greater sample procurement due to the advent of newer biopsy techniques and needles. Cell-blocks allow retrieval of small tissue fragments from cytology specimens that sometimes cannot be processed by alternate cytologic techniques. They represent concentrated, cell-enriched preparations that provide cytologists with the opportunity to evaluate cellular architecture, as well as to perform ancillary testing. A cell-block compatible sample may thus obviate the need for a more invasive procedure such as a tissue biopsy. Microscopic examination of cell-blocks is quick, avoids obscuring material, permits cells to be evaluated in one focal plane, and allows the histologic architecture such as glandular differentiation, papillary formations, and sometimes invasion to be easily identified. This new era of “cytohistology” accordingly requires practicing cytologists to become more familiar with histopathology. This review article discusses the benefit of various architectural patterns identifiable in cell-blocks employed as an adjunct to Pap tests, exfoliative fluid specimens, and fine-needle aspirations.

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.

Tissue acquisition and pancreatic masses: Which needle and which acquisition technique should be used?

Background and study aims  Pancreatic cancer represents the fourth most common cause of cancer-related deaths in Western countries and the need of a low-risk investigation to obtain an accurate histopathological diagnosis has become increasingly pressing. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) with fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is the standard method for obtaining samples from pancreatic masses. In recent years, there has been an increasing need to obtain histological specimens during EUS procedures, rather than cytological ones, to guide oncological treatment options, leading to the so-call "FNB concept." Different needles have been developed for fine-needle biopsy (FNB) in recent years, enabling acquisition of larger specimens on which to perform histological and molecular analyses. The aim of this narrative review was to assess the role of EUS-guided FNA and FNB in patients with pancreatic masses, and to identify which needle and which acquisition technique should be used to improve tissue acquisition.

Comparison of the reverse bevel versus Franseen type endoscopic ultrasound needle

BACKGROUND

Reverse bevel (RB) needle is widely used for endoscopic ultrasound fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). A 3-plane symmetrical needle with Franseen geometry (FG) has recently become available.

AIM

To compare the clinical efficacy of FG to that of RB needle.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of all adult patients who underwent EUS-FNB for solid and mixed lesions either with 22G RB needle or 22G FG needle between January 2016 and February 2019 was undertaken. All cytology slides were reviewed by an independent gastrointestinal cytopathologist blinded to the needle used and the initial cytology report. The primary and secondary outcomes were to assess the sample adequacy using Euro-cytology criteria and the number of cell clusters, respectively.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twenty six procedures were included in the study. RB needle was used in 128 procedures and FG needle in 98 procedures. The baseline characteristics of both groups were comparable. On multivariable analysis, FG needle (P = 0.02) and location of the lesion (P < 0.01) were independently associated with adequate tissue. Further, the use of FG needle (P = 0.04) and the size of the lesion (P = 0.02) were independently associated with acquisition of increased number of cell clusters.

CONCLUSION

FG needle is superior to RB needle in acquiring adequate tissue and attaining higher number of cell clusters for solid and mixed lesions.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

DISCUSSION

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

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.

Comparison between fine-needle biopsy and fine-needle aspiration for EUS-guided sampling of subepithelial lesions: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is limited evidence on the diagnostic performance of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB) sampling in patients with subepithelial lesions. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare EUS-guided FNB sampling performance with FNA in patients with GI subepithelial lesions.

METHODS

A computerized bibliographic search on the main databases was performed through May 2019. The primary endpoint was sample adequacy. Secondary outcomes were diagnostic accuracy, histologic core procurement rate, and mean number of needle passes. Summary estimates were expressed in terms of odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Ten studies (including 6 randomized trials) with 669 patients were included. Pooled rates of adequate samples for FNB sampling were 94.9% (range, 92.3%-97.5%) and for FNA 80.6% (range, 71.4%-89.7%; OR, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.29-5.01; P = .007). When rapid on-site evaluation was available, no significant difference between the 2 techniques was observed. Optimal histologic core procurement rate was 89.7% (range, 84.5%-94.9%) with FNB sampling and 65% (range, 55.5%-74.6%) with FNA (OR, 3.27; 95% CI, 2.03-5.27; P < .0001). Diagnostic accuracy was significantly superior in patients undergoing FNB sampling (OR, 4.10; 95% CI, 2.48-6.79; P < .0001) with the need of a lower number of passes (mean difference, -.75; 95% CI, -1.20 to -.30; P = .001). Sensitivity analysis confirmed these findings in all subgroups tested. Very few adverse events were observed and did not impact on patient outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results speak clearly in favor of FNB sampling, which was found to outperform FNA in all diagnostic outcomes evaluated.

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.

Comparative accuracy of needle sizes and designs for EUS tissue sampling of solid pancreatic masses: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Variable diagnostic performance of sampling techniques during EUS-guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic masses based on needle type (FNA versus fine-needle biopsy [FNB]) and gauge (19-gauge vs 22-gauge vs 25-gauge) has been reported. We performed a systematic review with network meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided techniques for sampling solid pancreatic masses.

METHODS

Through a systematic literature review to November 2018, we identified 27 randomized controlled trials (2711 patients) involving adults undergoing EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses that evaluated the diagnostic performance of FNA and FNB needles based on needle gauge. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were sample adequacy, histologic core procurement rate, and number of needle passes. We performed pairwise and network meta-analyses and appraised the quality of evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology.

RESULTS

In the network meta-analysis, no specific EUS-guided tissue sampling technique was superior, based on needle type (FNA vs FNB) or gauge (19-gauge vs 22-gauge vs 25-gauge) (low-quality evidence). Specifically, there was no difference between 25-gauge FNA versus 22-gauge FNA (relative risk [RR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.17) and 22-gauge FNB versus 22-gauge FNA (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.89-1.18) needles for diagnostic accuracy, sample adequacy, and histologic core procurement. Findings were confirmed in sensitivity analysis restricted to studies with no rapid on-site cytologic evaluation and no use of the fanning technique.

CONCLUSION

In a network meta-analysis, no specific EUS-guided tissue sampling technique was superior with regard to diagnostic accuracy, sample adequacy, or histologic procurement rate for solid pancreatic masses, with low confidence in estimates.

Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of Newly Designed 21-Gauge and Standard 22-Gauge Aspiration Needles in Patients with Solid Pancreatic Masses

BACKGROUND

Although endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has been widely used for the diagnosis of pancreatic tumors, the ability to obtain adequate pancreatic tumor tissue needs to be improved.

AIMS

This study was performed to compare a newly designed 21-gauge needle (EUS Sonopsy CY; Hakko Medical, Nagano, Japan) and a standard 22-gauge needle for tissue sampling of solid pancreatic masses.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with solid pancreatic masses who underwent EUS-FNA with either the EUS Sonopsy CY or the 22-gauge needle from June 2014 to December 2016 were enrolled. The primary outcome was comparison of the diagnostic yield of the FNA samples. The secondary outcomes were comparison of technical success, diagnostic ability for malignancy, and complications.

RESULTS

A total of 93 patients (40.9% female; mean age, 70.1 years) underwent EUS-FNA with the EUS Sonopsy CY (n = 47) or the standard 22-gauge needle (n = 46). The technical success rate was 100% in both groups, and the overall diagnostic accuracy for malignancy was similar between the groups (100% in the EUS Sonopsy CY group vs. 95.7% in the 22-gauge needle group, P = 0.242). Nevertheless, the EUS Sonopsy CY resulted in significantly higher scores for cellularity (P = 0.006) and lower scores for blood contamination (P < 0.001). The procedure-related complication rate was comparable between the groups (P = 0.148).

CONCLUSIONS

The EUS Sonopsy CY provided higher-quality specimens for histological evaluation in terms of both sample cellularity and blood contamination for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered in a clinical trial registry, No. UMIN000032598.

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

Background and study aims  Although newer needle designs are thought to improve diagnostic outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy, there is limited evidence on their diagnostic performance. The aim of this meta-analysis was to provide a pooled estimate of the diagnostic performance and safety profile of Franseen and Fork-tip fine-needle biopsy needles. Patients and methods  Computerized bibliographic search on the main databases was performed through March 2019. The primary endpoint was sample adequacy. Secondary outcomes were diagnostic accuracy, optimal histological core procurement, mean number of needle passes, pooled specificity and sensitivity. Safety data were also analyzed. Results  Twenty-four studies with 6641 patients were included and pancreas was the prevalent location of sampled lesions. Overall sample adequacy with the two newer needles was 94.8 % (93.1 % - 96.4 %), with superiority of Franseen needle over Fork-tip (96.1 % versus 92.4 %, P  < 0.001). Sample adequacy in targeting pancreatic masses was 95.6% and both needles produced results superior to fine-needle aspiration (FNA) (odds ratio 4.29, 1.49 - 12.35 and 1.79, 1.01 - 3.19 with Franseen and Fork-tip needle, respectively). The rate of histological core procurement was 92.5%, whereas diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity were 95 % and 92.8 %, again with no difference between the two needles. Number of needle passes was significantly lower in comparison to FNA (mean difference: -0.42 with Franseen and -1.60 with Fork-tip needle). No significant adverse events were registered. Conclusion  Our meta-analysis speaks in favor of use of newer biopsy needles as a safe and effective tool in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition.

Needle Biopsy Adequacy in the Era of Precision Medicine and Value-Based Health Care

CONTEXT.—

Needle biopsy of diseased tissue is an essential diagnostic tool that is becoming even more important as precision medicine develops. However, the capability of this modality to efficiently provide samples adequate for diagnostic and prognostic analysis remains quite limited relative to current diagnostic needs. For physicians and patients, inadequate biopsy frequently leads to diagnostic delay, procedure duplication, or insufficient information about tumor biology leading to delay in treatment; for health systems, this results in substantial incremental costs and inefficient use of scarce specialized diagnostic resources.

OBJECTIVE.—

To review current needle biopsy technology, devices, and practice with a perspective to identify current limitations and opportunities for improvement in the context of advancing precision medicine.

DATA SOURCES.—

PubMed searches of fine-needle aspiration and core needle biopsy devices and similar technologies were made generally, by tissue site, and by adequacy as well as by health economics of these technologies.

CONCLUSIONS.—

Needle biopsy adequacy can be improved by recognizing the importance of this diagnostic tool by promoting common criteria for needle biopsy adequacy; by optimizing needle biopsy procedural technique, technologies, clinical practice, professional education, and quality assurance; and by bundling biopsy procedure costs with downstream diagnostic modalities to provide better accountability and incentives to improve the diagnostic process.

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.

Comparison between 22G aspiration and 22G biopsy needles for EUS-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: A meta-analysis

Robust data in favor of clear superiority of 22G fine-needle biopsy (FNB) over 22G FNA for an echoendoscopic-guided sampling of pancreatic masses are lacking. The objective of this study is to compare the diagnostic outcomes and sample adequacy of these two needles. Computerized bibliographic search on the main databases was performed and restricted to only randomized controlled trials. Summary estimates were expressed regarding risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval. A total of 11 trials with 833 patients were analyzed. The two needles resulted comparable in terms of diagnostic accuracy (RR 1.02, 0.97–1.08; P = 0.46), sample adequacy (RR 1.01, 0.96–1.06; P = 0.61), and histological core procurement (RR 1.01, 0.89–1.15; P = 0.86). Pooled sensitivity in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer was 93.1% (87.9%–98.4%) and 90.4% (86.3%–94.5%) with biopsy and aspirate, respectively, whereas specificity for detecting pancreatic cancer was 100% with both needles. Analysis of the number of needle passes showed a nonsignificantly positive trend in favor of FNB (mean difference: −0.32, −0.66–0.02; P = 0.07). Our meta-analysis stands for a nonsuperiority of 22G FNB over 22G FNA; hence, no definitive recommendations on the use of a particular device can be made.