Randomized trial comparing the 25G and 22G Franseen needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition from solid pancreatic masses for adequate histological assessment

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.

Lymphadenopathy Tissue Sampling by EUS-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy Contributes to Meeting the Conditions for Genomic Profiling

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) performed with a Franseen needle or Fork-tip needle enables greater tissue acquisition. However, it is unknown whether EUS-FNB could contribute to lymphadenopathy genomic profiling. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of EUS-FNB using a Franseen or Fork-tip needle for tissue acquisition and genomic profiling in patients with lymphadenopathy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with abdominal lymphadenopathy who underwent EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA)/EUS-FNB were included in this study. The amount of acquired tissue and its suitability for genomic profiling were compared between FNA and FNB. Specimen quality was evaluated by a widely used pathologic adequacy scoring system (0: insufficient; 1 to 2: cytologic; 3: limited histologic; 4 to 5: sufficient histologic). The criteria of FoundationOne CDx (F1CDx) and NCC Oncopanel (NOP) were used to assess the suitability for genomic profiling.

RESULTS

In total, 72 patients underwent EUS-FNA, and the other 20 patients underwent EUS-FNB. The pathologic adequacy score and suitability for genomic profiling based on the criteria were significantly higher for FNB than for FNA [histologic adequacy score: 5 (4 to 5) versus 3 (0 to 5), P <0.01; F1CDx: 16.7% vs. 0%, P =0.01; NOP: 66.7% vs. 7.5%, P <0.01]. In multivariate analysis, EUS-FNB was identified as the only factor that influenced the suitability for genomic profiling based on the above-mentioned criteria (odds ratio 19.5, 95% CI: 3.74-102, P <0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNB performed using Franseen or Fork-tip needles may result in greater lymphadenopathy tissue acquisition and thus enhanced suitability for genomic profiling compared with EUS-FNA.

Optimal tissue acquisition method for pancreatic mass

Pancreatic masses pose a diagnostic difficulty due to the technical complexities related to tissue acquisition. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition has transformed the field by allowing access to pancreatic lesions through fine-needle and biopsy. However, diagnostic accuracy differs based on tumor characteristics and procedural factors. This narrative review explores the nuances of tissue acquisition methods for pancreatic tumors, including factors such as tumor location, size, histological characteristics, and needle selection. It assesses the efficacy of different needle designs and maneuvers, including suction techniques and needle passes. Moreover, the diverse tissue preparation methods, including cytological smear, cell block, and direct histology, are discussed, highlighting the importance of tailored approaches based on tumor characteristics. Additionally, the roles of macroscopic on-site evaluation and rapid on-site evaluation in optimizing specimen adequacy are investigated. Furthermore, percutaneous ultrasound-guided biopsy is considered an alternative approach, particularly in settings where EUS is impractical. Additionally, the review emphasizes the emerging trend of using tissue for genetic testing and molecular analysis, requiring high-quality sample acquisition. Future directions in tissue acquisition techniques and their integration into clinical practice are discussed, providing promising avenues for pancreatic disease diagnosis and treatment.

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 efficacy of cytologic smear and pathologic histology in the differential diagnosis of distal biliary stricture via EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration

Background and Objectives

Distal biliary strictures (DBSs) can be caused by various malignancies, making accurate and early diagnosis crucial. Histopathology is the gold standard for diagnosis, with several methods available for tissue sampling. This study evaluates the performance of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) cytologic smears and histopathology in diagnosing suspected malignant DBSs.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent EUS-FNA between January 2017 and January 2023 for DBSs. Demographic, imaging, procedural, and clinical data were collected. The diagnostic performance of EUS-FNA cytology, histology, and their combination was assessed in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on imaging and endoscopy characteristics.

Results

EUS-FNA for cytology had a sensitivity of 69.1% and specificity of 97.5%. EUS-FNA histology had a sensitivity of 76.4% and specificity of 99.1%. There was no difference in diagnostic efficacy between the two above (P > 0.05). Combining cytology and histology improved sensitivity to 82%. When 20 cases (6.8%) with histological slide failures were considered as negative, histologic sensitivity was 69.1%, completely consistent with cytology alone (P = 1). The presence of a mass shadow on computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging was associated with higher cytologic diagnostic sensitivity compared with simple stenosis without a mass shadow (57.4% vs. 75.9%, P = 0.011). The larger the mass, the higher the cytologic diagnostic sensitivity. The radiologist's diagnostic imaging tendencies, that is, malignant, benign, and indeterminate, also affected cytologic diagnostic sensitivity (78.2% vs. 63.9% vs. 51.9%, P = 0.002). Furthermore, among our cohort of 118 patients diagnosed with benign DBSs, a notable subset of 33 individuals (28%) received a diagnosis of IgG4-related disease.

Conclusion

EUS-FNA histology combined with cytology was a reliable diagnostic method. There is no difference in diagnostic efficacy between EUS-FNA cytology and histology, irrespective of considering instances of histological slide failure. The presence of a mass shadow on computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging and the size of the mass influenced the diagnostic efficacy of cytology. Additionally, IgG4-related diseases, accounting for a significant proportion of cases, were important in the differential diagnosis of these strictures.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of endoscopy in the diagnosis and management of solid pancreatic masses: summary and recommendations

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based approach for the role of endoscopy in the diagnosis and management of pancreatic masses. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and addresses needle selection (fine-needle biopsy [FNB] needle vs FNA needle), needle caliber (22-gauge vs 25-gauge needles), FNB needle type (novel or contemporary [fork-tip and Franseen] vs alternative FNB needle designs), and sample processing (rapid on-site evaluation [ROSE] vs no ROSE). In addition, this guideline addresses stent selection (self-expandable metal stents [SEMS] vs plastic stents), SEMS type (covered [cSEMS] vs uncovered [uSEMS]), and pain management (celiac plexus neurolysis [CPN] vs medical analgesic therapy). In patients with solid pancreatic masses undergoing EUS-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA), the ASGE recommends FNB needles over FNA needles. With regard to needle caliber, the ASGE suggests 22-gauge over 25-gauge needles. When an FNB needle is used, the ASGE recommends using either a fork-tip or a Franseen needle over alternative FNB needle designs. After a sample has been obtained, the ASGE suggests against the routine use of ROSE in patients undergoing an initial EUS-TA of a solid pancreatic mass. In patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction undergoing drainage with ERCP, the ASGE suggests using SEMS over plastic stents. In patients with proven malignancy undergoing SEMS placement, the ASGE suggests using cSEMS over uSEMS. If malignancy has not been histopathologically confirmed, the ASGE recommends against the use of uSEMS. Finally, in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer and abdominal pain, the ASGE suggests the use of CPN as an adjunct for the treatment of abdominal pain. This document outlines the process, analyses, and decision approaches used to reach the final recommendations and represents the official ASGE recommendations on the above topics.

A 22-G or a 25-G Needle: Which One to Use in the Diagnostics of Solid Pancreatic Lesions? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

With the 12th highest incidence and a common late diagnostic at advanced stages, neoadjuvant therapies for pancreatic cancer are important, but they require a confirmed diagnosis. Being a diagnostic standard, the clarification of the clinical relevance of needle gauges is needed, as larger ones may retrieve more tissue for diagnostics, but may also increase the risk of complications. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the efficiency of the most commonly used 22-G and 25-G needles for EUS guided biopsy in solid pancreatic lesions. The MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, Cochrane (CENTRAL), and Scopus databases were searched with "EUS", "needle", "FNA", "pancreas", "prospective", "22G", and "25G" keywords. Mixed effects were assessed in the model, with a mean of 86% and a 95% confidence interval. Fourteen prospective studies that compared the efficiency of 22-G and 25-G biopsy needles in 508 and 524 lesions, respectively, were analyzed, along with 332 specimens biopsied using both needle sizes. The groups did not significantly differ in the outcomes. A low degree of heterogeneity was observed overall, except for specimen adequacy. Moreover, 22-G and 25-G needles have comparable safety and efficacy for focal pancreatic lesion biopsies without a high risk of complications.

Comparative Assessment of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biopsies vs. Percutaneous Biopsies of Pancreatic Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance

Introduction: Pancreatic cancer ranks as the fourth deadliest form of cancer. However, it is essential to note that not all pancreatic masses signal primary malignancy. Therefore, it is imperative to establish the correct differential diagnosis, a process further supported by pre-operative biopsy procedures. This meta-analysis aims to compare the diagnostic performance of two minimally invasive biopsy approaches for pancreatic tissue sampling: percutaneous biopsies guided by computed tomography or ultrasound, and transduodenal biopsies guided by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in the MEDLINE and Scopus databases. The included studies analyzed the diagnostic performance of the two biopsy methods, and they were assessed for risk of bias using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Statistical analysis was carried out using the RevMan and MetaDisc software packages. Results: The statistical analysis of the results demonstrated the superiority of the percutaneous approach. Specifically, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, LR+, LR-and DOR for the percutaneous approach were 0.896 [95% CI: 0.878-0.913], 0.949 [95% CI: 0.892-0.981], 9.70 [95% CI: 5.20-18.09], 0.20 [95% CI: 0.12-0.32] and 68.55 [95% CI: 32.63-143.98], respectively. The corresponding values for EUS-guided biopsies were 0.806 [95% CI: 0.775-0.834], 0.955 [95% CI: 0.926-0.974], 12.04 [95% CI: 2.67-54.17], 0.24 [95% CI: 0.15-0.39] and 52.56 [95% CI: 13.81-200.09], respectively. Nevertheless, it appears that this statistical superiority is also linked to the selection bias favoring larger and hence more readily accessible tumors during percutaneous biopsy procedures. Conclusions: Concisely, our meta-analysis indicates the statistical superiority of the percutaneous approach. However, selecting the optimal biopsy method is complex, influenced by factors like patient and tumor characteristics, clinical resources, and other relevant considerations.

Oil blotting paper for formalin fixation increases endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition-collected sample volumes on glass slides

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) is used for pathological diagnosis and obtaining samples for molecular testing, facilitating the initiation of targeted therapies in patients with pancreatic cancer. However, samples obtained via EUS-TA are often insufficient, requiring more efforts to improve sampling adequacy for molecular testing. Therefore, this study investigated the use of oil blotting paper for formalin fixation of samples obtained via EUS-TA.

METHODS

This prospective study enrolled 42 patients who underwent EUS-TA for pancreatic cancer between September 2020 and February 2022 at the Osaka International Cancer Institute. After a portion of each sample obtained via EUS-TA was separated for routine histological evaluation, the residual samples were divided into filter paper and oil blotting paper groups for analysis. Accordingly, filter paper and oil blotting paper were used for the formalin fixation process. The total tissue, nuclear, and cytoplasm areas of each sample were quantitatively evaluated using virtual slides, and the specimen volume and histological diagnosis of each sample were evaluated by an expert pathologist.

RESULTS

All cases were cytologically diagnosed as adenocarcinoma. The area ratios of the total tissue, nuclear, and cytoplasmic portions were significantly larger in the oil blotting paper group than in the filter paper group. The frequency of cases with large amount of tumor cells was significantly higher in the oil blotting paper group (33.3%) than in the filter paper group (11.9%) (p = 0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

Oil blotting paper can increase the sample volume obtained via EUS-TA on glass slides and improve sampling adequacy for molecular testing.

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

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

EUS-FNA versus EUS-FNB in Pancreatic Solid Lesions ≤ 15 mm

A small tumor size may impact the diagnostic performance of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) for diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs). We aimed to compare the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and biopsy (FNB) in SPLs with a diameter ≤ 15 mm. Consecutive patients who underwent EUS-TA for SPLs ≤ 15 mm between January 2015 and December 2022 in a tertiary referral center were retrospectively evaluated. The primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy. The final diagnosis was based on surgical pathology or disease evolution after a minimum follow-up of 6 months. Inadequate samples were all considered false negatives for the study. Secondary outcomes included sample adequacy, factors impacting accuracy, and safety. We included 368 patients (52.4% male; mean age: 60.2 years) who underwent FNA in 72 cases and FNB in 296. The mean size of SPLs was 11.9 ± 2.6 mm. More than three passes were performed in 5.7% and 61.5% of patients in the FNB and FNA groups, respectively (p < 0.0001). FNB outperformed FNA in terms of diagnostic accuracy (89.8% vs. 79.1%, p = 0.013) and sample adequacy (95.9% vs. 86.1%, p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, using FNA (OR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.07-4.48) and a final diagnosis (OR: 3.56, 95% CI: 1.82-6.94) of benign conditions negatively impacted accuracy. Overall, the adverse event rate was 0.8%, including one pancreatitis in the FNA group and one pancreatitis and one bleeding in the FNB group, all mild and conservatively managed. EUS-TA for SPLs ≤ 15 mm has a high diagnostic yield and safety. This study suggests the superiority of FNB over FNA, with better performance even with fewer passes performed.

Comparing the diagnostic adequacy of 25-Gauge fork-tip versus franseen versus reverse-bevel-type needles in EUS-guided tissue acquisition: A prospective randomized study with a retrospective control

Background and Objectives

EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB) is an established technique for the acquisition of tissue to diagnose lesions of the gastrointestinal tract and surrounding organs. Recently, newer-generation FNB needles have been introduced, including a second-generation reverse-bevel and the third-generation fork-tip and Franseen needles. We aimed to determine if there was any difference between these needles in terms of cytopathological diagnostic yield, sample cellularity, or sample bloodiness.

Methods

One hundred twenty-seven consecutive patients undergoing EUS-guided FNB of any solid lesion were randomized to use either a Franseen or fork-tip needle in a 1:1 ratio and were compared with 60 consecutive historical cases performed with reverse-bevel needles. Patient and procedure characteristics were recorded. Cases were reviewed by a blinded cytopathologist and graded based on cellularity and bloodiness. Overall diagnostic yield was calculated for each study arm.

Results

One hundred seventy-six cases were eligible for analysis, including 109 pancreatic masses, 24 lymphoid lesions, 17 subepithelial lesions, and 26 other lesions. The final diagnosis was malignancy in 127 cases (72%). EUS-guided FNB was diagnostic in 141 cases (80%) overall and in 89% of cases where malignancy was the final diagnosis. There was no difference in diagnostic yield, sample cellularity, or sample bloodiness between the different needle types. There was no difference in adverse events between groups.

Conclusions

EUS-guided FNB performed using 25-gauge Franseen, fork-tip, and reverse-bevel needles resulted in similar diagnostic yield, sample cellularity, and sample bloodiness. Our results may not be extrapolated to larger-caliber needles of the same design.

Randomized trial comparing 15 vs 5 actuations per pass during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy for specimen acquisition of solid pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIM

There is currently no established number of actuations (to-and-fro movements) per pass during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). This study aimed to compare 15 vs 5 actuations in terms of adequate specimen acquisition of solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, crossover, noninferiority, single-center study, eligible patients underwent EUS-FNB using a 22-G Franseen needle with both 15 and 5 actuations per pass, performed in a randomized order, from October 2020 to December 2021. The acquired specimens from each pass were separately evaluated. The primary outcome was the accuracy of the histological diagnosis per pass. The noninferiority margin was set as 15%.

RESULTS

Data from 85 patients were analyzed, revealing pancreatic cancer in 73 patients. The accuracy of the histological diagnosis in the 15 and 5 actuations groups was 83.5% (71/85) and 77.7% (66/85), respectively. The difference was -5.8% (95% confidence interval -15.6-3.4), which does not indicate noninferiority of the five actuations group. Among the secondary outcomes, the 15 actuations group was significantly superior to the five actuations group in terms of the obtained core tissues (1.88 [interquartile range 0.89-3.64] mm2 vs 1.66 [0.83-2.71] mm2 [P = 0.031]) and subjective evaluation of cytology specimens for pancreatic cancer (69.0% vs. 31.0%, P = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

The noninferiority of five actuations in the accuracy of the histological diagnosis was not confirmed, and 15 actuations are preferred during EUS-FNB for solid pancreatic lesions.

Comparing per-pass performance of 2 types of needles for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling of pancreatobiliary masses in a randomized trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling (EUS-FNB) has largely replaced FNA for tissue diagnosis of pancreatobiliary mass lesions. However, the optimal number of passes required for the diagnosis of malignancy is not clear. We aimed to compare the per-pass performance of 2 types of fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles for the detection of malignancy.

METHODS

One hundred fourteen patients referred for EUS evaluation of solid pancreatobiliary mass lesions underwent randomization between biopsy sampling with a Franseen needle and a 3-prong tip needle with an asymmetric cutting surfaces. Four passes of EUS-FNB were taken from each mass lesion. Two pathologists blinded to needle type analyzed the specimens. The final diagnosis of malignancy was made based on FNB specimen pathology, surgery, or a follow-up of at least 6 months after EUS-FNB. The sensitivity of EUS-FNB to diagnose malignancy was compared between the 2 groups. The cumulative sensitivity of detection of malignancy by EUS-FNB was calculated after each pass in each arm. Other characteristics of the specimens including cellularity and blood contents were also compared between the 2 groups. In the primary analysis, lesions categorized as suspicious on EUS-FNB were considered nondiagnostic for malignancy.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight patients (86%) had a final diagnosis of malignancy, and 16 patients (14%) had benign disease. Four passes of EUS-FNB with the Franseen needle detected malignancy in 44 of 47 patients (sensitivity, 93.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 82.5-98.7) and with the 3-prong asymmetric-tip needle in 50 of 51 patients (sensitivity, 98%; 95% CI, 89.6-99.9; P = .35). Two passes of EUS-FNB detected malignancy with a sensitivity of 91.5% (95% CI, 79.6-97.6) with the Franseen needle and 90.2% (95% CI, 78.6-96.7) with the 3-prong asymmetric-tip needle. The cumulative sensitivities at pass 3 were 93.6% (95% CI, 82.5-98.6) and 96.1% (95% CI, 86.5-99.5), respectively. Samples collected with the Franseen needle had significantly higher cellularity than samples collected with the 3-prong asymmetric-tip needle (P < .01). However, no difference as found between the 2 types of needles in term of specimen bloodiness.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences were found in the diagnostic performance of the Franseen needle versus the 3-prong asymmetric-tip needle in patients with suspected pancreatobiliary cancer. However, the Franseen needle yielded higher cellularity of the specimen. Two passes of EUS-FNB are required to detect malignancy with at least 90% sensitivity with either type of needle. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04975620.).

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.

The Utility of Endoscopic-Ultrasonography-Guided Tissue Acquisition for Solid Pancreatic Lesions

Endoscopic-ultrasonography-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) has been widely performed for the definitive diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs). As the puncture needles, puncture techniques, and sample processing methods have improved, EUS-TA has shown higher diagnostic yields and safety. Recently, several therapeutic target genomic biomarkers have been clarified in pancreatic ductal carcinoma (PDAC). Although only a small proportion of patients with PDAC can benefit from precision medicine based on gene mutations at present, precision medicine will also be further developed for SPLs as more therapeutic target genomic biomarkers are identified. Advances in next-generation sequencing (NGS) techniques enable the examination of multiple genetic mutations in limited tissue samples. EUS-TA is also useful for NGS and will play a more important role in determining treatment strategies. In this review, we describe the utility of EUS-TA for SPLs.