Outcomes of Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine Needle Biopsy Using a Novel Hydrostatic Stylet Tissue Acquisition Technique

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is frequently used to obtain core samples of solid lesions. Here, we describe and evaluate a novel hydrostatic stylet (HS) technique designed to optimize core sample acquisition, reporting diagnostic yield, efficacy, and safety relative to the conventional stylet slow-pull (SP) technique.

METHODS

A novel HS technique was developed and validated retrospectively. Consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNB with core biopsy of solid lesions through either the HS or SP technique between January 2020 and April 2022 were included. Exclusion criteria included cystic lesions, nonlesional liver biopsies, and specimens sent for cytologic analysis only. Patient and lesion characteristics, number of passes, sample adequacy, and adverse events were compared between the two techniques.

RESULTS

A total of 272 patients were included with 138 in the HS group and 134 in the SP group. Lesion size and anatomic distribution were similar in both groups. Compared with the SP approach, the HS technique demonstrated significantly higher sample adequacy (97.8% vs 83.6%, P < 0.001), higher sensitivity (97.1% vs 89.7%, P = 0.03), and lower mean number of passes (1.2 vs 3.3, P < 0.001). Rates and severity of adverse events in the HS group were comparable to the SP group and existing literature. Similar associations were observed in pancreatic and nonpancreatic lesion subanalyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel HS technique demonstrated excellent biopsy sample adequacy and diagnostic yield while requiring fewer passes to obtain diagnostic specimens compared with a conventional EUS-FNB approach. Further prospective evaluation is needed to confirm these pilot findings and optimize EUS-FNB acquisition techniques.

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.

Comparison of Fine-Needle Biopsy (FNB) versus Fine-Needle Aspiration (FNA) Combined with Flow Cytometry in the Diagnosis of Deep-Seated Lymphoma

Evidence comparing ultrasound endoscopy-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) with EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in deep-seated lymphoma tissue sampling is insufficient. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of immunohistochemistry (IHC) or flow cytometry (FCM) on specimens obtained from EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA in the diagnosis and staging of deep-seated lymphomas. This real-world, dual-center study prospectively evaluated all eligible specimens from patients who underwent EUS-FNB/FNA over an 8-year period. 53 patients were enrolled, with 23 patients in the EUS-FNB group and 30 patients in the EUS-FNA group. FNB yielded specimens with longer core tissues (0.80 mm [0.55, 1.00] vs. 0.45 mm [0.30, 0.50], p = 0.009) and higher scores of specimen adequacy [4 (3.75, 4.00) vs. 3 (1.00, 4.00), p = 0.025]. Overall analysis revealed that the diagnostic accuracy of IHC based on specimens acquired from EUS-FNB was significantly higher than that of EUS-FNA (91.30% vs. 60.00%, p = 0.013). After controlling confounding factors including lesion size and endoscopists, EUS-FNB with IHC maintained a higher-level diagnostic accuracy compared to EUS-FNA (OR = 1.292 [1.037-1.609], p = 0.023). When FCM was additionally used to analyze the specimen acquired from EUS-FNA, the diagnostic yield was significantly improved (ROC AUC: 0.733 vs. 0.550, p = 0.015), and the AUC of FNB alone or combined with FCM was 0.739 and 0.761. Conclusions: FNB needles generate higher histopathological diagnostic accuracy and specimen quality than FNA for the deep-seated lymphoma. Though the application of FCM significantly improves the diagnostic efficacy of EUS-FNA, FNB was still the preferred diagnostic modality with a shorter procedure time, comparable diagnostic accuracy, and better cost-effectiveness.

Twenty versus 40 back-and-forth needle movements for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic masses: a prospective, crossover, randomized study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-fine-needle biopsy (FNB) of solid pancreatic mass lesions, the number of times the needle moves back and forth within the lesion might affect the collection of the sample and the subsequent diagnostic accuracy. Thus, this study was designed to compare the diagnostic adequacy between different numbers of back-and-forth movements in EUS-FNB.

METHODS

Fifty-five patients with solid pancreatic masses underwent EUS-FNB sampling with the needle (22-gauge) moved 20 times (MTT) and 40 times (MFT) randomly and sequentially for a total of four alternating passes. We compared the acquisition rate of appropriate and adequate specimens for histologic assessment and diagnostic accuracy.

RESULTS

Finally, 55 patients (35 men and 20 women) were included in the study. We found that 56.4% (31/55) and 60% (33/55) of the specimens obtained using MTT and MFT, respectively, could be adequately diagnosed histologically (P = 0.815, McNemar test). The diagnostic accuracy of MTT and MFT was 72.7% (40/55) and 80% (44/55), respectively (P = 0.289, McNemar test). The overall diagnostic accuracy was 89.1%.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant statistical difference between the histopathological diagnostic samples obtained in MTT and those obtained in MFT. Therefore, a large number of back-and-forth movements of the needle should be avoided during EUS-FNB, which can help reduce the operation time and may reduce the risk of intraoperative and postoperative complications (Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR2000031106).

The role of EUS elastography-guided fine needle biopsy in the histological diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions: a prospective exploratory study

This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of Endoscopic ultrasound elastography-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-EG-FNB) for the diagnosis of pancreatic mass lesions. EUS-EG images were classified into heterogeneous and homogeneous groups. For the heterogeneous group, EUS-FNB was separately performed in both hard areas and soft areas. Only samples obtained during the first two passes (hard/soft areas) were used to compare the diagnostic accuracy as well as the quality and quantity of the specimens. We investigated the association of EUS-EG findings using strain histogram analysis with the histological findings. Fifty-five patients were enrolled including 25 patients with heterogeneous group. The homogeneous group had significantly lower mean strain value (hard) lesions. The adequate sampling rates from hard and soft areas were 88 and 92%, respectively (P = 0.6374). Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy and the quality and quantity of the histological core between hard and soft areas showed no significant differences. In pancreatic adenocarcinoma cases, the proportion of fibrous stroma in the core tissue was significantly correlated with the elasticity of the region. (R² = 0.1226: P = 0.0022) EUS-EG may reflect tissue composition in pancreatic tumors, however, EUS-EG did not affect either the quality and quantity of the tissues obtained.

Clinical Trial Registry No: UMIN-000033073.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy versus Fine-Needle Aspiration in the Diagnosis of Focal Liver Lesions: Prospective Head-to-Head Comparison

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) or fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) from focal liver lesions are indicated in selected cases, but there has been no previous comparison of needle types of the same size. The aim of our study was to compare the histologic diagnostic accuracy and adequacy of cores obtained with EUS-FNB needles in contrast to those obtained with FNA needles in focal liver lesions. This prospective one-center study included patients with left lobe hepatic focal lesions with contraindications for percutaneous liver biopsy or need for EUS for concomitant lesions. Each patient had one pass of 22G EUS-FNB (Franseen) needle and one pass of 22G EUS-FNA in a crossover manner, without macroscopic on-site evaluation. Each sample was analyzed separately for histologic adequacy and diagnosis. The final diagnosis was based on histology results or on imaging follow-up in the case of negative biopsies. The EUS-FNB samples (n = 30) were found to be more adequate for histologic analysis, with more cellularity and longer tissue aggregates than the EUS-FNA samples (n = 30). The accuracy of EUS-FNB was 100%, whereas that of EUS-FNA was 86.7% (p = 0.039). No post-procedure complications were noted. The 22G EUS-FNB needle proved superior to 22G EUS-FNA in terms of tissue acquisition diagnostic accuracy and histologic adequacy in focal liver lesions.

Fine Needle Biopsies of Solid Pancreatic Lesions: Tissue Acquisition Technique and Needle Design Do Not Impact Specimen Adequacy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Data on adequacy of EUS guided biopsies using different tissue acquisition techniques and fine needle aspiration needle designs have been inconclusive. Data on newer fine needle biopsy (FNB) needles are scarce. This study compared the performance of 3 acquisition techniques and 2 fine needle biopsy designs in solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

Single-center, randomized, pilot clinical trial (Trial registration number NCT03264092). Patients undergoing EUS biopsy of pancreatic lesions were randomized to 1 of 3 acquisition techniques (dry suction, wet suction, slow pull) and 1 of 2 22G FNB needle designs. The primary outcome was specimen cellularity. Secondary outcomes included blood contamination and number of passes needed for diagnosis.

RESULTS

A total of 52 (35.3%), 49 (33.3%) and 46 (31.3%) specimens were obtained with slow pull, dry suction and wet suction, respectively. A total of 56 (38%) and 91 (62%) specimens were obtained with each needle, respectively. No difference in cellularity scores was identified by technique (3.28 vs 3.55 vs 2.94; p = 0.081) or needle type (3.45 vs 3.15; p = 0.19). The same was true for blood contamination and diagnostic pass. A diagnosis was reached after 3 passes in 51 patients (93%). Histological diagnosis was possible in 45 specimens (82%). No severe adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Cellularity of pancreatic specimens obtained with FNB needles via EUS was not influenced by technique and needle design. Three passes were enough to obtain a histological diagnosis in most patients. Larger clinical trials are required to validate the results of this study.

New image‐processing technology for endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle aspiration biopsy specimen evaluation in patients with pancreatic cancer

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Usefulness of the automated multiband imaging system for EUS-FNA biopsy specimen evaluation in patients with upper gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions

Background and Objectives

Sample isolation processing by stereomicroscopy (SIPS) was recently introduced as an alternative to rapid on-site cytologic evaluation and showed high accuracy for use in pathologic diagnoses. SIPS is a useful, but slightly complicated procedure; therefore, a new, more straightforward method for the objective estimation of the core tissue amount required during the sampling is desirable. We evaluated the usefulness of the automated multiband imaging system (AMUS) for calculating whitish core amounts in EUS-FNA biopsy (EUS-FNAB) samples from patients with subepithelial lesions (SELs).

Methods

Four EUS-FNAB specimens per patient were obtained from 20 patients with upper gastrointestinal SELs. The correlation between the whitish core amount calculated by AMUS, length of the manually measured whitish cores (stereomicroscopically visible white core [SVWC]), and sample suitability for pathologic evaluation were analyzed.

Results

We identified 13 patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors, five with leiomyomas, one with a schwannoma, and one with an ectopic pancreas. The histological diagnostic accuracy was 100%, median SVWC length was 9 mm, and median whitish core area, calculated using AMUS, was 10 mm². SVWC length correlated with whitish core amount (ρ = 0.81, P < 0.01) and adequacy score (ρ = 0.54, P < 0.01). Whitish core amount correlated with adequacy score (ρ = 0.54, P < 0.01). The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve calculated for whitish core amount with respect to the histological diagnosis was 0.83 (P < 0.01; cutoff ≥4 mm², sensitivity 98.4%).

Conclusions

AMUS, a simple on-site verification instrument, is an alternative to SIPS for determining the appropriate SEL tissue sampling quantity with high diagnostic accuracy.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

REGISTRATION

University Hospital Medical Information Network Trials Registry (UMIN000036528).

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

BACKGROUND

The effects of the Franseen needle size in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) of solid pancreatic masses remain unclear. This study aimed to compare 25G and 22G Franseen needles in terms of adequate tissue acquisition from solid pancreatic masses.

METHODS

In this single-center, crossover, randomized noninferiority trial, eligible patients underwent EUS-FNB with both 25G and 22G Franseen needles in a randomized order between November 2018 and August 2020. Tissue specimens from each pass were separately evaluated based on the cellularity scoring system. The primary outcome was the proportion of acquired specimens allowing adequate histological assessment (cellularity score ≥3). A -15% noninferiority margin was assumed.

RESULTS

Data from 88 patients were analyzed, which showed malignant and benign lesions in 84 (95.5%) and four (4.5%) patients, respectively. Of the 88 specimens, 62 (70.5%) and 69 (78.4%) acquired using 25G and 22G needles, respectively, allowed adequate histological assessment. The adjusted proportion difference was -6.6% (95% confidence interval -8.8% to -4.5%), indicating noninferiority of the 25G Franseen needle (P < 0.001). The diagnostic accuracies of the 25G and 22G needles were 86.4% and 89.8%, respectively, with no significant difference (P = 0.180). Adverse events occurred in one patient.

CONCLUSIONS

The 25G Franseen needle showed a noninferior adequate tissue acquisition and similar diagnostic performance compared to that of the 22G Franseen needle. However, a 15% noninferiority margin was high for clinical use; thus, further consideration is needed (Clinical Trial Registry no. UMIN000034596).

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle biopsy alone vs. EUS-guided fine needle aspiration with rapid onsite evaluation in pancreatic lesions: a multicenter randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the standard in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions, in particular when combined with rapid onsite evaluation of cytopathology (ROSE). More recently, a fork-tip needle for core biopsy (FNB) has been shown to be associated with excellent diagnostic yield. EUS-FNB alone has however not been compared with EUS-FNA + ROSE in a large clinical trial. Our aim was to compare EUS-FNB alone to EUS-FNA + ROSE in solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

A multicenter, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial involving seven centers was performed. Solid pancreatic lesions referred for EUS were considered for inclusion. The primary end point was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary end points included sensitivity/specificity, mean number of needle passes, and cost.

RESULTS

235 patients were randomized: 115 EUS-FNB alone and 120 EUS-FNA + ROSE. Overall, 217 patients had malignant histology. The diagnostic accuracy for malignancy of EUS-FNB alone was non-inferior to EUS-FNA + ROSE at 92.2 % (95 %CI 86.6 %-96.9 %) and 93.3 % (95 %CI 88.8 %-97.9 %), respectively (P = 0.72). Diagnostic sensitivity for malignancy was 92.5 % (95 %CI 85.7 %-96.7 %) for EUS-FNB alone vs. 96.5 % (93.0 %-98.6 %) for EUS-FNA + ROSE (P = 0.46), while specificity was 100 % in both. Adequate histological yield was obtained in 87.5 % of the EUS-FNB samples. The mean (SD) number of needle passes and procedure time favored EUS-FNB alone (2.3 [0.6] passes vs. 3.0 [1.1] passes [P < 0.001]; and 19.3 [8.0] vs. 22.7 [10.8] minutes [P = 0.008]). EUS-FNB alone cost on average 45 US dollars more than EUS-FNA + ROSE.

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNB alone is non-inferior to EUS-FNA + ROSE and is associated with fewer needle passes, shorter procedure time, and excellent histological yield at comparable cost.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.).

Effectiveness of Menghini-Type Needles for Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration of Pancreatic Masses

BACKGROUND

Cutting needles are thought to be effective as biopsy needles. A few types of cutting needles are available for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), and the Menghini-type needle is an end-type cutting needle.

AIMS

A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare the results of EUS-FNA using a Menghini-type needle (needle M) versus a conventional needle (needle S).

METHODS

The main eligibility criteria were as follows: patients with a pancreatic mass referred for EUS-FNA, ≥ 20 years old, and a performance status < 4. The primary outcome was the sample quality. The secondary outcomes were factors associated with the sample quality, diagnostic accuracy, and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 97 patients were enrolled in this study. The sample quality for total puncture with needle M (92.8%) was significantly higher than that with needle S (81.4%) (p = 0.0305). The tumor size (p = 0.033) and type of needle (p = 0.031) were significant factors associated with adequate tissue collection in univariate and multivariate analyses (odds ratio [OR] 2.71; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-6.54; p = 0.027 for tumor size, and OR 2.93; 95% CI 1.23-8.21; p = 0.0153 for type of needle). The diagnostic accuracy of each needle was 88.7% (86/97) with needle M and 73.2% (71/97) with needle S. Adverse events occurred in 2 of the 97 patients (0.02%).

CONCLUSION

A Menghini-type needle was able to obtain core tissue for histology more effectively than a conventional aspiration needle.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

UMIN registration number of 000020668.

Diagnostic value of IMP3 and p53 immunohistochemical staining in EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration for solid pancreatic tumors

We previously identified insulin-like growth factor-II messenger ribonucleic acid-binding protein 3 (IMP3) as a valuable marker to distinguish malignant from benign lesions in pancreatic solid masses. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the usefulness of IMP3 and p53 immunohistochemical staining in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) samples for pancreatic solid masses. The study recruited 90 consecutive patients with pancreatic masses, including 62 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDACs), 11 benign tumors, and 17 other tumors, who underwent EUS-FNA, and conducted IMP3 and p53 immunohistochemical staining. The main outcome measurement was improved diagnostic utility using IMP3 and p53 immunohistochemical staining. IMP3 and p53 expressions were detected in 60.8% and 49.4% of malignant lesions, 69.4% and 58.1% of PDACs, and 0% of benign lesions, respectively. In PDAC and benign tumors, the use of IMP3 and/or p53 immunostaining increased the sensitivity of cytohistological analysis from 88.7 to 93.5%, although the difference was not statistically significant. The sensitivity of histological analysis combined with that of IMP3 staining was 91.9%, which was significantly greater than that of histology alone (80.6%). The use of IMP3 and p53 immunohistochemical staining did not significantly improve the sensitivity of cytohistological analysis; however, IMP3 staining may be helpful for the histological analysis of malignant pancreatic tumors.

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

Background/Aims

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Histopathological comparison of aspiration and biopsy needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition in patients with subepithelial lesions

BACKGROUND

Information on whether a fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needle can improve histopathological specimen quality or the amount of core tissue collected in the diagnosis of subepithelial lesions (SELs) remains insufficient. In this study, we aimed to compare the procedure outcomes and adequacy of histopathological specimens of fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and FNB needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) using sample isolation processing by stereomicroscopy (SIPS) in patients with SELs.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective comparison of SEL cases registered in two previously conducted prospective studies. Of 61 cases, we identified 56 cases of SELs that involved the muscularis propria layer. Of these, 27 patients who underwent EUS-TA using a 22-gauge FNA needle between July 2016 and December 2017, and 29 patients who underwent the procedure using a 22-gauge FNB needle between March 2018 and January 2019 were included in the FNA and FNB group, respectively.

RESULTS

Patient background characteristics did not differ between the groups. The technical success rate was 100% in both groups. The median adequacy score was significantly higher in the FNB group than in the FNA group (P < .01). The histological diagnosis showed no significant difference in the accuracy rate between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In EUS-TA using the SIPS procedure to target SELs derived from the muscularis propria layer, FNB needles collect more core tissues and significantly improve histopathological specimen quality compared with FNA needles. When combined with SIPS, a high tissue diagnosis rate may be obtained regardless of the type of puncture needle used.

Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy versus fine-needle aspiration for genomic profiling and DNA yield in pancreatic cancer: a randomized crossover trial

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Randomized controlled trial comparing a conventional needle and a novel needle for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided histology of peripancreatic masses

INTRODUCTION

Cytological study of samples obtained by Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) allows for recognition of clear signs of malignant transformation. However, certain neoplasms can be difficult to diagnose without histological analysis. Recently, a novel EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) needle was developed to increase tissue acquisition. This study set out to investigate the usefulness of this novel EUS-FNB needle (NEFN) in terms of obtaining a proper histology compared with a conventional EUS-FNA needle (CEFN).

METHODS

This investigation was a prospective, single-blind, randomized study in a single academic hospital. Primary outcome was the acquisition rate of an appropriate and sufficient specimen for histologic assessment. Secondary outcomes were diagnostic yield of peripancreatic masses using a CEFN and a NEFN. Furthermore, we assessed the feasibility of determining K-ras mutation status according to needle type.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 56 consecutive patients. Technical success rates were 96.6% (28/29) for the CEFN and 100% (27/27) for the NEFN (P = 1.000). No complications occurred during or after the procedure in either needle group. An adequate sample for cytologic diagnosis was obtained in 89.7% (26/29) of patients in the CEFN group vs 96.3% (26/27) of patients in the NEFN group (P = .612). For histologic diagnosis, a sample with a biopsy adequacy score of 2 or more was obtained in 41.4% (12/29) of CEFN-acquired samples vs 88.9% (24/27) of NEFN-acquired samples (P < .001). K-ras mutation analysis using histologic specimens was possible in 13 (44.8%) CEFN-acquired samples and 25 (92.6%) of NEFN-acquired samples. This difference was significant (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study suggests that the NEFN is an effective and reliable alternative compared to a CEFN in terms of tissue acquisition rate and quality of histologic sampling.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY

UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN ID: UMIN000036641).

Modified Endoscopic Ultrasound Needle to Obtain Histological Core Tissue Samples: A Retrospective Analysis

Background/Aims

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration is very effective for providing specimens for cytological evaluation. However, the ability to provide sufficient tissue for histological evaluation has been challenging due to the technical limitations of dedicated core biopsy needles. Recently, a modified EUS needle has been introduced to obtain tissue core samples for histological analysis. We aimed to determine (1) its ability to obtain specimens for histological assessment and (2) the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) using this needle.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed consecutive cases of FNB using modified EUS needles for 342 lesions in 303 patients. The cytology and histological specimens were analyzed. Diagnostic accuracy was calculated.

Results

Adequate cytological and histological assessment was possible in 293/342 (86%) and 264/342 (77%) lesions, respectively. Diagnostic accuracy of the cytological specimen was 294/342 (86%) versus 254/342 (74%) for the histological specimen (p<0.01). Diagnostic accuracy of the combined cytological and histological assessment was 323/342 (94.4%), which was significantly higher than that of both histology alone (p<0.001) and cytology alone (p=0.001).

Conclusions

EUS-FNB with the modified EUS needle provided histologic tissue cores in the majority of cases and achieved excellent diagnostic accuracy with few needle passes.

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

Background/Aims

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

DISCUSSION

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

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

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

Recent advancement in EUS-guided fine needle sampling

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

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Concise review on the comparative efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration vs core biopsy in pancreatic masses, upper and lower gastrointestinal submucosal tumors

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration with or without biopsy (FNA/FNB) are the primary diagnostic tools for gastrointestinal submucosal tumors. EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is considered a first line diagnostic method for the characterization of pancreatic and upper gastrointestinal lesions, since it allows for the direct visualization of the collection of specimens for cytopathologic analysis. EUS-FNA is most effective and accurate when immediate cytologic assessment is permitted by the presence of a cytopathologist on site. Unfortunately, the accuracy and thus the diagnostic yield of collected specimens suffer without this immediate analysis. Recently, a EUS-FNB needle capable of obtaining core samples (fine needle biopsy, FNB) has been developed and has shown promising results. This new tool adds a new dimension to the diagnostic and therapeutic utility of this technique. The aim of the present review is to compare the efficacy of EUS-FNA to that afforded by EUS-FNB in the characterization of pancreatic masses and of upper and lower gastrointestinal submucosal tumors.

Histologic retrieval rate of a newly designed side-bevelled 20G needle for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic lesions

Background

Innovative approaches to improve diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) have focused on needle design with development of fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles with microcore-acquisition technology. Recently, a 20-gauge (20G) antegrade-cutting-side-bevelled biopsy needle (ProCore®) was developed for EUS-TA, but data about its diagnostic performance and histological capability are scant.

Objectives

We assessed the diagnostic performance and histologic retrieval rate of a new 20G antegrade-cutting-side-bevelled biopsy needle compared with a 22G reverse-side-bevelled needle for EUS sampling of solid pancreatic lesions.

Patients and methods

A retrospective analysis of 238 consecutively collected patients who underwent EUS-TA using a 20G or a 22G ProCore® needle, without rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), was conducted at two centres.Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were calculated. Histologic tissue retrieval was evaluated applying a scoring system for each case.

Results

Sensitivity and specificity were estimated as 98.4-100% in the 20G-, and 94.9-100% in the 22G-needle groups, respectively (p > 0.99). The 20G procured more histologic-grade tissues (92.6% vs 49.5%, p < 0.0001) achieved by a lower number of passes (2.64 vs 3.44, p < 0.0001) compared to the 22G.

Conclusions

Both side-bevelled FNB needles achieved a high diagnostic sensitivity. The 20G-side-bevelled needle obtained a significantly higher microcore retrieval rate.

Immunohistochemical analysis of IMP3 and p53 expression in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration and resected specimens of pancreatic diseases

BACKGROUND

Insulin-like growth factor II messenger ribonucleic acid-binding protein 3 (IMP3) is a valuable marker that distinguishes malignant from benign lesions and predicts prognosis.

METHODS

First, we evaluated IMP3 expression in 77 resected specimens of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN), and chronic pancreatitis (CP). Eleven PDAC patients preoperatively underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). Survival analysis of IMP3 and clinicopathological factors was performed. IMP3 and p53 expression was evaluated in another 127 EUS-FNA samples of solid pancreatic masses to compare the diagnostic value of routine and immunohistochemical staining.

RESULTS

IMP3 expression was detected in 72.3%, 50%, 20%, and 0% of PDAC, malignant IPMN, benign IPMN, and CP, respectively. Evaluation of IMP3 expression in EUS-FNA specimens coincided with that in resected specimens in 10 of 11. IMP3 expression correlated with tumor differentiation in PDAC samples (p = .006) and with poor prognosis through univariate analysis (p = .045). Tumor differentiation and lymph node metastasis were significantly associated with poor prognosis through multivariate analysis. In EUS-FNA specimens, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of cytohistological analysis were 80.8%, 100%, and 85.0%, respectively. IMP3 and p53 expression were detected in 80.8% and 44.9% of malignant and 0% and 5% of benign lesions. Combined with IMP3 immunostaining, the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of cytohistological analysis significantly increased to 87.9%, 100%, and 90.8% (p = .016), respectively. Meanwhile, p53 staining had no impact on the results.

CONCLUSIONS

IMP3 immunohistochemical staining can improve the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA for malignant pancreatic tumors.

Prospective evaluation of EUS-guided fine needle biopsy in pancreatic mass lesions

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM

Due to the scarcity of specific data on endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle biopsies (SharkCore) FNB in the evaluation of pancreatic lesions, we performed a prospective study of the diagnostic performance of EUS SharkCore FNB in patients with pancreatic lesions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Single-center prospective study of 41 consecutive patients referred for EUS-FNB from October 2015 to April 2016 at our center. EUS-FNB was obtained in a predefined setting regarding the procedure and pathological evaluation. Data regarding demographics, lesion, technical parameters, and diagnostic accuracy were obtained.

RESULTS

The study included 41 consecutive patients (22 males (54 %); median age 68 years). The average size of the lesions was 28 mm (median: 30 mm). A diagnostic specimen was identified in 40 (98 %) cases during microscopy with an average of 2.4 passes. The route was trans-duodenal in 20 cases (49 %). The histological diagnosis of the specimens was malignant in 29 cases (71 %), benign in 8 (20 %), suspicious in 2 (5 %), atypical in 1 (2 %) and in 1 (2 %) no material for microscopic evaluation was obtained. This led to a diagnostic accuracy of 93 %, sensitivity of 91 % and a specificity of 100 %. 2 cases (5 %) of self-limiting bleeding were observed. The diagnosis at follow up was malignant in 32 (78 %) of the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNB of pancreatic mass lesions with the SharkCore needle produced specimens with a diagnostic accuracy of 93 %. The procedure was safe and easy to perform, and these data support the use of EUS-FNB in a routine setting.

Diagnostic accuracies of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with distinct negative pressure suction techniques in solid lesions: A retrospective study

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is highly accurate in obtaining specific diagnoses for various diseases. The present study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic yields, accuracies and sampling adequacies, of slow-pull, 5 ml suction and 10 ml suction techniques in EUS-FNA of solid lesions. The present study was a retrospective comparative study, which was performed in tertiary academic centers, recognized for their expertise in EUS and EUS-guided FNA. The present study involved 149 patients who underwent EUS-FNA of solid masses. A total of 34 (22.8%), 37 (24.8%) and 78 (52.4%) patients underwent EUS-FNA with slow-pull, 5 ml suction and 10 ml suction techniques, respectively. The EUS-FNA cytology and histology results were compared with those from the gold standard of surgical histopathology [hematoxylin-eosin staining; immunohistochemical test of cluster of differentiation (CD) 79a, CD20 and flow cytometry test] or long-term clinical follow-up. The present retrospective comparative study demonstrated that the diagnostic yields and accuracies of EUS-FNA with slow-pull (86.1%) were significantly superior to those achieved with 5 ml suction (83.3%) or 10 ml suction (69.9%; P<0.0001; χ2 test). Consistently, 86.5% (32/37) of the samples obtained from the 5 ml suction group were adequate for histological diagnosis. By contrast, 70.6 (24/34) and 85.9% (67/78) of samples from the slow-pull and 10 ml suction groups were adequate for histological diagnosis, respectively. The samples obtained using 10 ml suction contained more blood compared with those obtained via slow-pull and 5 ml suction (P=0.0056; χ2 test). No complications were noted in any of the three groups. The samples that were obtained for histopathological diagnosis using 5 ml suction were superior to those obtained using slow-pull or 10 ml suction. Additional multi-central prospective studies in which EUS-FNA is performed with variable negative pressures are required to improve the defining of the diagnostic roles of those techniques.

Low diagnostic yield of transduodenal endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy using the 19-gauge Flex needle: A large multicenter prospective study

Background and Objectives:

Previous limited experiences have reported the 19-gauge flexible needle to be highly effective in performing endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for transduodenal lesions. We designed a large multicenter prospective study with the aim at evaluating the performance of this newly developed needle.

Patients and Methods:

Consecutive patients with solid lesions who needed to undergo EUS sampling from the duodenum were enrolled in 6 tertiary care referral centers. Puncture of the lesion was performed with the 19-gauge flexible needle (Expect™ and Slimline Expect™ 19 Flex). The feasibility, procurement yield, and diagnostic accuracy were evaluated.

Results:

Totally, 246 patients (144 males, mean age 65.1 ± 12.7 years) with solid lesions (203 cases) or enlarged lymph nodes (43 cases) were enrolled, with a mean size of 32.6 ± 12.2 mm. The procedure was technically feasible in 228 patients, with an overall procurement yield of 76.8%. Two centers had suboptimal procurement yields (66.7% and 64.2%). Major complications occurred in six cases: two of bleeding, two of mild acute pancreatitis, one perforation requiring surgery, and one duodenal hematoma. Considering malignant versus nonmalignant disease, the sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic accuracy were 70.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 64.3–76.6), 100% (95% CI: 79.6–100), 35.3 (95% CI: 2.3–549.8)/0.3 (95% CI: 0.2–0.4), and 73.6% (95% CI: 67.6–79). On multivariate analysis, the only determinant of successful EUS-FNB was the center in which the procedure was performed.

Conclusions:

Our results suggest that the use of the 19-gauge flexible needle cannot be widely advocated and its implementation should receive local validation after careful evaluation of both the technical success rates and diagnostic yield.

Endoscopic ultrasound with tissue sampling is accurate in the diagnosis and subclassification of gastrointestinal spindle cell neoplasms

Background and Objectives:

Mesenchymal (spindle cell) neoplasms (SCN) of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract are an important subtype of subepithelial lesions that need subclassification to assess their malignant potential. Reported success rates of accurate subclassification with endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biopsies are variable. Our goal was to analyze our experience using EUS-guided TruCut biopsy (EUS-TCB) in the majority of patients.

Methods:

Retrospective analysis in patients who underwent EUS with biopsies for suspected SCN at our tertiary referral center between 2004 and 2013.

Results:

A total of 146 patients with suspected SCN underwent EUS with tissue acquisition. Thirteen patients were excluded from analysis because tissue acquisition established a definite diagnosis other than SCN. In the remaining 133 patients, tissue acquisition was diagnostic of SCN in 118 (88.7%) and nondiagnostic in 15 (11.3%). Subclassification based on immunohistochemistry (IHC) was possible in 109 of the 133 cases (81.9%). The final diagnosis was GI stromal tumor in 64, leiomyoma in 39, and schwannoma in 6 cases. The percentage of patients who were subclassified by the various EUS-guided techniques together was 72.18%, and the percentage of patients who were subclassified specifically with EUS-TCB was 61.65%. Tissue specimens that enabled a specific diagnosis based on histological or cytological characteristics in conjunctions with IHC were obtained with EUS core biopsy in 83 (TCB in 82 and ProCore needle biopsy in 1), fine-needle aspiration in 13, mucosal resection in 10, and forceps biopsies (bite-on-bite) in 3 cases.

Conclusion:

EUS with endoscopic tissue acquisition is accurate in the diagnosis and subclassification of SCN. In experienced hands, the EUS-TruCut needle is a valuable tool with a high success rate for this indication.

EUS-guided fine needle biopsy sampling using a novel fork-tip needle: a case-control study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (FNB) sampling and FNA are important methods for obtaining core tissues and cytologic aspirates. To improve the specimen quality for pathologic evaluation, a novel EUS-FNB Shark Core (SC) needle has been designed to acquire core tissue during EUS procedures. We compared the histology yield of EUS-FNB sampling using the SC needle (EUS-FNB-SC) to EUS-FNA in patients who had solid pancreatic and nonpancreatic lesions.

METHODS

This was a retrospective case-control study design. Between July 2012 and July 2015 all patients who had EUS-FNB-SC and EUS-FNA were reviewed through a hospital EUS database. Consecutive samples from EUS-FNB-SCs were matched in a 1:3 ratio by lesion site (eg, pancreatic head) and needle gauge (ie, 19 gauge, 22 gauge, 25 gauge) to recent random samples of EUS-FNA. The procedures were performed with rapid onsite evaluation. For study purposes specimen slides were evaluated by 2 cytopathologists for histologic yield using a standard scoring system (0 = no material, 1-2 = cytologic, 3-5 = histologic). The main objectives were to assess the histologic yield of the samples and compare the median number of passes required to obtain core tissue by using EUS-FNB-SC and EUS-FNA needles.

RESULTS

Of the 156 patients included in study, 25% patients (n = 39) were in the EUS-FNB-SC group and 75% (n = 117) in the EUS-FNA group. According to standard scoring criteria for histology, the median histology score for EUS-FNA was 2 (sufficient for cytology but not histology) and for EUS-FNB-SC was 4 (sufficient for adequate histology). Ninety-five percent of the specimens obtained from the EUS-FNB-SC group were of sufficient size for histologic screening, compared with 59% from the EUS-FNA group (P = .01). The median number of passes required to achieve a sample was significantly lower in the EUS-FNB-SC group compared with the EUS-FNA group (2 passes vs 4 passes, P = .001). There was significant difference in the median number of passes to all lesion sites and needle gauges.

CONCLUSIONS

The histology yield was significantly higher using the EUS-FNB-SC needle compared with the EUS-FNA needle. Additionally, fewer passes were required to obtain histology cores when using EUS-FNB-SC.

Impact of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling with a new core needle on the need for onsite cytopathologic assessment: a preliminary study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

FNA is the primary method of EUS tissue acquisition. In an attempt to improve our yield of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, we compared fine-needle biopsy (FNB) sampling without rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE) with FNA with ROSE and assessed the concordance of FNA and FNB sampling.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data from consecutive patients. Patients underwent FNB sampling and FNA of the same single lesion, with the same needle gauge and number of passes. FNA with ROSE was performed with a standard FNA needle. FNB sampling was performed with a new dedicated core needle. FNA samples were assessed with ROSE, and a final interpretation was provided by cytopathology staff; FNB samples were analyzed by surgical pathologists, each not made aware of the other's opinion.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients underwent 312 passes in 42 different lesions. A diagnosis of malignancy was more likely with FNB sampling than with FNA (72.7% vs 66.7%, P = .727), although statistical significance was not reached. FNA and FNB sampling had similar sensitivities, specificities, and accuracies for cancer (81.5% vs 88.9%, 100% vs 100%, and 84.8% vs 90.9%, respectively). FNB sampling provided qualitative information not reported on FNA, such as degree of differentiation in malignancy, metastatic origin, and rate of proliferation in neuroendocrine tumors.

CONCLUSIONS

FNB sampling without ROSE using a dedicated core needle performed as well as FNA with ROSE in this small cohort, suggesting that FNB sampling with this new core needle may eliminate the need for an onsite cytopathologic assessment, without loss of diagnostic accuracy.

Randomized trial comparing a side-port needle and standard needle for EUS-guided histology of pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

A side-port needle has been developed to improve diagnostic accuracy by obtaining more cellular material during EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA). We compared the accuracy rate of histology and the quality of histologic specimens from 22-gauge (G) side-port and standard needles for EUS-FNA of a solid pancreatic mass in a multicenter, prospective, randomized control trial.

METHODS

Between January 2013 and September 2013, 160 consecutive patients with a suspected solid pancreatic mass at 5 tertiary referral centers were enrolled. Patients were randomized to the 22G side-port needle or 22G standard needle group. The primary endpoint was the diagnostic accuracy of histology. Secondary endpoints were the quality of the histologic specimen (quantity of tissue, degree of GI contamination, and amount of blood).

RESULTS

An analysis of 154 patients (side-port, 76, vs standard, 78) was performed. Six patients were excluded because of no pancreatic mass on EUS. There was no significant difference in the rate of diagnostic accuracy of histology (side-port, 87% [66/76], vs standard, 82% [64/78]; P = .51). Samples that enabled histologic interpretation were obtained in 64% (47/73) and 43% (33/77) of patients from the side-port and standard groups, respectively (P = .009). No significant difference was seen in the degree of GI contamination and amount of blood between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in the accuracy rate of histology between needle types. The side-port needle was superior to the standard needle in terms of obtaining samples that enabled histologic interpretation.

Initial experience with a novel EUS-guided core biopsy needle (SharkCore): results of a large North American multicenter study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The ability to safely and effectively obtain sufficient tissue for pathologic evaluation by using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guidance remains a challenge. Novel designs in EUS needles may provide for improved ability to obtain such core biopsies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of core biopsy specimens obtained using a novel EUS needle specifically designed to obtain core biopsies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Multicenter retrospective review of all EUS-guided fine-needle biopsies obtained using a novel biopsy needle (SharkCore FNB needle, Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland). Data regarding patient demographics, lesion type/location, technical parameters, and diagnostic yield was obtained.

RESULTS

A total of 250 lesions were biopsied in 226 patients (Median age 66 years; 113 (50 %) male). Median size of all lesions (mm): 26 (2 - 150). Overall, a cytologic diagnosis was rendered in 81 % specimens with a median number of 3 passes. When rapid onsite cytologic evaluation (ROSE) was used, cytologic diagnostic yield was 126/149 (85 %) with a median number of 3 passes; without ROSE, cytologic diagnostic yield was 31/45 (69 %, P = 0.03) with a median number of 3 passes. Overall, a pathologic diagnosis was rendered in 130/147 (88 %) specimens with a median number of 2 passes. Pathologic diagnostic yield for specific lesion types: pancreas 70/81 (86 %), subepithelial lesion 13/15 (87 %), lymph node 26/28 (93 %). Ten patients (10/226, 4 %) experienced adverse events: 4 acute pancreatitis, 5 pain, 1 fever/cholangitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial experience with a novel EUS core biopsy needle demonstrates excellent pathologic diagnostic yield with a minimum number of passes.

A randomized controlled cross-over trial and cost analysis comparing endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration and fine needle biopsy

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Techniques to optimize endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) in a variety of lesion types have not yet been established. The primary aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic yield (DY) of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) to endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for pancreatic and non-pancreatic masses.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients referred for EUS-TA underwent randomization to EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB at four tertiary-care medical centers. A maximum of three passes were allowed for the initial method of EUS-TA and patients were crossed over to the other arm based on on-site specimen adequacy.

RESULTS

A total of 140 patients were enrolled. The overall DY was significantly higher with specimens obtained by EUS-FNB compared to EUS-FNA (90.0 % vs. 67.1 %, P = 0.002). While there was no difference in the DY between the two groups for pancreatic masses (FNB: 91.7 % vs. FNA: 78.4 %, P = 0.19), the DY of EUS-FNB was higher than the EUS-FNA for non-pancreatic lesions (88.2 % vs. 54.5 %, P = 0.006). Specimen adequacy was higher for EUS-FNB compared to EUS-FNA for all lesions (P = 0.006). There was a significant rescue effect of crossover from failed FNA to FNB in 27 out of 28 cases (96.5 %, P = 0.0003). Decision analysis showed that the strategy of EUS-FNB was cost saving compared to EUS-FNA over a wide range of cost and outcome probabilities.

CONCLUSIONS

RESULTS of this RCT and decision analysis demonstrate superior DY and specimen adequacy for solid mass lesions sampled by EUS-FNB.

Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Biopsy for Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Pelvic Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Preoperative diagnosis of pelvic lesions remains challenging despite advances in imaging technologies. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided biopsy is an effective diagnostic modality for sampling the digestive tract and surrounding areas. However, a meta-analysis summarizing the diagnostic efficacy of EUS-guided biopsy for pelvic lesions has not been published.

AIMS

We aimed to evaluate the utility of EUS-guided biopsy in the diagnosis of pelvic lesions.

METHODS

Articles were identified via structured database search; only studies where pelvic lesions were confirmed by surgery or clinical follow-up were included. Data extracted were selected with strict criteria. A fixed-effects model was used to estimate the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). A summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) was also constructed.

RESULTS

Ten studies containing a total of 246 patients were included. The pooled sensitivity of EUS-guided biopsy for differential diagnosis of pelvic masses was 0.89 (95% CI 0.83-0.94), and the specificity was 0.93 (95% CI 0.86-0.97). The area under the SROC was 0.9631. The combined PLR, NLR, and DOR were 11.75 (95% CI 5.90-23.43), 0.12 (95% CI 0.07-0.20), and 100.06 (95% CI 37.48-267.10) respectively. There is potential presence of publication bias in this meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis shows that EUS-guided biopsy is a powerful tool for differentiating pelvic masses with a high sensitivity and specificity. Furthermore, it is a safe procedure with low rate of complication, although more high-quality prospective studies are required to be done.

Effect of a stylet on a histological specimen in EUS-guided fine-needle tissue acquisition by using 22-gauge needles: a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) has become the most efficacious way to obtain specimens from a solid lesion adjacent to the GI tract. Previous reports regarding the use of a stylet during EUS-FNA were all based on cytological diagnosis and have showed no significant superiority in terms of diagnostic yield.

OBJECTIVE

To clarify the noninferiority of EUS-FNA without a stylet (S-) compared with EUS-FNA with a stylet (S+) on histological assessment.

DESIGN

A prospective, single-blind, randomized, controlled crossover study.

SETTING

Five tertiary referral centers in Japan.

PATIENTS

Patients referred for EUS-FNA of a solid lesion.

INTERVENTION

EUS-FNA S+ and S- in a total of 4 alternate passes with randomization to S+ first or S- first.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The primary endpoint was the acquisition rate of an appropriate and sufficient specimen for histological assessment. The secondary endpoints were cellularity, contamination, bloodiness, diagnostic ability, and diagnostic accuracy.

RESULTS

We enrolled 107 patients (110 lesions) and analyzed 220 specimens each in the S+ and S- groups. The acquisition rate of appropriate and sufficient specimens in the S+ group was 121 of 220 (55.0%) and 122 of 220 (55.5%) in the S- group. The difference in the acquisition rate of the specimen (S- minus S+) based on the generalized estimating equation was 0.42% (95% confidence interval, -6.72% to 7.56%), which was less than 10% of the prespecified noninferiority margin of this study. With regard to cellularity, contamination, bloodiness score, diagnostic ability, and diagnostic accuracy, there were no significant differences between both groups. There were no dropouts in the study.

LIMITATIONS

A variety of target lesions, multiple pathologists, lack of an assessment of intraobserver and interobserver variability, and a single-blind study for the pathologists.

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNA S- is noninferior to EUS-FNA S+ on histological assessment. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000008695.).