Radiology-guided percutaneous approach is superior to EUS for performing liver biopsies

Endohepatology: Arrival at the frontier of interventional endosonography

Endohepatology describes the emerging field where diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) are used for the diagnosis and management of liver disease and its sequelae. In this editorial we comment on the article by Gadour et al. The spectrum of EUS-guided procedures includes liver parenchymal and lesional biopsy, abscess drainage, treatment of focal liver lesions, diagnosis of portal hypertension and management of gastric varices. The data suggest that the application of EUS to hepatology is technically feasible and safe, heralding the arrival at a new frontier for EUS. More data, specifically randomised trials comparing EUS to interventional radiology techniques, and continued partnership between endoscopy and hepatology are required to see this field establish itself outside expert tertiary centres.

Endoscopic procedures in hepatology: Current trends and new developments

Gastrointestinal endoscopy has long been a reliable backbone in the diagnosis and management of hepatobilary disorders and their complications. However, with evolving non-invasive testing, personalised medicine has reframed the utility and necessity of endoscopic screening. Conversely, the growing interest and use of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and advanced endoscopy within gastrointestinal units has also opened novel diagnostic and therapeutic avenues for patients with various hepatobiliary diseases. The integration of "advanced endoscopy" within the practice of hepatology is nowadays referred to as "endo-hepatology". In essence, endo-hepatology consists of two pillars: one focusing primarily on disorders of the liver parenchyma, vascular disorders, and portal hypertension, which is mainly captured via EUS, while the other targets the hepatobiliary tract via endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and advanced imaging. Applications under the umbrella of endo-hepatology include, amongst others, EUS-guided liver biopsy, EUS-guided portal pressure gradient measurement, coil and glue embolisation of gastric varices as well as cholangioscopy. As such endo-hepatology could become an attractive concept wherein advanced endoscopy might reinforce the medical management of patients with hepatobiliary disorders and their complications after initial basic work-up. In this review, we discuss current trends and future developments within endo-hepatology and the remaining hurdles to overcome.

Quality of Tissue Samples Obtained by Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Liver Biopsy: A Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

Liver biopsy (LB) remains essential for the diagnosis and staging of parenchymal liver diseases. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided LB (EUS-LB) has emerged as an attractive alternative to percutaneous and transjugular routes. We aimed at comparing the adequacy of samples obtained by EUS-LB with percutaneous LB.

METHODS

A single-center, randomized, controlled clinical trial was designed. Patients undergoing LB were randomly assigned to EUS-LB or percutaneous LB groups. EUS-LB was performed with a 19-gauge Franseen core needle through a transduodenal and transgastric route. Percutaneous LB was performed with a 16-gauge Tru-Cut needle. The main outcome was the percentage of adequate samples obtained. Secondary outcomes were the percentage of accurate histologic diagnosis, number of complete portal tracts (CPT), total and longest specimen length (TSL and LSL), sample fragmentation, adverse events, and patients' satisfaction. An adequate specimen was defined as TSL ≥20 mm and including ≥11 CPT.

RESULTS

Ninety patients were randomized (44 to EUS-LB and 46 to percutaneous LB) and included in the analysis. The percentage of adequate tissue samples was 32.6% and 70.4% for percutaneous LB and EUS-LB, respectively ( P < 0.001). A final histologic diagnosis was provided in all cases but one. TSL was longer after EUS-LB (23.5 vs 17.5 mm, P = 0.01), whereas the number of CPT was similar in both groups. Sample fragmentation occurred more often after EUS-LB ( P < 0.001). No differences in adverse events were found. Satisfaction reported with both procedures was high.

DISCUSSION

EUS-LB is safe and accurate and may be considered an alternative to percutaneous LB for the evaluation of parenchymal liver diseases.

EUS-guided versus percutaneous liver biopsy: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis of outcomes

EUS-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) has gained momentum in recent years, especially with availability of newer needle designs. Given the emerging comparative data on EUS-LB with second-generation needles and percutaneous LB (PC-LB), we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of the two techniques. We searched multiple databases from inception through November 2021 to identify studies comparing outcomes of EUS-LB and PC-LB. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random-effects model, and the results were expressed in terms of pooled proportions and odds ratio (OR) along with relevant 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Five studies with 748 patients were included in the final analysis. EUS-LB was performed in 276 patients and PC-LB in 472 patients. Across all studies, PC-LB had an overall higher diagnostic accuracy than EUS-LB, 98.6% confidence interval (CI: 94.7-99.7) versus 88.3% (49.6-98.3), OR: 1.65, P = 0.04. On assessing data from randomized controlled trials, there was no difference between the two. While pooled diagnostic adequacy and overall adverse events were not significantly different between PC-LB and EUS-LB, the former was superior in terms of the mean number of complete portal tracts (CPT) and total specimen length. PC-LB and EUS-LB produce similar results. PC-LB allows obtaining longer samples and more CPT. Further studies are needed to see if these trends hold up as more providers begin to perform EUS-LB.

Advances in Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-Guided Liver Biopsy

Recent years have seen the emergence of endoscopic-ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) as an effective alternative to traditional (percutaneous or transjugular) liver biopsy techniques. Comparative studies have demonstrated that both endoscopic and non-endoscopic approaches are similar in terms of diagnostic adequacy, accuracy, and adverse events; however, EUS-LB offers the advantage of reduced recovery time. Additionally, EUS-LB enables the sampling of both lobes of the liver as well as the advantage of portal pressure measurements. However, EUS-LB may be argued to have a high cost, although this procedure can be cost-effective if bundled with other endoscopic procedures. Approaches utilizing EUS-guided liver therapy, such as the administration of chemotherapeutic agents and EUS elastography, are in development, and their optimal integration into clinical care is likely to emerge in the coming years. In the present review, we evaluate the available literature on EUS-LB indications, contraindications, variations in needle biopsy techniques, comparative outcomes, advantages and disadvantages, and future trends and perspectives.

Endo-hepatology: The changing paradigm of endoscopic ultrasound in cirrhosis

Content available: Author Interview and Audio Recording.

GIE Editorial Board Top 10: advances in GI endoscopy in 2021

The 9-member Editorial Board of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy performed a systematic literature search of original articles published during 2021 in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and 10 other high-impact medical and gastroenterology journals on endoscopy-related topics. Votes from each editorial board member were tallied to identify a consensus list of the 10 most significant topic areas in GI endoscopy over the calendar year of study, with a focus on 3 criteria: significance, novelty, and global impact on clinical practice. The 10 areas identified collectively represent advances in the following endoscopic topics: colonoscopy optimization, bariatric endoscopy, endoscopic needle sampling and drainage, peroral endoscopic myotomy, endoscopic defect closure, meeting systemic challenges in endoscopic training and practice, endohepatology, FNA versus fine-needle biopsy sampling, endoscopic mucosal and submucosal procedures, and cold snare polypectomy. Each board member contributed a summary of important articles relevant to 1 to 2 of the consensus topic areas, leading to a collective summary that is presented in this document of the "top 10" endoscopic advances of 2021.

Diagnostic and interventional EUS in hepatology: An updated review

EUS has become an increasingly used diagnostic and therapeutic modality in the armamentarium of endoscopists. With ever-expanding indications, EUS is being used in patients with liver disease, for both diagnosis and therapy. EUS is playing an important role in providing additional important information to that provided by cross-sectional imaging modalities such as computerized tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Domains of therapy that were largely restricted to interventional radiologists have become accessible to endosonologists. From liver biopsy and sampling of liver lesions to ablative therapy for liver lesions and vascular interventions for varices, there is increased use of EUS in patients with liver disease. In this review, we discuss the various diagnostic and therapeutic applications of EUS in patients with various liver diseases.

Role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) is an evolving technique. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the value of EUS-LB for parenchymal and focal liver lesions. Besides, we aimed to assess the influences of needle-related factors on the performance of EUS-LB. Additionally, we aimed to assess the influence of various criteria on specimen adequacy.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library databases up to 10 October 2021. The primary outcome was diagnostic yield, specimen adequacy, qualified specimens evaluated by rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE). The secondary outcome was adverse events. Subgroup analyses were based on needle type, needle size, fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needle type. A sensitivity analysis was conducted on specimen adequacy based on two definition criteria.

RESULTS

In total, 33 studies were included. Pooled rates of diagnostic yield, specimen adequacy, qualified specimen by ROSE, adverse events were 95%, 84%, 93%, 3%. Subgroup analyses showed that Acquire needles generated higher diagnostic yield than SharkCore needles (99% vs. 88%, p = .047). Additionally, FNB needles demonstrated a higher rate of adverse events than FNA needles (6% vs. 1%, p = .028). Sensitivity analysis on specimen adequacy based on various criteria demonstrated that the specimen adequacy rate defined by the AASLD criterion was lower than that of the commonly-used criterion (37% vs. 84%, p = .001).

CONCLUSION

EUS-LB is effective and safe for liver biopsy. Acquire needles provide better specimens than SharkCore needles. FNB needles may increase the risk of adverse events compared with FNA needles. The AASLD criterion is harder to achieve than the commonly-used criterion.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided interventions in the management of pancreatic cancer

There has been a growing interest in developing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided interventions for pancreatic cancer, some of which have become standard of care. There are two main factors that drive these advancements to facilitate treatment of patients with pancreatic cancer, ranging from direct locoregional therapy to palliation of symptoms related to inoperable pancreatic cancer. Firstly, an upper EUS has the capability to access the entire pancreas–lesions in the pancreatic head and uncinate process can be accessed from the duodenum, and lesions in the pancreatic body and tail can be accessed from the stomach. Secondly, there has been a robust development of devices that allow through-the-needle interventions, such as placement of fiducial markers, brachytherapy, intratumoral injection, gastroenterostomy creation, and ablation. While these techniques are rapidly emerging, data from a multicenter randomized controlled trial for some procedures are awaited prior to their adoption in clinical settings.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Liver Biopsy

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) has emerged as a safe and effective alternative to percutaneous and trans-jugular approaches for hepatic tissue acquisition. It has shown superior diagnostic yield for the targeted approach of focal lesions, less sampling variability, improved patient comfort, and safety profile. These advantages have contributed to the increased use of EUS-LB as a technique for obtaining liver tissue. In this review, we provide an update on the recent evidence of EUS-LB for the evaluation of liver disease.

Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy in comparison to percutaneous liver biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

It is still unclear whether endoscopic ultrasound liver biopsy (EUS-LB) determines superior results in comparison to percutaneous liver biopsy (PC-LB). Aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the diagnostic outcomes of these two techniques.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Literature search was conducted through June 2021 and identified 7 studies. The primary outcome was total length of specimen. Results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference along with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Pooled total length of specimen was 29.9 mm (95% CI 24.1-35.7) in the EUS-LB group and 29.7 mm (95% CI 27.1-32.2) in the PC-LB group, with no difference between the two approaches (mean difference -0.35 mm, 95% CI -5.31 to 4.61; p = 0.89), although sensitivity analysis restricted to higher quality studies found a superior performance of PC-LB over EUS-LB. Pooled number of complete portal tracts was 12.9 (7.7-18) in the EUS-LB and 14.4 (10.7-18) in the PC-LB group, with no difference in direct comparison (mean difference -1.58, -5.98 to 2.81; p = 0.48). No difference between the two groups was observed in terms of severe adverse event rate (OR 1.11, 0.11-11.03; p = 0.93).

CONCLUSION

EUS-LB and PC-LB are comparable in terms of diagnostic performance and safety profile.

Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Liver Disease: Where Do We Stand?

As the burden of liver disease in the general populace steadily increases, so does the need for both advanced diagnostic and treatment options. Endoscopic ultrasound is a reliable diagnostic and therapeutic method that has an established role, foremost in pancreatobiliary pathology. This paper aims to summarize the growing role of endoscopic ultrasound in hepatology based on the search of the current literature. A number of applications of endoscopic ultrasound are reviewed, including both noninvasive methods and tissue acquisition in focal and diffuse liver disease, portal hypertension measurement, detection and management of gastric and esophageal varices, treatment of focal liver lesions and staging of pancreatobiliary malignancies, treatment of cystic and solid liver lesions, as well as liver abscess drainage. Both hepatologists and endoscopists should be aware of the evolving role of endoscopic ultrasound in liver disease. The inherent invasive nature of endoscopic examination limits its use to a targeted population identified using noninvasive methods. Endoscopic ultrasound is one the most versatile methods in gastroenterology, allowing immediate access with detection, sampling, and treatment of digestive tract pathology. Further expansion of its use in hepatology is immanent.

Editors' Choice of Noteworthy Clinical Endoscopy Publications in the First Decade

This is a special review to celebrate the 10^th anniversary of Clinical Endoscopy. Each deputy editor has selected articles from one’s subspecialty that are significant in terms of the number of downloads, citations, and clinical importance. The articles included original articles, review articles, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

EUS-Guided versus Percutaneous Image-Guided Liver Biopsy: A Battle for Supremacy!

Liver biopsy has been the gold standard investigation for diagnosing and staging liver diseases. Image-guided percutaneous liver biopsy is a time-tested technique for obtaining the liver tissue in diffuse liver diseases. However, it is contraindicated in patients with ascites, altered mental status, skin infections, coagulopathy, and thrombocytopenia. It is associated with adverse events including postprocedure pain, bleeding, and pneumothorax. Transvenous liver biopsy can be performed in most cases with these contraindications, but it is an expensive technique and has its own inherent risks. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) is a relatively new technique that has shown promising results and seems to have a potential of replacing percutaneous liver biopsy. In this news and views, we discuss the results of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing EUS-guided and percutaneous techniques of liver biopsy. This RCT reported that percutaneous technique is superior in terms of diagnostic adequacy and total expenditure without any significant adverse effects compared with EUS-LB. EUS-LB is a promising technique that needs to be further explored in terms of appropriate situations in which it can be preferred over percutaneous or transvenous routes.

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

Simple Summary

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

Abstract

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