Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic lesions with 22 versus 25 Gauge needles: A meta-analysis

Updated techniques and evidence for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition from solid pancreatic lesions

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA), including fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB), has revolutionized specimen collection from intra-abdominal organs, especially the pancreas. Advances in personalized medicine and more precise treatment have increased demands to collect specimens with higher cell counts, while preserving tissue structure, leading to the development of EUS-FNB needles. EUS-FNB has generally replaced EUS-FNA as the procedure of choice for EUS-TA of pancreatic cancer. Various techniques have been tested for their ability to enhance the diagnostic performance of EUS-TA, including multiple methods of sampling at the time of puncture, on-site specimen evaluation, and specimen processing. In addition, advances in next-generation sequencing have made comprehensive genomic profiling of EUS-TA samples feasible in routine clinical practice. The present review describes updates in EUS-TA sampling techniques of pancreatic lesions, as well as methods for their evaluation.

Endoscopic Ultrasound armamentarium for precise and early diagnosis of biliopancreatic lesions

The diagnostic paradigm for biliopancreatic lesions has been revolutionized by continuous advancements in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) technologies and techniques. This review examines the expanding diagnostic toolkit available to clinicians, emphasizing innovations that have significantly enhanced precision and early detection capabilities. One of the most transformative advancements is the development of fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles. Modern designs, including Franseen, and fork-tip configurations, have optimized tissue sampling, achieving diagnostic accuracies exceeding 90 % while minimizing the number of needle passes required. These innovations facilitate the acquisition of high-quality histological specimens suitable for comprehensive molecular profiling, paving the way for personalized therapeutic approaches. Concurrent advancements in sampling techniques have bolstered these needle design improvements. The fanning technique has been particularly effective, increasing diagnostic yields from 71 % to 88 %. Wet suction methods preserve tissue integrity better than traditional approaches, while standardized protocols for needle passes enhance procedural efficiency. For specimen evaluation, Rapid On-Site Evaluation (ROSE) offers 93 % sensitivity, while alternatives like Macroscopic On-Site Evaluation (MOSE) provide comparable accuracy while reducing dependency on specialized personnel and resources. Image enhancement technologies have markedly improved the ability to characterize lesions. Contrast Harmonic EUS (CH-EUS) is particularly effective in differentiating pancreatic cancer from other solid lesions, with meta-analyses confirming sensitivity and specificity of 94 % and 89 %, respectively. Its ability to detect lesions as small as 15 mm makes it invaluable for early diagnosis. In cystic lesions, CH-EUS excels in identifying malignant mural nodules, with diagnostic accuracies reaching 96 %. The integration of elastography and advanced digital imaging technologies has further expanded diagnostic capabilities. Strain elastography provides qualitative insights into tissue characteristics, while shear wave elastography offers quantitative measurements of stiffness, adding diagnostic precision. Similarly, technologies like detective flow imaging match the accuracy of contrast-enhanced techniques in pancreatic cancer detection and enhance vascular assessment. For cystic lesions, diagnostics have progressed beyond traditional fluid analysis. Techniques such as through-the-needle biopsy (TTNB) have improved diagnostic yields to 74 %, albeit with a modest risk of complications. Incorporating molecular markers and next-generation sequencing allows differentiation between cystic lesion subtypes and more accurate assessment of malignant potential. This array of diagnostic tools offers unprecedented potential for early and precise diagnosis of biliopancreatic lesions. Integrating these innovations into clinical practice requires careful consideration of their strengths and limitations. Future research should aim to standardize protocols and establish evidence-based algorithms for their combined use, with the ultimate goal of improving patient outcomes through earlier detection and tailored management of biliopancreatic pathologies.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) elastography-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) versus conventional EUS FNAC for solid pancreatic lesions: A pilot randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS FNA) is the first-line modality to diagnose suspected solid pancreatic malignant lesions. Elastography-guided FNA has been shown to improve the diagnostic yield of EUS FNA but prospective studies are limited. The aim of the study was to compare diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of conventional and elastography-guided EUS FNA in patients with suspected malignant pancreatic solid masses.

METHODS

Patients with suspected malignant solid pancreatic lesions presenting to our institute from July 2021 to January 2023 were recruited and randomized to conventional and elastography-guided EUS FNA using a 22-G EUS FNA needle. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values were calculated.

RESULTS

Total 48 patients were initially screened for inclusion in the study, of which six were excluded and 42 patients underwent randomization. Finally, 20 patients in each group underwent the assigned intervention and were analyzed further. Baseline patient characteristics were similar in conventional FNA and elastography-guided FNA group with median age 52 (range 29-74) years and 51.8 (range 31-72) years, respectively, males being 70% and 75%, respectively. Median size of the lesion was 34 mm (range 14-48 mm) and 37 (range 18 to 50 mm), respectively, for both conventional and elastography arm. The average size of the lesion was 35.7 mm. Overall, the diagnosis of adenocarcinoma was made in 65% of cases. In the remaining cases, diagnoses were inflammatory mass, Castleman's disease, solid pseudopapillary epithelial neoplasm (SPEN), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), pancreatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) and metastasis. Conventional EUS FNA had diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values of 90%, 87.5%, 100%, 100% and 62.92%, respectively, and elastography-guided EUS FNA had diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values of 85%, 100%, 100% and 54.59%, respectively. No severe adverse events were noted.

CONCLUSION

There is no significant difference between conventional and elastography-guided EUS FNA in terms of diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values. Both techniques appear safe and effective for characterizing solid pancreatic masses and elastography did not score numerically over the conventional arm.

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

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

Basic Principles and Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Diagnosis and Differentiation of Pancreatic Cancer from Other Pancreatic Lesions: A Comprehensive Review of Endoscopic Ultrasound for Pancreatic Cancer

Pancreatic cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Pancreatic lesions consist of both neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions and often pose a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge due to similar clinical and radiological features. In recent years, pancreatic lesions have been discovered more frequently as incidental findings due to the increased utilization and widespread availability of abdominal cross-sectional imaging. Therefore, it becomes imperative to establish an early and appropriate diagnosis with meticulous differentiation in an attempt to balance unnecessary treatment of benign pancreatic lesions and missing the opportunity for early intervention in malignant lesions. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become an important diagnostic modality for the identification and risk stratification of pancreatic lesions due to its ability to provide detailed imaging and acquisition of tissue samples for analysis with the help of fine-needle aspiration/biopsy. The recent development of EUS-based technology, including contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound, real-time elastography-endoscopic ultrasound, miniature probe ultrasound, confocal laser endomicroscopy, and the application of artificial intelligence has significantly augmented the diagnostic accuracy of EUS as it enables better evaluation of the number, location, dimension, wall thickness, and contents of these lesions. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the role of the different types of EUS available for the diagnosis and differentiation of pancreatic cancer from other pancreatic lesions while discussing their key strengths and important limitations.

Methods to increase the diagnostic efficiency of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for solid pancreatic lesions: An updated review

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a means to procure adequate specimens for histological and cytologic analysis. The ideal EUS-FNA should be safe, accurate, and have a high sample adequacy rate and low adverse events rate. In recent years, many guidelines and trials on EUS-FNA have been published. The purpose of this article is to provide an update on the influence of some of the main factors on the diagnostic efficiency of EUS-FNA as well as a rare but serious complication known as needle tract seeding.

Clinical value of endoscopic ultrasound sound speed in differential diagnosis of pancreatic solid lesion and prognosis of pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Differential diagnosis of pancreatic solid lesion (PSL) and prognosis of pancreatic cancer (PC) is a clinical challenge. We aimed to explore the differential diagnostic value of sound speed (SS) obtained from endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in PSL and the prognostic value of SS in PC.

METHODS

Patients with PSL in The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University from March 2019 to October 2019 were prospectively enrolled, who obtained SS from PSL. Patients were divided into the PC group and the pancreatic benign lesion (PBL) group. SS1 is the SS of lesions and SS2 is the SS of normal tissues adjacent to lesions. Ratio1 is equal to SS1 divided by SS2 of PSL (ratio1 = SS1/SS2).

RESULTS

Eighty patients were enrolled (24 PBL patients, 56 PC patients). SS1 and ratio1 in PC group were higher compared with PBL group (SS1:1568.00 vs. 1550.00, Z = -2.066, p = 0.039; ratio1: 1.0110 vs. 1.0051, Z = -3.391, p = 0.001). The SS1 in PC (Z = -6.503, p < 0.001) was higher compared to SS2. In the nonsurgical group of PC, low ratio1 predicted high overall survival (OS) (7.000 months vs. 4.000 months; p = 0.039). In the surgical group of PC, low SS1 was associated with low median OS (4.000 months vs. 12.000 months; p = 0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

SS plays a vital role in distinguishing between PBL and PC. Higher SS1 and ratio1 obtained by EUS are more related to PC than PBL. In PC patients, high SS1 may predict pancreatic lesions. In the nonsurgical group of PC, low ratio1 may predict high OS. However, in the surgical group of PC, low SS1 may predict low OS.

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

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

A nomogram based on CT texture features to predict the response of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer treated with chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the predictive value of computed tomography (CT) texture features in the treatment response of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (APC) receiving palliative chemotherapy.

METHODS

This study enrolled 84 patients with APC treated with first-line chemotherapy and conducted texture analysis on primary pancreatic tumors. 59 patients and 25 were randomly assigned to the training and validation cohorts at a ratio of 7:3. The treatment response to chemotherapy was evaluated according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST1.1). The patients were divided into progressive and non-progressive groups. The least absolute shrinkage selection operator (LASSO) was applied for feature selection in the training cohort and a radiomics signature (RS) was calculated. A nomogram was developed based on a multivariate logistic regression model incorporating the RS and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), and was internally validated using the C-index and calibration plot. We performed the decision curve analysis (DCA) and clinical impact curve analysis to reflect the clinical utility of the nomogram. The nomogram was further externally confirmed in the validation cohort.

RESULTS

The multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that the RS and CA19-9 were independent predictors (P < 0.05), and a trend was found for chemotherapy between progressive and non-progressive groups. The nomogram incorporating RS, CA19-9 and chemotherapy showed favorable discriminative ability in the training (C-index = 0.802) and validation (C-index = 0.920) cohorts. The nomogram demonstrated favorable clinical utility.

CONCLUSION

The RS of significant texture features was significantly associated with the early treatment effect of patients with APC treated with chemotherapy. Based on the RS, CA19-9 and chemotherapy, the nomogram provided a promising way to predict chemotherapeutic effects for APC patients.

Clinical features and images of malignant lymphoma localized in the pancreatic head to differentiate from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a case series study

BACKGROUND

Pathological examination by endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has been reported to be useful in diagnosing pancreatic malignant lymphoma (ML), but some ML cases are difficult to be differentiated from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODS

This retrospective study included 8 patients diagnosed with ML that had a pancreatic-head lesion at initial diagnosis and 46 patients with resected PDAC in the pancreatic head between April 2006 and October 2021 at our institute. ML and PDAC were compared in terms of patients' clinical features and imaging examinations.

RESULTS

The median tumor size was larger in ML than in PDAC (45.8 [24-64] vs. 23.9 [8-44] mm), but the median diameter of the caudal main pancreatic duct (MPD) was larger in PDAC (2.5 [1.0-3.5] vs. 7.1 [2.5-11.8] mm), both showing significant differences between these malignancies (both, P < 0.001). In the analysis of covariance, MLs showed a smaller caudal MPD per tumor size than PDACs, with a statistical difference (P = 0.042). Sensitivity and specificity using sIL-2R ≥ 658 U/mL plus CA19-9 < 37 U/mL for the differentiation of ML from PDAC were 80.0% and 95.6%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnosing pancreatic ML using cytohistological examination through EUS-FNA can be difficult in some cases. Thus, ML should be suspected if a patient with a pancreatic tumor has a small MPD diameter per tumor size, high serum sIL-2R level, normal CA19-9 level. If the abovementioned features are present and still cannot be confirmed as PDAC, re-examination should be considered.

Pancreatic Juice Cytology Evaluations Using Synthetic Secretin and Serial Pancreatic Juice Aspiration Cytological Examination for the Diagnosis of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

Pathological examination by endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle aspiration is not possible in approximately 10% of pancreatic tumor cases. Pancreatic juice cytology (PJC) is considered an alternative diagnostic method. However, its diagnostic capability is insufficient, and PJC has been repeatedly redevised. Serial pancreatic juice aspiration cytological examination (SPACE) and secretin-loaded PJC (S-PJC) have been recently introduced as alternative diagnostic methods. This study aimed to determine the diagnostic capacity and safety of SPACE and S-PJC using a propensity score-matched analysis. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 75.0%, 100%, and 92.3% for S-PJC, respectively, and 71.4%, 100%, and 92.3% for SPACE, respectively, meaning that there was no significant difference between the groups. Four patients (15.4%) each in the S-PJC and SPACE groups experienced complications, including postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, pancreatitis, and cholangitis. Overall, there was no difference in efficacy and safety between the SPACE and S-PJC groups.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Endoscopic ultrasonography‐guided tissue acquisition for small solid pancreatic lesions: Does the size matter?

Endoscopic ultrasonography‐guided tissue acquisition (EUS‐TA) is now an established technique to obtain the pathological diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs), but the diagnosis of small SPLS by EUS‐TA can still be difficult. We conducted a literature review and a meta‐analysis on the diagnostic yield of EUS‐TA according to the tumor size. In a meta‐analysis of 33 studies with 6883 cases, a pooled odds ratio (OR) of sensitivity was significantly higher in SPLs of >20 mm (OR 1.64, p = 0.02) and in SPLs of >10 mm (OR 3.05, p = 0.01), but not in SPLs of >30 mm (OR 1.18, p = 0.46). The meta‐analysis of accuracy also showed a similar trend: OR of 1.59 in SPLs of >20 mm (p < 0.01) and OR of 3.27 in SPLs of >10 mm (p < 0.01) and OR of 1.03 in SPLs of >30 mm (p = 0.87). The use of a 25‐gauge needle tended to improve sensitivity in small SPLs, though not statistically significant: OR of 1.25 and 2.82 in studies with and without a 25‐gauge needle (p = 0.08). The use of fine needle biopsy needles, slow pull method, and rapid on‐site evaluation did not significantly improve sensitivity in small SPLs. EUS‐TA for small SPLs, especially neuroendocrine neoplasms, is reported to have a high risk of adverse events. In summary, the diagnostic yield and safety of EUS‐TA for small (<20 mm) SPLs still needs improvement, and the best needle and technique for small SPLs should be further investigated.

The Role of Endoscopic Ultrasonography in the Diagnosis and Staging of Pancreatic Cancer

Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death and the second gastrointestinal cancer-related death in the United States. Early detection and accurate diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer are paramount in guiding treatment plans, as surgical resection can provide the only potential cure for this disease. The overall prognosis of pancreatic cancer is poor even in patients with resectable disease. The 5-year survival after surgical resection is ~10% in node-positive disease compared to ~30% in node-negative disease. The advancement of imaging studies and the multidisciplinary approach involving radiologists, gastroenterologists, advanced endoscopists, medical, radiation, and surgical oncologists have a major impact on the management of pancreatic cancer. Endoscopic ultrasonography is essential in the diagnosis by obtaining tissue (FNA or FNB) and in the loco-regional staging of the disease. The advancement in EUS techniques has made this modality a critical adjunct in the management process of pancreatic cancer. In this review article, we provide an overall description of the role of endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer.

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.

Through-the-needle biopsy of pancreatic cystic lesions: current evidence and implications for clinical practice

INTRODUCTION

There is increasing evidence to support the efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided through-the-needle biopsy (TTNB) technique as a means of sampling pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs). Results provide evidence demonstrating the benefits of this procedure over standard EUS fine-needle aspiration (FNA), thus supporting a push for its widespread implementation in clinical practice. Though this technique has demonstrated advantages, achieving these advantages in clinical practice is contingent upon careful considerations to ensure safety and efficacy.

AREAS COVERED

The purpose of this review is to assess the level of evidence supporting the use of through-the-needle biopsy, revise its main technical and procedural characteristics, and to develop suggested guidelines outlining the safe assimilation of this device in clinical practice.

EXPERT OPINION

EUS-TTNB enables more definitive and accurate diagnosis of PCLs by providing higher-quality histological samples. However, EUS-TTNB is not appropriate for all PCLs. Selection of suitable patients as well as morphology and risk factors of the cystic lesion is a crucial component of achieving the described benefits of this procedure while minimizing risks of adverse effects. Subjects with weak or absent indications for this procedure are susceptible to a range of complications and may even result in fatality.

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 (EUS-FNB) from peritoneal lesions: a prospective cohort pilot study

Background

Diagnostic laparoscopy is often a necessary, albeit invasive, procedure to help resolve undiagnosed peritoneal diseases. Previous retrospective studies reported that EUS-FNA is feasible on peritoneal and omental lesions, however, EUS-FNA provided a limited amount of tissue for immunohistochemistry stain (IHC).

Aim

This pilot study aims to prospectively determine the effectiveness of EUS-FNB regarding adequacy of tissue for IHC staining, diagnostic rate and the avoidance rate of diagnostic laparoscopy or percutaneous biopsy in patients with these lesions.

Methods

From March 2017 to June 2018, patients with peritoneal or omental lesions identified by CT or MRI at the King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand were prospectively enrolled in the study. All Patients underwent EUS-FNB. For those with negative pathological results of EUS-FNB, percutaneous biopsy or diagnostic laparoscopy was planned. Analysis uses percentages only due to small sample sizes.

Results

A total of 30 EUS-FNB passes were completed, with a median of 3 passes (range 2–3 passes) per case. For EUS-FNB, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of EUS-FNB from peritoneal lesions were 63.6%, 100%, 100%, 20% and 66.7% respectively. Adequate tissue for IHC stain was found in 25/30 passes (80%). The tissues from EUS results were found malignant in 7/12 patients (58.3%). IHC could be done in 10/12 patients (83.3%). Among the five patients with negative EUS results, two underwent either liver biopsy of mass or abdominal paracentesis, showing gallbladder cancer and adenocarcinoma. Two patients refused laparoscopy due to advanced pancreatic cancer and worsening ovarian cancer. The fifth patient had post-surgical inflammation only with spontaneous resolution. The avoidance rate of laparoscopic diagnosis was 58.3%. No major adverse event was observed.

Conclusions

EUS-FNB from peritoneal lesions provided sufficient core tissue for diagnosis and IHC. Diagnostic laparoscopy can often be avoided in patients with peritoneal lesions.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12876-021-01953-9.

Evaluation of preoperative diagnostic methods for resectable pancreatic cancer: a diagnostic capability and impact on the prognosis of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration

BACKGROUND

A pathological diagnosis of pancreatic cancer should be performed as much as possible to determine the appropriate treatment strategy, but priorities and algorithms for diagnostic methods have not yet been established. In recent years, the endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has become the primary method of collecting tissues from pancreatic disease, but the effect of EUS-FNA on surgical results and prognosis has not been clarified.

AIMS

To evaluate the diagnostic ability of EUS-FNA and its effect on the preoperative diagnosis, surgical outcome, and prognosis of pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

Between January 2005 and June 2017, 293 patients who underwent surgical resection for pancreatic cancer were retrospectively evaluated. The outcomes of interest were the diagnostic ability of EUS-FNA and its influence on the surgical results and prognosis.

RESULTS

The diagnostic sensitivity of EUS-FNA was 94.4%, which was significantly higher than that of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) (45.5%) (p < 0.001). The adverse event rate in ERCP was 10.2%, which was significantly higher than EUS-FNA (1.3%) (p = 0.001). Patients were divided into FNA group (N = 160) and non-FNA group (N = 133) for each preoperative diagnostic method. In the study of surgical curability R0 between the two groups, there was no significant difference in FNA group (65.0% [104/160]) and non-FNA group (64.7% [86/133], p = 1.000). In the prognostic study, 256 patients with curative R0 or R1 had a recurrence rate was 54.3% (70/129) in the FNA group and 57.4% (73/127) in the non-FNA group. Moreover peritoneal dissemination occurred in 34.3% (24/70) in the FNA group and in 21.9% (16/73) in the non-FNA group, neither of which showed a significant difference. The median survival times of the FNA and non-FNA groups were 955 days and 799 days, respectively, and there was no significant difference between the two groups (log-rank p = 0.735). In the Cox proportional hazards model, factors influencing prognosis, staging, curability, and adjuvant chemotherapy were the dominant factors, but the preoperative diagnostic method (EUS-FNA) itself was not.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNA is a safe procedure with a high diagnostic ability for the preoperative examination of pancreatic cancer. It was considered the first choice without the influence of surgical curability, postoperative recurrence, peritoneal dissemination and prognosis.

Optimal Techniques for EUS-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration of Pancreatic Solid Masses at Facilities without On-Site Cytopathology: Results from Two Prospective Randomised Trials

Background: EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has emerged as the primary modality for the cytologic diagnosis of pancreatic solid masses. The aim of this study is to determine whether technical factors including suction (S), non-suction (NS), capillary sampling with stylet slow-pull (CSSS), and the number of needle actuations (to-and-fro needle movements) may affect the accuracy of EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid masses at facilities without on-site cytopathology. Methods: The diagnostic yield of malignancy, blood contamination and cellularity at each sample acquired from EUS-FNA with or without S and different numbers of actuation (10, 15 and 20) were measured (study I). The optimal actuation number was determined and a head-to-head comparison trial between S and CSSS was performed (study II). Results: In study I, significant blood contamination was seen using S with 20 compared with 15 actuations (p = 0.002). Diagnostic yield of malignancy was not significantly different between 10, 15, and 20 actuations with S, whereas it was statistically higher for 15 actuations compared with 10 actuations with NS (p = 0.001). In study II, no difference was noted in diagnostic yield with 15 actuations between S and CSSS (88% vs. 90%, p = 0.74). Conclusions: Increasing actuation in NS resulted in a better diagnostic yield for EUS-FNA without significant blood contamination, whereas increasing actuation in S did not change the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA while causing significant blood contamination. With 15 actuations, the diagnostic yield was comparable between S and CSSS.

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

Simple Summary

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

Abstract

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

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Feasibility of BRCA1/2 Testing of Formalin-Fixed and Paraffin-Embedded Pancreatic Tumor Samples: A Consecutive Clinical Series

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is an aggressive cancer, with most patients diagnosed at advanced stages. First-line treatment based on a combined chemotherapy (FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel) provides limited benefits. Olaparib, a PARP inhibitor, has been approved as maintenance for PDAC patients harboring germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic mutations and previously treated with a platinum-based chemotherapy. BRCA1/2 germline testing is recommended, but also somatic mutations could predict responses to PARP inhibitors. Analysis of tumor tissues can detect both germline and somatic mutations and potential resistance alterations. Few data are available about BRCA1/2 testing on pancreatic tumor tissues, which often include limited biological material. We performed BRCA1/2 testing, by an amplicon-based Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) panel, on 37 consecutive PDAC clinical samples: 86.5% of cases were adequate for NGS analysis, with a success rate of 81.2% (median DNA input: 10 nanograms). Three BRCA2 mutations were detected (11.5%). Failed samples were all from tissue macrosections, which had higher fragmented DNA than standard sections, biopsies and fine-needle aspirations, likely due to fixation procedures. BRCA1/2 testing on pancreatic tumor tissues can also be feasible on small biopsies, but more cases must be analyzed to define its role and value in the PDAC diagnostic algorithm.

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

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

The Impact of Recent Advances in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition on the Management of Pancreatic Cancer

Over the last few decades, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition has become the method of choice for the pathological diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions. Due to its high diagnostic yield and low complication rate, EUS-guided tissue acquisition has surpassed percutaneous sampling techniques. For many years, EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) was traditionally used to obtain cytological aspirates of solid pancreatic lesions, with sensitivity values ranging from 80 to 90% for the diagnosis of malignancy. Nevertheless, despite numerous technical advances, EUS-FNA still presents some limitations. Therefore, EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) has been introduced to provide tissue core biopsies, allowing histological assessment. A newly developed generation of FNB needles has demonstrated an outstanding diagnostic accuracy of over 95% for solid pancreatic lesions and provides samples appropriate for ancillary testing, such as immunohistochemistry and tumour molecular profiling. As a result, EUS-FNB is rapidly replacing EUS-FNA and is now the recommended technique for EUS-guided tissue acquisition in pancreatic cancer. Furthermore, with the recent expansion of neoadjuvant treatment criteria and with the advent of novel and personalised anti-cancer therapies, EUS-FNB is gaining a pivotal role in pancreatic cancer management and might soon be generalised to all patients, independent of disease stage. In this article, the authors present an updated review of the role of EUS-guided tissue acquisition in pancreatic cancer. Current indications, several technical aspects and new applications of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB are discussed.

Diagnosis of Pancreatic Solid Lesions, Subepithelial Lesions, and Lymph Nodes Using Endoscopic Ultrasound

Currently, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become widely accepted and has considerable advantages over computed tomography (CT) and other imaging modalities, given that it enables echostructure assessment in lesions with <1 cm diameter and permits high resolution imaging. EUS-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) provides consistent results under ultrasound guidance and has been considered more effective compared to CT- or ultrasound-guided lesion biopsy. Moreover, complication rates, including pancreatitis and bleeding, have been extremely low, with <1% morbidity and mortality rates, thereby suggesting the exceptional overall safety of EUS-TA. The aggressive use of EUS for various lesions has been key in facilitating early diagnosis and therapy. This review summarizes the diagnostic ability of EUS for pancreatic solid lesions, subepithelial lesions, and lymph nodes where it is mainly used. EUS has played an important role in diagnosing these lesions and planning treatment strategies. Future developments in EUS imaging technology, such as producing images close to histopathological findings, are expected to further improve its diagnostic ability. Moreover, tissue acquisition via EUS is expected to be used for precision medicine, which facilitates the selection of an appropriate therapeutic agent by increasing the amount of tissue collected and improving genetic analysis.

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

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

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

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

Needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy in pancreatic cysts: a meta-analysis

There is currently limited evidence supporting the use of needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy in pancreatic cystic lesions. Aim of this study was to provide a pooled estimate of the diagnostic performance and safety profile of this technique in patients with pancreatic cysts. Computerized bibliographic search on the main databases was performed through November 2019. Pooled effects were calculated using a random-effects model by means of DerSimonian and Laird test. Primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were pooled sensitivity, specificity, and mean procedural time. Ten studies enrolling 536 patients were included. Eight articles, of which five prospective series, compared confocal laser endomicroscopy to cytology/cystic fluid analysis. Most patients were female and body/tail was the most frequent location of pancreatic cysts. Mucinous cysts were prevalent in most of the included studies. Diagnostic accuracy with confocal laser endomicroscopy was 88.6% (83.7-93.4%) and sensitivity analysis according to study quality, design, and treatment arms confirmed the above reported result. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 82.4% (74.7-90.1%) and 96.6% (94.3-99%), respectively. Both accuracy and sensitivity resulted higher in patients with mucinous cysts (91.4 and 94.9%, respectively). Confocal laser endomicroscopy clearly outperformed fine-needle aspiration in terms of diagnostic accuracy (odds ratio 3.94, 1.58-9.82; P = 0.003). A mean of 6.094 minutes (4.91-7.26) was needed to complete the procedure and no significant adverse event was registered. Our meta-analysis speaks in favor of the use of needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy as a safe and effective tool in the diagnostic algorithm of pancreatic cysts.

Current Status of Needles in the Optimization of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Procedures

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is among the most important tools for the evaluation of gastrointestinal tumors and affected areas around the gastrointestinal tract. It enables the acquisition of material from abnormal lesions via the gastrointestinal wall for tissue confirmation via endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). EUS-FNA has played a vital role in oncological care and has become the standard method for tissue sampling. The choice of needle type is an important factor determining tissue acquisition and has been evaluated by many researchers. New needles are introduced into the market almost every year, and opinions vary regarding proper needle selection. While there are diverse opinions but no definitive recommendations about the use of one particular device, fine-needle biopsy needles may provide detailed information on a tissue’s architecture based on greater sample yields. This permits additional analyses, including genetic sequencing and phenotyping, thereby enabling the provision of more personalized treatment plans. Furthermore, other EUS-guided procedures have been developed, including interventional EUS and through-the-needle devices. Given the continued attempts to improve the diagnostic ability and therapeutic techniques, we review in detail the available types of puncture needles to provide guidance on the selection of the appropriate needle types.

Diagnostic yield of EUS-guided through-the-needle biopsy in pancreatic cysts: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is currently limited evidence supporting the use of EUS-guided through-the-needle biopsy for sampling pancreatic cystic lesions. The aim of this meta-analysis was to provide a pooled estimate of the diagnostic performance of through-the-needle biopsy for sampling of pancreatic cysts.

METHODS

A bibliographic search on the main databases was performed in September 2019. Pooled effects were calculated using a random-effects model by means of the DerSimonian and Laird test. The primary outcome was sample adequacy. Additional endpoints were diagnostic accuracy, optimal histologic core procurement, mean number of needle passes, pooled specificity, and sensitivity. Adverse event rates were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Eleven studies enrolling 490 patients were included. Eight articles compared through-the-needle biopsy with cytology/cystic fluid analysis. Most patients were female, and the body/tail was the most frequent location of cystic lesions. Sample adequacy with through-the-needle biopsy was 85.3% (78.2%-92.5%), and subanalysis performed according to cyst morphology, size, and location confirmed the result. Through-the-needle biopsy clearly outperformed FNA both in terms of sample adequacy (odds ratio, 4.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.63-14.31; P =.004) and diagnostic accuracy (odds ratio, 3.44; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-8.96; P =.01). The pooled diagnostic accuracy rate, sensitivity, and specificity of through-the-needle biopsy were 78.8%, 82.2%, and 96.8%, respectively. A mean of 3.121 (2.98-3.25) passes through the cyst was needed to obtain adequate histologic samples. The incidence rates of mild bleeding and pancreatitis were 4% and 2%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis speaks in favor of the use of through-the-needle biopsy as a safe and effective tool in EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic cysts.

Comparison of smear cytology and liquid-based cytology in EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic lesions: experience from a large tertiary center

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Studies comparing the diagnostic efficacy of liquid-based cytology (LBC) and smear cytology (SC) of pancreatic tissue sampling obtained via EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) are still insufficient, mainly because results were controversial. We compared the diagnostic efficiency of LBC and SC of EUS-FNA of pancreatic lesions in one of the largest tertiary hospitals in China.

METHODS

A retrospective database search (January 2015 to January 2019) was performed for patients who underwent EUS-FNA with both LBC and SC. Demographic, cytologic, and endosonographic data were collected from 819 patients; 514 cases met the inclusion criteria. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were compared. Rapid on-site evaluation was not available in all cases.

RESULTS

Three hundred eighty-five cases (74.90%) had confirmed malignancy, and 40 cases (7.78%) confirmed benign neoplasm. Adequate tissue sampling rates showed no significant difference between the 2 groups. The sensitivity, accuracy, and negative predictive value (NPV) of LBC were higher than those of SC with statistical significance (71.4% vs 55.1%, 76.1% vs 61.6%, and 40.6% vs 27.7%, respectively). The sensitivity, accuracy, and NPV of combined SC and LBC were higher than those of LBC alone with statistical significance (83.9% vs 71.4%, 86.5% vs 76.1%, and 56.8% vs 40.6%, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed that pancreatic neck/body/tail lesions (P = .003), solid lesions (P < .001), 22-gauge needle size (P < .001), and number of needle passage >3 (P = .041) were associated with higher diagnostic sensitivity in all participants using LBC, whereas number of needle passage >3 (P = .017) was associated with higher diagnostic sensitivity using SC.

CONCLUSIONS

LBC was more accurate and sensitive than SC in EUS-FNA of pancreatic lesions with higher NPV when rapid on-site evaluation is unavailable. Pancreatic neck/body/tail lesions, solid lesions, 22-gauge needle, and more than 3 passes were associated with higher sensitivity when using LBC. Performing more than 3 passes is associated with higher sensitivity when using SC.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling of pancreatic lesions

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

EUS-guided tissue acquisition in chronic pancreatitis: Differential diagnosis between pancreatic cancer and pseudotumoral masses using EUS-FNA or core biopsy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

EUS-FNA sensitivity for malignancy in parenchymal masses of patients with concurrent chronic pancreatitis (CP) has been reported to be unsatisfactory. The aim of the present study was to directly compare the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA and EUS-fine-needle biopsy (FNB) in differentiating between inflammatory masses and malignancies in the setting of CP.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of prospective, multicentric databases of all patients with pancreatic masses and clinico-radiological-endosonographic features of CP who underwent EUS-FNA or FNB.

RESULTS

Among 1124 patients with CP, 210 patients (60% males, mean age: 62.7 years) with CP and pancreatic masses met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled. In the FNA group (110 patients), a correct diagnosis was obtained in all but 18 cases (diagnostic accuracy 83.6%, sensitivity 69.5%, specificity 100%, positive predictive value [PPV] 100%, and negative predictive value [NPV] 73.9%); by contrast, among 100 patients undergoing FNB, a correct diagnosis was obtained in all but seven cases (diagnostic accuracy 93%, sensitivity 86.8%, specificity 100%, PPV 100%, and NPV 87%) (P = 0.03, 0.03, 1, 1, and 0.07, respectively). At binary logistic regression, focal pancreatitis (odds of event occurrence [OR]: 4.9; P < 0.001), higher Ca19-9 (OR: 2.3;P= 0.02), and FNB (OR: 2.5; P < 0.01) were the only independent factors associated with a correct diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNB is effective in the differential diagnosis between pseudotumoral masses and solid neoplasms in CP, showing higher diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity than EUS-FNA. EUS-FNB should be considered the preferred diagnostic technique for diagnosing cancer in the setting of CP.

EUS tissue acquisition: From A to B

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

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

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

Endoscopic ultrasonography guided transgastric trans-portal system fine needle aspiration for diagnosing pancreatic head and uncinate process malignancy

Background

Endoscopic ultrasonography guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a well-established technique for diagnosing pancreatic malignancy. In general, tissue of pancreatic head and uncinate process lesions is obtained via a transduodenal approach. However, this tissue-acquisition modality is not applicable in cases of pyloric obstruction and duodenal bulb ulceration. The aim of this study is to determine the feasibility and safety of a novel EUS-guided transgastric trans-portal system FNA in the diagnosis of pancreatic head and uncinate process cancer.

Methods

This study retrospectively analyzed 26 consecutive inpatient patients who had undergone EUS-FNA for highly suspected malignancy of pancreatic head or uncinate process between December 2013 and December 2018. EUS-guided transgastric trans-portal vein (trans-PV, n=2) or trans-superior mesenteric vein (trans-SMV, n=24) FNA was performed in the patients under conscious sedation. Feasibility, diagnostic yield and complication rates of the technique were evaluated.

Results

Specimens obtained by EUS-guided transgastric trans-portal system FNA were adequate for cytological evaluation in all 26 patients. Cytological diagnosis of adenocarcinoma was established in 22 patients, while the remaining 4 patients were negative. The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity were 92.3%, 91.7% and 100% respectively. No immediate or delayed procedure-related complications were observed.

Conclusions

EUS-guided transgastric trans-portal system FNA is a feasible and probably safe method for diagnosing pancreatic head and uncinate process malignancy. Careful selection of the potential candidates and close periprocedural observation are mandatory.

EUS-guided core biopsies of pancreatic solid masses using a new fork-tip needle: A multicenter prospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling (EUS sampling) is a safe and effective technique. The study aim was to evaluate the presence of a histological core from pancreatic lesions using a new 25G fork-tip needle.

METHODS

Observational multicenter prospective and analytical study, including consecutive patients with solid pancreatic masses referred for EUS-guided sampling. At each needle pass, the endoscopist performed macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE). The primary outcome was the histological core procurement rates. Secondary outcomes were the evaluation of interobserver agreement between endoscopists and pathologists, adequacy of EUS samples for the diagnosis and post-procedure adverse events.

RESULTS

100 patients were enrolled in 3 centers. The mean size of the lesions was 28.5 mm (SD 11.7). Final diagnoses were adenocarcinoma (68%), neuroendocrine tumor (21%), inflammatory mass/benign lesions (8.0%), and pancreatic metastasis (3.0%). The pathologists described the presence of a core in 67 samples (67.0% of patients), with poor agreement with MOSE (kappa, 0. 12; 95% CI: 0.03-0.28). The diagnostic accuracy was 93%. We observed 6% of mild adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The new 25-gauge core needle showed good overall adequacy and a good rate of histological specimens during EUS sampling of solid pancreatic masses, with a minimum number of passes and no major complications. Clinicaltrial.gov number, NCT02946840.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses: the fine needle aspiration or fine needle biopsy dilemma. Is the best needle yet to come?

Fine needle aspiration (FNA) is currently the standard of care for sampling pancreatic solid masses by using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). The accuracy of the technique is reported to be high, especially if coupled with the rapid on site evaluation (ROSE), and it has a high safety profile. However, FNA presents some limitations, such as the small amount of tissue that can be collected and the inability of obtaining a core tissue with intact histological architecture, which is relevant to perform immunohistochemical analysis, molecular profiling and, therefore, targeted therapies. Moreover, the presence of the ROSE by an expert cytopathologist is very important to maximize the diagnostic yield of FNA technique; however, it is not widely available, especially in small centers. Hence, the introduction of EUS fine needle biopsy (FNB) with a new generation of needles, which show a high safety profile too and a satisfying diagnostic accuracy even in the absence of ROSE, could be the key to overcome the limitations of FNA. However, FNB has not yet shown diagnostic superiority over FNA. Considering all the technical aspects of FNA and FNB, the different types of needle currently available, comparisons in term of diagnostic yield, and the different techniques of sampling, a tailored approach should be used in order to determine the needle that is most appropriate for the different specific scenarios.

Endoscopic ultrasonography in pancreatic diseases: advances in tissue acquisition

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) improved the diagnostic performance and upgraded the role of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) into an interventional modality, able to guide patient management and treatment.This review aimed to highlight the advances, emerging practices, procedural techniques and technological innovations in EUS tissue acquisition in pancreatic diseases. Methods  A thorough review of the literature was performed using PubMed to identify articles that describe techniques, advances, and practices in EUS tissue acquisition in gastrointestinal diseases. Conclusion  Since the first EUS-FNA procedure, EUS guided-tissue acquisition has been evolving continuously. Development of needles with innovative tip design enabled procurement of larger samples with preserved histological architecture. Moreover, sampling techniques and complementary methods, such as contrast harmonic imaging and EUS-elastography, have been introduced in an effort to improve diagnostic performance and sample adequacy.

A multicenter randomized trial comparing a 25-gauge EUS fine-needle aspiration device with a 20-gauge EUS fine-needle biopsy device

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Several studies have compared EUS-guided FNA with fine-needle biopsy (FNB), but none have proven superiority. We performed a multicenter randomized controlled trial to compare the performance of a commonly used 25-gauge FNA needle with a newly designed 20-gauge FNB needle.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with a solid lesion were randomized in this international multicenter study between a 25-gauge FNA (EchoTip Ultra) or a 20-gauge FNB needle (ProCore). The primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy for malignancy and the Bethesda classification (non-diagnostic, benign, atypical, malignant). Technical success, safety, and sample quality were also assessed. Multivariable and supplementary analyses were performed to adjust for confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 608 patients were allocated to FNA (n = 306) or FNB (n = 302); 312 pancreatic lesions (51%), 147 lymph nodes (24%), and 149 other lesions (25%). Technical success rate was 100% for the 25-gauge FNA and 99% for the 20-gauge FNB needle (P = .043), with no differences in adverse events. The 20-gauge FNB needle outperformed 25-gauge FNA in terms of histologic yield (77% vs 44%, P < .001), accuracy for malignancy (87% vs 78%, P = .002) and Bethesda classification (82% vs 72%, P = .002). This was robust when corrected for indication, lesion size, number of passes, and presence of an on-site pathologist (odds ratio, 3.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.55-8.56; P = .004), and did not differ among centers (P = .836).

CONCLUSION

The 20-gauge FNB needle outperformed the 25-gauge FNA needle in terms of histologic yield and diagnostic accuracy. This benefit was irrespective of the indication and was consistent among participating centers, supporting the general applicability of our findings. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02167074.).

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

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

Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Specimen Collection and Evaluation Techniques Affect Diagnostic Accuracy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) evaluation vary with technique, needles, and methods of specimen evaluation. We performed a direct comparison of diagnostic yields of EUS-FNA samples collected using different gauge needles (22- vs 25-gauge), with or without suction.

METHODS

We performed a randomized controlled study of 352 patients with suspected pancreatic masses, referred for EUS-FNA at a tertiary referral center. Patients were randomly assigned to 22-gauge needles with or without suction or 25-gauge needles with or without suction. Specimens were evaluated offsite by cell block and rapid onsite cytologic evaluation (ROSE). Final diagnoses were made based on histologic analyses or 12-month follow-up evaluations. The primary outcome was diagnostic adequacy of cell blocks. Secondary outcomes were operating characteristics of ROSE and EUS-FNA, number of passes required for accurate onsite diagnosis, and amount of blood in specimens.

RESULTS

The final diagnoses were malignancy (81.5% of patients) and benign disease (17.0% of patients); 1.4% of patients were lost during follow up. Cell block, ROSE, and EUS-FNA led to diagnostic accuracies of 71.9%, 95.5%, and 96.6%, respectively. A 22-gauge needle with suction was associated with more passes for adequate onsite diagnosis (P = .003) and specimens contained more blood (P = .01). Diagnostic accuracy of specimens collected by transduodenal EUS-FNA was lower with 22-gauge needles with suction compared to other techniques (P = .004).

CONCLUSION

In a randomized trial of patients undergoing EUS-FNA for pancreatic masses, samples collected with 22-gauge vs 25-gauge needles performed equally well for offsite specimen evaluation. Use of suction appears to increase number of passes needed and specimen bloodiness. Specimen collection techniques should be individualized based on method of evaluation. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02424838.