Usefulness of a Fork-Tip Needle in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy for Gastric Subepithelial Lesions

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition Using Fork-Tip Needle for Subepithelial Lesions: A Single-Center Validation Study

BACKGROUND

The cutoff value for stereomicroscopic on-site evaluation (SOSE) in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) has high diagnostic sensitivity when a Franseen needle is employed for upper gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions (SELs) (stereomicroscopically visible white core [SVWC] ≥ 4 mm).

AIM

We aimed to determine whether high diagnostic sensitivity could be obtained when EUS-TA was performed using a Fork-tip needle.

METHODS

Twenty-one patients were prospectively registered. Patients underwent EUS-TA using a Fork-tip needle for upper gastrointestinal SELs at Kitasato University Hospital between January and November 2022. Punctures were made twice using the needle, and SOSE was conducted for each specimen. Blood and physical examination were performed to assess adverse events. Pathological diagnosis was made using hematoxylin and eosin-stained sections and immunohistochemical staining. Statistical comparisons were completed using Fisher's exact tests.

RESULTS

The diagnostic rate of EUS-TA was 100% (21/21 cases). The final diagnosis was gastrointestinal stromal tumor in 17 (81.0%) and leiomyoma in 4 (19.0%) patients. SOSE was conducted on all 42 punctures, and the tissue sampling rate was 100% (42/42 punctures). Specimens with SVWC ≥ 4 mm were collected in 97.6% punctures (41/42 punctures) and the diagnostic sensitivity for these specimens was 100% (41/41 punctures), which is significantly higher (p < 0.0238) compared to the absence of cutoff value (diagnostic sensitivity of 0%). No EUS-TA-related adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-TA combined with SOSE for upper gastrointestinal SEL using a fork-tip needle had a high diagnostic rate, and the cutoff value of SVWC ≥ 4 mm had high diagnostic sensitivity.

Diagnostic yield of endoscopic and EUS-guided biopsy techniques in subepithelial lesions of the upper GI tract: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Obtaining adequate tissue samples in subepithelial lesions (SELs) remains challenging. Several biopsy techniques are available, but a systematic review including all available techniques to obtain a histologic diagnosis of SEL is lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield and adverse event rates of endoscopic biopsies, EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA), EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB) (EUS-FNB), and mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) for SELs in the upper GI tract.

METHODS

A search strategy in multiple databases was performed. The primary outcome was diagnostic yield, defined as the percentage of procedures in which histology was obtained and resulted in a definitive histopathologic diagnosis. Secondary outcome measures included reported procedure-related adverse events, which were graded according to the AGREE (Adverse Events in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy) classification.

RESULTS

A total of 94 original articles were included. Studies were classified per endoscopic technique to obtain histopathology. This resulted in 8 included studies for endoscopic biopsy methods, 55 studies for EUS-FNA, 33 studies for EUS-FNB, and 26 studies for MIAB. Pooled rates for diagnostic yield were 40.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 30.8-51.2) for endoscopic biopsy, 74.6% (95% CI, 69.9-78.7) for EUS-FNA, 84.2% (95% CI, 80.7-87.2) for EUS-FNB, and 88.2% (95% CI, 84.7-91.1) for MIAB. Reported procedure-related adverse events graded AGREE II or higher were 2.8% to 3.9% for endoscopic biopsies, 1.0% to 4.5% for EUS-FNA, .9% to 7.7% for EUS-FNB, and 1.9% to 7.9% for MIAB.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, MIAB and EUS-FNB seem to be most effective in terms of achieving a high diagnostic yield, with similar rates of adverse events.

Efficacy and histologic frequencies of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided tissue acquisition using conventional fine-needle aspiration needles for gastric subepithelial hypoechoic mass

Introduction/Purpose

For gastric subepithelial lesions (GSELs) showing a hypoechoic mass (HM) on endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) imaging, the utility of EUS-guided tissue acquisition using conventional fine-needle aspiration needles (EUS-TA-CFNAN) and the frequency of histological types remain unclear. This study aimed to examine this issue.

Methods

This prospective observational study enrolled 291 consecutive patients who underwent EUS-TA-CFNAN for GSELs showing an HM (GSELHM) on EUS imaging. Immunohistochemical analysis was performed for all EUS-TA-CFNAN and surgically resected specimens. The main outcome measures were the technical results of EUS-TA-CFNAN and the frequency of histological types in GSELHM.

Results

The endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition using conventional fine-needle aspiration needle diagnosis rate for GSELHM was 80.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 75.0-84.5, 233/291). It was significantly lower for antrum (P = 0.004) and lesions smaller than 2 cm (P = 0.003). There were no adverse events. The immunohistochemical diagnoses of EUS-TA-CFNAN included 149 cases of gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) (51.2%), 48 cases of leiomyoma (16.5%), 11 cases of schwannoma (3.8%), 8 cases of the ectopic pancreas (2.7%), 5 cases of subepithelial lesion like cancer (1.7%), 12 cases of other lesions (4.1%), and 58 cases of undiagnosable lesions (19.9%). The frequency of malignant or potentially malignant tumour in GSELHM was 55.0% (95% CI: 49.1-60.8, 160/291). Surgery was performed in 149 patients according to the conclusive EUS-TA-CFNAN results, in which the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-TA-CFNAN was 97.3% (95% CI: 94.7-99.9, 145/149).

Conclusion

The use of EUS-TA-CFNAN for GSELHMs is safe and accurate. Gastric subepithelial lesions showing a hypoechoic mass have a reasonably high possibility of containing malignant or potentially malignant tumours, including GISTs.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the first-choice procedure for obtaining pathological tissue samples from gastrointestinal (GI) subepithelial lesions (SELs). However, its diagnostic accuracy is lower than that for pancreatic masses owing to puncture difficulty and the need for immunostaining for definitive diagnosis. The advent of fine-needle biopsy needles, which have become well known in recent years, improves the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA for GI SELs. The forward-viewing echoendoscope and rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) have also helped to improve diagnostic accuracy. Furthermore, in facilities where ROSE is not available, endosonographers perform a macroscopic on-site evaluation. With these procedural innovations, EUS-FNA is now performed aggressively even for SELs smaller than 20 mm. The incidence of procedure-related adverse events such as bleeding and infection is low, and thus, EUS-FNA can be safely performed to diagnose SELs.

Tissue diagnosis necessary for small endoscopic ultrasound-suspected gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors 2 cm or less in size: A prospective study focusing on the endoscopic incisional biopsy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The small endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-suspected gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), gastric subepithelial tumors at the muscularis propria layer on EUS, are detected frequently. Bite-on-bite forceps biopsy and EUS-guided tissue sampling yield variable results. This study aimed to analyze clinicopathologic features of the small EUS-suspected gastric GISTs 2 cm or less in size and to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the endoscopic incisional biopsy (EIB) for these small tumors.

METHODS

This prospective study investigated 70 patients with small EUS-suspected gastric GISTs 2 cm or less in size in two stages. Firstly, 30 patients were recruited for the efficacy and safety evaluation of the EIB. Secondly, 40 patients were randomly assigned to receive either EIB or the bite-on-bite biopsy for comparison of the diagnostic yield, procedure time, and adverse event rate.

RESULTS

Combining two study stages, leiomyoma (74%) was diagnosed histologically to outnumber GIST (26%) with a diagnostic rate of 94% for patients receiving EIB. KIT exon 11 mutations (50%) and PDGFRA exon 12 mutations (16%) were detected in the small gastric GISTs. In the direct comparison, the diagnostic yield of EIB and the bite-on-bite biopsy was 85% and 50%, respectively (P = 0.018). There was no statistically significant difference of the mean procedure time or adverse event rate between these two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Leiomyoma is more common than expected among these small tumors. Tissue diagnosis with an effective and safe sampling technique, such as EIB, is necessary for making further clinical decisions.