Efficacy of 3 fine-needle biopsy techniques for suspected pancreatic malignancies in the absence of an on-site cytopathologist

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

BACKGROUND AND AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Comparison of suction techniques for EUS-guided tissue acquisition: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background and study aims Despite the widespread use of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition, the choice of optimal suction technique remains a subject of debate. Multiple studies have shown conflicting results with respect to the four suction techniques: Dry suction (DS), no suction (NS), stylet slow-pull (SSP) and wet suction (WS). Thus, the present network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to compare the diagnostic yields of above suction techniques during EUS-guided tissue acquisition. Methods A comprehensive literature search from 2010 to March 2022 was done for randomized trials comparing the aspirated sample and diagnostic outcome with various suction techniques. Both pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed to analyze the outcomes: sample adequacy, moderate to high cellularity, gross bloodiness and diagnostic accuracy. Results A total of 16 studies (n=2048 patients) were included in the final NMA. WS was associated with a lower odd of gross bloodiness compared to DS (odds ratio 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.24-0.97). There was no significant difference between the various suction methods with respect to sample adequacy, moderate to high cellularity and diagnostic accuracy. On meta-regression, to adjust for the effect of needle type, WS was comparable to DS in terms of bloodiness when adjusted for fine-needle aspiration needle. Surface under the cumulative ranking analysis ranked WS as the best modality for all the outcomes. Conclusions The present NMA did not show superiority of any specific suction technique for EUS-guided tissue sampling with regard to sample quality or diagnostic accuracy, with low confidence in estimates.

Current Practice Patterns of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Sampling for Pancreatic Solid Mass in Korea: Outcomes of a National Survey

Background/Aims

Although endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) are widely used for tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid mass, the optimal strategy of this procedure has not been established yet. The aim of this nationwide study was to investigate the current practice patterns of EUS-FNA/FNB for pancreatic solid mass in Korea.

Methods

The Policy-Quality Management of the Korean Pancreatobiliary Association (KPBA) developed a questionnaire containing 22 questions. An electronic survey consisting of the questionnaire was distributed by e-mail to members registered to the KPBA.

Results

A total of 101 respondents completed the survey. Eighty respondents (79.2%) performed preoperative EUS-FNA/FNB for operable pancreatic solid mass. Acquire needles (60.4%) were used the most, followed by ProCore needles (47.5%). In terms of need size, most respondents (>80%) preferred 22-gauge needles regardless of the location of the mass. Negative suction with a 10-mL syringe (71.3%) as sampling technique was followed by stylet slow-pull (41.6%). More than three needle passes for EUS-FNA/FNB was performed by most respondents (>80%). The frequency of requiring repeated procedure was significantly higher in respondents with a low individual volume (<5 per month, p=0.001). Prophylactic antibiotics were routinely used in 39 respondents (38.6%); rapid on-site pathologic evaluation was used in 6.1%.

Conclusions

According to this survey, practices of EUS-FNA/FNB for pancreatic solid mass varied substantially, some of which differed considerably from the recommendations present in existing guidelines. These results suggest that the development of evidence-based quality guidelines fitting Korean clinical practice is needed to establish the optimal strategy for this procedure.

Tissue Quality Comparison Between Heparinized Wet Suction and Dry Suction in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Fine Needle Biopsy of Solid Pancreatic Masses: A Randomized Crossover Study

Background/Aims

A high-quality sample allows for next-generation sequencing and the administration of more tailored precision medicine treatments. We aimed to evaluate whether heparinized wet suction can obtain higher quality samples than the standard dry-suction method during endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biopsy of pancreatic masses.

Methods

A prospective randomized crossover study was conducted. Patients with a solid pancreatic mass were randomly allocated to receive either heparinized wet suction first or dry suction first. For each method, two needle passes were made, followed by a switch to the other method for a total of four needle punctures. The primary outcome was the aggregated white tissue length. Histological blood contamination, diagnostic performance and adverse events were analyzed as secondary outcomes. In addition, the correlation between white tissue length and the extracted DNA amount was analyzed.

Results

A total of 50 patients were enrolled, and 200 specimens were acquired (100 with heparinized wet suction and 100 with dry suction), with one minor bleeding event. The heparinized wet suction approach yielded specimens with longer aggregated white tissue length (11.07 mm vs 7.96 mm, p=0.001) and less blood contamination (p=0.008). A trend towards decreasing tissue quality was observed for the 2nd pass of the dry-suction method, leading to decreased diagnostic sensitivity and accuracy, although the accumulated diagnostic performance was comparable between the two suction methods. The amount of extracted DNA correlated positively to the white tissue length (p=0.001, Spearman̕s ρ=0.568).

Conclusions

Heparinized wet suction for EUS tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic masses can yield longer, bloodless, DNA-rich tissue without increasing the incidence of adverse events (ClinicalTrials.gov. identifier NCT04707560).

Optimal sampling technique for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions using a 25-gauge ProCore needle: A multicenter randomized crossover superiority study

Background and Objectives

It remains unclear whether the use of the stylet slow-pull (SP) and wet suction (WS) can improve the yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy compared to standard suction (SS). The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic efficacy of the three sampling techniques when using 25G ProCore needles for solid pancreatic lesions.

Materials and Methods

This multicenter single-blind randomized crossover superiority trial enrolled patients with solid pancreatic lesions (n = 300) from four digestive endoscopic centers in China. All three sampling techniques were performed on each patient using a 25G ProCore needle in a randomized sequence. The diagnostic efficacy, the specimen yield, and quality of each technique, the overall technical success rate and diagnostic yield of the 25G ProCore needle, and rate of adverse events were evaluated.

Results

A total of 291 patients were analyzed. No significant difference was found in diagnostic efficiency among the three techniques (sensitivity, 82.14% vs. 75.00% vs. 77.86, P = 0.1186; accuracy, 82.82% vs. 75.95% vs. 78.69%, P = 0.1212). The SP had an inferior tissue integrity compared to the SS and WS techniques (71.82% vs. 62.55% vs. 69.76%, P = 0.0096). There was no significant difference in the degree of blood contamination among the three groups (P = 0.2079). After three passes, the overall sensitivity was 93.93%, and the accuracy was 94.16%.

Conclusions

SS and WS techniques are better choices than SP technique for 25G ProCore needle, for they could provide higher specimen adequacy without increasing the amount of blood contamination. The 25G ProCore needle can provide a satisfactory diagnostic yield for solid pancreatic lesions.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Comparison of specimen quality among the standard suction, slow-pull, and wet suction techniques for EUS-FNA: A multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial

Background and Objectives

Standard suction technique (SST), slow-pull technique (SPT), and wet suction technique (WEST) of EUS-FNA are designed to improve the diagnostic yields of solid and solid-cystic lesions. We conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomized crossover trial to compare SST, SPT, and WEST on specimen quality and diagnostic accuracy using a 22G needle.

Methods

Patients with solid or solid-cystic lesions referred for EUS-FNA at four tertiary hospitals from December 2017 to August 2019 were considered eligible. All lesions were sampled using a 22G needle by the three techniques performed consecutively in a randomized order. The primary outcome was quality of the specimen acquired by each technique regarding blood contamination, tissue integrity and cellularity for diagnosis, graded on a predefined scale. The secondary outcomes were the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA and the incidence of adverse events. ClinicalTrial. gov registration number: NCT03567863.

Results

A total of 300 patients (mean age, 60.6 years, 188 men) were enrolled. WEST was superior (mean score 4.02 ± 1.51) over SST (3.67 ± 1.57, P = 0.018), but comparable to SPT (3.83 ± 1.55, P = 0.370) in overall specimen quality evaluation. WEST produced better tissue integrity (1.42 ± 0.74) and higher cellularity (1.32 ± 0.80) than SST and SPT. SPT (1.43 ± 0.69) was superior to SST (1.27 ± 0.72, P = 0.004) and WEST (1.28 ± 0.71, P = 0.006) in avoiding blood contamination. WEST achieved a diagnostic accuracy of 74.7%, higher than SST (64.4%, P = 0.007) and SPT (65.0%, P = 0.012). One bleeding event occurred with a pancreatic lesion.

Conclusions

WEST was comparable to SPT and superior to SST in the overall quality of the specimen and achieved highest diagnostic yield.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy Using 22G Franseen Needles without Rapid On-Site Evaluation for Diagnosis of Intraabdominal Masses

Background: The impact of rapid on-site cytologic evaluation (ROSE) on endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is widely debated. This study aims to assess the diagnostic performance of EUS-FNB in the absence of ROSE in abdominal masses. Methods: Patients with abdominal masses undergoing EUS-FNB using 22-gauge Franseen needles and the slow-pull technique were prospectively enrolled in this study. Macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) was performed without ROSE. Results: 100 patients were recruited between 2018 and 2020. Seventy-eight patients had neoplasms, and twenty-two patients had benign diseases. Common diagnoses included pancreatic cancer (n = 27), mesenchymal tumors (n = 17), and metastatic tumors (n = 14). The mean mass size was 3.9 ± 2.6 cm. The median pass number was three. Eighty-nine percent had adequate specimens for histologic evaluation. Malignancy increased the odds of obtaining adequate tissue (OR 5.53, 95% CI, 1.36–22.5). For pancreatic cancer, FNB had a sensitivity of 92.3%, a specificity of 100%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 100%, a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97%, and an AUROC of 0.96. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and AUROC for mesenchymal cell tumors were 100%, 95.9%, 84.2%, 100%, and 0.98, respectively. For metastatic tumors, FNB was 100% sensitive and specific, with an AUROC of 1.00. There were no procedure-related complications. Conclusions: 22-gauge Franseen needles with the slow-pull technique and MOSE without ROSE provide excellent diagnostic performances for malignant lesions. Thus, MOSE should be implemented in real-world practice, and ROSE can be obviated when EUS-FNB is employed.

A prospective multicenter study of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy using a 22-gauge Franseen needle for pancreatic solid lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIM

While encouraging data of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) using a 22-gauge Franseen needle have been reported, large-scale data of per pass and quantitative analyses are still lacking.

METHODS

This was a multicenter prospective study of EUS-FNB using the 22-gauge Franseen needle for a pancreatic solid lesion. Cytological and histological analyses per pass were evaluated and semi-quantitative analyses were performed on core tissue and blood contamination. Primary end-point was diagnostic accuracy per session. Prognostic factors were analyzed for diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, core tissue, and blood contamination.

RESULTS

A total of 629 passes were performed in 244 cases at 14 centers between 2018 and 2019. The median tumor size was 29 mm, and the puncture was transduodenal in 43%. The median pass number was 2. Diagnostic accuracy per session, at a first pass, and per pass were 93%, 90%, and 88%. In 198 cases with pancreatic cancer, diagnostic sensitivity per session, at a first pass, and per pass were 94%, 89%, and 89%. The rates of core tissue score of 4 and blood contamination score of 3 were 50% and 47%. The adverse event rate was 1.6%. In the multivariate analysis, tumor size ≤20 mm (odds ratio [OR] of 0.46, P = 0.03), transduodenal puncture (OR of 0.53, P = 0.04), and suction (OR of 0.16, P = 0.01) were associated with lower diagnostic accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

The EUS-FNB using the 22-gauge Franseen needle for pancreatic solid lesions showed high per pass and overall diagnostic accuracy.

[Clinical and Technical Guideline for Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Tissue Acquisition of Pancreatic Solid Tumor: Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy]

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence- based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.

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

Background/Aims

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Impact of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition on Decision-Making in Precision Medicine for Pancreatic Cancer: Beyond Diagnosis

Precision medicine in cancer treatment refers to targeted therapy based on the evaluation of biomarkers. Although precision medicine for pancreatic cancer (PC) remains challenging, novel biomarker-based therapies, such as pembrolizumab, olaparib, and entrectinib, have been emerging. Most commonly, endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) had been used for the diagnosis of PC until now. However, advances in EUS-TA devices and biomarker testing, especially next-generation sequencing, have opened up the possibility of sequencing of various genes even in limited amounts of tissue samples obtained by EUS-TA, and identifying potential genetic alterations as therapeutic targets. Precision medicine benefits only a small population of patients with PC, but biomarker-based therapy has shown promising results in patients who once had no treatment options. Now, the role of EUS-TA has extended beyond diagnosis into decision-making regarding the treatment of PC. In this review, we mainly discuss tissue sampling by EUS-TA for biomarker testing and the current status of precision medicine for PC.

Comparison between modified wet suction and dry suction technique for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy in pancreatic solid lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Although endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy is widely applied, there is no clear consensus on the optimal biopsy technique. We described a modified wet suction technique (MWEST) with the aim to compare the efficacy and safety between MWEST and the dry suction technique (DST).

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, crossover, single-blinded study, patients with suspected pancreatic malignancy were randomized to the DST (group A) or MWEST (group B) for the first pass, and the two techniques were performed alternately. The primary outcome was the comparison of specimen adequacy and diagnostic yield between the techniques. Secondary outcomes included the macroscopic visible core length, blood contamination of specimens, and adverse events of both techniques.

RESULTS

From January 2019 to September 2019, 216 passes were performed in 50 patients. The specimen adequacy was significantly higher in "per-lesion" (P = 0.026), "per-pass" (cytology: P = 0.034; histology: P = 0.042), and first-pass analysis (P = 0.034) for MWEST than for DST. In diagnostic yield, MWEST showed significantly superior histological yield (P = 0.014) and first-pass analysis (κ: MWEST: 0.743 and DST: 0.519) compared with DST. The median macroscopic visible core lengths were 8 mm (interquartile range: 3.25-15 mm) and 10 mm (interquartile range: 5.25-15 mm) for DST and MWEST, respectively (P = 0.036). Blood contamination was significantly more serious in DST than in MWEST (cytology: P = 0.021; histology: P = 0.042).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy with MWEST resulted in significantly better quality of specimen, histological, and first-pass diagnostic yields and comparable safety compared with the DST. MWEST is preferred for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy in pancreatic solid lesions.

Clinical and Technical Guideline for Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-Guided Tissue Acquisition of Pancreatic Solid Tumor: Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE)

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a task force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice. (Gut Liver 2021;15:-374)

Comparing Needles and Methods of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy to Optimize Specimen Quality and Diagnostic Accuracy for Patients With Pancreatic Masses in a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Given the lack of procedure standardization, findings vary from analyses of pancreatic tissues collected by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy. It is not clear which needle and technique yield the best specimen for analysis. We compared the specimen quality and accuracy of diagnoses made from samples collected by fine-needle biopsy needles using different collection techniques.

METHODS

Patients found to have pancreatic masses during imaging (n = 129) were assigned randomly to groups from whom pancreatic tissue samples were collected by reverse-bevel, Menghini-tip, franseen, or fork-tip needles. A second randomization determined the technical sequence of biopsies in each patient (suction, no suction, and stylet retraction). Two independent pathologists, blinded to the type of needle and sampling technique, analyzed all the samples. Final diagnoses of malignancy were made based on surgical resection, death from cancer progression, or findings from radiology or clinical follow-up evaluations (reference standard). The primary objective was to compare the cellularity of the samples collected, defined as the proportion of core tissue in the biopsy sample. Secondary objectives were to compare the accuracy of diagnoses made from biopsy samples and identify factors associated with high cellularity.

RESULTS

One-hundred and nine patients had a final diagnosis of malignancy (84.5%) and 20 patients had benign disease (15.5%). Samples collected by fork-tip or franseen needles had significantly higher cellularity than samples collected by reverse-bevels or Menghini-tip needles (P < .001). Neoplasias were identified with greater than 90% accuracy using samples collected by fork-tip or franseen needles (P < .001 compared with other needles). On multivariable regression analysis, use of franseen needles (odds ratio [OR], 4.42; 95% CI, 2.58-7.58; P < .001) or fork-tip needles (OR, 3.86; 95% CI, 2.24-6.64; P < .001), stylet retraction (OR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.21-3.72; P = .008), no suction (OR, 2.74; 95% CI, 1.57-4.80; P < .001), and pancreatic mass larger than 3 cm (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.21-3.05; P = .005) were associated with high cellularity of the sample.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with suspected pancreatic cancer, samples with the highest degree of cellularity in a single biopsy, resulting in a diagnostic accuracy of 90% of higher, were collected by fine-needle biopsy using the franseen or fork-tip needle. Clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT04085055.

Clinical and Technical Guideline for Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-Guided Tissue Acquisition of Pancreatic Solid Tumor: Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE)

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in 8 categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.

Stylet Slow-pull Versus Standard Suction for Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Aspiration/Biopsy of Pancreatic Solid Masses: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM

There is limited evidence on the diagnostic performance of the stylet slow-pull (SP) method for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy. The aim of this study was to compare the SP method with standard suction (SS) for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy of solid pancreatic masses.

METHODS

A computerized bibliographic search of the main databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Science Citation Index, was performed through February 2020. The main outcome measurements were diagnostic accuracy, cellularity, low blood contamination, adequate core tissue acquisition, and technical success rate.

RESULTS

Eleven studies (including 6 randomized trials) were included, with a total of 504 patients who underwent SP and 551 who underwent SS. Diagnostic accuracy was significantly superior in the SP group, compared with the SS group [odds ratio (OR)=1.60; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.14-2.26]. The SP group had higher pooled rates of low blood contamination (OR=1.93; 95% CI, 1.29-2.87) and adequate core tissue acquisition (OR=1.91; 95% CI, 1.11-3.26) than the SS group. There was no significant difference between groups in the adequacy of cellularity (OR=0.99; 95% CI, 0.63-1.57; P=0.98) or technical success rate (OR=0.38; 95% CI, 0.13-1.15; P=0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

The authors provide evidence that SP is superior to SS in diagnostic accuracy, low blood contamination, and adequate core tissue acquisition, without reducing adequacy of cellularity or technical success rate.

Tissue acquisition and pancreatic masses: Which needle and which acquisition technique should be used?

Background and study aims  Pancreatic cancer represents the fourth most common cause of cancer-related deaths in Western countries and the need of a low-risk investigation to obtain an accurate histopathological diagnosis has become increasingly pressing. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) with fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is the standard method for obtaining samples from pancreatic masses. In recent years, there has been an increasing need to obtain histological specimens during EUS procedures, rather than cytological ones, to guide oncological treatment options, leading to the so-call "FNB concept." Different needles have been developed for fine-needle biopsy (FNB) in recent years, enabling acquisition of larger specimens on which to perform histological and molecular analyses. The aim of this narrative review was to assess the role of EUS-guided FNA and FNB in patients with pancreatic masses, and to identify which needle and which acquisition technique should be used to improve tissue acquisition.

Diagnostic efficacy of three suction techniques for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions: protocol for a multicenter randomized cross-over clinical trial

BACKGROUND

How suction technique affects endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) remains unclear. A standardized protocol is currently lacking, with most previous studies being restricted to EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). The research related to EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is sparse.

AIMS

The aim of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy, cellularity, tissue acquisition, blood contamination and adverse event rate of three common suction techniques (standard suction, slow-pull, and wet suction) used for EUS-FNB of solid pancreatic masses.

METHODS

This is a multicenter single-blind randomized cross-over superiority trial. A total of 300 patients with suspected pancreatic malignancy will be enrolled from digestive endoscopic centers at five large tertiary hospitals in China. All three suction techniques will be performed on each patient using a 25G ProCore needle, with the sequence of suction techniques determined by randomization. Cytological and histological specimens obtained with each of the three techniques will be assessed independently. Outcomes among the three suction techniques will be compared.

DISCUSSION

To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest multicenter randomized cross-over trial designed to determine the optimal suction technique for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses. This study may contribute to standardizing the suction technique for EUS-FNB.

Slow-pull compared to suction technique for EUS-guided sampling of pancreatic solid lesions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background and study aims  Current ESGE guidelines suggest employing the suction (SU) technique for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling of pancreatic solid lesions. Nonetheless, recent randomized controlled trials (RCT) have reported that the slow-pull (SP) technique has similar diagnostic accuracy with possibly less blood contamination. However, these results are heterogeneous and limited to small cohorts. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare adequacy, accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of the SU and SP techniques for EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions. Methods  A computerized bibliographic search was restricted to RCTs. Pooled effects were calculated using a random-effects model and expressed in terms of pooled sensitivity and specificity and OR (95 % CI) for adequacy and accuracy. Results  Overall, seven RCTs were included, for a total of 475 patients (163 lesions sampled with SU, 164 with SP and 148 by both). The adequacy was similar (OR = 0.98) without heterogeneity (I 2  = 0 %), but a high degree of blood contamination was more common with SU than SP (pooled rate 27.6 % vs 19.7 %). A non-significant superiority of SP in terms of pooled accuracy (OR = 0.82; 95 % CI 0.36-1.85) was recorded, with moderate heterogeneity (I 2  = 52.4 %). The SP technique showed a slightly higher pooled sensitivity compared to SU (88.7 % vs 83.4 %), while specificity was similar (97.2 % SP vs 96.9 % SU), with considerable heterogeneity. Conclusion  The current meta-analysis reveals non-superiority of SU over SP, while SP results in reduced blood contamination. If the 5 % accuracy difference favouring SP is true, with alfa error = 0.05 and beta = 0.20, a RCT of 982 patients per arm is needed to confirm significance.

Stylet slow-pull vs. standard suction technique for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy in pancreatic solid lesions using 20 Gauge Procore™ needle: A multicenter randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Standard suction and slow-pull techniques have been utilized during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic solid lesions, but the correct sampling technique remains unclear. New needles designed to obtain samples suitable for histological evaluation have become available. We performed a study comparing the two sampling methods during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) in patients with pancreatic solid lesions.

METHODS

We performed EUS-FNB with a 20 Gauge FNB needle using slow-pull or standard suction techniques in a prospective, randomized, multicenter study. The primary aim was bloodiness of the collected specimens. Secondary aims were technical success and performance of the two techniques.

RESULTS

110 patients were included (55 per group). No difference in blood contamination was observed (slow-pull 80% vs. suction 74%, p = 0.917). Technical success was 95% (96% vs. 94%, p = 0315). Sensitivity (96% vs. 93%), specificity (100% vs. 100%), positive likelihood ratio (NA), negative likelihood ratio (0.04 vs. 0.07), diagnostic accuracy (96 vs. 93%) did not differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNB with slow-pull and standard suction techniques are comparable in terms of blood contamination providing similar high diagnostic sensitivity and accuracy in pancreatic solid lesions. The use of the new generation FNB needle allows to reach such high level of diagnostic adequacy regardless of the technique utilized.

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.

New Era of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition: Next-Generation Sequencing by Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Sampling for Pancreatic Cancer

Pancreatic cancer is a lethal cancer with an increasing incidence. Despite improvements in chemotherapy, patients with pancreatic cancer continue to face poor prognoses. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) is the primary method for obtaining tissue samples of pancreatic cancer. Due to advancements in next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies, multiple parallel sequencing can be applied to EUS-TA samples. Genomic biomarkers for therapeutic stratification in pancreatic cancer are still lacking, however, NGS can unveil potential predictive genomic biomarkers of treatment response. Thus, the importance of NGS using EUS-TA samples is becoming recognized. In this review, we discuss the recent advances in EUS-TA application for NGS of pancreatic cancer.

Clinical Impact of EUS-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy Using a Novel Franseen Needle for Histological Assessment of Pancreatic Diseases

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Several studies have shown the benefits of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) using a Franseen needle for histological assessment. However, studies focusing on pancreatic diseases are limited and the safety of this method has not been well assessed. We aimed to assess the current status and issues of EUS-FNB in the diagnosis of pancreatic diseases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 87 consecutive EUS-FNB specimens using either a 22-gauge Franseen needle (Group A, N = 51) or a conventional 22-gauge fine-needle aspiration needle (Group B, N = 36) for pancreatic diseases, and the diagnostic accuracy and safety were compared. Final diagnoses were obtained based on surgical pathology or a minimum six-month clinical follow-up.

RESULTS

Although the diagnostic accuracy for malignancy was 96.1% in Group A versus 88.9% in Group B, with no statistically significant difference (P = 0.19), the median sample area was significantly larger in Group A (4.07 versus 1.31mm², P < 0.0001). There were no differences between the two needles in the locations from which the specimens were obtained. Adverse events occurred in one case (2%) in Group A (mild pancreatitis) and none in Group B with no statistical significance (P = 0.586). Although there was no case of bleeding defined as adverse events, 2 cases in Group A showed active bleeding during the procedure with increase in the echo-free space, which required CT scanning to rule out extravasation. Eventually, the bleeding stopped spontaneously.

CONCLUSIONS

Given its guaranteed ability to obtain core specimens and comparable safety, and although the risk of bleeding should be kept in mind, EUS-FNB using a Franseen needle is likely to become a standard procedure for obtaining pancreatic tissue in the near future.