Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy of small solid pancreatic lesions using a 22-gauge needle with side fenestration

Comparation of 5 ml and 10 ml Negative Pressures with Wet-suction Techniques for EUS-FNA of Solid Lesions: A Single-center Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The negative pressure selectable for the wet-suction technique remains uncertain. The aim was to investigate the quality of sampling and diagnostic accuracy with solid lesions by 5 mL and 10 mL negative pressure with wet-suction techniques.

METHODS

This is a single-center, crossover, randomized controlled trial conducted with a random sampling technique. In all, 160 patients consecutively undergoing EUS-FNA for solid lesions were randomized in a ratio of 1:1 into 2 groups, the 5 mL and 10 mL negative pressure wet-suction group. The main outcome was to compare the sample quality between the 2 groups. The secondary outcome was to compare the histologic and cytologic diagnostic accuracy of solid lesions.

RESULTS

Pancreatic (n=129) and nonpancreatic (n=27) lesions from 156 lesions were examined. The sample quality concluding cellularity, adequacy, integrity, and blood contamination were comparable between the 2 groups. However, in subgroup analysis, we found 19G FNA provided more integrity of specimen in 5 mL than in 10 mL group (100% vs. 82.9%, P=0.025). In contrast, this benefit was not noteworthy in the 22G FNA subgroup. And there was no statistically significant in histologic (87.82% vs. 87.18%, P=1.000) and cytologic (78.85% vs. 80.77%, P=0.778) accuracy between 5 mL and 10 mL groups.

CONCLUSION

When using the wet-suction technique, 5 mL and 10 mL negative pressure offer equivalent sample quality and diagnostic accuracy. However, the 19G FNA can obtain better sample quality with 5 mL negative pressure than 10 mL negative pressure.

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.

Current status and issues in genomic analysis using EUS-FNA/FNB specimens in hepatobiliary-pancreatic cancers

Comprehensive genomic profiling based on next-generation sequencing has recently been used to provide precision medicine for various advanced cancers. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) play essential roles in the diagnosis of abdominal masses, mainly pancreatic cancers. In recent years, CGP analysis using EUS-FNA/FNB specimens for hepatobiliary-pancreatic cancers has increased; however, the success rate of CGP analysis is not clinically satisfactory, and many issues need to be resolved to improve the success rate of CGP analysis. In this article, we review the transition from EUS-FNA to FNB, compare each test, and discuss the current status and issues in genomic analysis of hepatobiliary-pancreatic cancers using EUS-FNA/FNB specimens.

Sensitivity of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology and biopsy for a diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A comparative analysis

The utility of endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration cytology (EUS-FNAC) or endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNAB) for diagnosis of small and large pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDACs) remains in question. We addressed this by analyzing 97 definitively diagnosed cases of PDAC, for which both EUS-FNAC and EUS-FNAB had been performed. We subclassified the 97 solid masses into small (n = 35) or large (n = 62) according to the maximum tumor diameter (<24 mm or ≥24 mm) and compared the diagnostic sensitivity (truly positive rate) of EUS-FNAC and of EUS-FNAB for small and large masses. Diagnostic sensitivity of EUS-FNAC did not differ between large and small masses (79.0% vs. 60.0%; p = 0.0763). However, the diagnostic sensitivity of EUS-FNAB was significantly higher for large masses (85.5% vs. 62.9%; p = 0.0213). Accurate EUS-FNAC-based diagnosis appeared to depend on the degree of cytological atypia of cancer cells, which was not associated with quantity of cancer cells. The accuracy of EUS-FNAB-based diagnosis appeared to depend on cancer cell viability in large masses and cancer volume in small masses. Based on the advantages or disadvantages in each modality, both modalities play an important role in the qualitative diagnosis of PDAC as a complementary procedure.

Wet-suction versus slow-pull technique for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy: a multicenter, randomized, crossover trial

BACKGROUND : It is unknown whether there is an advantage to using the wet-suction or slow-pull technique during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) with new-generation needles. We aimed to compare the performance of each technique in EUS-FNB.

METHODS

 This was a multicenter, randomized, single-blind, crossover trial including patients with solid lesions of ≥ 1 cm. Four needle passes with 22 G fork-tip or Franseen-type needles were performed, alternating the wet-suction and slow-pull techniques in a randomized order. The primary outcome was the histological yield (samples containing an intact piece of tissue of at least 550 μm). Secondary end points were sample quality (tissue integrity and blood contamination), diagnostic accuracy, and adequate tumor fraction.

RESULTS

 Overall, 210 patients with 146 pancreatic and 64 nonpancreatic lesions were analyzed. A tissue core was retrieved in 150 (71.4 %) and 129 (61.4 %) cases using the wet-suction and the slow-pull techniques, respectively (P = 0.03). The mean tissue integrity score was higher using wet suction (P = 0.02), as was the blood contamination of samples (P < 0.001). In the two subgroups of pancreatic and nonpancreatic lesions, tissue core rate and tissue integrity score were not statistically different using the two techniques, but blood contamination was higher with wet suction. Diagnostic accuracy and tumor fraction did not differ between the two techniques.

CONCLUSION

 Overall, the wet-suction technique in EUS-FNB resulted in a higher tissue core procurement rate compared with the slow-pull method. Diagnostic accuracy and the rate of samples with adequate tumor fraction were similar between the two techniques.

Diagnostic Yield of Serial Pancreatic Juice Aspiration Cytologic Examination With Brush Cytology for Pancreatic Ductal Stenosis

OBJECTIVES

Serial pancreatic-juice aspiration cytologic examination (SPACE) is useful for diagnosis of pancreatic ductal stenosis. This study investigates the utility of adding brush cytology to SPACE during the same procedure.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients who underwent SPACE with brush cytology for pancreatic ductal stenosis between February 2014 and July 2020 in our hospital.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients were included. Eleven had lesions in the pancreatic head lesions, and 23 had lesions in the pancreatic body or tail. Malignancies were found in 22 patients. Endoscopic ultrasound, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging showed distal pancreatic duct dilation in 81.8% to 90.6% of cases, with a sensitivity of 63.0% to 65.5%. The sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy of SPACE, brush cytology, and SPACE with brush cytology were 63.6%, 50.0%, and 77.3% (P = 0.19) and 73.5%, 67.6%, and 82.4% (P = 0.42), respectively. No significant differences in diagnostic yield were observed for either pancreatic head lesions or pancreatic body/tail lesions. Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis was observed in 4 cases (11.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

The utility of adding brush cytology to SPACE was limited.

Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration vs fine needle biopsy for pancreatic masses, subepithelial lesions, and lymph nodes

Endoscopic ultrasound tissue acquisition, in the form of both fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB), is utilized for pancreatic mass lesions, subepithelial lesions, and lymph node biopsy. Both procedures are safe and yield high diagnostic value. Despite its high diagnostic yield, EUS-FNA has potential limitations associated with cytological aspirations, including inability to determine histologic architecture, and a small quantitative sample for further immunohistochemical staining. EUS-FNB, with its larger core biopsy needle, was designed to overcome these potential limitations. However, it remains unclear which technique should be used and for which lesions. Comparative trials are plagued by heterogeneity at every stage of comparison; including variable needles used, and different definitions of endpoints, which therefore limit generalizability. Thus, we present a review of prospective trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses on studies examining EUS-FNA vs EUS-FNB. Prospective comparative trials of EUS-FNA vs EUS-FNB primarily focus on pancreatic mass lesions, and yield conflicting results in terms of demonstrating the superiority of one method. However, consistent among trials is the potential for diagnosis with fewer passes, and a larger quantity of sample achieved for next generation sequencing. With regard to subepithelial lesions and lymph node biopsy, fewer prospective trials exist, and larger prospective studies are necessary. Based on the available literature, we would recommend EUS-FNB for peri-hepatic lymph nodes.

The level of agreement between rapid-on-site evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspirate and surgical histological diagnosis in gastrointestinal lesions

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is the main tool for biopsy via fine needle aspiration (FNA) from gastrointestinal (GI) lesions including pancreatic, upper gastrointestinal, and adjacent lesions. The variable diagnostic yield and delay until the final pathological results can affect treatment planning and cause patient anxiety. We aimed to assess the agreement of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) of EUS-FNA with the surgical histological diagnosis of patients who underwent resection.

METHOD

A retrospective study was performed including all patients 18 years or older who underwent EUS-FNA with ROSE for GI lesions. For patients who underwent surgical resection, the correlation between ROSE and the surgical histological diagnosis was evaluated with the kappa coefficient.

RESULTS

Overall, 73 patients who underwent EUS-FNA with ROSE were included, of whom 22 (30.1%) had curative resection. The final pathological diagnosis from surgery showed 17 malignant and 5 benign lesions. Among the benign lesions, ROSE correctly identified 2 (diagnostic accuracy of 40%), while among the malignant lesions, ROSE correctly identified 14 (diagnostic accuracy of 82.4%), yielding a fair kappa coefficient of 0.366 (95% CI 0.035-0.697). When classifying the lesions as either malignant vs benign or suspicious of malignancy, the kappa coefficient increased to 0.58 (95% CI 0.180-0.975) for the subgroup of pancreatic lesions, with diagnostic accuracy of 81.2% for the malignant category.

CONCLUSIONS

A high level of agreement for malignancy was found between FNA-EUS with ROSE and the final surgical histological diagnosis. ROSE can be used as an adjuvant diagnostic tool to optimise patient management and decrease delay-related anxiety.

Comparison of fine-needle aspiration and fine-needle biopsy devices for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid lesions: a systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition is extensively used, but the optimal sampling device is still a matter of debate. We performed meta-analyses on studies comparing fine-needle aspiration (FNA) with fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles, and studies comparing different FNB needles.

METHODS

Online databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 50 cases with a suspected solid pancreatic or nonpancreatic lesion that compared FNA with FNB needles. Outcome measures included diagnostic accuracy, adequacy, number of passes, presence of tissue cores, and adverse events. We also performed meta-regression analysis on the effect of FNB design on diagnostic accuracy. Quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool.

RESULTS

18 RCTs comparing FNA with FNB needles were included. FNB provided a higher pooled diagnostic accuracy (87 % vs. 80 %; P = 0.02) and tissue core rate (80 % vs. 62 %; P = 0.002), and allowed diagnosis with fewer passes (P = 0.03), in both pancreatic and nonpancreatic lesions. A total of 93 studies were included comparing different FNB devices. Pooled diagnostic accuracy was higher for forward-facing bevel needles than for the reverse bevel needle. In this analysis, study quality was low and heterogeneity was high (I2  = 80 %).

CONCLUSION

FNB outperformed FNA when sampling pancreatic and nonpancreatic lesions. Forward-facing bevel FNB needles seemed to outperform the reverse bevel FNB needle, but the low quality of evidence prevents us from making strong recommendations on the optimal FNB design.

Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition Using a 20-Gauge Menghini Needle with a Lateral Forward Bevel and a 22-Gauge Franseen Needle: A Single-Center Large Cohort Study

Background/Aims

Several fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles are available for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition. However, there is disagreement on which type of needle has the best diagnostic yield. The aim of this study was to compare the performance and safety of two commonly used EUS-FNB needles.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNB between June 2016 and March 2020 in our hospital. Two types of needles were evaluated: a 20-gauge Menghini needle with a lateral forward bevel and a 22-gauge Franseen needle. Rapid on-site evaluation was performed in all the cases. A multivariate analysis was performed to clarify the negative predictive factors for obtaining a histological diagnosis. Propensity score matching was performed to compare the diagnostic yields of these two needles.

Results

We analyzed 666 patients and 690 lesions. The overall diagnostic rate of histology alone was 88.8%, and the overall adverse event rate was 1.5%. Transduodenal access and small lesions (≤2 cm) were identified as negative predictive factors for obtaining a histological diagnosis. After propensity score matching, 482 lesions were analyzed. The diagnostic accuracy rates of histology in the M and F needle groups were 89.2% and 88.8%, respectively (p=1.00).

Conclusions

Both the needles showed high diagnostic yield, and no significant difference in performance was observed between the two.

Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in the Diagnosis of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms

Although pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PNENs) are relatively rare tumors, their number is increasing with advances in diagnostic imaging modalities. Even small lesions that are difficult to detect using computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging can now be detected with endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). Contrast-enhanced EUS is useful, and not only diagnosis but also malignancy detection has become possible by evaluating the vascularity of tumors. Pathological diagnosis using EUS with fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is useful when diagnostic imaging is difficult. EUS-FNA can also be used to evaluate the grade of malignancy. Pooling the data of the studies that compared the PNENs grading between EUS-FNA samples and surgical specimens showed a concordance rate of 77.5% (κ-statistic = 0.65, 95% confidence interval = 0.59–0.71, p < 0.01). Stratified analysis for small tumor size (2 cm) showed that the concordance rate was 84.5% and the kappa correlation index was 0.59 (95% confidence interval = 0.43–0.74, p < 0.01). The evolution of ultrasound imaging technologies such as contrast-enhanced and elastography and the artificial intelligence that analyzes them, the evolution of needles, and genetic analysis, will further develop the diagnosis and treatment of PNENs in the future.

Optimal number of needle passes during EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions with 22G ProCore needles and different suction techniques: A randomized controlled trial

Background and Objectives:

The sensitivity of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) varies considerably. The optimal number of passes through a solid pancreatic lesion with a 22G FNB needle during EUS-FNB is controversial. This prospective randomized controlled study aimed to determine the optimal number of needle passes during EUS-FNB of solid pancreatic lesions, with 22G FNB needles and different sampling techniques.

Methods:

Pancreatic masses were sampled using 22G FNB needles with either the stylet slow-pull (SP) technique or the standard-suction (SS) technique. We determined the number of needle passes required to obtain a diagnostic accuracy of >90%. Differences between the two techniques in terms of technical success rate, cytological acquisition, core tissue acquisition, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and complications were analyzed.

Results:

A total of 120 patients were randomly assigned to either SP or SS group. Three patients who were lost to follow-up and one who did not complete 5 passes due to bent needle head were excluded from the study. Fifty-six cases in the SP group and 60 cases in the SS group were included in the analysis. For SP technique, the cumulative accuracy of passes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 was 44.83%, 76.79%, 87.50%, 92.86%, and 94.64%, respectively. For SS technique, the cumulative accuracy of passes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 was 71.67%, 85.0%, 90.0%, 93.33%, and 95.0%, respectively. For each group, there was no statistically significant difference in accuracy after 3 and 4 passes. After 4 passes, the pooled sensitivity (92.59% vs. 93.10%), accuracy (92.86% vs. 93.10%), and specificity (100% vs. 100%) were similar (P > 0.05) in the SP and SS groups, respectively. In addition, positive cytological diagnoses (83.9% vs. 85.0%) and positive histological diagnoses (71.4% vs. 78.3%) were comparable (P > 0.05) in the SP and SS groups, respectively. No statistically significant factor was found associated with diagnostic sensitivity for each group.

Conclusion:

When on-site cytological evaluation is unavailable, we recommend that at least 3 passes with 22G ProCore needles be performed during EUS-FNB using the SS technique, at least 4 passes when using SP technique. The SS technique showed potential advantages over SP technique in tissue acquisition and diagnostic capabilities.

Wet- versus dry-suction techniques for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid lesions: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The optimal sampling techniques for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) remain unclear and have not been standardized. The aim of this study was to compare the wet-suction and dry-suction techniques for sampling solid lesions in the pancreas, mediastinum, and abdomen.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, crossover, randomized controlled trial with randomized order of sampling techniques. The 296 consecutive patients underwent EUS-FNA with 22G needles and were randomized in a ratio of 1:1 into two separate groups that received the dry-suction and wet-suction techniques in a different order. The primary outcome was to compare the histological diagnostic accuracy of dry suction and wet suction for malignancy. The secondary outcomes were to compare the cytological diagnostic accuracy and specimen quality.

RESULTS

Among the 269 patients with pancreatic (n = 161) and non-pancreatic (n = 108) lesions analyzed, the wet-suction technique had a significantly better histological diagnostic accuracy (84.9 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 79.9 % - 89.0 %] vs. 73.2 % [95 %CI 67.1 % - 78.7 %]; P = 0.001), higher specimen adequacy (94.8 % vs. 78.8 %; P < 0.001), and less blood contamination (P < 0.001) than the dry-suction technique. In addition, sampling non-pancreatic lesions with two passes of wet suction provided a histological diagnostic accuracy of 91.6 %.

CONCLUSIONS

The wet-suction technique in EUS-FNA generates better histological diagnostic accuracy and specimen quality than the dry-suction technique. Furthermore, sampling non-pancreatic lesions with two passes of EUS-FNA with wet suction may provide a definitive histological diagnosis when rapid on-site evaluation is not routinely available.

Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition for small solid pancreatic lesions

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition is sometimes required to diagnose small solid pancreatic lesions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided tissue acquisition for small solid pancreatic lesions and the differences in diagnostic yield among different needles. Patients and method  We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients who had undergone EUS-guided tissue acquisition for solid pancreatic lesions less than 2 cm between November 2012 and June 2019. Three types of needles were evaluated in this study: a 22-gauge fine-needle aspiration (FNA) Lancet needle, a 20-gauge fine-needle biopsy (FNB) Menghini needle with a lateral forward bevel, and a 22-gauge FNB Franseen needle. We evaluated the diagnostic yield and safety of the procedure using these needles. Results  We analyzed 160 patients with 163 lesions. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 92.0 %, 100 %, and 92.6 %, respectively. In the histological plus cytological diagnosis, accuracies of the Lancet, Menghini, and Franseen needles were 92.7 %, 97.0 %, and 85.7 %, respectively ( P  = 0.10). In the histological diagnosis alone, the negative predictive values (NPVs) of the Lancet, Menghini, and Franseen needles were 13.3 %, 53.3 %, and 27.3 %, respectively ( P  = 0.08). Adverse events occurred in four cases (2.5 %): one postprocedural bleeding, two cases of pancreatitis, and one pancreatic abscess. Conclusions  EUS-guided tissue acquisition for small solid pancreatic lesions has a high diagnostic yield and safety. This study suggested a difference in the diagnostic yield of each needle for small solid pancreatic lesions.

Factors associated with diagnostic accuracy, technical success and adverse events of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is used to diagnose lesions within or adjacent to the digestive tract. However, there is no report on the overall diagnostic accuracy, technical success, and adverse events of FNB. The aims of this study were to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to comprehensively assess the diagnostic accuracy, technical success, and adverse events of FNB.

METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant articles published in English from January 1998 to May 2019 (No. CRD42019141647). Primary outcomes were EUS-FNB related diagnostic accuracy rate, technical success rate, and adverse event rate.

RESULTS

A total of 51 articles including 5330 patients met our criteria. The overall EUS-FNB related diagnostic accuracy rate, technical success rate, and adverse event rate was 90.82% [95% confidence interval (CI) 88.69-92.76%], 99.71% [95% CI 99.35-99.93%], and 0.59% [95% CI 0.29-1.0%], respectively. Biopsy with 22G needle could increase the diagnostic accuracy rate and technical success rate to 92.17% [95% CI 89.32-94.61%] and 99.88% [95% CI 99.64-99.99%], respectively, and decrease the adverse event to 0.37% [95% CI 0.08-0.87%]. Moreover, it showed that 22G needle was an independent factor associated with a higher diagnostic accuracy rate and technical success rate and a lower adverse event rate (P = 0.04, P < 0.001, and P = 0.04, respectively) by univariate and multivariate meta-regression analyses.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy is a feasible and safe procedure for lesions within or adjacent to the digestive tract. Biopsy using 22G needle could increase the diagnostic accuracy rate and technical success rate and decrease adverse event rate during the FNB procedure.

Factors affecting the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for the diagnosis of small (≤20 mm) pancreatic lesions

To explore the diagnostic value of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for small, solid or semi-solid pancreatic lesions (≤20 mm) and the factors affecting its accuracy.

METHODS

Altogether 92 patients with small, solid or semi-solid pancreatic lesions who underwent EUS-FNA at the Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital from November 2009 to January 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to determine the factors affecting the accuracy of EUS-FNA for detecting these lesions.

RESULTS

Among the 92 cases, 56 (60.9%) were diagnosed as having malignant lesions and 36 (39.1%) as benign lesions, respectively. The overall sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of small, solid or semi-solid pancreatic lesions were 71.4%, 100% and 82.6%, respectively. When considering the impact of the presence of a tissue core on the diagnosis, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of EUS-FNA with tissue core compared with those based on cytology alone were 77.3% vs 50.0%; 100% vs 100%; and 86.8% vs 62.5%, respectively. The multivariate analysis showed that larger tumor size (>15-20 mm) (odds ratio [OR] 4.200, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21-14.53, P = 0.023) and histologic diagnosis based on tissue core (OR 4.593, 95% CI 1.03-20.47, P = 0.046) were related to a higher accuracy of EUS-FNA. Adverse events were observed in three patients, all were treated conservatively and recovered within 3 days.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNA is effective and safe for diagnosing small pancreatic lesions. Tumor size and presence of tissue core are related to higher accuracy of the EUS-FNA.

Rare metastatic pancreatic tumors from lung cancer with cystic changes resembling intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm: a case report

BACKGROUND

Metastatic pancreatic tumors from lung cancer (MPTLC) constitute 3% of all metastatic pancreatic tumors. We present an extremely rare case of cystic MPTLC that was difficult to distinguish from intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN).

CASE PRESENTATION

The patient was a 74-year-old woman who underwent lobectomy of lung cancer 2 years before presentation to our hospital. She was referred to our department for resection of cystic pancreatic tumors, which were diagnosed as IPMN with high-risk stigmata. Abdominal computed tomography (CT) showed a 37-mm-wide cystic tumor with a contrasted solid nodule in the pancreatic head and a 17-mm-wide cystic tumor in the pancreatic tail. We performed a total pancreatectomy for these lesions. According to histopathological and immunohistochemical findings, the tumors were diagnosed as metastatic pancreatic tumors from lung cancer.

CONCLUSION

In this case, the cystic morphology was formed by eosinophilic secretions from tumor cells, and it was difficult to distinguish from IPMN with high-risk stigmata. We consider this case, based on the variable clinical findings, an extremely rare variant of MPTLC.

Lymphovascular Invasion Predicts Lymph Node Involvement in Small Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (p-NETS) are increasing in incidence, and prognostic factors continue to evolve. The benefit of lymphadenectomy for p-NETS ≤2 cm remains unclear. We sought to determine the significance of lymphovascular invasion (LVI) for small p-NETS.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with p-NETS ≤2 cm and with ≥1 evaluated lymph node (LN), years 2004-2015. Demographic, clinical, and treatment characteristics were analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of LN positivity.

RESULTS

Among 2,499 patients identified, tumor location was delineated as the head (26%), body (18%), tail (38%), or unspecified (18%); 74% were well-differentiated versus 10% moderate, 2% poor, and 14% unknown. LVI occurred in 11%. A median of 9 LNs were evaluated; overall positivity was 18%. Mean survival was significantly longer in node-negative patients (115 vs. 95 months, log-rank p < 0.0001). LVI was the strongest predictor of node involvement (OR 10.4, p < 0.0001) when controlling for tumor size, grade, and location. Subset analysis of patients with known LVI status, grade, location, and mitoses found that LVI was more likely in the setting of moderate-to-high tumor grade, 1-2 cm size, pancreatic head location, and high mitotic rate. Among patients with ≥2 of these 4 factors, 25% were node-positive.

CONCLUSIONS

Presence of LVI was the strongest predictor of node positivity. LVI on endoscopic biopsy should prompt resection and regional LN dissection to fully stage patients with small p-NETS. Patients with other high-risk factors should also be considered for resection and regional lymphadenectomy.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration vs fine-needle biopsy for the diagnosis of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) as a method of obtaining preoperative diagnosis of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs) has been reported in several series. Fine-needle biopsies (FNB) are increasingly employed to obtain core specimens during EUS. However, the differences in efficacy between these sampling methods in the diagnosis of PanNETs still needs to be defined. Patients and methods  Over a 13-year period, all patients who underwent EUS-guided tissue sampling of suspicious pancreatic lesions with clinical, endoscopic and pathologic details were entered into an electronic database. Lesions underwent EUS-FNA or FNB sampling, or a combination of the two. The accuracy and safety of different EUS-guided sampling methods for confirmed PanNETs were investigated. Results  A total of 91 patients (M/F: 42/49, median age: 57 years), who underwent 102 EUS procedures had a final diagnosis of PanNET. Both EUS-guided sampling modalities were used in 28 procedures, EUS-FNA alone was used in 61 cases, while EUS-FNB alone in 13 cases. Diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB alone, including the inadequate specimens, was 77.5 % (95 %CI: 68.9 - 86.2 %) and 85.4 % (95 %CI: 74.6 - 96.2 %), respectively. The combination of both sampling modalities established the diagnosis in 96.4 % of cases (27/28) (95 %CI: 89.6 - 100 %), significantly superior to EUS-FNA alone ( P  = 0.023). Diagnostic sensitivity among the adequate samples for EUS-FNA, EUS-FNB and for the combination of the two methods was 88.4 % (95 %CI: 80.9 - 96.0 %), 94.3 % (95 %CI: 86.6 - 100 %) and 100 % (95 %CI: 100 - 100 %). There was one reported complication, a post-FNA bleeding, treated conservatively. Conclusions  EUS-FNB improves diagnostic sensitivity and confers additional information to cytological assessment of PanNETs.

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.

High diagnostic adequacy and accuracy of the new 20G procore needle for EUS-guided tissue acquisition: Results of a large multicentre retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy has become the standard for tissue sampling. A new 20G ProCore™ (PC) needle has been developed to overcome the limitations of tissue acquisition of the smaller needles (22G, 25G) and the rigidity of the larger one (19G). The aim of this study is to assess the performance of the 20G PC needle.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent EUS-guided tissue acquisition with the 20G PC needle of pancreatic and extra-pancreatic mass lesions were retrospectively identified at three Italian centers (Bologna, Fermo, and Palermo). Diagnostic adequacy, accuracy, and tissue core acquisition were the outcome measures. All the cases were performed without rapid on-site evaluation.

RESULTS

A total of 384 patients with pancreatic (62.2%) and extra-pancreatic lesions were included in the study. For pancreatic lesions, adequacy, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 92.4%, 91.5%, 90.8%, and 100%, respectively, with a number needed to misdiagnose (NNM) of 11.8. The tissue core was obtained in 72% of cases. Transduodenal approach was performed in 150 pancreatic lesions; adequacy, accuracy, and tissue core acquisition were 88.7%, 90%, and 66%, respectively (NNM 10). For extrapancreatic lesions, adequacy, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and tissue core sampling were 95.3%, 95.3%, 92.6%, 100%, and 84.5% (NNM 21.3).

CONCLUSIONS

The 20G PC needle showed high diagnostic adequacy and accuracy, regardless the access route.

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

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

Enrichment of short mutant cell-free DNA fragments enhanced detection of pancreatic cancer

Background

Analysis of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is promising for broad applications in clinical settings, but with significant bias towards late-stage cancers. Although recent studies have discussed the diverse and degraded nature of cfDNA molecules, little is known about its impact on the practice of cfDNA analysis.

Methods

We developed single-strand library preparation and hybrid-capture-based cfDNA sequencing (SLHC-seq) to analysis degraded cfDNA fragments. Next we used SLHC-seq to perform cfDNA profiling in 112 pancreatic cancer patients, and the results were compared with 13 previous reports. Extensive analysis was performed in terms of cfDNA fragments to explore the reasons for higher detection rate of KRAS mutations in the circulation of pancreatic cancers.

Findings

By applying the new approach, we achieved higher efficiency in analysis of mutations than previously reported using other detection assays. 791 cancer-specific mutations were detected in plasma of 88% patients with KRAS hotspots detected in 70% of all patients. Only 8 mutations were detected in 28 healthy controls without any known oncogenic or truncating alleles. cfDNA profiling by SLHC-seq was largely consistent with results of tissue-based sequencing. SLHC-seq rescued short or damaged cfDNA fragments along to increase the sensitivity and accuracy of circulating-tumour DNA detection.

Interpretation

We found that the small mutant fragments are prevalent in early-stage patients, which provides strong evidence for fragment size-based detection of pancreatic cancer. The new pipeline enhanced our understanding of cfDNA biology and provide new insights for liquid biopsy.

Proposal for Endoscopic Ultrasonography Classification for Small Pancreatic Cancer

Backgrounds: Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is used to observe the stricture of the main pancreatic duct (MPD) and in diagnosing pancreatic cancer (PC). We investigate the findings on EUS by referring to the histopathological findings of resected specimens. Materials and Methods: Six patients with carcinoma in situ (CIS) and 30 patients with invasive carcinoma of 20 mm or less were included. The preoperative EUS findings were classified as follows. A1: Simple stricture type—no findings around the stricture; A2: Hypoecho stricture type—localized hypoechoic area without demarcation around the stricture; A3: Tumor stricture type—tumor on the stricture; B: Dilation type—the dilation of the pancreatic duct without a downstream stricture; C: Parenchymal tumor type—tumor located apart from the MPD. Results: Classes A1 and A2 consisted of 2 CISs, and 4 invasive carcinomas included two cases smaller than 5 mm in diameter. Most of the cancers classified as A3 or C were of invasive carcinoma larger than 5 mm in diameter. All cancers classified as B involved CIS. Serial pancreatic-juice aspiration cytologic examination (SPACE) was selected for all types of cases, with a sensitivity of 92.0%, while EUS-guided fine needle aspiration cytology (EUS-FNA) was only useful for invasive carcinoma, and its sensitivity was 66.7%. Conclusions: Stricture without a tumor could be a finding for invasive PC and pancreatic duct dilation without a downstream stricture could be a finding indicative of CIS. Carcinoma smaller than 5 mm in diameter could not be recognized by EUS. SPACE had a high sensitivity for diagnosing small PC.

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

Background

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

Objectives

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

Patients and methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Analysis of Fine-Needle Biopsy vs Fine-Needle Aspiration in Diagnosis of Pancreatic and Abdominal Masses: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needles with side fenestrations are used to collect aspirates for cytology analysis and biopsy samples for histologic analysis. We conducted a large, multicenter study to compare the accuracy of diagnosis via specimens collected with fine-needle biopsy (FNB) versus fine-needle aspiration (FNA) for patients with pancreatic and nonpancreatic masses.

METHODS

We performed a prospective single-blind study at 5 tertiary care centers in China. The study comprised 408 patients undergoing EUS for a solid mass (>1 cm) in the pancreas, abdomen, mediastinum, or pelvic cavity, from December 2014 through January 2016. Patients were randomly assigned to groups (1:1) for assessment by FNA (n = 190) or FNB (n = 187). After lesions were identified by EUS, samples were collected in a total of 4 passes by each needle. All procedures were performed by experienced endosonographers; cytologists and pathologists were blinded to the sample collection method. Patients were followed for at least 48 weeks, and final diagnoses were obtained after surgery, imaging analysis, or resolution of lesion. The primary aim was to compare diagnostic yields of EUS-FNA with EUS-FNB for all solid masses, then separately as pancreatic and nonpancreatic masses. The secondary endpoint was the quality of histologic specimen.

RESULTS

Findings from FNB analysis were accurate for 91.44% of all cases, compared with 80.00% for all FNA cases, based on final patient diagnoses (P = .0015). In patients with pancreatic masses (n = 249), findings from histologic analysis of FNBs were accurate for 92.68% of the cases, compared with 81.75% for FNAs (P = .0099). In cytology analysis of pancreatic masses, samples collected by FNB accurately identified 88.62% of all pancreatic lesions, whereas samples collected by FNA accurately identified 79.37% (P = .00468). Analyses of samples of nonpancreatic masses collected by FNA versus FNB produced similar diagnostic yields.

CONCLUSIONS

In a prospective study of patients with pancreatic masses, we found EUS-guided FNB samples to produce more accurate diagnoses than samples collected by EUS-guided FNA samples. No difference in diagnostic yield was seen between EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for nonpancreatic masses. Clinical Trials.gov no: NCT02327065.

EUS-guided sampling with 25G biopsy needle as a rescue strategy for diagnosis of small subepithelial lesions of the upper gastrointestinal tract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 This study was designed to evaluate the impact of additional tissue obtained with endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided 25-gauge core biopsy needle (25G-PC) following an unsuccessful fine-needle biopsy (FNB) performed with larger-bore needles for the characterization of gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions (GI-SELs).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 We prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed information in our database from January 2013 to June 2017 for all patients with GI-SELs who received a EUS-guided FNB (EUS-FNB) with 25G-PC during the same procedure after failure of biopsy performed with larger-bore needle. Diagnostic yield, diagnostic accuracy and procedural complications were evaluated.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients were included in this study, 10 men and 6 women, median age 67.8 (range 43 to 76 years). Five patients were found to have a SEL localized in the distal duodenum, five in the gastric antrum, two in the gastric fundus and four in the gastric body. The mean size of the lesions was 20.5 mm (range 18 - 24 mm). EUS-FNB with 25G-PC enabled final diagnosis in nine patients (56.2 %). Regarding the subgroup of duodenal lesions, the procedure was successful in four of five (80 %). Final diagnoses with EUS-guided sampling were GIST (n = 6), leiomyoma (n = 2) and metastatic ovarian carcinoma (n = 1). No procedure-related complications were recorded.

CONCLUSION

 In patients with small GI-SELs, additional tissue obtained with 25G-PC could represents a "rescue" strategy after an unsuccessful procedure with larger-bore needles, especially when lesions are localized in the distal duodenum.

Comparison of modified wet suction technique and dry suction technique in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for solid lesions: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Several suction techniques have been developed recently to enhance tissue acquisition when sampling solid lesions using endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). The aim of this study is to determine whether a new modified wet suction technique (MWST) compared with the conventional dry suction technique (DRST) shall present better outcomes with respect to diagnostic yield and specimen quality of solid lesions in the intra-abdomen and mediastinum.

Methods/design

This is a single-blind, randomized, controlled, superiority trial conducted at four large tertiary care centers in China. Two hundred and ninety-six patients with solid lesions referred for EUS-FNA will be randomly assigned to group A, using DRST for the first pass, or group B, using MWST for the first pass in a ratio of 1:1. Following a 2 × 2 cross-over design, the pass sequence for group A is DRST, MWST, DRST, MWST. For group B, the pass sequence is MWST, DRST, MWST, DRST. All procedures will be performed by experienced echoendoscopists, and the patients and assessors (cytologists and pathologists) will be blinded during the entire study. The primary outcome measure is the diagnosis yield. Secondary outcome measures are specimen quality, including assessment of quantity of cell, tissue integrity, and blood contamination.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first large-scale randomized controlled trial to compare MWST with DRST when sampling solid lesions in the intra-abdomen and mediastinum. The results may contribute to future multicenter clinical trials in standardizing suction techniques during EUS-FNA.

Trial registration

Clinical Trials.gov, NCT02789371. Retrospectively registered on 6 June 2016.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2380-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Biliary plastic stent does not influence the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of pancreatic head masses performed with core biopsy needles

OBJECTIVE

While the presence of biliary stent significantly decreases the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for pancreatic head cancer staging, its impact on the EUS-guided sampling accuracy is still debated. Furthermore, data on EUS-fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) using core biopsy needles in patients with pancreatic mass and biliary stent are lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of biliary stent on the adequacy and accuracy of EUS-FNB in patients with pancreatic head mass.

METHODS

All patients who underwent EUS-guided sampling with core needles of solid pancreatic head masses causing obstructive jaundice were retrospectively identified in a single tertiary referral center. Adequacy, defined as the rate of cases in which a tissue specimen for proper examination was achieved, with and without biliary stent, was the primary outcome measure. The diagnostic accuracy and complication rate were the secondary outcome measures.

RESULTS

A total of 130 patients with pancreatic head mass causing biliary obstruction were included in the study: 74 cases of them were sampled without stent and 56 cases with plastic stent in situ. The adequacy was 96.4% in the stent group and 90.5% in the group without stent (p=0.190). No significant differences were observed for sensitivity (88.9% vs. 85.9%), specificity (100% for both groups), and accuracy (89.3% vs. 86.5%) between those with and without stent, respectively. The accuracy was not influenced by the timing of stenting (<48h or ≥48h before EUS). No EUS-FNB related complications were recorded.

CONCLUSION

The presence of biliary stent does not influence the tissue sampling adequacy, the diagnostic accuracy and the complication rate of EUS-FNB of pancreatic head masses performed with core biopsy needles.

Comparison of the diagnostic performance of 2 core biopsy needles for EUS-guided tissue acquisition from solid pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

A new core biopsy needle with a novel tip, opposing bevel, and sheath design has recently been introduced for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB). The diagnostic utility of this needle for differentiating solid pancreatic masses is currently unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance and yield for tissue acquisition from solid pancreatic lesions of the opposing bevel needle with those of a reverse bevel EUS-FNB needle.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with solid pancreatic masses undergoing EUS-FNB using the opposing bevel (n = 101) and the reverse bevel (n = 100) core biopsy needles were included in the study. Final diagnosis was based on positive histology or at least 12 months of follow-up in cases with a negative biopsy. The primary outcome was the diagnostic performance of the 2 needles for malignant pancreatic masses. A secondary outcome was the diagnostic yield.

RESULTS

Compared with the reverse bevel needle, using strict criteria the opposing bevel needle provided significantly higher sensitivity (71.1% vs 90.1%; P = .0006) and overall accuracy (74% vs 92%; I = 0.0006) for discriminating malignant from benign solid pancreatic masses. The proportion of samples classified as adequate for histologic analysis was 87% for the reverse bevel needle versus 99% for the opposing bevel needle (p = 0.002) Multivariate analysis controlling the needle gauge and site did not show any significant difference in accuracy and sensitivity between the 2 groups. There were no adverse events in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

In this first, large, single-center preliminary cohort study, an EUS core biopsy needle with a novel tip, opposing bevel, and sheath design afforded substantially superior tissue yield and diagnostic performance compared with a reverse-bevel needle. If replicated by randomized controlled trials, our findings suggest that similarly designed needles could become the standard of care for EUS-guided tissue acquisition from solid pancreatic masses.

Is there a difference between 19G core biopsy needle and 22G core biopsy needle in diagnosing the correct etiology? - A meta-analysis and systematic review

AIM

To compare the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) 19G core biopsies and 22G core biopsies in diagnosing the correct etiology for a solid mass.

METHODS

Articles were searched in Medline, PubMed, and Ovid journals. Pooling was conducted by both fixed and random effects models.

RESULTS

Initial search identified 4460 reference articles for 19G and 22G, of these 670 relevant articles were selected and reviewed. Data was extracted from 6 studies for 19G (n = 289) and 16 studies for 22G (n = 592) which met the inclusion criteria. EUS 19G core biopsies had a pooled sensitivity of 91.6% (95%CI: 87.1-95.0) and pooled specificity of 95.9% (95%CI: 88.6-99.2), whereas EUS 22G had a pooled sensitivity of 83.3% (95%CI: 79.7-86.6) and pooled specificity of 64.3% (95%CI: 54.7-73.1). The positive likelihood ratio of EUS 19G core biopsies was 9.08 (95%CI: 1.12-73.66) and EUS 22G core biopsies was 1.99 (95%CI: 1.09-3.66). The negative likelihood ratio of EUS 19G core biopsies was 0.12 (95%CI: 0.07-0.24) and EUS 22G core biopsies was 0.25 (95%CI: 0.14-0.41). The diagnostic odds ratio was 84.74 (95%CI: 18.31-392.26) for 19G core biopsies and 10.55 (95% CI: 3.29-33.87) for 22G needles.

CONCLUSION

EUS 19G core biopsies have an excellent diagnostic value and seem to be better than EUS 22G biopsies in detecting the correct etiology for a solid mass.

Imaging modalities for characterising focal pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND

Increasing numbers of incidental pancreatic lesions are being detected each year. Accurate characterisation of pancreatic lesions into benign, precancerous, and cancer masses is crucial in deciding whether to use treatment or surveillance. Distinguishing benign lesions from precancerous and cancerous lesions can prevent patients from undergoing unnecessary major surgery. Despite the importance of accurately classifying pancreatic lesions, there is no clear algorithm for management of focal pancreatic lesions.

OBJECTIVES

To determine and compare the diagnostic accuracy of various imaging modalities in detecting cancerous and precancerous lesions in people with focal pancreatic lesions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index until 19 July 2016. We searched the references of included studies to identify further studies. We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include studies reporting cross-sectional information on the index test (CT (computed tomography), MRI (magnetic resonance imaging), PET (positron emission tomography), EUS (endoscopic ultrasound), EUS elastography, and EUS-guided biopsy or FNA (fine-needle aspiration)) and reference standard (confirmation of the nature of the lesion was obtained by histopathological examination of the entire lesion by surgical excision, or histopathological examination for confirmation of precancer or cancer by biopsy and clinical follow-up of at least six months in people with negative index tests) in people with pancreatic lesions irrespective of language or publication status or whether the data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched the references to identify relevant studies and extracted the data. We planned to use the bivariate analysis to calculate the summary sensitivity and specificity with their 95% confidence intervals and the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) to compare the tests and assess heterogeneity, but used simpler models (such as univariate random-effects model and univariate fixed-effect model) for combining studies when appropriate because of the sparse data. We were unable to compare the diagnostic performance of the tests using formal statistical methods because of sparse data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 54 studies involving a total of 3,196 participants evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of various index tests. In these 54 studies, eight different target conditions were identified with different final diagnoses constituting benign, precancerous, and cancerous lesions. None of the studies was of high methodological quality. None of the comparisons in which single studies were included was of sufficiently high methodological quality to warrant highlighting of the results. For differentiation of cancerous lesions from benign or precancerous lesions, we identified only one study per index test. The second analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous versus benign lesions, provided three tests in which meta-analysis could be performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing cancer were: EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.79 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 1.00), specificity 1.00 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.00); EUS: sensitivity 0.95 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.99), specificity 0.53 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.74); PET: sensitivity 0.92 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.97), specificity 0.65 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.84). The third analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous lesions from benign lesions, only provided one test (EUS-FNA) in which meta-analysis was performed. EUS-FNA had moderate sensitivity for diagnosing precancerous or cancerous lesions (sensitivity 0.73 (95% CI 0.01 to 1.00) and high specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.15 to 1.00), the extremely wide confidence intervals reflecting the heterogeneity between the studies). The fourth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (dysplasia) provided three tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing invasive carcinoma were: CT: sensitivity 0.72 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.87), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.97); EUS: sensitivity 0.78 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.94), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.98); EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.66 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.99), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.98). The fifth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) versus precancerous (low- or intermediate-grade dysplasia) provided six tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing cancer (high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) were: CT: sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.00 to 1.00), specificity 0.96 (95% CI 0.00 to 1.00); EUS: sensitivity 0.86 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.92), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.96); EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.47 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.70), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.00); EUS-FNA carcinoembryonic antigen 200 ng/mL: sensitivity 0.58 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.83), specificity 0.51 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.81); MRI: sensitivity 0.69 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.86), specificity 0.93 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.00); PET: sensitivity 0.90 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.96), specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.99). The sixth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) provided no tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The seventh analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous (intermediate- or high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) provided two tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing cancer were: CT: sensitivity 0.83 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.92), specificity 0.83 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.93) and MRI: sensitivity 0.80 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.92), specificity 0.81 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.95), respectively. The eighth analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous (intermediate- or high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) or benign lesions provided no test in which meta-analysis was performed.There were no major alterations in the subgroup analysis of cystic pancreatic focal lesions (42 studies; 2086 participants). None of the included studies evaluated EUS elastography or sequential testing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We were unable to arrive at any firm conclusions because of the differences in the way that study authors classified focal pancreatic lesions into cancerous, precancerous, and benign lesions; the inclusion of few studies with wide confidence intervals for each comparison; poor methodological quality in the studies; and heterogeneity in the estimates within comparisons.

Diagnostic accuracy of 22/25-gauge core needle in endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided core needle aspiration with that of standard fine-needle aspiration by systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Studies using 22/25-gauge core needles, irrespective of comparison with standard fine needles, were comprehensively reviewed. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and summary receiver operating characteristic curves for the diagnosis of malignancy were used to estimate the overall diagnostic efficiency.

RESULTS

The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and DOR of the core needle for the diagnosis of malignancy were 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 0.90), 0.99 (95% CI, 0.96 to 1), and 167.37 (95% CI, 65.77 to 425.91), respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and DOR of the standard needle were 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.88), 1 (95% CI, 0.97 to 1), and 130.14 (95% CI, 34.00 to 495.35), respectively. The area under the curve of core and standard needle in the diagnosis of malignancy was 0.974 and 0.955, respectively. The core and standard needle were comparable in terms of pancreatic malignancy diagnosis. There was no significant difference in procurement of optimal histologic cores between core and standard needles (risk ratio [RR], 0.545; 95% CI, 0.187 to 1.589). The number of needle passes for diagnosis was significantly lower with the core needle (standardized mean difference, -0.72; 95% CI, -1.02 to -0.41). There were no significant differences in overall complications (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.34 to 4.62) and technical failure (RR, 5.07; 95% CI, 0.68 to 37.64).

CONCLUSIONS

Core and standard needles were comparable in terms of diagnostic accuracy, technical performance, and safety profile.

22-gauge core vs 22-gauge aspiration needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of abdominal masses

AIM

To compare the aspiration needle (AN) and core biopsy needle (PC) in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of abdominal masses.

METHODS

Consecutive patients referred for EUS-FNA were included in this prospective single-center trial. Each patient underwent a puncture of the lesion with both standard 22-gauge (G) AN (Echo Tip Ultra; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana, United States) and the novel 22G PC (EchoTip ProCore; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana, United States) in a randomized fashion; histology was attempted in the PC group only. The main study endpoint was the overall diagnostic accuracy, including the contribution of histology to the final diagnosis. Secondary outcome measures included material adequacy, number of needle passes, and complications.

RESULTS

Fifty six consecutive patients (29 men; mean age 68 years) with pancreatic lesions (n = 38), lymphadenopathy (n = 13), submucosal tumors (n = 4), or others lesions (n = 1) underwent EUS-FNA using both of the needles in a randomized order. AN and PC reached similar overall results for diagnostic accuracy (AN: 88.9 vs PC: 96.1, P = 0.25), specimen adequacy (AN: 96.4% vs PC: 91.1%, P = 0.38), mean number of passes (AN: 1.5 vs PC: 1.7, P = 0.14), mean cellularity score (AN: 1.7 vs PC: 1.1, P = 0.058), and complications (none). A diagnosis on the basis of histology was achieved in the PC group in 36 (64.3%) patients, and in 2 of those as the sole modality. In patients with available histology the mean cellularity score was higher for AN (AN: 1.7 vs PC: 1.0, P = 0.034); no other differences were of statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

Both needles achieved high overall diagnostic yields and similar performance characteristics for cytological diagnosis; histological analysis was only possible in 2/3 of cases with the new needle.

The presence of rapid on-site evaluation did not increase the adequacy and diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic lesions with core needle

BACKGROUND

Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) improves the adequacy and accuracy of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, although it is not routinely widely available. Evidence suggested that core needles might overcome the absence of ROSE. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of ROSE on the adequacy and accuracy of EUS-guided tissue acquisition with core needles in patients with pancreatic solid lesions.

METHODS

Patients who underwent EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic mass lesions were retrospectively identified at three tertiary referral centers and those performed with the core needle were included. Adequacy, defined as the rate of cases in which a tissue specimen for proper examination was achieved, with and without ROSE was the primary outcome measure. The diagnostic accuracy and tissue core acquisition were the secondary outcome measures.

RESULTS

A total of 333 patients with pancreatic solid mass lesions were included in the study; 140 cases sampled with ROSE and 193 cases without ROSE. The adequacy was 92.1 % in the group sampled with ROSE and 88.1 % in the group without ROSE (p = 0.227). In the ROSE group sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 90.7, 100 and 92.1 %, respectively. In the group without ROSE, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 87.2, 100, and 88.1 %, respectively. No difference for all these figures was observed between the two groups. The tissue core was available in 61.4 and 53.4 % of cases with and without ROSE, respectively (p = 0.143).

CONCLUSION

In the absence of ROSE, EUS-based tissue acquisition with Core needle should be considered since it achieves comparable tissue sampling adequacy and accuracy.

Comparing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) versus fine needle biopsy (FNB) in the diagnosis of solid lesions: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Linear endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) allows the visualization, identification, and characterization of the extent of lesions of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and adjacent structures. EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) facilitates a more accurate diagnosis of mediastinal, intra-abdominal, and pancreatic lesions through the collection of the cytological material under direct visualization. Recent reports suggest that histological samples can be obtained by EUS-FNA with a reverse, bevel-tipped needle (the ProCore needle) to collect the core samples (fine needle biopsy, FNB), thereby adding a new dimension to the diagnostic usefulness of this technique. Certain neoplasms, such as lymphoma and stromal tumors, can be assessed by EUS-FNB to confirm the diagnosis. Here, we aimed to carry out a prospective, multicenter, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial to compare EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA.

Methods/design

A total of 408 patients will be enrolled from five endoscopic centers. Patients will be divided into two groups: (1) group A, which is the EUS regular needle group (EUS-FNA) and (2) group B, which is the EUS ProCore needle group (EUS-FNB). Patients in group A will be examined with a 22G EchoTip Ultra needle, and patients in group B, with a 22G EchoTip ProCore needle. For all included patients, four EUS-guided passes will be made in each lesion. In the first and second pass, a slow-pull suction method of the stylet will be done. The third and fourth pass will use manual suction of 5 cc. The primary objective is to compare the diagnostic yield of malignancy by EUS-FNA versus EUS-FNB.

Discussion

The trial will compare samples obtained by EUS-FNA versus EUS-FNB for the diagnostic yield of solid lesions. The efficacy of these two sampling methods will be assessed on various lesions, which may provide insights into developing practice guidelines for their future indications.

Trial registration

Clinical Trials.gov, NCT02327065.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle core biopsy for the diagnosis of pancreatic malignant lesions: a systematic review and Meta-Analysis

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle core biopsy (EUS-FNB) has been used as an effective method of diagnosing pancreatic malignant lesions. It has the advantage of providing well preserved tissue for histologic grading and subsequent molecular biological analysis. In order to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB for pancreatic malignant lesions, studies assessing EUS-FNB to diagnose solid pancreatic masses were selected via Medline. Sixteen articles published between 2005 and 2015, covering 828 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The summary estimates for EUS-FNB differentiating malignant from benign solid pancreatic masses were: sensitivity 0.84 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82–0.87); specificity 0.98 (95% CI, 0.93–1.00); positive likelihood ratio 8.0 (95% CI 4.5–14.4); negative likelihood ratio 0.17 (95% CI 0.10–0.26); and DOR 64 (95% CI 30.4–134.8). The area under the sROC curve was 0.96. Subgroup analysis did not identify other factors that could substantially affect the diagnostic accuracy, such as the study design, location of study, number of centers, location of lesion, whether or not a cytopathologist was present, and so on. EUS-FNB is a reliable diagnostic tool for solid pancreatic masses and should be especially considered for pathology where histologic morphology is preferred for diagnosis.

An experimental study to assess the best maneuver when using a reverse side-bevel histology needle for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Recently, ProCore™ was developed as an endoscopy ultrasound (EUS)-guided histology needle designed to address several current limitations of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA). Nevertheless, tissue yield with the ProCore™ is not consistent. No standard technique has been established. This experimental study was conducted to ascertain the best maneuver when using the ProCore™.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed fine-needle aspiration and biopsy (FNAB) with a 22-gauge (G) ProCore™ using chicken tenderloin and liver. Six methods were used, with two needle movement techniques (natural speed and whipping back) and three negative pressures (no suction (NS), slow pull (SP), and 10-mL suction).

RESULTS

In cases using the "natural speed" technique, a significant difference in tissue yield was found with suction pressures in both tenderloin and liver (P < 0.0001, P = 0.0079). In cases using the "whipping back" technique, for the tenderloin, no significant difference in tissue yield was found for NS vs. SP (P = 0.0596), however, a significant difference was found for SP vs. 10-mL suction (P < 0.0001) and for NS vs. 10-mL suction (P < 0.0001). For the liver, a significant difference was found among suction pressures (P = 0.0079). Comparing "natural speed" with "whipping back" using the tenderloin, no significant difference in tissue yield was found with NS and 10 mL of pressure (P = 0.1126, P = 0.0718), but a significant difference was found with SP (P = 0.0028). Regarding the liver, no significant difference was found based upon suction pressure (NS P = 0.1508; SP P = 0.0873; 10 mL P = 0.6667).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNAB using ProCore™ can be performed with negative pressure with any needling technique. Although ProCore™ has a reverse side-bevel, results in using it with a whipping-back technique were inconclusive.