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

Effect of the number of passes on diagnostic performance of EUS fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic masses: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The optimal number of passes to maximize the diagnostic ability of EUS fine-needle biopsy (FNB) of solid pancreatic masses (SPMs) is not well known. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the impact of the incremental number of passes on diagnostic accuracy, tissue adequacy, and diagnostic yield for EUS-FNB of SPMs.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Central for randomized controlled trials comparing per-pass diagnostic outcomes of FNB needles in patients with SPMs. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models. A separate analysis was performed on studies that used contemporary Franseen and fork-tip needles.

RESULTS

Overall, 19 randomized controlled trials (N = 3552) were identified. For EUS-FNB of SPMs, 3 passes with any FNB needle outperformed 2 passes for accuracy (odds ratio [OR], 1.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20-2.09; I2 = 0%), adequacy (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.30-2.83; I2 = 61%), and yield (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.37-3.27; I2 = 14%). Adding a fourth or fifth pass resulted in no significant improvement in diagnostic parameters. When using contemporary FNB needles, adding a second to a single pass significantly improved accuracy (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.23-2.63; I2 = 0%), adequacy (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.65-2.90; I2 = 0%), and yield (OR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.50-4.95; I2 = 0%). Adding a third pass to a second pass with contemporary needles improved adequacy (OR, 2.96; 95% CI, 1.97-4.46; I2 = 0%) but did not provide better diagnostic accuracy or yield.

CONCLUSIONS

Two passes with Franseen or Fork-tip needles and 3 passes with any FNB needle suffice to provide optimal diagnostic performance for EUS-FNB of SPMs, without additional diagnostic benefits with more passes. Our results can inform future guidelines and quality benchmarks.

Outcomes of Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine Needle Biopsy Using a Novel Hydrostatic Stylet Tissue Acquisition Technique

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is frequently used to obtain core samples of solid lesions. Here, we describe and evaluate a novel hydrostatic stylet (HS) technique designed to optimize core sample acquisition, reporting diagnostic yield, efficacy, and safety relative to the conventional stylet slow-pull (SP) technique.

METHODS

A novel HS technique was developed and validated retrospectively. Consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNB with core biopsy of solid lesions through either the HS or SP technique between January 2020 and April 2022 were included. Exclusion criteria included cystic lesions, nonlesional liver biopsies, and specimens sent for cytologic analysis only. Patient and lesion characteristics, number of passes, sample adequacy, and adverse events were compared between the two techniques.

RESULTS

A total of 272 patients were included with 138 in the HS group and 134 in the SP group. Lesion size and anatomic distribution were similar in both groups. Compared with the SP approach, the HS technique demonstrated significantly higher sample adequacy (97.8% vs 83.6%, P < 0.001), higher sensitivity (97.1% vs 89.7%, P = 0.03), and lower mean number of passes (1.2 vs 3.3, P < 0.001). Rates and severity of adverse events in the HS group were comparable to the SP group and existing literature. Similar associations were observed in pancreatic and nonpancreatic lesion subanalyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel HS technique demonstrated excellent biopsy sample adequacy and diagnostic yield while requiring fewer passes to obtain diagnostic specimens compared with a conventional EUS-FNB approach. Further prospective evaluation is needed to confirm these pilot findings and optimize EUS-FNB acquisition techniques.

True diagnostic ability of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy sampling for small pancreatic lesions ≤10 mm and salvage diagnosis by pancreatic juice cytology: a multicenter study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The diagnostic performance of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy sampling (EUS-FNAB) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) ≤10 mm in diameter is relatively low. Pancreatic juice cytology (PJC) has gained attention because of its high sensitivity for small PDACs. We aimed to clarify the diagnostic ability of EUS-FNAB and the salvage ability of PJC for PDAC ≤10 mm.

METHODS

Data obtained from attempted EUS-FNAB for patients with EUS-confirmed pancreatic tumors ≤10 mm (excluding pancreatic metastases/malignant lymphomas) were retrospectively analyzed. Patients who experienced technical failure or had a negative EUS-FNAB result and had a strong likelihood of PDAC based on imaging characteristics underwent PJC. PDAC was diagnosed using resected histologic specimens, EUS-FNAB-positive tumor growth on the imaging examination, or additional EUS-FNAB-positive results after increase in tumor size. The primary endpoint was the diagnostic ability of EUS-FNAB for PDAC ≤10 mm. The salvage ability of PJC was also assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 86 of 271 patients with pancreatic tumors ≤10 mm who underwent attempted EUS-FNAB were diagnosed with PDAC. The technical success rate, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of EUS-FNAB for PDAC ≤10 mm were 80.8%, 82.3%, 94.9%, and 91.3%, respectively. Among the 35 PDAC patients who experienced technical failure or false-negative results of EUS-FNAB, 26 (74.3%) were correctly diagnosed using salvage PJC.

CONCLUSIONS

The true success rate and sensitivity of EUS-FNAB for PDAC ≤10 mm were relatively low. When EUS-FNAB for a pancreatic lesion ≤10 mm strongly suspected to be PDAC is unsuccessful or yields a negative result, PJC is recommended. (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN000049965.).

Dry suction versus wet suction technique of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy for diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions: study protocol of a multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Studies have shown that the wet suction technique in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) generates better histological diagnostic accuracy and specimen quality than the dry suction technique. However, conclusions of wet suction on the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) are still controversial. Besides, the optimal number of passes for EUS-FNB has not been determined. We aimed to design a large multicenter randomized trial to compare the diagnostic accuracy of dry suction versus wet suction technique in solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs) using 22G Franseen needles and determine the optimal number of passes required for EUS-FNB.

METHODS

This is a multi-center open-label, randomized controlled non-inferiority trial with two parallel groups. Two hundred patients with SPLs will undergo EUS-FNB using 22G Franseen needles in 4 tertiary hospitals in China and will be randomly assigned to the dry suction group and wet suction group in a ratio of 1:1. The primary endpoint is diagnostic accuracy. Secondary endpoints include the optimal number of needle passes, sensitivity, specificity, specimen quality, cytological diagnoses, time of the procedure, and incidence of complications.

DISCUSSION

This study has been designed to determine (i) whether EUS-FNB using 22G Franseen needle with dry suction is non-inferior to wet suction in terms of diagnostic accuracy and (ii) the optimal number of passes during EUS-FNB of SPLs using 22G Franseen needle.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05549856. Registered on September 22, 2022.

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.

Twenty versus 40 back-and-forth needle movements for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic masses: a prospective, crossover, randomized study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-fine-needle biopsy (FNB) of solid pancreatic mass lesions, the number of times the needle moves back and forth within the lesion might affect the collection of the sample and the subsequent diagnostic accuracy. Thus, this study was designed to compare the diagnostic adequacy between different numbers of back-and-forth movements in EUS-FNB.

METHODS

Fifty-five patients with solid pancreatic masses underwent EUS-FNB sampling with the needle (22-gauge) moved 20 times (MTT) and 40 times (MFT) randomly and sequentially for a total of four alternating passes. We compared the acquisition rate of appropriate and adequate specimens for histologic assessment and diagnostic accuracy.

RESULTS

Finally, 55 patients (35 men and 20 women) were included in the study. We found that 56.4% (31/55) and 60% (33/55) of the specimens obtained using MTT and MFT, respectively, could be adequately diagnosed histologically (P = 0.815, McNemar test). The diagnostic accuracy of MTT and MFT was 72.7% (40/55) and 80% (44/55), respectively (P = 0.289, McNemar test). The overall diagnostic accuracy was 89.1%.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant statistical difference between the histopathological diagnostic samples obtained in MTT and those obtained in MFT. Therefore, a large number of back-and-forth movements of the needle should be avoided during EUS-FNB, which can help reduce the operation time and may reduce the risk of intraoperative and postoperative complications (Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR2000031106).

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.