Safety and efficacy of ultrasound-guided percutaneous coaxial core biopsy of pancreatic lesions: a retrospective study

Comparative Assessment of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biopsies vs. Percutaneous Biopsies of Pancreatic Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance

Introduction: Pancreatic cancer ranks as the fourth deadliest form of cancer. However, it is essential to note that not all pancreatic masses signal primary malignancy. Therefore, it is imperative to establish the correct differential diagnosis, a process further supported by pre-operative biopsy procedures. This meta-analysis aims to compare the diagnostic performance of two minimally invasive biopsy approaches for pancreatic tissue sampling: percutaneous biopsies guided by computed tomography or ultrasound, and transduodenal biopsies guided by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in the MEDLINE and Scopus databases. The included studies analyzed the diagnostic performance of the two biopsy methods, and they were assessed for risk of bias using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Statistical analysis was carried out using the RevMan and MetaDisc software packages. Results: The statistical analysis of the results demonstrated the superiority of the percutaneous approach. Specifically, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, LR+, LR-and DOR for the percutaneous approach were 0.896 [95% CI: 0.878-0.913], 0.949 [95% CI: 0.892-0.981], 9.70 [95% CI: 5.20-18.09], 0.20 [95% CI: 0.12-0.32] and 68.55 [95% CI: 32.63-143.98], respectively. The corresponding values for EUS-guided biopsies were 0.806 [95% CI: 0.775-0.834], 0.955 [95% CI: 0.926-0.974], 12.04 [95% CI: 2.67-54.17], 0.24 [95% CI: 0.15-0.39] and 52.56 [95% CI: 13.81-200.09], respectively. Nevertheless, it appears that this statistical superiority is also linked to the selection bias favoring larger and hence more readily accessible tumors during percutaneous biopsy procedures. Conclusions: Concisely, our meta-analysis indicates the statistical superiority of the percutaneous approach. However, selecting the optimal biopsy method is complex, influenced by factors like patient and tumor characteristics, clinical resources, and other relevant considerations.

Percutaneous Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Coaxial Cutting Needle Biopsy of Pancreatic Lesions: Diagnostic Accuracy and Safety

PURPOSE

To appraise the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging-guided percutaneous coaxial cutting needle biopsy of pancreatic lesions using a 0.4-T open magnetic resonance imaging scanner with optical tracking navigation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 158 patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging-guided pancreatic lesion biopsy procedures from May 2019 to December 2020. Two to four specimens were collected from each patient. Pathological diagnosis and clinical follow-ups were conducted to establish the final diagnosis. The procedures were evaluated for sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, diagnostic accuracy, and complications. The Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe guidelines were used to classify complications.

RESULTS

Biopsy pathology revealed 139 pancreatic tumor malignancies and 19 benign pancreatic lesions. Finally, 151 patients were diagnosed with pancreatic malignancy and 7 with benign disease confirmed by surgery, re-biopsy, and clinical follow-up. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and accuracy for diagnosis of pancreatic diseases were 92.1%, 100%, 100%, 36.8%, and 92.4%, respectively. The biopsy accuracy was significantly related to the size (≤ 2 cm, 76.2%; 2-4 cm, 94.0%; > 4 cm, 96.2%, P = .02) and not the lesion's location (head of pancreas, 90.7%; neck of pancreas, 88.9%; body of pancreas, 94.3%; tail of pancreas, 96.7%, P = .73). Minor complications included two patients experiencing mild abdominal pain and two with a minor occurrence of hemorrhage.

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous magnetic resonance imaging-guided pancreatic lesion biopsy combined with optical navigation has high diagnostic accuracy and is safe for clinical practice. Level of Evidence Level 4, Case-series.

Diagnostic Evaluation of Solid Pancreatic Lesions: Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Versus Percutaneous Ultrasound-Guided Core Needle Biopsy

PURPOSE

The main objective of the present study is to compare the safety, technical success and diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) versus ultrasound-guided percutaneous core-needle biopsy (US-CNB) in patients with solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study that involved all patients with a solid pancreatic lesion who underwent EUS-FNA or US-CNB between November 2019 and February 2021. Of all patients, 69 (84.1%) had inoperable malignancy, whereas 13 (15.9%) had chronic pancreatitis. Resectability status was ascertained by computed tomography. All core needle biopsies were performed by the same interventional radiologist via ultrasound guidance with an 18-gauge semi-automatic tru-cut needle. All EUS-FNA procedures were performed by the same gastroenterologist with a 27-gauge EUS-FNA needle. Technical success is defined as if the region of interest is reached and specimen taken from the pancreatic lesion. Diagnostic yield is defined as the procurement of sufficient tissue for pathological examination.

RESULTS

Overall, 52 patients (mean age 58.5 ± 9.8 years) who underwent EUS-FNA and 30 patients (60.1 ± 12.1 years) who underwent US-CNB were included. Solid lesions were most commonly (61.5% in EUS-FNA and 50.0% in US-CNB groups) located in pancreatic head in both groups. Mean size of the lesions was comparable in both groups as well. The technical success was 100% in both groups. In 12 (14.6%) patients, pathology results revealed inadequate sampling (11 × in the EUS-FNA and 1 × in the US-CNB group). The diagnostic yield was significantly higher in US-CNB group than in EUS-FNA group (96.7% vs. 78.8%, respectively, p = 0.048). Of 11 patients in the EUS-FNA with inadequate sampling, pancreatic lesions were located in the pancreatic head in 7 (63.6%). No major complications were observed in neither of the groups. As a minor complication, one case of slight abdominal pain was detected in the EUS-FNA group.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results of the present study, both US-CNB and EUS-FNA appeared safe; however, diagnostic yield in the US-CNB group was significantly higher.

Application value of coaxial puncture needle (technique) in ultrasound-guided puncture biopsy of peripheral pulmonary masses

This study aims to investigate the effect of ultrasound (US)-guided coaxial puncture needle in puncture biopsy of peripheral pulmonary masses. In this retrospective analysis, 157 patients who underwent US-guided percutaneous lung biopsy in our hospital were divided into a coaxial biopsy group and a conventional biopsy group (the control group) according to the puncture tools involved, with 73 and 84 patients, respectively. The average puncture time, number of sampling, sampling satisfaction rate, puncture success rate and complication rate between the 2 groups were compared and discussed in detail. One hundred fifty-seven patients underwent puncture biopsy, and 145 patients finally obtained definitive pathological results. The overall puncture success rate was 92.4% ([145/157]; with a puncture success rate of 97.3% [71/73] from the coaxial biopsy group and a puncture success rate of 88.1% [74/84] from the conventional biopsy group (P < .05). For peripheral pulmonary masses ≤3 cm, the average puncture time in the coaxial biopsy group was shorter than that in the conventional biopsy group, and the number of sampling, sampling satisfaction rate and puncture success rate were significantly higher than those in the conventional biopsy group (P < .05). There was no significant difference in the complication rate between the 2 groups (P > .05). For peripheral pulmonary masses >3 cm, the average puncture time in the coaxial biopsy group was still shorter than that in the conventional biopsy group (P < .05). The differences between the 2 groups in the number of sampling, satisfaction rate of the sampling, the success rate of puncture and the incidence of complications were not significant (P > .05). US guided coaxial puncture biopsy could save puncture time, increase the number of sampling, and improve the satisfaction rate of sampling and the success rate of puncture (especially for small lesions) by establishing a biopsy channel on the basis of the coaxial needle sheath. It provided reliable information for the diagnosis, differential diagnosis and individualized accurate treatment of lesions as well.

Percutaneous ultrasound and endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions: An analysis of 1074 lesions

BACKGROUNDS

Percutaneous ultrasound (US) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided pancreatic biopsies are widely accepted in the diagnosis of pancreatic diseases. Studies comparing the diagnostic performance of US- and EUS-guided pancreatic biopsies are lacking. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic yields of US- and EUS-guided pancreatic biopsies and identify the risk factors for inconclusive biopsies.

METHODS

Of the 1074 solid pancreatic lesions diagnosed from January 2017 to February 2021 in our center, 275 underwent EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), and 799 underwent US-guided core needle biopsy (US-CNB/FNA). The outcomes were inconclusive pathological biopsy, diagnostic accuracy and the need for repeat biopsy. All of the included factors and diagnostic performances of both US-CNB/FNA and EUS-FNA were compared, and the independent predictors for the study outcomes were identified.

RESULTS

The diagnostic accuracy was 89.8% for EUS-FNA and 95.2% for US-CNB/FNA (P = 0.001). Biopsy under EUS guidance [odds ratio (OR) = 1.808, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.083-3.019; P = 0.024], lesion size < 2 cm (OR = 2.069, 95% CI: 1.145-3.737; P = 0.016), hypoechoic appearance (OR = 0.274, 95% CI: 0.097-0.775; P = 0.015) and non-pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma carcinoma (PDAC) diagnosis (OR = 2.637, 95% CI: 1.563-4.449; P < 0.001) were identified as factors associated with inconclusive pathological biopsy. Hypoechoic appearance (OR = 0.236, 95% CI: 0.064-0.869; P = 0.030), lesions in the uncinate process of the pancreas (OR = 3.506, 95% CI: 1.831-6.713; P < 0.001) and non-PDAC diagnosis (OR = 2.622, 95% CI: 1.278-5.377; P = 0.009) were independent predictors for repeat biopsy. Biopsy under EUS guidance (OR = 2.024, 95% CI: 1.195-3.429; P = 0.009), lesions in the uncinate process of the pancreas (OR = 1.776, 95% CI: 1.014-3.108; P = 0.044) and hypoechoic appearance (OR = 0.127, 95% CI: 0.047-0.347; P < 0.001) were associated with diagnostic accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, both percutaneous US- and EUS-guided biopsies of solid pancreatic lesions are safe and effective; though the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA is inferior to US-CNB/FNA. A tailored pancreatic biopsy should be considered a part of the management algorithm for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic disease.

CT fluoroscopy-guided pancreas transplant biopsies: a retrospective evaluation of predictors of complications and success rates

To identify predictors of biopsy success and complications in CT-guided pancreas transplant (PTX) core biopsy. We retrospectively identified all CT fluoroscopy-guided PTX biopsies performed at our institution (2000-2017) and included 187 biopsies in 99 patients. Potential predictors related to patient characteristics (age, gender, body mass index (BMI), PTX age, PTX volume) and procedure characteristics (biopsy depth, needle size, access path, number of samples, interventionalist's experience) were correlated with biopsy success (sufficient tissue for histologic diagnosis) and the occurrence of complications. Biopsy success (72.2%) was more likely to be obtained in men [+25.3% (10.9, 39.7)] and when the intervention was performed by an experienced interventionalist [+27.2% (8.1, 46.2)]. Complications (5.9%) occurred more frequently in patients with higher PTX age [OR: 1.014 (1.002, 1.026)] and when many (3-4) tissue samples were obtained [+8.7% (-2.3, 19.7)]. Multivariable regression analysis confirmed male gender [OR: 3.741 (1.736, 8.059)] and high experience [OR: 2.923 (1.255, 6.808)] (biopsy success) as well as older PTX age [OR: 1.019 (1.002, 1.035)] and obtaining many samples [OR: 4.880 (1.240, 19.203)] (complications) as independent predictors. Our results suggest that CT-guided PTX biopsy should be performed by an experienced interventionalist to achieve higher success rates, and not more than two tissue samples should be obtained to reduce complications. Caution is in order in patients with older transplants because of higher complication rates.