AGA White Paper: Optimizing Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition and Future Directions

Repeated endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions after previous nondiagnostic or inconclusive sampling

OBJECTIVES

Repeated endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition represents the standard practice for solid pancreatic lesions after previous nondiagnostic or inconclusive results. Since data are lacking, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of repeated EUS fine-needle biopsy (rEUS-FNB) in this setting. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy; sample adequacy, sensitivity, specificity, and safety were secondary outcomes.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing rEUS-FNB for solid pancreatic lesions at 23 Italian centers from 2019 to 2021 were retrieved. Pathology on the surgical specimen, malignant histology together with ≥6-month follow-up, and benign pathology together with ≥12-month follow-up were adopted as gold standards.

RESULTS

Among 462 patients, 56.5% were male, with a median age of 68 (59-75) years, malignancy prevalence 77.0%. Tumor size was 26 (20-35) mm. Second-generation FNB needles were used in 89.6% cases. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of rEUS-FNB were 89.2%, 91.4%, and 81.7%, respectively (19 false-negative and 12 false-positive results). On multivariate analysis, rEUS-FNB performed at high-volume centers (odds ratio [OR] 2.12; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-3.17; P = 0.03) and tumor size (OR 1.03; 95% CI 1.00-1.06; P = 0.05) were independently related to diagnostic accuracy. Sample adequacy was 94.2%. Use of second-generation FNB needles (OR 5.42; 95% CI 2.30-12.77; P < 0.001) and tumor size >23 mm (OR 3.04; 95% CI 1.31-7.06; P = 0.009) were independently related to sample adequacy.

CONCLUSION

Repeated EUS-FNB allowed optimal diagnostic performance after nondiagnostic or inconclusive results. Patients' referral to high-volume centers improved diagnostic accuracy. The use of second-generation FNB needles significantly improved sample adequacy over standard EUS-FNB needles.

Performance and safety of diagnostic EUS FNA/FNB and therapeutic ERCP in patients with borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer - results from a population-based, prospective cohort study

Objective: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS FNA/FNB) and potential endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for biliary decompression are indicated in patients with pancreatic cancer before initation of primary chemotherapy. This study aims to investigate the performance and safety of these two procedures in patients with borderline resectable (BRPC) or locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). Methods: Endoscopy and pathology reports, and hospital records of consecutive patients with a radiological diagnosis of BRPC/LAPC included in a population based, protocol-driven study (NORPACT-2) were reviewed. Results: Of 251 patients, 223 (88.9%) underwent EUS-FNA/FNB, and 133 (53%) underwent ERCP. Repeated EUS attempts were performed in 33 (14.8%), eight (3.6%), and four (1.8%) patients. FNA was performed in 155 procedures, FNB in 30, and combined EUS-FNA/FNB in 83. Diagnostic accuracy was 86.1% for first EUS-FNA/FNB. The cumulative diagnostic accuracy for all attempts was 96%. False positive rate for malignancy was 0.9%. Of a total of 149 ERCP procedures, 122 (81.9%) were successful, and 27 (18.1%) were unsuccessful. Success rate of first ERCP attempt was 80.5% (107/133). Sixteen patients (12%) underwent a second attempt with a success rate of 93.8% (15 of 16). Combined EUS and ERCP was performed in 41 patients. Complications occurred in eight procedures (3%) after EUS-FNA/FNB, 23 procedures (15.3%) after ERCP, and four (9.8%) patients after combined EUS-FNA/FNB and ERCP. Conclusion: EUS-FNA/FNB and ERCP with biliary stenting in patients with BRPC/LAPC demonstrated acceptable performance and safety. Repeat procedures were performed with high success rates. Same session EUS-FNA/FNB and ERCP for biliary decompression is safe.

Establishing the optimal number of passes during EUS-FNB for diagnosis of pancreatic solid lesions: Prospective multicenter study

Background and study aims The optimal number of needle passes during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is not yet established. We aimed to perform a per-pass analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB of solid pancreatic lesions using a 22G Franseen needle. Patients and methods Consecutive patients with solid pancreatic lesions referred to 11 Italian centers were prospectively enrolled. Three needle passes were performed; specimens were collected after each pass and processed individually as standard histology following macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) by the endoscopist. The primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy of each sequential pass. Final diagnosis was established based on surgical pathology or a clinical course of at least 6 months. Secondary endpoints were specimen adequacy, MOSE reliability, factors impacting diagnostic accuracy, and procedure-related adverse events. Results A total of 504 samples from 168 patients were evaluated. Diagnostic accuracy was 90.5% (85.0%-94.1%) after one pass and 97.6% (94.1%-99.3%) after two passes ( P =0.01). Similarly, diagnostic sensitivity and sample adequacy were significantly higher adding the second needle pass (90.2%, 84.6%-94.3% vs 97.5%, 93.8%-99.3%, P =0.009 and 91.1%, 85.7%-94.9% vs 98.2%, 95.8%-99.3%, P =0.009, one pass vs two passes, respectively). Accuracy, sensitivity, and adequacy remained the same after the third pass. The concordance between MOSE and histological evaluation was 89.9%. The number of passes was the only factor associated with accuracy. One case of mild acute pancreatitis (0.6%) was managed conservatively. Conclusions At least two passes should be performed for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions. MOSE is a reliable tool to predict the histological adequacy of specimens.

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.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy Versus Aspiration for Tissue Sampling Adequacy for Molecular Testing in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is limited literature on sample adequacy for molecular testing in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma obtained via endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle aspiration (FNA) versus EUS fine-needle biopsy (FNB). We aimed to compare these two modalities regarding sample adequacy for molecular and genomic sequencing.

METHODS

We reviewed all patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who underwent EUS at Saint Luke's Hospital from 2018 to 2021. The patients were categorized based on the method of EUS tissue acquisition, specifically FNA or FNB. A comprehensive evaluation was conducted for all cases by cytotechnologists.

RESULTS

Out of 132 patients who underwent EUS-guided biopsies, 76 opted for FNA, 48 opted for FNB, and 8 opted for a combination of both. The average number of passes required for FNB and FNA was 2.58 ± 1.06 and 2.49 ± 1.07, respectively (p = 0.704), indicating no significant difference. Interestingly, 71.4% (35) of FNB-obtained samples were deemed adequate for molecular testing, surpassing the 32.1% (26) adequacy observed with FNA (p < 0.001). Additionally, 46.4% (26) of FNB-obtained samples were considered adequate for genomic testing, a notable improvement over the 23.8% (20) adequacy observed with FNA (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Although the number of passes required for cytologic diagnosis did not differ significantly between EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA, the former demonstrated superiority in obtaining samples adequate for molecular testing. Tumor surface area and cellularity were crucial parameters in determining sample adequacy for molecular testing, irrespective of the chosen tissue acquisition modality.

Comparative diagnostic yield of different endoscopic techniques for tissue sampling of upper gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence on the comparative diagnostic performance of endoscopic tissue sampling techniques for subepithelial lesions. We performed a systematic review with network meta-analysis to compare these techniques.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the sample adequacy and diagnostic accuracy of bite-on-bite biopsy, mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB), endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), and EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB). Results were expressed as relative risk (RR) and 95%CI.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs were identified. EUS-FNB was significantly superior to EUS-FNA in terms of sample adequacy (RR 1.20 [95%CI 1.05-1.45]), whereas none of the other techniques significantly outperformed EUS-FNA. Additionally, bite-on-bite biopsy was significantly inferior to EUS-FNB (RR 0.55 [95%CI 0.33-0.98]). Overall, EUS-FNB appeared to be the best technique (surface under cumulative ranking [SUCRA] score 0.90) followed by MIAB (SUCRA 0.83), whereas bite-on-bite biopsy showed the poorest performance. When considering lesions <20 mm, MIAB, but not EUS-FNB, showed significantly higher accuracy rates compared with EUS-FNA (RR 1.68 [95%CI 1.02-2.88]). Overall, MIAB ranked as the best intervention for lesions <20 mm (SUCRA score 0.86 for adequacy and 0.91 for accuracy), with EUS-FNB only slightly superior to EUS-FNA. When rapid on-site cytological evaluation (ROSE) was available, no difference between EUS-FNB, EUS-FNA, and MIAB was observed.

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNB and MIAB appeared to provide better performance, whereas bite-on-bite sampling was significantly inferior to the other techniques. MIAB seemed to be the best option for smaller lesions, whereas EUS-FNA remained competitive when ROSE was available.

Comparing the diagnostic adequacy of 25-Gauge fork-tip versus franseen versus reverse-bevel-type needles in EUS-guided tissue acquisition: A prospective randomized study with a retrospective control

Background and Objectives

EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB) is an established technique for the acquisition of tissue to diagnose lesions of the gastrointestinal tract and surrounding organs. Recently, newer-generation FNB needles have been introduced, including a second-generation reverse-bevel and the third-generation fork-tip and Franseen needles. We aimed to determine if there was any difference between these needles in terms of cytopathological diagnostic yield, sample cellularity, or sample bloodiness.

Methods

One hundred twenty-seven consecutive patients undergoing EUS-guided FNB of any solid lesion were randomized to use either a Franseen or fork-tip needle in a 1:1 ratio and were compared with 60 consecutive historical cases performed with reverse-bevel needles. Patient and procedure characteristics were recorded. Cases were reviewed by a blinded cytopathologist and graded based on cellularity and bloodiness. Overall diagnostic yield was calculated for each study arm.

Results

One hundred seventy-six cases were eligible for analysis, including 109 pancreatic masses, 24 lymphoid lesions, 17 subepithelial lesions, and 26 other lesions. The final diagnosis was malignancy in 127 cases (72%). EUS-guided FNB was diagnostic in 141 cases (80%) overall and in 89% of cases where malignancy was the final diagnosis. There was no difference in diagnostic yield, sample cellularity, or sample bloodiness between the different needle types. There was no difference in adverse events between groups.

Conclusions

EUS-guided FNB performed using 25-gauge Franseen, fork-tip, and reverse-bevel needles resulted in similar diagnostic yield, sample cellularity, and sample bloodiness. Our results may not be extrapolated to larger-caliber needles of the same design.

Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided tissue acquisition prior to resection of pancreatic carcinoma: a nationwide analysis

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic ultrasonography guided tissue acquisition (EUS + TA) is used to provide a tissue diagnosis in patients with suspected pancreatic cancer. Key performance indicators (KPI) for these procedures are rate of adequate sample (RAS) and sensitivity for malignancy (SFM).

AIM

assess practice variation regarding KPI of EUS + TA prior to resection of pancreatic carcinoma in the Netherlands.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Results of all EUS + TA prior to resection of pancreatic carcinoma from 2014-2018, were extracted from the national Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA). Pathology reports were classified as: insufficient for analysis (b1), benign (b2), atypia (b3), neoplastic other (b4), suspected malignant (b5), and malignant (b6). RAS was defined as the proportion of EUS procedures yielding specimen sufficient for analysis. SFM was calculated using a strict definition (malignant only, SFM-b6), and a broader definition (SFM-b5+6).

RESULTS

691 out of 1638 resected patients (42%) underwent preoperative EUS + TA. RAS was 95% (range 89-100%), SFM-b6 was 44% (20-77%), and SFM-b5+6 was 65% (53-90%). All centers met the performance target RAS>85%. Only 9 out of 17 met the performance target SFM-b5+6 > 85%.

CONCLUSION

This nationwide study detected significant practice variation regarding KPI of EUS + TA procedures prior to surgical resection of pancreatic carcinoma. Therefore, quality improvement of EUS + TA is indicated.

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.

Exploring a novel composite method using non-contrast EUS enhanced microvascular imaging and cyst fluid analysis to differentiate pancreatic cystic lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Differentiating pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) remains a diagnostic challenge. The use of high-definition imaging modalities which detect tumor microvasculature have been described in solid lesions. We aim to evaluate the usefulness of cystic microvasculature when used in combination with cyst fluid biochemistry to differentiate PCLs.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 110 consecutive patients with PCLs from 2 Italian Hospitals who underwent EUS with H-Flow and EUS fine needle aspiration to obtain cystic fluid. The accuracy of fluid biomarkers was evaluated against morphological features on radiology and EUS. Gold standard for diagnosis was surgical resection. A clinical and radiological follow up was applied in those patients who were not resected because not surgical indication and no signs of malignancy were shown.

RESULTS

Of 110 patients, 65 were diagnosed with a mucinous cyst, 41 with a non-mucinous cyst, and 4 with an undetermined cyst. Fluid analysis alone yielded 76.7% sensitivity, 56.7% specificity, 77.8 positive predictive value (PPV), 55.3 negative predictive value (NPV) and 56% accuracy in diagnosing pancreatic cysts alone. Our composite method yielded 97.3% sensitivity, 77.1% specificity, 90.1% PPV, 93.1% NPV, 73.2% accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

This new composite could be applied to the holistic approach of combining cyst morphology, vascularity, and fluid analysis alongside endoscopist expertise.

Risk Factors and Interpretation of Inconclusive Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology in the Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions

BACKGROUND

The inconclusive cytological findings of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) remain a major clinical challenge and often lead to treatment delays.

METHODS

Patients who had undergone EUS-FNA sampling for solid pancreas lesions between 2014 and 2021 were retrospectively enrolled. The "atypical" and "non-diagnostic" categories of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology System were considered inconclusive and the "negative for malignancy" category of malignancy was suspected clinically. We determined the frequency and predictors of inconclusive cytological finding.

RESULTS

A total of 473 first EUS-FNA samples were included, of which 108 cases (22.83%) were inconclusive. Significant increases in the odds of inconclusive cytological findings were observed for lesions with a benign final diagnosis (OR 11.20; 95% CI 6.56-19.54, p < 0.001) as well as with the use of 25 G FNA needles (OR 2.12; 95% CI 1.09-4.01, p = 0.023) compared to 22 G needles. Furthermore, the use of a single EUS-FNA technique compared to the combined use of slow-pull and standard suction techniques (OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.06-2.70, p = 0.027) and less than three punctures per procedure led to an elevation in the risk of inconclusive cytology (OR 2.49; 95% CI 1.49-4.14, p < 0.001). Risk reduction in inconclusive cytology findings was observed in lesions between 2-4 cm (OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.23-0.68, p = 0.001) and >4 cm (OR 0.16; 95% CI 0.08-0.31, p < 0.001) compared to lesions ≤2 cm.

CONCLUSIONS

The more than two punctures per EUS-FNA sampling with larger-diameter needle (19 G or 22 G) using the slow-pull and standard suction techniques in combination may decrease the probability of inconclusive cytological findings.

Anesthesia care provider sedation versus conscious sedation for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

We aimed to study the effects of sedation on endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study evaluating the role of sedation in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition by comparing two groups: anesthesia care provider (ACP) sedation and endoscopist-directed conscious sedation (CS).

RESULTS

Technical success was achieved in 219/233 (94.0%) in the ACP group and 114/136 (83.8%) in the CS group (p=0.0086). In multivariate analysis, the difference in technical success between the two groups was not significant (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.234-1.069; p=0.0738). A successful diagnostic yield was present in 146/196 (74.5%) in the ACP group and 66/106 (62.3%) in the CS group, respectively (p=0.0274). In multivariate analysis, the difference in diagnostic yield between the two groups was not significant (aOR, 0.643; 95% CI, 0.356-1.159; p=0.142). A total of 33 adverse events (AEs) were observed. The incidence of AEs was significantly lower in the CS group (5/33 CS vs. 28/33 ACP; OR, 0.281; 95% CI, 0.095-0.833; p=0.022).

CONCLUSION

CS provided equivalent technical success and diagnostic yield for malignancy in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition. Increased AEs were associated with anesthesia for the endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition.

Ultrasound-Guided Needle Biopsy as an Alternative to Chamberlain's Mediastinotomy and Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery (VATS) in the Diagnosis of Anterior Mediastinal Neoformations: A Retrospective Analysis

(1) Background: The prompt diagnosis of anterior mediastinal lesions is a challenge due to their often being categorized as malignant tumours. Ultrasound-guided Transthoracic Core Needle Biopsy (US-TCNB) is an innovative technique that is arousing increasing interest in clinical practice. However, studies in this area are still scarce. This study aims to compare the diagnostic accuracy and complication rate of US-TCNB with those of traditional surgical methods-Anterior Mediastinotomy and Video Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery (VATS)-in patients with anterior mediastinal lesions. (2) Methods: This retrospective study involved patients evaluated between January 2011 and December 2021 who had undergone US-TCNB at the Interdepartmental Unit of Internal and Interventional Ultrasound, Molinette Hospital, Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy. Personal data, diagnostic questions, and technical information concerning the bioptic procedure, periprocedural complications and histological reports were collected. (3) Results: Eighty-three patients were included in the analysis. Histological examination was performed in 78 cases, with an overall diagnostic accuracy of 94.0% (sensitivity 94%; specificity 100%). Only in 5 patients was a diagnosis not achieved. Complications occurred in 2 patients who were quickly identified and properly treated without need of hospitalization. The accuracy of US-TCNB was comparable to the performance of the main traditional diagnostic alternatives (95.3% for anterior mediastinotomy, and 98.4% for VATS), with a much lower complication rate (2.4% vs. 3-16%). The outpatient setting offered the additional advantage of saving resources. (4) Conclusions: a US-guided needle biopsy can be considered effective and safe, and in the near future it may become the procedure of choice for diagnosing anterior mediastinal lesions in selected patients.

Do Biliary Stents Affect EUS-Guided Tissue Acquisition (EUS-TA) in Solid Pancreatic Lesions Determining Biliary Obstruction? A Literature Review with Meta-Analysis

There is a paucity of evidence regarding whether biliary stents influence endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition using either fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) or fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), among patients with head of pancreas (HOP) lesions. We aimed at assessing the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling in patients with or without bile duct stents. A total of seven studies with 2458 patients were included. The main aim was to assess overall pooled diagnostic accuracy. A pairwise meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model. Outcomes were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We found that pooled accuracy was 85.4% (CI 78.8–91.9) and 88.1% (CI 83.3–92.9) in patients with and without stents, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the two (OR 0.74; p = 0.07). Furthermore, patients with metal stents demonstrated a significant difference (OR 0.54, 0.17–0.97; p = 0.05), which was not seen with plastic stents. EUS-FNB showed poorer diagnostic accuracy with concurrent biliary stenting (OR 0.64, 0.43–0.95; p = 0.03); however, the same was not observed with EUS-FNA. Compared to plastic stents, metal biliary stenting further impacted the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided tissue acquisition for pancreatic head lesions. There was no difference in the rate of procedure-related adverse events between the stent and no-stent groups.

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.

The role of rectal endoscopic ultrasonography plus fine needle aspirartion and fine needle biopsy in pelvic masses

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The diagnostic role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) of pelvic masses has not been well established. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of EUS plus FNA/FNB in suspected local recurrence of pelvic masses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All consecutive patients with a history of lower gastrointestinal and pelvic mass undergone EUS-FNA/FNB were included in the study.

RESULTS

In total 34 patients who underwent EUS-guided FNA or FNB of a perirectal mass were enrolled. The sampled lesion was a mass in 22 patients (64.7%) and a lymph node in 10 patients (29.4%). The univariate logistic regression analysis for diagnostic accuracy showed lesion size as a significant predictor of diagnostic accuracy [odds ratio (OR), 1.61; 1.08-2.27; P  = 0.02]. Diagnostic sensitivity was 100% (71.5-100%) with EUS-FNB and 75% (34.9-96.8%) with EUS-FNA ( P  = 0.12); specificity was 100% in both groups ( P  = 1.0). Sample adequacy was 94.1% in the whole cohort, with 20/20 adequacy rate (100%) in the EUS-FNB group and 12/14 (85.7%) in the EUS-FNA group ( P  = 0.28).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study demonstrating the diagnostic yield of EUS plus FNA/FNB in patients with pelvic masses comparing the two needles. Our results highlight the relevance of this technique, especially in undefined masses during oncological follow-up.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy with or without macroscopic on-site evaluation: a randomized controlled noninferiority trial

BACKGROUND : The advantage of using the macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) technique during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) performed with 22G Franseen needles has not been investigated. We aimed to compare EUS-FNB with MOSE vs. EUS-FNB performed with three needle passes. METHODS : This randomized trial involved 10 Italian referral centers. Consecutive patients referred for EUS-FNB of pancreatic or nonpancreatic solid lesions were included in the study and randomized to the two groups. MOSE was performed by gross visualization of the collected material by the endoscopists and considered adequate when a white/yellowish aggregate core longer than 10 mm was retrieved. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were specimen adequacy, number of needle passes, and safety. RESULTS : 370 patients with 234 pancreatic lesions (63.2 %) and 136 nonpancreatic lesions (36.8 %) were randomized (190 EUS-FNB with MOSE and 180 with standard EUS-FNB). No statistically significant differences were found between EUS-FNB with MOSE and conventional EUS-FNB in terms of diagnostic accuracy (90.0 % [95 %CI 84.8 %-93.9 %] vs. 87.8 % [95 %CI 82.1 %-92.2 %]; P = 0.49), sample adequacy (93.1 % [95 %CI 88.6 %-96.3 %] vs. 95.5 % [95 %CI 91.4 %-98 %]; P = 0.31), and rate of adverse events (2.6 % vs. 1.1 %; P = 0.28). The median number of passes was significantly lower in the EUS-FNB with MOSE group (1 vs. 3; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS : The accuracy of EUS-FNB with MOSE is noninferior to that of EUS-FNB with three needle passes. MOSE reliably assesses sample adequacy and reduces the number of needle passes required to obtain the diagnosis with a 22G Franseen needle.

Predictors of adverse events after endoscopic ultrasound-guided through-the-needle biopsy of pancreatic cysts: a recursive partitioning analysis

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS : Endoscopic ultrasound-guided through-the-needle biopsy (TTNB) of pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) is associated with a non-negligible risk for adverse events (AEs). We aimed to identify the hierarchic interaction among independent predictors for TTNB-related AEs and to generate a prognostic model using recursive partitioning analysis (RPA). PATIENTS AND METHODS : Multicenter retrospective analysis of 506 patients with PCLs who underwent TTNB. RPA of predictors for AEs was performed and the model was validated by means of bootstrap resampling. RESULTS : Mean cysts size was 36.7 mm. Most common diagnoses were intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN, 45 %), serous cystadenoma (18.8 %), and mucinous cystadenoma (12.8 %). Fifty-eight (11.5 %) AEs were observed. At multivariate analysis, age (odds ratio [OR] 1.32, 1.09-2.14; p = 0.05), number of TTNB passes (OR from 2.17, 1.32-4.34 to OR 3.16, 2.03-6.34 with the increase of the number of passes), complete aspiration of the cyst (OR 0.56, 0.31-0.95; p = 0.02), and diagnosis of IPMN (OR 4.16, 2.27-7.69; p < 0.001) were found to be independent predictors of AEs, as confirmed by logistic regression and random forest analyses. RPA identified three risk classes: high-risk (IPMN sampled with multiple microforceps passes, 28 % AEs rate), low-risk (1.4 % AE rate, including patients < 64 years with other-than-IPMN diagnosis sampled with ≤ 2 microforceps passes and with complete aspiration of the cyst) and middle-risk class (6.1 % AEs rate, including the remaining patients). CONCLUSION : TTNB should be selectively used in the evaluation of patients with IPMN. The present model could be applied during patient selection as to optimize the benefit/risk of TTNB.

Comparison between EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy with or without rapid on-site evaluation for tissue sampling of solid pancreatic lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The benefit of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) on the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) in patients with pancreatic masses is still matter of debate. Aim of our meta-analysis is to compare the diagnostic outcomes of these two tissue acquisition strategies. Computerized bibliographic search on the main databases was performed through December 2021 and 8 studies were identified (2147 patients). The primary outcome was sample adequacy. Pooled effects were calculated using a random-effects model by means of DerSimonian and Laird test and summary estimates were expressed in terms of odds ratio (OR) or mean difference and 95% confidence Interval (CI). There was no difference in terms of baseline variables between the two groups. Pooled sample adequacy was 95.5% (95% CI 93.2%-97.8%) and 88.9% (83.4%-94.5%) in the EUS-FNB + ROSE and EUS-FNB groups, respectively (OR = 2.05, 0.94-4.49; P = 0.07). Diagnostic accuracy resulted significantly superior in the EUS-FNB + ROSE group (OR = 2.49, 1.08-5.73; P = 0.03), particularly when the analysis was restricted to reverse bevel needle (OR = 3.24, 1.19-8.82, P = 0.02), whereas no statistical difference was observed when newer end-cutting needles were used (OR = 0.71, 0.29-3.61, P = 0.56). Diagnostic sensitivity was not significantly different between the two groups (OR = 1.94, 0.84-4.49; P = 0.12), whereas pooled specificity was 100% with both approaches. The number of needle passes needed to obtain diagnostic samples was not significantly different (mean difference 0.07,-0.22 to 0.37; P = 0.62). Our meta-analysis stands for a non-superiority of EUS-FNB + ROSE over EUS-FNB with newer end-cutting needles, whereas ROSE could have still a role when reverse bevel needles are used.

Needle Tract Seeding after Endoscopic Ultrasound Tissue Acquisition of Pancreatic Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

There is limited evidence on the incidence of needle tract seeding (NTS) in patients undergoing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) tissue acquisition (TA) of pancreatic lesions. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the incidence of NTS after EUS-TA. With a search of the literature up until April 2022, we identified 10 studies (13,238 patients) assessing NTS incidences in patients undergoing EUS-TA. The primary outcome was NTS incidence. The secondary outcome was a comparison in terms of peritoneal carcinomatosis incidence between patients who underwent EUS-TA and non-sampled patients. Results were expressed as pooled rates or odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The pooled rate of NTS was 0.3% (95% CI 0.2–0.4%), with no evidence of heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). Subgroup analysis based on the type of sampled lesion confirmed this finding both in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (0.4%, 0.2–0.6%) and in patients with cystic pancreatic lesions (0.3%, 0.1–0.5%). No difference in terms of metachronous peritoneal dissemination was observed between patients who underwent EUS-TA and non-sampled patients (OR 1.02, 0.72–1.46; p = 0.31), with evidence of low heterogeneity (I2 = 16%). Rates of NTS after EUS-TA are very low; therefore, EUS-TA could be safely performed in a pre-operative setting.

Comparative diagnostic performance of end-cutting fine-needle biopsy needles for EUS tissue sampling of solid pancreatic masses: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Evidence is limited on the comparative diagnostic performance of newer end-cutting fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles for tissue sampling of pancreatic masses. We performed a systematic review with network meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic accuracy of available FNB needles for sampling of solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (Medline and Cochrane Database) was conducted for studies evaluating the accuracy of newer FNB needles in adults undergoing EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were sample adequacy, diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and adverse event rate. We performed pairwise and network meta-analyses and appraised the quality of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology.

RESULTS

Overall, 16 RCTs (1934 patients) were identified. On network meta-analysis, Franseen needles (Acquire; Boston Scientific, Marlborough, Mass, USA) significantly outperformed reverse-bevel needles (risk ratio [RR], 1.21 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.05-1.40] for accuracy and 1.31 [95% CI, 1.05-1.22] for adequacy) and FNA needles (RR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.01-1.25] for accuracy and 1.07 [95% CI, 1.02-1.13] for adequacy). Likewise, the Fork-tip needle (SharkCore; Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland) was significantly superior to the reverse-bevel needle (RR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.03-1.33] for accuracy and 1.09 [95% CI, 1.02-1.16] for adequacy) and to the FNA needle (RR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.01-1.19] for accuracy and 1.03 [95% CI, 1.01-1.07] for adequacy). Other comparisons did not achieve statistical significance. As a consequence, Franseen (surface under the cumulative ranking score, .89 for accuracy and .94 for adequacy) and Fork-tip needles (surface under the cumulative ranking score, .76 for accuracy and .73 for adequacy) ranked as the 2 highest-performing FNB needles. When considering different needle sizes, 25-gauge Franseen and 25-gauge Fork-tip needles were not superior to 22-gauge reverse-bevel needles (RR, 1.18 [95% CI, .96-1.46] and 1.04 [95% CI, .62-1.52]). None of the tested needles was significantly superior to the other FNB devices or to FNA needles when rapid onsite cytologic evaluation was available.

CONCLUSIONS

Franseen and Fork-tip needles, particularly 22-gauge size, showed the highest performance for tissue sampling of pancreatic masses, with low confidence in estimates.

Comparison between endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy and bite-on-bite jumbo biopsy for sampling of subepithelial lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

A direct comparison between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle biopsy (FNB) and current endoscopic biopsy techniques in patients with subepithelial lesions (SELs) is still lacking. Aim of this multicenter study was to compare the diagnostic performance and safety profile between EUS-FNB and bite-on-bite jumbo biopsy.

METHODS

Out of 416 patients undergoing endoscopic sampling of SELs between 2017 and 2021, after propensity score matching two groups were compared: 120 undergoing EUS-FNB and 120 sampled with bite-on-bite jumbo biopsy. Primary outcome was sample adequacy. Secondary outcomes were diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Median age was 61 years and most patients were male in both groups. Final diagnosis was GIST in 65 patients (54.1%) in the EUS-FNB group and 62 patients in the bite-on-bite biopsy group (51.6%; p = 0.37). Sample adequacy was significantly higher in the EUS-FNB group as compared to the bite-on-bite biopsy group (94.1% versus 77.5%, p<0.001). EUS-FNB outperformed bite-on-bite biopsy also in terms of diagnostic accuracy (89.3% versus 67.1%, p<0.001) and sensitivity (89% vs 64.5%; p<0.001), whereas specificity was 100% in both groups (p = 0.89). These findings were confirmed in subgroup analysis according to SEL location, final diagnosis, and wall layers of the sampled SEL. Adverse event rate was 6.6% in the EUS-FNB group and 30% in the bite-on-bite biopsy group (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNB outperforms bite-on-bite biopsy both in terms of diagnostic yield and safety profile.

Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound with artificial intelligence for gastrointestinal stromal tumors: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are thought to have a malignant potential. However, utilizing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) to differentiate GISTs from other types of subepithelial lesions (SELs) remains challenging. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based diagnostic systems for EUS have been reported to have a promising performance, although the results of the previous studies remain controversial. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of AI-based EUS in distinguishing GISTs from other SELs.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted on MEDLINE and EMBASE databases to identify relevant articles. The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of eligible studies were analyzed.

RESULTS

Seven studies were eligible for the final analysis. The combined sensitivity and specificity of AI-based EUS were 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-0.96) and 0.78 (95% CI 0.67-0.87), respectively. The overall diagnostic odds ratio of AI-based EUS for GISTs was 36.74 (95% CI 17.69-76.30) with an AUROC of 0.94.

CONCLUSIONS

AI-based EUS showed high diagnostic ability and might help better differentiate GISTs from other SELs. More prospective studies on the diagnosis of GISTs using AI-based EUS are warranted in clinical setting.

Burden and Cost of Gastrointestinal, Liver, and Pancreatic Diseases in the United States: Update 2021

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Gastrointestinal diseases account for considerable health care use and expenditures. We estimated the annual burden, costs, and research funding associated with gastrointestinal, liver, and pancreatic diseases in the United States.

METHODS

We generated estimates using data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey; National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey; Nationwide Emergency Department Sample; National Inpatient Sample; Kids' Inpatient Database; Nationwide Readmissions Database; Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program; National Vital Statistics System; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research; MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters data; MarketScan Medicare Supplemental data; United Network for Organ Sharing registry; Medical Expenditure Panel Survey; and National Institutes of Health (NIH).

RESULTS

Gastrointestinal health care expenditures totaled $119.6 billion in 2018. Annually, there were more than 36.8 million ambulatory visits for gastrointestinal symptoms and 43.4 million ambulatory visits with a primary gastrointestinal diagnosis. Hospitalizations for a principal gastrointestinal diagnosis accounted for more than 3.8 million admissions, with 403,699 readmissions. A total of 22.2 million gastrointestinal endoscopies were performed, and 284,844 new gastrointestinal cancers were diagnosed. Gastrointestinal diseases and cancers caused 255,407 deaths. The NIH supported $3.1 billion (7.5% of the NIH budget) for gastrointestinal research in 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

Gastrointestinal diseases are responsible for millions of health care encounters and hundreds of thousands of deaths that annually costs billions of dollars in the United States. To reduce the high burden of gastrointestinal diseases, focused clinical and public health efforts, supported by additional research funding, are warranted.

Circulating Cell-Free Tumor DNA in Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Identifies Patients With Worse Overall Survival

Background

Plasma-based circulating cell-free tumor DNA (ctDNA) genomic profiling by next-generation sequencing (NGS)is an emerging diagnostic tool for pancreatic cancer (PC). The impact of detected genomic alterations and variant allele fraction (VAF) in tumor response to systemic treatments and outcomes is under investigation.

Methods

Patients with advanced PC who had ctDNA profiled at time of initial diagnosis were retrospectively evaluated. We considered the somatic alteration with the highest VAF as the dominant clone allele frequency (DCAF). ctDNA NGS results were related to clinical demographics, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

Results

A total of 104 patients were evaluated. Somatic alterations were detected in 84.6% of the patients. Patients with ≥ 2 detectable genomic alterations had worse median PFS (p < 0.001) and worse median OS (p = 0.001). KRAS was associated with disease progression to systemic treatments (80.4% vs 19.6%, p = 0.006), worse median PFS (p < 0.001) and worse median OS (p = 0.002). TP53 was associated with worse median PFS (p = 0.02) and worse median OS (p = 0.001). The median DCAF was 0.45% (range 0-55%). DCAF >0.45% was associated with worse median PFS (p<0.0001) and median OS (p=0.0003). Patients that achieved clearance of KRAS had better PFS (p=0.047), while patients that achieved clearance of TP53 had better PFS (p=0.0056) and OS (p=0.037).

Conclusions

Initial detection of ctDNA in advanced PC can identify somatic alterations that may help predict clinical outcomes. The dynamics of ctDNA are prognostic of outcomes and should be evaluated in prospective studies.

Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle biopsy vs fine-needle aspiration for lymph nodes tissue acquisition: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition represents the choice of methods for suspected lymph nodes (LNs) located next to the gastrointestinal tract. This study aimed to compare the pooled diagnostic performance of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) and fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for LNs sampling.

Methods

We searched PubMed/MedLine and Embase databases through August 2021. Primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy; secondary outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, sample adequacy, optimal histological core procurement, number of passes, and adverse events. We performed a pairwise meta-analysis using a random-effects model. The results are presented as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference along with 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

We identified nine studies (1,276 patients) in this meta-analysis. Among these patients, 66.4% were male; the median age was 67 years. Diagnostic accuracy was not significantly different between the two approaches (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.81–2.10; P = 0.270). The accuracy of EUS-FNB was significantly higher when being performed with newer end-cutting needles (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.17–3.00; P = 0.009) and in abdominal LNs (OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.52–4.05; P &lt; 0.001) than that of EUS-FNA. No difference in terms of sample adequacy was observed between the two approaches (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.46–4.26; P = 0.550); however, histological core procurement and diagnostic sensitivity with EUS-FNB were significantly higher than those with EUS-FNA (OR, 6.15; 95% CI, 1.51–25.07; P = 0.010 and OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.27–2.74, P = 0.001). The number of needle passes needed was significantly lower in the EUS-FNB group than in the EUS-FNA group (mean difference, −0.54; 95% CI, −0.97 to −0.12; P = 0.010).

Conclusions

EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB perform similarly in LN sampling; however, FNB performed with end-cutting needles outperformed FNA in terms of diagnostic accuracy.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy as a tool for studying the intra-tumoral microbiome in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a pilot study

A new approach by investigating the intra-tumoral microbiome raised great interest because they may influence the host immune response and natural history of the disease. However, previous studies on the intra-tumoral microbiome of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) were mostly based on examining the formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor specimens. This study aims to investigate the feasibility of using endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) as a complementary procedure of surgical biopsy to obtain adequate fresh pancreatic cancer tissue for intra-tumoral microbial research. This was a prospective pilot study performed at a single tertiary referral center. We obtained pancreatic cancer tissue by EUS-FNB and surgical biopsy, respectively. We amplified the V3-V4 hyper-variable region of bacterial 16S ribosomal ribonucleic acid (rRNA) genes, constructed a pair-end library, and performed high-throughput sequencing. From August 2020 to November 2020, nine eligible patients with PDAC were enrolled in this study. The intra-tumoral microbiome profile was successfully generated from the PDAC cancer tissue obtained by EUS-FNB as well as by surgical biopsy. There was no significant difference in intra-tumoral alpha-diversity or bacterial taxonomic composition between tissues obtained by EUS-FNB and by surgical biopsy. EUS-FNB can collect sufficient fresh cancer tissue for microbiome analyses without complication. The intra-tumoral microbiome profile in tissues obtained by EUS-FNB had similar alpha-diversity and taxonomic profiles with those obtained by surgical biopsy. It implicated, except for surgical biopsy, EUS-FNB can be another valid and valuable tool for studying intra-tumoral microbiome in patients with resectable and unresectable PDAC.

Application of artificial intelligence for diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma by EUS: A systematic review and meta-analysis

EUS-guided tissue acquisition carries certain risks from unnecessary needle puncture in the low-likelihood lesions. Artificial intelligence (AI) system may enable us to resolve these limitations. We aimed to assess the performance of AI-assisted diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) by off-line evaluating the EUS images from different modes. The databases PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, ISI, IEEE, and Association for Computing Machinery were systematically searched for relevant studies. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and summary receiver operating characteristic curve were estimated using R software. Of 369 publications, 8 studies with a total of 870 PDAC patients were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of AI-assisted EUS were 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-0.93) and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.79-0.96), respectively, with DOR of 81.6 (95% CI, 32.2-207.3), for diagnosis of PDAC. The area under the curve was 0.923. AI-assisted B-mode EUS had pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.91, 0.90, 0.94, and 0.84, respectively; while AI-assisted contrast-enhanced EUS and AI-assisted EUS elastography had sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 0.95, 0.95, 0.97, and 0.90; and 0.88, 0.83, 0.96 and 0.57, respectively. AI-assisted EUS has a high accuracy rate and may potentially enhance the performance of EUS by aiding the endosonographers to distinguish PDAC from other solid lesions. Validation of these findings in other independent cohorts and improvement of AI function as a real-time diagnosis to guide for tissue acquisition are warranted.

Impact of biliary stents on the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic head lesions: A multicenter study

Background and Objectives

There is no clear evidence of a negative impact of biliary stents on the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for diagnosing pancreatic head lesions. We aimed to evaluate the association between the presence of biliary stents and the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB.

Materials and Methods

A multicenter retrospective study including all jaundiced patients secondary to pancreatic head masses was performed. Patients were divided into two groups according to the presence of a biliary stent placed before EUS-FNB. Pathological results were classified according to the Papanicolaou classification and compared against the final diagnosis. Diagnostic measures in the two groups were compared. Multivariate logistic regression analyses including potential factors affecting EUS-FNB accuracy were performed.

Results

Overall, 842 patients were included, 495 (58.8%) without and 347 (41.2%) with biliary stent. A plastic or a metal stent was placed in 217 (62.5%) and 130 (37.5%) cases, respectively. Diagnostic sensitivity and accuracy were significantly higher in patients without biliary stent than in those with stent (91.9% and 92.1% vs. 85.9% and 86.4%, P = 0.010 At multivariate analyses, lesion size (odds ratio [OR]: 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-1.09, P = 0.01) and presence of biliary stent (OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.32-0.89, P = 0.01) were independently associated with diagnostic accuracy. In the subgroup of patients with biliary stent, the type of stent (plastic vs. metal) did not impact EUS-FNB yield, whereas the use of larger bore needles enhanced diagnostic accuracy (OR: 2.29, 95% CI: 1.28-4.12, P = 0.005).

Conclusions

In this large retrospective study, an indwelling biliary stent negatively impacted the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB. Preferably, EUS-FNB should precede endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, especially in the case of small tumors.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Biopsy With or Without Rapid On-site Evaluation for Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions: A Randomized Controlled Non-Inferiority Trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The benefit of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) on the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) has never been evaluated in a randomized study. This trial aimed to test the hypothesis that in solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs), diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB without ROSE was not inferior to that of EUS-FNB with ROSE.

METHODS

A noninferiority study (noninferiority margin, 5%) was conducted at 14 centers in 8 countries. Patients with SPLs requiring tissue sampling were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo EUS-FNB with or without ROSE using new-generation FNB needles. The touch-imprint cytology technique was used to perform ROSE. The primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy, and secondary endpoints were safety, tissue core procurement, specimen quality, and sampling procedural time.

RESULTS

Eight hundred patients were randomized over an 18-month period, and 771 were analyzed (385 with ROSE and 386 without). Comparable diagnostic accuracies were obtained in both arms (96.4% with ROSE and 97.4% without ROSE, P = .396). Noninferiority of EUS-FNB without ROSE was confirmed with an absolute risk difference of 1.0% (1-sided 90% confidence interval, -1.1% to 3.1%; noninferiority P < .001). Safety and sample quality of histologic specimens were similar in both groups. A significantly higher tissue core rate was obtained by EUS-FNB without ROSE (70.7% vs. 78.0%, P = .021), with a significantly shorter mean sampling procedural time (17.9 ± 8.8 vs 11.7 ± 6.0 minutes, P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNB demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy in evaluating SPLs independently on execution of ROSE. When new-generation FNB needles are used, ROSE should not be routinely recommended. (ClinicalTrial.gov number NCT03322592.).

Effectiveness of Menghini-Type Needles for Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration of Pancreatic Masses

BACKGROUND

Cutting needles are thought to be effective as biopsy needles. A few types of cutting needles are available for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), and the Menghini-type needle is an end-type cutting needle.

AIMS

A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare the results of EUS-FNA using a Menghini-type needle (needle M) versus a conventional needle (needle S).

METHODS

The main eligibility criteria were as follows: patients with a pancreatic mass referred for EUS-FNA, ≥ 20 years old, and a performance status < 4. The primary outcome was the sample quality. The secondary outcomes were factors associated with the sample quality, diagnostic accuracy, and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 97 patients were enrolled in this study. The sample quality for total puncture with needle M (92.8%) was significantly higher than that with needle S (81.4%) (p = 0.0305). The tumor size (p = 0.033) and type of needle (p = 0.031) were significant factors associated with adequate tissue collection in univariate and multivariate analyses (odds ratio [OR] 2.71; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-6.54; p = 0.027 for tumor size, and OR 2.93; 95% CI 1.23-8.21; p = 0.0153 for type of needle). The diagnostic accuracy of each needle was 88.7% (86/97) with needle M and 73.2% (71/97) with needle S. Adverse events occurred in 2 of the 97 patients (0.02%).

CONCLUSION

A Menghini-type needle was able to obtain core tissue for histology more effectively than a conventional aspiration needle.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

UMIN registration number of 000020668.

Endoscopic Ultrasound Fine-Needle Biopsy versus Fine-Needle Aspiration for Tissue Sampling of Abdominal Lymph Nodes: A Propensity Score Matched Multicenter Comparative Study

Simple Summary

Lymph node (LN) sampling or staging is crucial to the management of malignancies. The use of endoscopic ultrasound for lymph node sampling can be performed with EUS fine-needle aspiration (FNA) or EUS fine-needle biopsy (FNB). However, it remains unclear whether EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB is superior for sampling of abdominal lymph nodes. In this study, we retrospectively compared a large volume of patients who underwent lymph node sampling using EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB. Most patients were diagnosed with metastatic colorectal disease. We found that EUS-FNB had a higher diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity compared to EUS-FNA. Both modalities had no adverse events. Thus, the results support the use of EUS-FNB for abdominal lymph node sampling.

Abstract

There is a paucity of evidence on the comparison between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle biopsy (FNB) and fine-needle aspiration (FNA) for lymph node (LNs) sampling. The aim of this study was to compare these two approaches in a multicenter series of patients with abdominal tumors. Out of 502 patients undergoing EUS sampling, two groups following propensity score matching were compared: 105 undergoing EUS-FNB and 105 undergoing EUS-FNA. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, sample adequacy, optimal histological core procurement, number of passes, and adverse events. Median age was 64.6 years, and most patients were male in both groups. Final diagnosis was LN metastasis (mainly from colorectal cancer) in 70.4% of patients in the EUS-FNB group and 66.6% in the EUS-FNA group (p = 0.22). Diagnostic accuracy was significantly higher in the EUS-FNB group as compared to the EUS-FNA group (87.62% versus 75.24%, p = 0.02). EUS-FNB outperformed EUS-FNA also in terms of diagnostic sensitivity (84.71% vs. 70.11%; p = 0.01), whereas specificity was 100% in both groups (p = 0.6). Sample adequacy analysis showed a non-significant trend in favor of EUS-FNB (96.1% versus 89.5%, p = 0.06) whereas the histological core procurement rate was significantly higher with EUS-FNB (94.2% versus 51.4%; p < 0.001). No procedure-related adverse events were observed. These findings show that EUS-FNB is superior to EUS-FNA in tissue sampling of abdominal LNs.

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.

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.

Does ProCore Fine-Needle Biopsy Really Improve the Clinical Outcome of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Sampling of Pancreatic Masses?

INTRODUCTION

Fine-needle biopsy (FNB) has been suggested to provide better histological samples as compared to endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). However, studies comparing EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for pancreatic lesions reported contrasting results. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical performance of EUS-FNA versus EUS-FNB with the ProCore needle for the investigation of pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

We reviewed all patients undergoing EUS for the investigation of pancreatic lesions from August 2012 to September 2018. From August 2012 to January 2015, all procedures were performed with standard needles, whereas from February 2015 to September 2018, the use of ProCore needles had been introduced. Data on diagnostic accuracy, number of needle passes, and/or adverse events were collected.

RESULTS

Three hundred twenty-four patients were retrospectively evaluated: 190 (58.6%) underwent EUS-FNA and 134 (41.4%) EUS-FNB. Both EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB showed high diagnostic accuracy for malignancy (94% [95% CI: 89-97%] vs. 94% [95% CI: 89-98%]). Notably, there were no differences between EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio, histological core tissue retrieval, adverse events, or number of needle passes. However, subgroup analysis noted a higher diagnostic accuracy for 25G EUS-FNB as compared to 25G EUS-FNA (85.7 vs. 55.5%; *p = 0.023).

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNB with the ProCore needle is safe and feasible in pancreatic lesions. The ProCore needle did not provide any advantage in terms of diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and/or negative likelihood ratio, or acquisition of the core specimen; therefore, its routine application is not supported.

Use of suction during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions with a Franseen-tip needle: a pilot comparative trial

Background and study aims  The utility of suction during endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle biopsy (FNB) using Franseen-tip needle remains unclear and has not been evaluated in randomized trials. We designed a randomized crossover trial to compare the diagnostic yield during EUS-FNB using a 22G Franseen-tip needle, with and without standard suction. Patients and methods  Consecutive patients undergoing EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions were recruited. A minimum of two passes were performed for each case: one with 20-mL syringe suction (S+) and another without (S-). The order of passes was randomized and the pathologist blinded. The endpoints were the diagnostic yield and the impact of blood contamination in the diagnosis. Results  Fifty consecutive patients were enrolled. The overall diagnostic accuracy was 84 %. A diagnosis of malignancy was obtained in 70 samples: 36 in the S+group and 34 in the S-group. A statistically significant difference was seen in the diagnostic accuracy (S+: 78 % vs. S-: 72 %, P  < 0.01) and blood contamination (S+: 68 %; S-: 44 %, P  < 0.01). The sensitivity, specificity, negative likelihood ratio and positive likelihood ratio for S+vs. S-samples were 76.6 % vs. 73.9 %, 100 % vs. 100 % and 0.23 vs. 0.26, NA vs NA, respectively. A negative impact of blood contamination in the overall diagnostic yield wasn't seen, even in samples where suction was used (OR 0.36, P  = 0.15) Conclusions  We found a higher diagnostic yield with the use of suction. It was associated with a higher degree of sample blood contamination that did not affect the diagnostic performance.

Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition in autoimmune pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  There is limited evidence on the diagnostic performance of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition in autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP). The aim of this meta-analysis was to provide a pooled estimate of the diagnostic performance of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (FNB) in patients with AIP. Patients and methods  Computerized bibliographic search was performed through January 2020. Pooled effects were calculated using a random-effects model by means of DerSimonian and Laird test. Primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy compared to clinical diagnostic criteria. Additional outcomes were definitive histopathology, pooled rates of adequate material for histological diagnosis, sample adequacy, mean number of needle passes. Diagnostic sensitivity and safety data were also analyzed. Results  Fifteen studies with 631 patients were included, of which four were prospective series and one randomized trial. Overall diagnostic accuracy of EUS tissue acquisition was 54.7 % (95 % confidence interval, 40.9 %-68.4 %), with a clear superiority of FNB over FNA (63 %, 52.7 % to 73.4 % versus 45.7 %, 26.5 %-65 %; p < 0.001). FNB provided level 1 of histological diagnosis in 44.2 % of cases (30.8 %-57.5 %) as compared to 21.9 % (10 %-33.7 %) with FNA ( P  < 0.001). The rate of definitive histopathology of EUS tissue sampling was 20.7 % (12.9 %-28.5 %) and it was significantly higher with FNB (24.3 %, 11.8 %-36.8 %) as compared to FNA (14.7 %, 5.4 %-23.9 %; P  < 0.001). Less than 1 % of subjects experienced post-procedural acute pancreatitis. Conclusion  The results of this meta-analysis demonstrate that the diagnostic performance of EUS-guided tissue acquisition is modest in patients with AIP, with an improved performance of FNB compared to FNA.

Endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle biopsies of pancreatic lesions: Prospective study of histology quality using Franseen needle

BACKGROUND

The introduction of fine needle biopsies (FNB) to clinical practice presents a changing trend towards histology in the endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA).

AIM

To evaluate the clinical performance of a new FNB needle, the 22-gauge (22G) Franseen needle, when sampling pancreatic solid lesions.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with an indication for EUS-TA for the assessment of pancreatic solid lesions were included in this prospective, single-center, single-arm trial. Each patient underwent a puncture of the lesion two times using the 22G Franseen needle and the obtained samples were directly placed into formalin for histological analysis. The primary study endpoint was the rate of high-quality obtained specimen. Secondary endpoints included the length and diameter of the core specimen, the diagnostic accuracy and the complication rate.

RESULTS

From June 2017 to December 2018, forty patients with pancreatic solid lesions (22 females; mean age 67.2 years) were enrolled. Tissue acquisition was achieved in all cases. High-quality histology, rated with Payne score 3, was obtained in 37/40 cases (92.5%) after two needle passes. The mean size of the acquired histological core tissue was 1.54 mm × 0.39 mm. The diagnostic accuracy for the correct diagnosis was 85% (34/40). Only one adverse event was occurred, consisting of a self-limiting bleeding in the puncture site.

CONCLUSION

The 22G Franseen needle achieved according to our standardized protocol a high rate of histological core procurement, and a high diagnostic accuracy, with one minor adverse event reported.

Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic lesions after inconclusive percutaneous ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition

INTRODUCTION

After a failed percutaneous ultrasound (US)-guided sampling, it is recommended that endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition (TA) be performed for non-resectable solid pancreatic lesions according to the European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology. However, the diagnostic performance of EUS-guided TA in this setting is unknown.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the performance and safety of EUS-guided TA in patients with a previous failed percutaneous biopsy. We also evaluated the diagnostic delays between the percutaneous approach and EUS diagnosis.

RESULTS

Over a period of 2 years, 49 patients were identified (29 males, mean age 65 years). The reasons for failure of percutaneous sampling were inadequate samples in 25 (52.1%) cases and lesions that were not visible or targetable in 24 (47.9%) cases. In one case, EUS-guided TA was not performed because of the interposition of a metallic biliary stent. No adverse events were recorded for both the percutaneous and EUS approaches. The median diagnostic delay was 12 days. Overall, the sensitivity and accuracy of EUS-guided TA were 92.7 and 93.7%, respectively. A subgroup analysis examined cases with inadequate samples obtained with the percutaneous approach, and the sensitivity and accuracy of EUS-guided TA were 85.7 and 88%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

EUS-guided TA is safe and accurate for the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions after a previous inconclusive percutaneous approach.

Randomized trial comparing fork-tip and side-fenestrated needles for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The aim of this study was to compare the performance of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy using fork-tip or side-fenestrated needles in patients with solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

A randomized controlled study was conducted in a single academic center on patients who underwent sampling with fork-tip or side-fenestrated 22-gauge or 25-gauge needles. Three passes were performed, each independently evaluated by a blinded pathologist and by endosonographers for macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE). The primary outcome was histologic yield; secondary aims were safety, diagnostic yield, sample quality, number of needle passes required to establish a diagnosis, and reliability of MOSE.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-two patients were enrolled. Both 22-gauge and 25-gauge fork-tip needles retrieved significantly higher rates of histologic samples than side-fenestrated needles (P < .013). Safety and diagnostic accuracy were comparable in the 2 arms, whereas sample quality (tissue integrity and blood contamination) was significantly better in the fork-tip group (P < .0001). The median number of diagnostic passes was lower using fork-tip needles (P = .054). The agreement between MOSE and pathologic evaluation was almost perfect in the fork-tip group and fair in the side-fenestrated group.

CONCLUSIONS

Both needles showed equivalent safety and diagnostic accuracy. However, fork-tip needles provided a higher rate of extremely good-quality histologic samples and required fewer needle passes to reach a diagnosis. MOSE is a highly reliable tool when fork-tip needles are used compared with side-fenestrated needles. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03622229.).

Improved diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle biopsy with histology specimen processing

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) has emerged as a safe, efficacious alternative to fine needle aspiration (FNA) for tissue acquisition. EUS-FNB is reported to have higher diagnostic yield while preserving specimen tissue architecture. However, data on the optimal method of EUS-FNB specimen processing is limited.

AIM

To evaluate EUS-FNB with specimen processing as histology vs EUS-FNA cytology with regards to diagnostic yield and specimen adequacy.

METHODS

All EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB performed at our institution from July 1, 2016, to January 31, 2018, were retrospectively analyzed. We collected data on demographics, EUS findings, pathology, clinical outcomes, and procedural complications in two periods, July 2016 through March 2017, and April 2017 through January 2018, with predominant use of FNB in the second data collection time period. FNA specimens were processed as cytology with cell block technique and reviewed by a cytopathologist; FNB specimens were fixed in formalin, processed for histopathologic analysis and immunohistochemical staining, and reviewed by an anatomic pathologist. Final diagnosis was based on surgical pathology when available, repeat biopsy or imaging, and length of clinical follow up.

RESULTS

One hundred six EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB procedures were performed. FNA alone was performed in 17 patients; in 56 patients, FNB alone was done; and in 33 patients, both FNA and FNB were performed. For all indications, diagnostic yield was 47.1% (8/17) in FNA alone cases, 85.7% (48/56) in FNB alone cases, and 84.8% (28/33) in cases where both FNA and FNB were performed (P = 0.0039). Specimens were adequate for pathologic evaluation in 52.9% (9/17) of FNA alone cases, in 89.3% (50/56) of FNB alone cases, and 84.8% (28/33) in cases where FNA with FNB were performed (P = 0.0049). Tissue could not be aspirated for cytology in 10.0% (5/50) of cases where FNA was done, while in 3.4% (3/89) of FNB cases, tissue could not be obtained for histology. In patients who underwent FNA with FNB, there was a statistically significant difference in both specimen adequacy (P = 0.0455) and diagnostic yield (P = 0.0455) between the FNA and FNB specimens (processed correspondingly as cytology or histology).

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNB has a higher diagnostic yield and specimen adequacy than EUS-FNA. In our experience, specimen processing as histology may have contributed to the overall increased diagnostic yield of EUS-FNB.

Outcomes of biliopancreatic EUS in patients with surgically altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy: a multicenter study

Background and study aims  Little is known about outcomes of biliopancreatic endosonography (EUS) in patients with surgically altered upper gastrointestinal (gastrointestinal) anatomy. We aimed to assess the rate of procedural success and EUS-related adverse events (AEs), according to post-surgical anatomies. Patients and methods  Retrospective study including patients with post-surgical altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy who underwent EUS for evaluation of the biliopancreatic region between January 2008 and June 2018 at eight European centers. Results  Of 242 patients (162 males, mean age 66.4 ± 12.5), 86 had (35.5 %) Billroth II, 77 (31.8 %) pancreaticoduodenectomy, 23 (9.5 %) Billroth I, 19 (7.9 %) distal esophagectomy, 15 (6.2 %) total gastrectomy, 14 (5.8 %) sleeve gastrectomy, and eight (3.3 %) Roux-en-Y. Sleeve gastrectomy, Billroth I, and pancreaticoduodenectomy were associated with high rates of success (100 %, 95.7 %, and 92.2 %, respectively). Visualization of the head of the pancreas was significantly impacted by total gastrectomy, Billroth II, and Roux-en-Y (success rates 6.7 %, 53.7 %, and 57.1 %, respectively). Examination of the pancreatic body and tail was impaired in esophagectomy and total gastrectomy (82.4 % and 71.4 %, respectively). Technical success and diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) was 78.2 % and 71.3 % (95 % CI, 60.6-80.5), respectively. Four (1.6 %) AEs were observed: one mucosal tearing in a Billroth II patient, one cardiac arrest in a distal esophagectomy patient, one bleed after EUS-TA in a Billroth I patient, and one acute pancreatitis after EUS-TA in a sleeve gastrectomy patient. Conclusions  The yield of bilio-pancreatic EUS is dependent on lesion location and surgery type. Before considering EUS in these patients, one must carefully consider whether the lesion may be approachable by EUS.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling of pancreatic lesions

Important advancements in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling techniques and development of new needle designs have improved the diagnostic yield of pancreatic lesions. This innovation in endoscopic ultrasound has also opened the door for early diagnosis and precision therapy in the management of cancer patients. Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle biopsy is an invaluable tool and newer biopsy designs will probably play a pivotal role in the management of pancreatic lesions in the next future. Aim of the current review was to provide an overview on the available techniques and devices for the endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of pancreatic solid and cystic lesions.

Comparative accuracy of needle sizes and designs for EUS tissue sampling of solid pancreatic masses: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Variable diagnostic performance of sampling techniques during EUS-guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic masses based on needle type (FNA versus fine-needle biopsy [FNB]) and gauge (19-gauge vs 22-gauge vs 25-gauge) has been reported. We performed a systematic review with network meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided techniques for sampling solid pancreatic masses.

METHODS

Through a systematic literature review to November 2018, we identified 27 randomized controlled trials (2711 patients) involving adults undergoing EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses that evaluated the diagnostic performance of FNA and FNB needles based on needle gauge. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were sample adequacy, histologic core procurement rate, and number of needle passes. We performed pairwise and network meta-analyses and appraised the quality of evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology.

RESULTS

In the network meta-analysis, no specific EUS-guided tissue sampling technique was superior, based on needle type (FNA vs FNB) or gauge (19-gauge vs 22-gauge vs 25-gauge) (low-quality evidence). Specifically, there was no difference between 25-gauge FNA versus 22-gauge FNA (relative risk [RR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.17) and 22-gauge FNB versus 22-gauge FNA (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.89-1.18) needles for diagnostic accuracy, sample adequacy, and histologic core procurement. Findings were confirmed in sensitivity analysis restricted to studies with no rapid on-site cytologic evaluation and no use of the fanning technique.

CONCLUSION

In a network meta-analysis, no specific EUS-guided tissue sampling technique was superior with regard to diagnostic accuracy, sample adequacy, or histologic procurement rate for solid pancreatic masses, with low confidence in estimates.

Early Diagnosis And Management Of Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction: A Review On Current Recommendations And Guidelines

Malignant biliary obstruction is a challenging condition, requiring a multimodal approach for both diagnosis and treatment. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma are the leading causes of malignant distal biliary obstruction. Early diagnosis is difficult to establish as biliary obstruction can be the first presentation of the underlying disease, which can already be at an advanced stage. Consequently, the majority of patients (70%) with malignant distal biliary obstruction are unresectable at the time of diagnosis. The association of clinical findings, laboratory tests, imaging, and endoscopic modalities may help in identifying the underlying cause. Novel endoscopic techniques such as cholangioscopy, intraductal ultrasonography, or confocal laser endomicroscopy have been developed with promising results, but are not used in routine clinical practice. As the number of patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction who will undergo curative surgery is limited, endoscopy has a crucial role in palliation, to relieve biliary obstruction. According to the last European guidelines published in the management of biliary obstruction, self-expandable metal stents have a central place in biliary drainage compared to plastic stents. Endoscopic ultrasound has evolved impressively in the last decades. When standard techniques of biliary cannulation by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography fail, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage is a good option compared to percutaneous drainage.

Endoscopic ultrasonography and small-bowel endoscopy: Present and future

Over the last decade, impressive technological advances have occurred in ultrasonography and small-bowel endoscopy. Nowadays, endoscopic ultrasonography is an essential diagnostic tool and a therapeutic weapon for pancreatobiliary disorders. Capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy have quickly become the reference standard for the diagnosis of small-bowel luminal diseases, thereby leading to radical changes in diagnostic and therapeutic pathways. We herein provide an up-to-date overview of the latest advances in endoscopic ultrasonography and small-bowel endoscopy, focusing on the emerging paradigms and technological innovations that might improve clinical practice in the near future.

Diagnostic yield of Franseen and Fork-Tip biopsy needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition: a meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Although newer needle designs are thought to improve diagnostic outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy, there is limited evidence on their diagnostic performance. The aim of this meta-analysis was to provide a pooled estimate of the diagnostic performance and safety profile of Franseen and Fork-tip fine-needle biopsy needles. Patients and methods  Computerized bibliographic search on the main databases was performed through March 2019. The primary endpoint was sample adequacy. Secondary outcomes were diagnostic accuracy, optimal histological core procurement, mean number of needle passes, pooled specificity and sensitivity. Safety data were also analyzed. Results  Twenty-four studies with 6641 patients were included and pancreas was the prevalent location of sampled lesions. Overall sample adequacy with the two newer needles was 94.8 % (93.1 % - 96.4 %), with superiority of Franseen needle over Fork-tip (96.1 % versus 92.4 %, P  < 0.001). Sample adequacy in targeting pancreatic masses was 95.6% and both needles produced results superior to fine-needle aspiration (FNA) (odds ratio 4.29, 1.49 - 12.35 and 1.79, 1.01 - 3.19 with Franseen and Fork-tip needle, respectively). The rate of histological core procurement was 92.5%, whereas diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity were 95 % and 92.8 %, again with no difference between the two needles. Number of needle passes was significantly lower in comparison to FNA (mean difference: -0.42 with Franseen and -1.60 with Fork-tip needle). No significant adverse events were registered. Conclusion  Our meta-analysis speaks in favor of use of newer biopsy needles as a safe and effective tool in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition.

Comparison of tissue and molecular yield between fine-needle biopsy (FNB) and fine-needle aspiration (FNA): a randomized study

Background and study aims  Recently, a new Franseen design endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) needle was developed with the goal of providing more tissue for histology. We compared the tissue adequacy rate and nucleic acid yield of 22G EUS-FNB vs. 22G endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), in solid gastrointestinal and extra-intestinal lesions. Patients and methods  We conducted a randomized crossover study and recruited 36 patients. We performed three passes for pancreatic lesions and two passes for other lesions, using each needle. We blinded the pathologist to needle assignment. We assessed the diagnostic tissue adequacy rate and compared the total tissue area, diagnostic tissue area, and desmoplastic stroma (DS) area in cases of carcinoma. We also examined the nucleic acid yield of the two needles in pancreatic lesions. Results  The lesions included 20 pancreatic masses (55 %), six gastric subepithelial lesions (17 %), five lymph nodes (14 %) and five other abdominal masses (14 %). Mean ± SD lesion size was 3.8 ± 2.0 cm. The final diagnosis was malignant in 27 lesions (75 %) and benign in nine lesions (25 %). We found EUS-FNB procured significantly more median total tissue area (5.2 mm ² vs. 1.9 mm ² , P  < 0.001), diagnostic tissue area (2.2 mm ² vs. 0.9 mm ² , P  = 0.029), and DS area (2 mm ² vs. 0.1 mm ² , P  = 0.001) in lesions diagnosed as carcinoma (n = 23), as compared to EUS-FNA. In pancreatic lesions, EUS-FNB obtained significantly more nucleic acid than EUS-FNA (median; 4,085 ng vs. 2912 ng, P  = 0.02). There was no difference in the cellblock or rapid on-site cytological evaluation (ROSE) diagnostic yield between the needles. Conclusion  The 22G EUS-FNB provides more histological core tissue and adequate nucleic acid yield compared to 22G EUS-FNA. In this study, the diagnostic performance was similar between the needles.