Will Abandoning Fine-Needle Aspiration Increase Diagnostic Yield From Tissues Collected During Endoscopic Ultrasound?

Comparison of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for diagnosis of solid pancreatic mass lesions: a meta-analysis of prospective studies

Objective: To quantitatively compare the diagnostic value of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) in solid pancreatic mass lesions using a systematic evaluation method.Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted on public databases to include studies comparing the diagnostic value of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB in solid pancreatic mass lesions. The combined effect size was estimated using mean difference (MD) and risk difference (RD) respectively, and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated.Results: The 12 articles (7 RCTs and 5 cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria of this study. The meta-analysis showed that compared with EUS-FNB, EUS-FNA had lower diagnostic accuracy (RD: -0.08, 95% CI: -0.15, -0.01) and specimen adequacy (RD: -0.08, 95% CI: -0.15, -0.02), while higher required number of needle passes (MD: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.12, 0.73). However, EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA presented similar overall complications (RD: 0.00, 95% CI: -0.01, 0.02) and technical failures (RD: -0.01, 95% CI: -0.02, 0.00), without statistically significant differences.Conclusions: Compared with EUS-FNA, EUS-FNB seems to be a better choice for diagnosing suspected pancreatic lesions.

Accuracy and other quality indicators of solid pancreatic mass endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration and biopsy in two academic endoscopy centers

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNA/FNB) is highly accurate, but discrepancies between cytological and surgical diagnoses are still observed. We aimed to determine its accuracy and monitor quality indicators in our facilities.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of all cases of pancreatic solid lesions evaluated by EUS-FNA/FNB, between July 2015 and June 2018, in two centers. Cytological and surgical findings were categorized into five groups: benign, malignant, suspect of malignancy, undetermined and insufficient for diagnosis. Final diagnosis was based on surgical diagnosis and, in patients who did not undergo surgery, on clinical outcome after 6 months follow-up.

RESULTS

Altogether, 142 patients were included. FNA was the preferred tissue acquisition method (88%), with a predilection for the FNA 22G needle (57%). Cytology was insufficient for diagnosis in 2 cases, therefore a full diagnostic sample was available in 98.6% of the patients (>90%, ESGE target). Fifty-five (38.7%) patients underwent surgery. In term of cancer diagnosis, comparison with final surgical pathology (n=55) revealed 89% true positives, 5.5% true negatives, 3.6% false positives and 1.8% false negatives. When combining surgical diagnosis and clinical outcomes together, EUS-guided sampling sensitivity was 97.4% (92.5-99.5), specificity was 92.3% (74.9-99.1), positive predictive value was 98.2% (93.6- 99.5), negative predictive value was 88.9% (72.3-96.1) and accuracy was 96.4% (91.9-98.8). Post-procedural acute pancreatitis was reported in 2 patients (1.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

These results reveal a performance for diagnostic tissue sampling well above the ESGE proposed target standard. Also, the uncommon high specificity illustrates the determining role of the pathologist's final interpretation and diagnosis.

Randomized controlled trial comparing the Franseen needle with the Fork-tip needle for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EUS-guided FNA primarily provides cytologic samples. EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB) with needles that provide histologic specimens may enhance diagnostic yield and facilitate accessory tissue staining. Several different needle designs are currently available and design superiority is unknown. We designed a randomized controlled trial to compare 2 commonly used EUS-FNB needles in their ability to provide histologic tissue samples (primary endpoint) and to reach an accurate diagnosis (secondary endpoint).

METHODS

A total of 150 lesions from 134 patients (November 2018 to June 2019) were randomized 1:1 between biopsy with a Franseen needle and a Fork-tip needle. The groups were compared regarding the quality of the tissue samples and diagnostic accuracy.

RESULTS

Of 150 lesions, 75 were pancreatic and 75 were other solid lesions in and around the GI tract. There was no statistically significant difference between the Franseen needle and the Fork-tip needle in the yield of adequate histologic samples, 71 of 75 (94.7%) versus 72 of 75 (96%), (P = 1.00), an absolute difference of -1.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], -8.1% to 5.4%). The 2 groups were similar in the diagnostic accuracy of histologic analysis, 64 of 75 (85.3%) versus 68 of 75 (90.7%) (P = .45), absolute difference -5.4% (95% CI, -15.7% to 5%); and in the diagnostic accuracy of combined cytologic and histologic analysis, 65 of 75 (86.7%) versus 69 of 75 (92%) (P = .43), absolute difference -5.3% (95% CI, -15.2% to 4.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in the performance of the Franseen needle versus the Fork-tip needle. Both needles achieved a high yield of histologic tissue samples and high diagnostic accuracy. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03672032.).

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.

New era for pancreatic endoscopic ultrasound: From imaging to molecular pathology of pancreatic cancer

With recent advances in molecular pathology and the development of new chemotherapy regimens, the knowledge of the molecular alterations of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is becoming appealing for stratifying patients for prognosis and response to a defined treatment. Archival formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded samples are a useful source of genomic deoxyribonucleic acid; nevertheless, most studies employed formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded samples deriving from surgical specimens, which are therefore representative of <20% of PDAC patients. Indeed, the development of a reliable methodology for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition, stabilization, and analysis is crucial for the development of molecular markers for clinical use in order to achieve “personalized medicine”. With the development of new needles, this technique is able to retrieve a high quantity and quality of PDAC tissue that can be used not only for diagnosis but also for mutational and transcriptome evaluations and for the development of primary cell or tissue cultures. In the present editorial, we discuss the current knowledge regarding the use of endoscopic ultrasound as a tool to obtain samples for molecular analyses, its possible pitfalls, and its use for the development of disease models such as xenografts or organoids.

Endoscopic ultrasonography in pancreatic diseases: advances in tissue acquisition

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) improved the diagnostic performance and upgraded the role of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) into an interventional modality, able to guide patient management and treatment.This review aimed to highlight the advances, emerging practices, procedural techniques and technological innovations in EUS tissue acquisition in pancreatic diseases. Methods  A thorough review of the literature was performed using PubMed to identify articles that describe techniques, advances, and practices in EUS tissue acquisition in gastrointestinal diseases. Conclusion  Since the first EUS-FNA procedure, EUS guided-tissue acquisition has been evolving continuously. Development of needles with innovative tip design enabled procurement of larger samples with preserved histological architecture. Moreover, sampling techniques and complementary methods, such as contrast harmonic imaging and EUS-elastography, have been introduced in an effort to improve diagnostic performance and sample adequacy.

Fine-needle biopsy is superior to fine-needle aspiration of suspected gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a large multicenter study

Background and study aims  There are numerous studies published on the diagnostic yield of the new fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles in pancreas masses. However, there are limited studies in suspected gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST lesions). The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of a new fork-tip FNB needle. Patients and methods  This was a multicenter retrospective study of consecutive patients from prospectively maintained databases comparing endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) versus endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNB (EUS-FNB) using the fork-tip needle. Outcomes measured were cytopathology yield (ability to obtain tissue for analysis of cytology), ability to analyze the tissue for immunohistochemistry (IHC yield), and diagnostic yield (ability to provide a definitive diagnosis). Results  A total of 147 patients were included in the study of which 101 underwent EUS-FNB and 46 patients underwent EUS-FNA. Median lesion size in each group was similar (21 mm vs 25 mm, P  = 0.25). Cytopathology yield, IHC yield, and diagnostic yield were 92 % vs 46 % ( P  = 0.001), 89 % vs 41 % ( P  = 0.001), and 89 % vs 37 % ( P  = 0.001) between the FNB and FNA groups, respectively. Median number of passes was the same between the two groups at 3.5. Conclusion  EUS-FNB is superior to EUS-FNA for diagnostic yield of suspected GIST lesions. This should be confirmed with a prospective study.