A prospective randomized study comparing 25-G and 22-G needles of a new platform for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of solid masses

Consensus statements on endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition. Guidelines from the Asian Endoscopic Ultrasound Group

OBJECTIVES

This consensus was developed by the Asian EUS Group (AEG), who aimed to formulate a set of practice guidelines addressing various aspects of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA).

METHODS

The AEG initiated the development of consensus statements and formed an expert panel comprising surgeons, gastroenterologists, and pathologists. Three online consensus meetings were conducted to consolidate the statements and votes. The statements were presented and discussed in the first two consensus meetings and revised according to comments. Final voting was conducted at a third consensus meeting. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system was adopted to define the strength of the recommendations and quality of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 20 clinical questions and statements regarding EUS-TA were formulated. The committee recommended that fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles be preferred over conventional fine-needle aspiration (FNA) needles for EUS-TA of subepithelial lesions. For solid pancreatic masses, rapid on-site evaluation is not routinely recommended when FNB needles are used. For dedicated FNB needles, fork-tip and Franseen-tip needles have essentially equivalent performance.

CONCLUSION

This consensus provides guidance for EUS-TA, thereby enhancing the quality of EUS-TA.

A 22-G or a 25-G Needle: Which One to Use in the Diagnostics of Solid Pancreatic Lesions? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

With the 12th highest incidence and a common late diagnostic at advanced stages, neoadjuvant therapies for pancreatic cancer are important, but they require a confirmed diagnosis. Being a diagnostic standard, the clarification of the clinical relevance of needle gauges is needed, as larger ones may retrieve more tissue for diagnostics, but may also increase the risk of complications. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the efficiency of the most commonly used 22-G and 25-G needles for EUS guided biopsy in solid pancreatic lesions. The MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, Cochrane (CENTRAL), and Scopus databases were searched with "EUS", "needle", "FNA", "pancreas", "prospective", "22G", and "25G" keywords. Mixed effects were assessed in the model, with a mean of 86% and a 95% confidence interval. Fourteen prospective studies that compared the efficiency of 22-G and 25-G biopsy needles in 508 and 524 lesions, respectively, were analyzed, along with 332 specimens biopsied using both needle sizes. The groups did not significantly differ in the outcomes. A low degree of heterogeneity was observed overall, except for specimen adequacy. Moreover, 22-G and 25-G needles have comparable safety and efficacy for focal pancreatic lesion biopsies without a high risk of complications.

Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound likely does not improve diagnostic adequacy during endoscopic ultrasound guided tissue acquisition: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Solid pancreatic masses are sampled through tissue acquisition by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). Inadequate samples may significantly delay diagnosis, increasing costs and carrying risks to the patients.

AIM

assess the diagnostic adequacy of tissue acquisition using contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasound (CEH-EUS) compared to conventional EUS.

METHODS

Five databases (PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Scopus and Web of Science) were searched in November 2023. Studies comparing diagnostic adequacy, accuracy and safety using CEH-EUS versus conventional EUS for tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic masses were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials (RoB2) and the Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for non-randomized studies, level of evidence using the GRADE approach, Odds Ratios (RR) with 95 % Confidence Intervals (CI) calculated and pooled using a random-effects model. I2 quantified heterogeneity.

RESULTS

The search identified 3858 records; nine studies (1160 patients) were included. OR for achieving an adequate sample was 1.467 (CI: 0.850-2.533), for randomized trials 0.902 (CI: 0.541-1.505), for non-randomized 2.396 (CI: 0.916-6.264), with significant subgroup difference. OR for diagnostic accuracy was 1.326 (CI: 0.890-1977), for randomized trials 0.997 (CI: 0.593-1.977) and for non-randomized studies 1.928 (CI: 1.096-3.393), significant subgroup difference (p = 0.0467). No differences were observed for technical failures or adverse events. Heterogeneity was low, risk of bias "low" to "some concerns" for most outcomes, mostly moderate for non-randomized studies.

CONCLUSION

Non-randomized studies indicated differences in favor of contrast-enhanced EUS, randomized studies showed no difference in diagnostic adequacy, accuracy or sensitivity when using CEH-EUS.

Study designs for comparative diagnostic test accuracy: A methodological review and classification scheme

OBJECTIVES

(1) To identify and classify comparative diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) study designs; (2) to describe study design labels used by authors of comparative DTA studies.

METHODS

We performed a methodological review of 100 comparative DTA studies published between 2015 and 2017, randomly sampled from studies included in 238 comparative DTA systematic reviews indexed in MEDLINE in 2017. From each study report, we extracted six design elements characterizing participant flow and the labels used by authors.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 46 unique combinations of study design features in our sample, based on six design elements characterizing participant flow. We classified the studies into five study design categories based on how participants were allocated to receive each index test: 'fully paired' (n=79), 'partially paired, random subset' (n=0), 'partially paired, nonrandom subset' (n=2), 'unpaired randomized' (n=1) and 'unpaired nonrandomized' (n=3). The allocation method used in 15 studies was unclear. Sixty-one studies reported, in total, 29 unique study design labels but only four labels referred to specific design features of comparative studies.

CONCLUSION

Our classification scheme can help systematic review authors define study eligibility criteria, assess risk of bias, and communicate the strength of the evidence. A standardized labelling scheme could be developed to facilitate communication of specific design features.

Reporting of test comparisons in diagnostic accuracy studies: A literature review

Comparative accuracy studies evaluate the relative performance of two or more diagnostic tests. As any other form of research, such studies should be reported in an informative manner, to allow replication and to be useful for decision‐making. In this study we aimed to assess whether and how components of test comparisons were reported in comparative accuracy studies. We evaluated 100 comparative accuracy studies, published in 2015, 2016 or 2017, randomly sampled from 238 comparative accuracy systematic reviews. We extracted information on 20 reporting items, pertaining to the identification of the test comparison, its validity, and the actual results of the comparison. About a third of the studies (n = 36) did not report the comparison as a study objective or hypothesis. Although most studies (n = 86) reported how participants had been allocated to index tests, we could often not evaluate whether test interpreters had been blinded to the results of other index tests (n = 40; among 59 applicable studies), nor could we identify the sequence of index tests (n = 52; among 90 applicable studies) or the methods for comparing measures of accuracy (n = 59). Two‐by‐four table data (revealing the agreement between index tests) were only reported by 9 of 90 paired comparative studies. More than half of the studies (n = 64) did not provide measures of statistical imprecision for comparative accuracy. Our findings suggest that components of test comparisons are frequently missing or incompletely described in comparative accuracy studies included in systematic reviews. Explicit guidance for reporting comparative accuracy studies may facilitate the production of full and informative study reports.

Current Status of Needles in the Optimization of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Procedures

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is among the most important tools for the evaluation of gastrointestinal tumors and affected areas around the gastrointestinal tract. It enables the acquisition of material from abnormal lesions via the gastrointestinal wall for tissue confirmation via endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). EUS-FNA has played a vital role in oncological care and has become the standard method for tissue sampling. The choice of needle type is an important factor determining tissue acquisition and has been evaluated by many researchers. New needles are introduced into the market almost every year, and opinions vary regarding proper needle selection. While there are diverse opinions but no definitive recommendations about the use of one particular device, fine-needle biopsy needles may provide detailed information on a tissue’s architecture based on greater sample yields. This permits additional analyses, including genetic sequencing and phenotyping, thereby enabling the provision of more personalized treatment plans. Furthermore, other EUS-guided procedures have been developed, including interventional EUS and through-the-needle devices. Given the continued attempts to improve the diagnostic ability and therapeutic techniques, we review in detail the available types of puncture needles to provide guidance on the selection of the appropriate needle types.

Complication incidence of EUS-guided pancreas biopsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 thousand population from 78 cohort studies

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to estimate the incidence of possible complications following EUS-guided pancreas biopsy. Pancreatic cancer has a very poor prognosis with a high fatality rate. Early diagnosis is important to improve the prognosis of pancreatic cancer. We searched Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases for studies published from inception to Augest, 2018. Meta-analysis were conducted with random-effect models and heterogeneity was calculated with the Q, I² and τ² statistics. We enrolled 78 studies from 71 articles in the meta-analysis, comprising 11,652 patients. Pooled data showed that the whole complication incidences were low 0.210 × 10^-4(95%CI -0.648 × 10^-4, 1.068 × 10^-4). And they were in bleeding 0.002 × 10^-4 (95%CI -0.092 × 10^-4, 0.097 × 10^-4), pancreatitis 0.002 (95%CI -0.082 × 10^-4, 0.086 × 10^-4), abdominal pain 0 (95%CI -0.037 × 10^-4, 0.038 × 10^-4), fever 0 (95%CI -0.032 × 10^-4, 0. 032 × 10^-4), infection 0 (95%CI -0.030 × 10^-4, 0.031 × 10^-4), duodenal perforation 0 (95%CI -0.033 × 10^-4, 0.034 × 10^-4), pancreatic fistula 0 (95%CI -0.029 × 10^-4, 0.029 × 10^-4), abscess 0 (95%CI -0.029 × 10^-4, 0.029 × 10^-4) and sepsis 0 (95%CI -0.029 × 10^-4, 0.030 × 10^-4). Subgroup analysis based on the tumor size, site, needle type and tumor style also showed robust results. The pooled data showed EUS-guided pancreas biopsy could be a safe approach for the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions. More large-scale studies will be necessary to confirm the findings across different population.

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.

EUS-guided core biopsies of pancreatic solid masses using a new fork-tip needle: A multicenter prospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling (EUS sampling) is a safe and effective technique. The study aim was to evaluate the presence of a histological core from pancreatic lesions using a new 25G fork-tip needle.

METHODS

Observational multicenter prospective and analytical study, including consecutive patients with solid pancreatic masses referred for EUS-guided sampling. At each needle pass, the endoscopist performed macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE). The primary outcome was the histological core procurement rates. Secondary outcomes were the evaluation of interobserver agreement between endoscopists and pathologists, adequacy of EUS samples for the diagnosis and post-procedure adverse events.

RESULTS

100 patients were enrolled in 3 centers. The mean size of the lesions was 28.5 mm (SD 11.7). Final diagnoses were adenocarcinoma (68%), neuroendocrine tumor (21%), inflammatory mass/benign lesions (8.0%), and pancreatic metastasis (3.0%). The pathologists described the presence of a core in 67 samples (67.0% of patients), with poor agreement with MOSE (kappa, 0. 12; 95% CI: 0.03-0.28). The diagnostic accuracy was 93%. We observed 6% of mild adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The new 25-gauge core needle showed good overall adequacy and a good rate of histological specimens during EUS sampling of solid pancreatic masses, with a minimum number of passes and no major complications. Clinicaltrial.gov number, NCT02946840.

Needle Biopsy Adequacy in the Era of Precision Medicine and Value-Based Health Care

CONTEXT.—

Needle biopsy of diseased tissue is an essential diagnostic tool that is becoming even more important as precision medicine develops. However, the capability of this modality to efficiently provide samples adequate for diagnostic and prognostic analysis remains quite limited relative to current diagnostic needs. For physicians and patients, inadequate biopsy frequently leads to diagnostic delay, procedure duplication, or insufficient information about tumor biology leading to delay in treatment; for health systems, this results in substantial incremental costs and inefficient use of scarce specialized diagnostic resources.

OBJECTIVE.—

To review current needle biopsy technology, devices, and practice with a perspective to identify current limitations and opportunities for improvement in the context of advancing precision medicine.

DATA SOURCES.—

PubMed searches of fine-needle aspiration and core needle biopsy devices and similar technologies were made generally, by tissue site, and by adequacy as well as by health economics of these technologies.

CONCLUSIONS.—

Needle biopsy adequacy can be improved by recognizing the importance of this diagnostic tool by promoting common criteria for needle biopsy adequacy; by optimizing needle biopsy procedural technique, technologies, clinical practice, professional education, and quality assurance; and by bundling biopsy procedure costs with downstream diagnostic modalities to provide better accountability and incentives to improve the diagnostic process.

A "Back Light System" for Identification of Sites for Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration in Solid Pancreatic Masses: A Prospective, Randomized Study with a Crossover Design

Background/Aims

We applied a back light system (BLS) with a magnifying glass to improve the ability to assess the adequacy of specimen sampling using endosonography. We conducted this study to evaluate the efficacy of the BLS in sampling of specimens by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of solid pancreatic masses.

Methods

This was a prospective, randomized, crossover, single-center clinical trial. An endosonographer evaluated adequacy on gross visual inspection and identified whitish specimen sampling sites with and without the BLS according to a randomization sequence in the first and second passes with a 25-G needle. On cytological evaluation, the presence of well-defined pancreatic ductal epithelium was evaluated by a cytopathologist who was blinded to any clinical information.

Results

A total of 80 consecutive patients were eligible during the study period. Adequacy was observed for 52 specimens (65%) with the BLS and 54 (68%) without the BLS (p=0.88). In assessment of specimen adequacy on gross examination, only fair agreement was observed both with and without BLS (kappa score 0.40 and 0.29, respectively).

Conclusions

The BLS did not influence the ability to identify specimen sampling sites or reliable assessment of specimen site adequacy using gross visual inspection.

A multicenter randomized trial comparing a 25-gauge EUS fine-needle aspiration device with a 20-gauge EUS fine-needle biopsy device

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Several studies have compared EUS-guided FNA with fine-needle biopsy (FNB), but none have proven superiority. We performed a multicenter randomized controlled trial to compare the performance of a commonly used 25-gauge FNA needle with a newly designed 20-gauge FNB needle.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with a solid lesion were randomized in this international multicenter study between a 25-gauge FNA (EchoTip Ultra) or a 20-gauge FNB needle (ProCore). The primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy for malignancy and the Bethesda classification (non-diagnostic, benign, atypical, malignant). Technical success, safety, and sample quality were also assessed. Multivariable and supplementary analyses were performed to adjust for confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 608 patients were allocated to FNA (n = 306) or FNB (n = 302); 312 pancreatic lesions (51%), 147 lymph nodes (24%), and 149 other lesions (25%). Technical success rate was 100% for the 25-gauge FNA and 99% for the 20-gauge FNB needle (P = .043), with no differences in adverse events. The 20-gauge FNB needle outperformed 25-gauge FNA in terms of histologic yield (77% vs 44%, P < .001), accuracy for malignancy (87% vs 78%, P = .002) and Bethesda classification (82% vs 72%, P = .002). This was robust when corrected for indication, lesion size, number of passes, and presence of an on-site pathologist (odds ratio, 3.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.55-8.56; P = .004), and did not differ among centers (P = .836).

CONCLUSION

The 20-gauge FNB needle outperformed the 25-gauge FNA needle in terms of histologic yield and diagnostic accuracy. This benefit was irrespective of the indication and was consistent among participating centers, supporting the general applicability of our findings. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02167074.).

Recent advancement in EUS-guided fine needle sampling

EUS-guided tissue acquisition technique plays an essential role for evaluation of gastrointestinal tumors. Several components affect the yield of EUS-guided tissue acquisition outcomes such as sampling techniques, use of ROSE (rapid onsite evaluation), training and experience, and needle designs. In this review we discuss advancement in EUS-guided fine needle sampling.

Performance measures for ERCP and endoscopic ultrasound: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key and one minor performance measures for EUS and ERCP, for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at center and endoscopist level: 1: Adequate antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP (key performance measure, at least 90 %); 2: Antibiotic prophylaxis before EUS-guided puncture of cystic lesions (key performance measure, at least 95 %); 3: Bile duct cannulation rate (key performance measure, at least 90 %); 4: Tissue sampling during EUS (key performance measure, at least 85 %); 5: Appropriate stent placement in patients with biliary obstruction below the hilum (key performance measure, at least 95 %); 6: Bile duct stone extraction (key performance measure, at least 90 %); 7: Post-ERCP pancreatitis (key performance measure, less than 10 %). 8: Adequate documentation of EUS landmarks (minor performance measure, at least 90 %).This present list of quality performance measures for ERCP and EUS recommended by ESGE should not be considered to be exhaustive: it might be extended in future to address further clinical and scientific issues.

Performance measures for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound: A European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key and one minor performance measures for EUS and ERCP, for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at centre and endoscopist level: 1 Adequate antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP (key performance measure, at least 90%); 2 antibiotic prophylaxis before EUS-guided puncture of cystic lesions (key performance measure, at least 95%); 3 bile duct cannulation rate (key performance measure, at least 90%); 4 tissue sampling during EUS (key performance measure, at least 85%); 5 appropriate stent placement in patients with biliary obstruction below the hilum (key performance measure, at least 95%); 6 bile duct stone extraction (key performance measure, at least 90%); 7 post-ERCP pancreatitis (key performance measure, less than 10%); and 8 adequate documentation of EUS landmarks (minor performance measure, at least 90%). This present list of quality performance measures for ERCP and EUS recommended by the ESGE should not be considered to be exhaustive; it might be extended in future to address further clinical and scientific issues.

Diagnostic accuracy of fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions guided by endoscopic ultrasound elastography

Background:

Real-time elastography (RTE) may increase the diagnostic accuracy of fine-needle aspiration guided by endoscopic ultrasound. The aim of this study was to establish the diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of this combined methodological approach in a cohort of patients with solid pancreatic masses.

Methods:

We reviewed data from 54 patients with solid pancreatic lesions referred to our institution between January 2014 and June 2015. RTE, assessed in terms of strain ratio, was performed both qualitatively and semi-quantitatively, and a 25G needle was inserted into the most suspicious part of the lesion. Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, positive and negative predictive values were calculated.

Results:

The median lesion size was 35 mm (interquartile range: 25-43 mm). A diagnosis of adenocarcinoma was confirmed in 85.1% of cases. RTE, with a strain ratio cutoff of 4.21, showed a sensitivity of 86.9%, a specificity of 75%, and diagnostic accuracy of 85.1%. The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the combined methodology were 94.4%, 93.4%, and 100%, respectively. The positive predictive value was 100%, the negative predictive value 72.7% and the negative likelihood ratio 6.5. No severe adverse events were registered.

Conclusion:

The combination of RTE with endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration appears to be an efficient and safe technique for the characterization of solid pancreatic masses.

A quarter century of EUS-FNA: Progress, milestones, and future directions

Tissue acquisition using EUS has considerably evolved since the first EUS-FNA was reported 25 years ago. Its introduction was an important breakthrough in the endoscopic field. EUS-FNA has now become a part of the diagnostic and staging algorithm for the evaluation of benign and malignant diseases of the gastrointestinal tract and of the organs in its proximity, including lung diseases. This review aims to present the history of EUS-FNA development and to provide a perspective on the recent developments in procedural techniques and needle technologies that have significantly extended the role of EUS and its clinical applications. There is a bright future ahead for EUS-FNA in the years to come as extensive research is conducted in this field and various technologies are continuously implemented into clinical practice.

A comparison of the efficiency of 22G versus 25G needles in EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic mass assessment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Our aim in this study was to compare the efficiency of 25G versus 22G needles in diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions by EUS-FNA. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. Studies were identified in five databases using an extensive search strategy. Only randomized trials comparing 22G and 25G needles were included. The results were analyzed by fixed and random effects. A total of 504 studies were found in the search, among which 4 randomized studies were selected for inclusion in the analysis. A total of 462 patients were evaluated (233: 25G needle/229: 22G needle). The diagnostic sensitivity was 93% for the 25G needle and 91% for the 22G needle. The specificity of the 25G needle was 87%, and that of the 22G needle was 83%. The positive likelihood ratio was 4.57 for the 25G needle and 4.26 for the 22G needle. The area under the sROC curve for the 25G needle was 0.9705, and it was 0.9795 for the 22G needle, with no statistically significant difference between them (p=0.497). Based on randomized studies, this meta-analysis did not demonstrate a significant difference between the 22G and 25G needles used during EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions.

Comparison of two different size needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions: A meta-analysis of prospective controlled trials

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aimed to provide a pooled analysis of prospective controlled trials comparing the diagnostic accuracy of 22-G and 25-G needles on endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS-FNA) of the solid pancreatic mass.

METHODS

We established a rigorous study protocol according to Cochrane Collaboration recommendations. We systematically searched the PubMed and Embase databases to identify articles to include in the meta-analysis. Sensitivity, specificity, and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated for 22-G and 25-G needles of individual studies from the contingency tables.

RESULTS

Eleven prospective controlled trials included a total of 837 patients (412 with 22-G vs 425 with 25-G). Our outcomes revealed that 25-G needles (92% [95% CI, 89%-95%]) have higher sensitivity than 22-G needles (88% [95% CI, 84%-91%]) on solid pancreatic mass EUS-FNA (P = 0.046). However, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups in overall diagnostic specificity (P = 0.842). The pooled positive and negative likelihood ratio of the 22-G needle were 12.61 (95% CI, 5.65-28.14) and 0.16 (95% CI, 0.12-0.21), respectively. The pooled positive likelihood ratio was 12.61 (95% CI, 5.65-28.14), and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.16 (95% CI, 0.12-0.21) for the 22-G needle. The pooled positive likelihood ratio was 8.44 (95% CI, 3.87-18.42), and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.13 (95% CI, 0.09-0.18) for the 25-G needle. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.97 for the 22-G needle and 0.96 for the 25-G needle.

CONCLUSION

Compared to the study of 22-G EUS-FNA needles, our study showed that 25-G needles have superior sensitivity in the evaluation of solid pancreatic lesions by EUS-FNA.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic lesions with 22 versus 25 Gauge needles: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robust data in favour of a clear superiority of 22 versus 25 Gauge needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration are still lacking.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare the diagnostic sensitivity, specificity and safety of these two needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

A computerized bibliographic search was restricted to randomized controlled trials only. Pooled effects were calculated using a random-effects model and expressed in terms of risk ratio and 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

We analysed seven trials with 689 patients and 732 lesions (295 sampled with 22 Gauge needle, 309 with 25 Gauge needle, and 128 with both needles). A non-significant superiority of 25 Gauge in terms of pooled sensitivity (risk ratio: 0.93, 0.91-0.95 versus 0.89, 0.85-0.94 of 22 Gauge needle; p = 0.13) and no difference in terms of specificity (1.00, 0.98-1.00 in both groups; p = 0.85) were observed. Sample adequacy was similar between the two devices (risk ratio: 1.03, 0.99-1.06; p = 0.15). Very few adverse events were observed and did not impact on patient outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis reveals non-superiority of 25 Gauge over 22 Gauge; hence no definitive recommendations over the use of one particular device can be made.

Efforts to improve the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic tumors

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is widely used to obtain a definitive diagnosis of pancreatic tumors. Good results have been reported for its diagnostic accuracy, with high sensitivity and specificity of around 90%; however, technological developments and adaptations to improve it still further are currently underway. The endosonographic technique can be improved when several tips and tricks useful to overcome challenges of EUS-FNA are known. This review provides various techniques and equipment for improvement in the diagnostic accuracy in EUS-FNA.