Diagnostic efficacy of three suction techniques for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions: protocol for a multicenter randomized cross-over clinical trial

Factors Influencing the Diagnostic Performance of Repeat Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration/Biopsy after the First Inconclusive Diagnosis of Pancreatic Solid Lesions

Background/Aims

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) is essential in diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs), but without rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), a repeat EUS-FNA/B is crucial for clarifying an inconclusive diagnosis. We aimed to evaluate factors associated with improved diagnostic performance of repeat EUS-FNA/B for initially inconclusive SPL diagnoses without ROSE.

Methods

Of 5,894 patients subjected to EUS-FNA/B, 237 (4.0%) with an initially inconclusive diagnosis of SPLs were retrospectively enrolled from five tertiary medical centers between January 2016 and June 2021. Diagnostic performance and procedural factors of EUS-FNA/B were analyzed.

Results

The diagnostic accuracies of first and repeat EUS-FNA/B were 96.2% and 67.6%, respectively. Of 237 patients with an inconclusive diagnosis from initial EUS-FNA/B, 150 were pathologically diagnosed after repeat EUS-FNA/B. In multivariate analysis of repeat EUS-FNA/B, tumor location (body/tail vs head: odds ratio [OR], 3.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.48 to 9.46), number of needle passes (≥4 vs ≤3: OR, 4.80; 95% CI, 1.44 to 15.99), needle type (FNB vs FNA: OR, 3.26; 95% CI, 1.44 to 7.36), needle size (22 gauge vs 19/20 gauge: OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.19 to 4.62), and suction method (suction vs others: OR, 5.19; 95% CI, 1.30 to 20.75) were associated with a significantly improved diagnostic performance.

Conclusions

Repeat EUS-FNA/B is essential for patients with an inconclusive EUS-FNA/B without ROSE. To improve the diagnostic performance of repeated EUS-FNA/B, it is recommended that 22-gauge FNB needles, ≥4 needle passes, and suction methods are used.

Comparison of the slow-pull and aspiration methods of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration for next-generation sequencing-compatible tissue collection in non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Personalized treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has advanced rapidly, and elucidating the genetic changes that trigger this disease is crucial for appropriate treatment selection. Both slow-pull and aspiration methods of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) are accepted methods for collecting samples suitable for next-generation sequencing (NGS) to examine driver gene mutations and translocations in NSCLC. Here, we aimed to determine which of these two methods is superior for obtaining higher-quality samples from patients with NSCLC.

METHODS

Seventy-one patients diagnosed with NSCLC via EBUS-TBNA using the slow-pull or aspiration (20-mL negative pressure) methods between July 2019 and September 2022 were included. A total of 203 tissue samples from the 71 patients were fixed in formalin, embedded in paraffin, and mounted on slides. The presence of tissue cores, degree of blood contamination, and number of tumor cells were compared between the groups. The success rate of NGS, using Oncomine Dx Target Test Multi-CDx, was also compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The slow-pull method was associated with a higher yield of tissue cores, lower degree of blood contamination, and higher number of tumor cells than the aspiration method. The success rate of the NGS was also significantly higher for the slow-pull group (95%) than for the aspiration group (68%).

CONCLUSION

Overall, these findings suggest that the slow-pull method is a superior technique for EBUS-TBNA to obtain high-quality tissue samples for NGS. The slow-pull method may contribute to the identification of driver gene mutations and translocations and facilitate personalized treatment of NSCLC.

Optimal sampling technique for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions using a 25-gauge ProCore needle: A multicenter randomized crossover superiority study

Background and Objectives

It remains unclear whether the use of the stylet slow-pull (SP) and wet suction (WS) can improve the yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy compared to standard suction (SS). The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic efficacy of the three sampling techniques when using 25G ProCore needles for solid pancreatic lesions.

Materials and Methods

This multicenter single-blind randomized crossover superiority trial enrolled patients with solid pancreatic lesions (n = 300) from four digestive endoscopic centers in China. All three sampling techniques were performed on each patient using a 25G ProCore needle in a randomized sequence. The diagnostic efficacy, the specimen yield, and quality of each technique, the overall technical success rate and diagnostic yield of the 25G ProCore needle, and rate of adverse events were evaluated.

Results

A total of 291 patients were analyzed. No significant difference was found in diagnostic efficiency among the three techniques (sensitivity, 82.14% vs. 75.00% vs. 77.86, P = 0.1186; accuracy, 82.82% vs. 75.95% vs. 78.69%, P = 0.1212). The SP had an inferior tissue integrity compared to the SS and WS techniques (71.82% vs. 62.55% vs. 69.76%, P = 0.0096). There was no significant difference in the degree of blood contamination among the three groups (P = 0.2079). After three passes, the overall sensitivity was 93.93%, and the accuracy was 94.16%.

Conclusions

SS and WS techniques are better choices than SP technique for 25G ProCore needle, for they could provide higher specimen adequacy without increasing the amount of blood contamination. The 25G ProCore needle can provide a satisfactory diagnostic yield for solid pancreatic lesions.