22G Acquire vs. 20G Procore needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy of pancreatic masses: a randomized study comparing histologic sample quantity and diagnostic accuracy

Updated techniques and evidence for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition from solid pancreatic lesions

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA), including fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB), has revolutionized specimen collection from intra-abdominal organs, especially the pancreas. Advances in personalized medicine and more precise treatment have increased demands to collect specimens with higher cell counts, while preserving tissue structure, leading to the development of EUS-FNB needles. EUS-FNB has generally replaced EUS-FNA as the procedure of choice for EUS-TA of pancreatic cancer. Various techniques have been tested for their ability to enhance the diagnostic performance of EUS-TA, including multiple methods of sampling at the time of puncture, on-site specimen evaluation, and specimen processing. In addition, advances in next-generation sequencing have made comprehensive genomic profiling of EUS-TA samples feasible in routine clinical practice. The present review describes updates in EUS-TA sampling techniques of pancreatic lesions, as well as methods for their evaluation.

Franseen needle in endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: a phase II prospective study

BACKGROUND

Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) has been used to diagnose and stage lung cancer. Acquire™ Pulmonary and Expect™ Pulmonary dedicated EBUS-TBNA needles were introduced as the Franseen and Lancet needles, respectively. It is still unclear whether the Franseen or Lancet needles yield a higher quality specimen especially focusing on next-generation sequencing-based molecular testing.

METHODS

A single-center, prospective study performed at the Chiba University Hospital randomly assigned patients to two groups: Group A, wherein the first and second EBUS-TBNA were performed using Lancet and Franseen needles, respectively, and Group B, wherein the first and second EBUS-TBNA were performed using Franseen and Lancet needles, respectively. Each specimen was compared and analyzed pathologically. The primary outcome was the histological tissue area except blood clot and the cellularity of each sample. We also examined the success rate of molecular testing.

RESULTS

Twelve patients who underwent EBUS-TBNA between November 2022 and February 2023 were enrolled in this study. The tissue area of the specimens obtained by the Franseen and Lancet needles was 13.3 ± 6.4 mm2 and 10.6 ± 6.3 mm2, respectively (P = .355). The tumor cellularity in the specimens obtained using the Franseen and Lancet needles was 54.0 ± 30.3 and 46.2 ± 36.3%, respectively (P = .608). The success rate of molecular testing using the single-pass sample by Franseen needle was 85.7 and 57.1% by Lancet needle. No serious complications were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

The Franseen needle tended to show a greater amount of specimen with higher tumor cellularity than the Lancet needle which may contribute higher success rate of molecular testing. Further studies must be conducted to validate the results of this study.

KEY FINDINGS

What is known and what is new?  What is the implication, and what should change now?

Cutting edge of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for solid pancreatic lesions

This article provides an extensive review of the advancements and future perspectives related to endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs). EUS-TA, including fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB), has revolutionized the collection of specimens from intra-abdominal organs, including the pancreas. Improvements in the design of needles, collection methods, and specimen processing techniques have improved the diagnostic performance. This review highlights the latest findings regarding needle evolution, actuation number, sampling methods, specimen evaluation techniques, application of artificial intelligence (AI) for diagnostic purposes, and use of comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP). It acknowledges the rising use of Franseen and fork-tip needles for EUS-FNB and emphasizes that the optimal number of actuations requires further study. Methods such as the door-knocking and fanning techniques have shown promise for increasing diagnostic performance. Macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) is presented as a practical rapid specimen evaluation method, and the integration of AI is identified as a potentially impactful development. The study also underscores the importance of optimal sampling for CGP, which can enhance the precision of cancer treatment. Ongoing research and technological innovations will further improve the accuracy and efficacy of EUS-TA.

Methods to increase the diagnostic efficiency of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for solid pancreatic lesions: An updated review

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a means to procure adequate specimens for histological and cytologic analysis. The ideal EUS-FNA should be safe, accurate, and have a high sample adequacy rate and low adverse events rate. In recent years, many guidelines and trials on EUS-FNA have been published. The purpose of this article is to provide an update on the influence of some of the main factors on the diagnostic efficiency of EUS-FNA as well as a rare but serious complication known as needle tract seeding.

Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and fine-needle biopsy to generate pancreatic cancer organoids: Randomized trial

Background and study aims The prognosis for pancreatic cancer remains poor. Molecular diagnostics and customized therapies are becoming increasingly important in clinical routine. Patient-derived, predictive model systems such as organoids have the potential to substantially increase the depth of information from biopsy material by functional and molecular characterization. We compared the extent to which the use of fine-needle aspiration needles (FNA, 22G) or fine-needle biopsy needles (FNB, 22G) influences the generation of pancreatic cancer patient-derived organoids (PDOs) to establish endoscopic standards of organoid technology. Patients and methods Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided punctures by EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB of pancreatic masses highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma (detected by computed tomography and/or magnetic resonance imaging) were prospectively evaluated. Consecutive patients received EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB in a randomized order without the need to exchange the needle shaft (only the inner needle type (FNA/-B) was exchanged) between the passes. With each needle type, the specimens for histological analysis and for PDOs were obtained separately. Results Fifty patients were enrolled in the study. Histology revealed malignancy in 42 of 50 cases (84%). In total PDOs were generated from 17 patients (34%). Of these, nine were established by FNB only, two by FNA only, and six by both FNA and FNB. Histology revealed malignancy in 13 of 17 PDO cases (76%). In two histologically false-negative cases, PDOs could be established. Conclusions EUS-FNB was superior to EUS-FNA in terms of successful generation of PDOs, although it failed to show statistical significance.

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.

Small biopsies for pancreatic lesions: Is there still room for fine needle aspiration?

Pancreatic carcinoma is an aggressive tumour with increasing incidence in both sexes worldwide. Early detection is, therefore, essential for patient management. A recent advancement involves the utilization of larger, thicker gauge needles, which enable the collection of core-type biopsies (FNB). Here, we investigated the role of fine needle aspiration and cytopathology in the diagnostic workflow of pancreatic lesions. A search query was designed to search for articles in the PubMed database comparing FNA and FNB for biopsy of pancreatic lesions, and detailed data were extracted from selected studies. Statistical analyses were performed using the R package meta version 6.2. Twenty-one studies made the final cut for data extraction. Overall, median age was 64.3 years (±6.1; 47.6-71.5), male: female proportion 53.9 (±11.3; 27.6-67.4), lesion size 3.1 cm (±0.5; 1.9-4.2 cm) and percentage of malignant cases 78.3% (±26.8; 2.1-100). FNA and FNB diagnostic yield was 85.8% (±10.3; 70.0-100.0) and 89.2% (±7.7; 70.0-98.6), respectively. Average accuracy was 89.5% (±11.7; 63.0-100.0) for FNA and 90.8% (±7.1; 77.0-100.0) for FNB. Adverse effects rate was 1.0% (±1.3; 0-4.3) for FNA and 2.2% (±4.4; 0-16.1) for FNB. None of the selected variables had a significant statistical difference between both methods. FNA and FNB perform similarly for diagnostic material acquisition in pancreatic lesions. The best outcome comes from the association of both techniques, emphasizing the value of combining cytological and histological morphology for the most accurate analysis.

Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Diagnosis of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the most common (90%) type of solid pancreatic neoplasm. Due to its late presentation and poor survival rate, early diagnosis and timely treatment is of utmost importance for better clinical outcomes. Endoscopic ultrasound provides high-resolution images of the pancreas and has excellent sensitivity in the diagnosis of even small (<2 cm) pancreatic lesions. Apart from imaging, it also has an advantage of tissue acquisition (EUS fine-needle aspiration, FNA; or fine-needle biopsy, FNB) for definitive diagnoses. EUS-guided tissue acquisition plays a crucial role in genomic and molecular studies, which in today's era of personalized medicine, are likely to become important components of PDAC management. With the use of better needle designs and technical advancements, EUS has now become an indispensable tool in the management of PDAC. Lastly, artificial intelligence for the detection of pancreatic lesions and newer automated needles for tissue acquisition will obviate observer dependency in the near future, resulting in the wider dissemination and adoption of this technology for improved outcomes in patients with PDAC.

Dry suction versus wet suction technique of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy for diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions: study protocol of a multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Studies have shown that the wet suction technique in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) generates better histological diagnostic accuracy and specimen quality than the dry suction technique. However, conclusions of wet suction on the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) are still controversial. Besides, the optimal number of passes for EUS-FNB has not been determined. We aimed to design a large multicenter randomized trial to compare the diagnostic accuracy of dry suction versus wet suction technique in solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs) using 22G Franseen needles and determine the optimal number of passes required for EUS-FNB.

METHODS

This is a multi-center open-label, randomized controlled non-inferiority trial with two parallel groups. Two hundred patients with SPLs will undergo EUS-FNB using 22G Franseen needles in 4 tertiary hospitals in China and will be randomly assigned to the dry suction group and wet suction group in a ratio of 1:1. The primary endpoint is diagnostic accuracy. Secondary endpoints include the optimal number of needle passes, sensitivity, specificity, specimen quality, cytological diagnoses, time of the procedure, and incidence of complications.

DISCUSSION

This study has been designed to determine (i) whether EUS-FNB using 22G Franseen needle with dry suction is non-inferior to wet suction in terms of diagnostic accuracy and (ii) the optimal number of passes during EUS-FNB of SPLs using 22G Franseen needle.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05549856. Registered on September 22, 2022.

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.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy in the Diagnostic Work-Up of Deep-Seated Lymphadenopathies and Spleen Lesions: A Monocentric Experience

EUS-FNB has been introduced in clinical practice as a less invasive diagnostic approach with respect to surgery. We performed a single-center retrospective study on the diagnostic efficacy of EUS-guided FNB, including 171 patients with lymph nodes, splenic, and extranodal lesions that underwent EUS for FNB at our institution. Excluding 12 patients who did not undergo FNB and 25 patients with a previous diagnosis of a solid tumor, we included 134 patients with clinical/radiological suspect of a lymphoproliferative disease, including 20 patients with a previous history of lymphoma. Out of the 134 biopsies, material of diagnostic quality was obtained in 111 procedures (84.3%). Histological examination of the EUS-FNB samples produced an actionable diagnosis in 100 cases (74.6%). Among the patients without an actionable diagnosis, a second, different diagnostic procedure produced a further eight diagnoses of lymphoma. Therefore, the sensitivity of EUS-FNB for diagnosing lymphomas was calculated to be 86.4% (51/59). Assignment of lymphomas to WHO classification subtypes was possible in 47/51 (92%) of the cases. In conclusion, EUS-FNB is an effective procedure for the histological characterization of lesions that are suspected to be lymphoproliferative disease, allowing for an actionable diagnosis in 75% of cases.

Randomized trial comparing 15 vs 5 actuations per pass during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy for specimen acquisition of solid pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIM

There is currently no established number of actuations (to-and-fro movements) per pass during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). This study aimed to compare 15 vs 5 actuations in terms of adequate specimen acquisition of solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, crossover, noninferiority, single-center study, eligible patients underwent EUS-FNB using a 22-G Franseen needle with both 15 and 5 actuations per pass, performed in a randomized order, from October 2020 to December 2021. The acquired specimens from each pass were separately evaluated. The primary outcome was the accuracy of the histological diagnosis per pass. The noninferiority margin was set as 15%.

RESULTS

Data from 85 patients were analyzed, revealing pancreatic cancer in 73 patients. The accuracy of the histological diagnosis in the 15 and 5 actuations groups was 83.5% (71/85) and 77.7% (66/85), respectively. The difference was -5.8% (95% confidence interval -15.6-3.4), which does not indicate noninferiority of the five actuations group. Among the secondary outcomes, the 15 actuations group was significantly superior to the five actuations group in terms of the obtained core tissues (1.88 [interquartile range 0.89-3.64] mm2 vs 1.66 [0.83-2.71] mm2 [P = 0.031]) and subjective evaluation of cytology specimens for pancreatic cancer (69.0% vs. 31.0%, P = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

The noninferiority of five actuations in the accuracy of the histological diagnosis was not confirmed, and 15 actuations are preferred during EUS-FNB for solid pancreatic lesions.

Multicenter randomized trial comparing diagnostic sensitivity and cellular abundance with aggressive versus standard biliary brushing for bile duct stenosis without mass syndrome

BACKGROUND : The diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma in patients with a biliary stricture without mass syndrome can be obtained by biliary brushing with a sensitivity of ~50 %. We performed a multicenter randomized crossover trial comparing the aggressive Infinity brush with the standard RX Cytology Brush. The aims were to compare sensitivity for cholangiocarcinoma diagnosis and cellularity obtained. METHODS : Biliary brushing was performed consecutively with each brush, in a randomized order. Cytological material was studied with blinding to the brush type used and order. The primary end point was sensitivity for cholangiocarcinoma diagnosis; the secondary end point was the abundance of cellularity obtained with each brush, with cellularity quantified in order to determine if one brush strongly outperformed the other. RESULTS : 51 patients were included. Final diagnoses were cholangiocarcinoma (n = 43; 84 %), benign (n = 7; 14 %), and indeterminate (n = 1; 2 %). Sensitivity for cholangiocarcinoma was 79 % (34 /43) for the Infinity brush versus 67 % (29/43) for the RX Cytology Brush (P = 0.10). Cellularity was rich in 31/51 cases (61 %) with the Infinity brush and in 10/51 cases (20 %) with the RX Cytology Brush (P < 0.001). In terms of quantification of cellularity, the Infinity brush strongly outperformed the RX Cytology Brush in 28/51 cases (55 %), while the RX Cytology Brush strongly outperformed the Infinity brush in 4/51 cases (8 %; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS : This randomized crossover trial showed that the Infinity brush is not significantly more effective than the RX Cytology Brush for biliary stenosis without mass syndrome in terms of sensitivity for cholangiocarcinoma diagnosis, but does offer a significantly higher abundance of cellularity.

Comprehensive review of undifferentiated carcinoma of the pancreas: from epidemiology to treatment

Undifferentiated carcinoma (UC) of the pancreas is a rare subtype of pancreatic cancer displaying no definitive direction of differentiation. UC has been reported as a highly aggressive malignant neoplasm, with a median overall survival of <1 year, except for several surgical series. On the other hand, UC tissue sometimes contains non-neoplastic osteoclast-like giant cells (OGCs), and such cases have been reported to have relatively longer survival. Thus, the World Health Organization (WHO) classification histologically distinguishes UC with OGCs (UCOGCs) from UC, and UCs were subclassified into three subtypes: anaplastic UC, sarcomatoid UC and carcinosarcoma. However, still less is known about UC due to its rarity, and such situations lead to further difficulties in treatment for UC. To date, only surgical resection can offer curative treatment for patients with UC, and no clear evidence for chemotherapy exists for them. However, a retrospective cohort study and case reports showed that relatively promising results paclitaxel-containing regimens for treatment of patients with unresectable UC. Furthermore, high programmed cell death protein 1 expression has been reported in sarcomatoid UCs and UCOGCs, and promising responses to anti-programmed death-ligand 1 therapy have been described in case reports of UCOGCs. Recent advances in chemotherapeutic agents and molecular technologies are opening up the possibilities for expanded treatments.

Proposed quality indicators and recommended standard reporting items in performance of EBUS bronchoscopy: An official World Association for Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology Expert Panel consensus statement

BACKGROUND

Since their introduction, both linear and radial endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) have become an integral component of the practice of Pulmonology and Thoracic Oncology. The quality of health care can be measured by comparing the performance of an individual or a health service with an ideal threshold or benchmark. The taskforce sought to evaluate quality indicators in EBUS bronchoscopy based on clinical relevance/importance and on the basis that observed significant variation in outcomes indicates potential for improvement in health care outcomes.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review informed the composition of a comprehensive list of candidate quality indicators in EBUS. A multiple-round modified Delphi consensus process was subsequently performed with the aim of reaching consensus over a final list of quality indicators and performance targets for these indicators. Standard reporting items were developed, with a strong preference for items where evidence demonstrates a relationship with quality indicator outcomes.

RESULTS

Twelve quality Indicators are proposed, with performance targets supported by evidence from the literature. Standardized reporting items for both radial and linear EBUS are recommended, with evidence supporting their utility in assessing procedural outcomes presented.

CONCLUSION

This statement is intended to provide a framework for individual proceduralists to assess the quality of EBUS they provide their patients through the identification of clinically relevant, feasible quality measures. Emphasis is placed on outcome measures, with a preference for consistent terminology to allow communication and benchmarking between centres.

Twenty versus 40 back-and-forth needle movements for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic masses: a prospective, crossover, randomized study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-fine-needle biopsy (FNB) of solid pancreatic mass lesions, the number of times the needle moves back and forth within the lesion might affect the collection of the sample and the subsequent diagnostic accuracy. Thus, this study was designed to compare the diagnostic adequacy between different numbers of back-and-forth movements in EUS-FNB.

METHODS

Fifty-five patients with solid pancreatic masses underwent EUS-FNB sampling with the needle (22-gauge) moved 20 times (MTT) and 40 times (MFT) randomly and sequentially for a total of four alternating passes. We compared the acquisition rate of appropriate and adequate specimens for histologic assessment and diagnostic accuracy.

RESULTS

Finally, 55 patients (35 men and 20 women) were included in the study. We found that 56.4% (31/55) and 60% (33/55) of the specimens obtained using MTT and MFT, respectively, could be adequately diagnosed histologically (P = 0.815, McNemar test). The diagnostic accuracy of MTT and MFT was 72.7% (40/55) and 80% (44/55), respectively (P = 0.289, McNemar test). The overall diagnostic accuracy was 89.1%.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant statistical difference between the histopathological diagnostic samples obtained in MTT and those obtained in MFT. Therefore, a large number of back-and-forth movements of the needle should be avoided during EUS-FNB, which can help reduce the operation time and may reduce the risk of intraoperative and postoperative complications (Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR2000031106).

Diagnostic Yield of Repeat Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy for Solid Pancreatic Lesions

PATIENTS AND METHODS

we performed a retrospective case-control study, including cases with repeat EUS FNB for a solid pancreatic lesion, matched on a 1:2 ratio on age, sex, tumor location and presence of chronic pancreatitis with cases diagnosed on the first EUS FNB.

RESULTS

thirty-four cases and 68 controls were included in the analysis. Diagnostic accuracies were 80% and 88% in the repeat and single EUS FNB groups, respectively (p = 0.824). The second EUS FNB had a sensitivity of 80%, a specificity of 75%, a positive predictive value of 96%, and a negative predictive value of 33%. Of the 34 patients in the repeat EUS FNB group, 25 (74%) had a positive diagnosis with the second EUS FNB, 4 (12%) after surgery due to a second negative EUS FNB, 4 (12%) during clinical follow-up, and 1 (3%) after a third EUS FNB. Of the 25 patients diagnosed on the repeat EUS FNB, 17 (68%) had pancreatic adenocarcinomas, 2 (8%) neuroendocrine tumors, 2 (8%) other autoimmune pancreatitis, 2 (8%) chronic pancreatitis nodules, 1 (4%) renal cancer metastasis, and 1 (4%) other malignant diagnostic. There were no complications reported after the second EUS FNB in this study.

CONCLUSION

repeat EUS FNB made a diagnosis in three fourths of patients with solid pancreatic lesions and a first negative EUS FNB, with 26% of benign lesions. This supports the repetition of EUS FNB sampling in this clinical situation.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition Versus Fine Needle Aspiration for Diagnosis of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVES

Compare the 22G needle versus EchoTip ProCore® 20 (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA) on their handling, specimen suitability, amount of tissue obtained, diagnostic performance, the possibility of immunohistochemistry, and rate of adverse events.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective, comparative study of consecutively examined patients with pancreatic masses who underwent endosonography-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) via the 22G needle, and endosonography-guided tissue acquisition (TA) via ProCore 20 (PC20). The operator evaluated needle insertion and subjectively classified the specimen. The pathologist measured the samples, classified the amount of tissue, and determined the influence of bleeding on the interpretation.

RESULTS

A total of 129 patients participated in the study, out of whom 52 underwent endosonography-guided FNA with 22G and 77 underwent endosonography-guided TA with a PC20 needle. Malignant lesions were found in 106, and 23 had benign lesions. The duodenal route was used in 62% of patients. The 22G needle was easier to introduce (p=0.0495). However, PC20 obtained a larger amount (p<0.01) with fewer punctures (p<0.001). The PC20 also yielded a larger average microcore diameter (p=0.0032). Microhistology was adequate for 22G and PC20 in 22 (42.2%) and 50 (78.1%) specimens, respectively (p<0.001). Bleeding was not significantly different (p>0.999). Immunohistochemistry was possible in 36 (69.2%) and 40 (51.9%) specimens obtained by 22G and PC20, respectively (p=0.075). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of 22G were 93.5%, 100%, 100%, 66.7%, and 94.2%, respectively; and for PC20, it was 95%, 100%, 100%, 85%, and 96.1%, respectively. Mild bleeding was the most common early adverse event, occurring in 2/52 (3.8%) 22G and 4/77 (5.2%) PC20 cases (p>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The PC20 required fewer punctures and reduced the need for immunohistochemistry as it yielded better and larger microcores. Its ease of insertion into the target lesion makes it a good option to obtain satisfactory microcore specimens in difficult positions, such as the transduodenal route.

Randomized trial of contrast-enhanced harmonic guidance versus fanning technique for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling of solid pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

For EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling (EUS-FNB) of solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs), the role of sampling strategy between targeted biopsy sampling and wide sampling has not been reported. This study aimed to investigate the benefits of the 2 sampling techniques on EUS-FNB using rapid on-site evaluation.

METHODS

Patients with SPLs were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo EUS-FNB using either contrast guidance or the fanning technique. The primary outcome was the total number of passes required to establish a diagnosis, and secondary outcomes were overall diagnostic accuracy and adverse event rates.

RESULTS

One hundred eighteen patients were enrolled from February 2019 to January 2021, with 59 patients assigned to each group. There was no significant difference in the total number of passes required to establish a diagnosis between the contrast and fanning groups (median, 1 [interquartile range, 1-1] vs 1 [interquartile range, 1-2], respectively; P = .629). The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy in the contrast group was 100%, 66.7%, and 98.3% and in the fanning group 100%, 100%, and 100%, respectively (P = 1). An SPL <4 cm (odds ratio, 2.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-5.81; P = .037) and macroscopic visible core length >1 cm (odds ratio, 2.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-7.84; P = .037) were independently associated with increased cytologic and histologic accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB with the fanning technique for SPLs was comparable with the contrast guidance technique. Without additional cost, EUS-FNB with the fanning technique may be preferred for SPLs. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04924725.).

Current Practice Patterns of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Sampling for Pancreatic Solid Mass in Korea: Outcomes of a National Survey

Background/Aims

Although endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) are widely used for tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid mass, the optimal strategy of this procedure has not been established yet. The aim of this nationwide study was to investigate the current practice patterns of EUS-FNA/FNB for pancreatic solid mass in Korea.

Methods

The Policy-Quality Management of the Korean Pancreatobiliary Association (KPBA) developed a questionnaire containing 22 questions. An electronic survey consisting of the questionnaire was distributed by e-mail to members registered to the KPBA.

Results

A total of 101 respondents completed the survey. Eighty respondents (79.2%) performed preoperative EUS-FNA/FNB for operable pancreatic solid mass. Acquire needles (60.4%) were used the most, followed by ProCore needles (47.5%). In terms of need size, most respondents (>80%) preferred 22-gauge needles regardless of the location of the mass. Negative suction with a 10-mL syringe (71.3%) as sampling technique was followed by stylet slow-pull (41.6%). More than three needle passes for EUS-FNA/FNB was performed by most respondents (>80%). The frequency of requiring repeated procedure was significantly higher in respondents with a low individual volume (<5 per month, p=0.001). Prophylactic antibiotics were routinely used in 39 respondents (38.6%); rapid on-site pathologic evaluation was used in 6.1%.

Conclusions

According to this survey, practices of EUS-FNA/FNB for pancreatic solid mass varied substantially, some of which differed considerably from the recommendations present in existing guidelines. These results suggest that the development of evidence-based quality guidelines fitting Korean clinical practice is needed to establish the optimal strategy for this procedure.

Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration with Fine-Needle Biopsy for Solid Gastrointestinal Lesions: A Randomized Crossover Single-Center study

Background/Aims The purpose of this study was to compare the results of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (FNB) performed at the same site in a single session in the same patient.

Methods Consecutive patients with solid gastrointestinal lesions referred for EUS evaluation underwent EUS-FNA and FNB using 22G needles with three and two passes, respectively, in the same session. Patients were randomized to one group having EUS-FNA first followed by EUS-FNB, while other group had EUS-FNB first followed by EUS-FNA.

Results Total 50 patients (31 male) of mean age 56.58 ± 14.2 years and mean lesion size of 2.6 (±2) cm were included. The Kappa agreement for final diagnosis for FNA and FNB was 0.841 and 0.61, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of FNA versus FNB were 85.19 versus 62.96% and 100 versus 100%, respectively, in comparison with final diagnosis.

Conclusion Both EUS-FNA and FNB are equally safe when compared between the two techniques simultaneously in same lesion. EUS-FNA is better than FNB in terms of sensitivity, diagnostic accuracy, and tissue yield for solid GI lesion. However, the specificity and positive predictive value were equally good for both the modalities.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsies to Generate Preclinical Disease Models to Study Inflammation in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

Patient-derived xenografts (PDXs) are valuable models to study cancer biology, behavior, and response to therapies in vivo. Pancreatic cancer is an aggressive and treatment-resistant disease, and typical biopsies are often of low cellular yield and therefore present challenges for the creation of PDXs. This chapter will describe a method to establish PDX models from tissue biopsies obtained via endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration, a relatively noninvasive technique which compared to surgery is available to pancreatic cancer patients at all stages of disease. Furthermore, we also describe methods to incorporate "humanization" of PDXs via reconstitution with human immune cells, thus mimicking the immune cell-rich microenvironment of pancreatic tumors.

Tumor Location in the Head/Uncinate Process and Presence of Fibrosis Impair the Adequacy of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition of Solid Pancreatic Tumors

Simple Summary

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition is the most accurate method to diagnose pancreatic tumors; nevertheless, this technique does not always bring adequate diagnostic accuracy. This study aimed to identify which factors can impair its adequacy. Pancreatic cytological and histological aspirates were retrospectively assessed according to two scores for grading the adequacy and the fibrosis of the specimens. The performance of the biopsies was lower when the tumor was located in the head/uncinate process of the pancreas, probably due to the higher fibrosis that we found in these sites. The specimens were less adequate also when <3 needle passes were performed and when the cell block was not done. We demonstrated the benefit to assess the presence of fibrosis in the specimens because it increased the risk of false negative results.

Abstract

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) of solid pancreatic tumors shows optimal specificity despite fair sensitivity, with an overall suboptimal diagnostic yield. We aim to quantify the adequacy and accuracy of EUS-TA and assess predictive factors for success, focusing on the presence and degree of specimen fibrosis. All consecutive EUS-TA procedures were retrieved, and the specimens were graded for sample adequacy and fibrosis. The results were evaluated according to patients’ and tumor characteristics and the EUS-TA technique. In total, 407 patients (59% male, 70 [63–77] year old) were included; sample adequacy and diagnostic accuracy were 90.2% and 94.7%, respectively. Fibrosis was significantly more represented in tumors located in the head/uncinate process (p = 0.001). Tumor location in the head/uncinate (OR 0.37 [0.14–0.99]), number of needle passes ≥ 3 (OR 4.53 [2.22–9.28]), and the use of cell block (OR 8.82 [3.23–23.8]) were independently related to adequacy. Severe fibrosis was independently related to false negative results (OR 8.37 [2.33–30.0]). Pancreatic tumors located in the head/uncinate process showed higher fibrosis, resulting in EUS-TA with lower sample adequacy and diagnostic accuracy. We maintain that three or more needle passes and cell block should be done to increase the diagnostic yield.

Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration for Solid Lesions in Chronic Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic pancreatitis (CP) are at a higher risk of developing pancreatic adenocarcinoma compared the general population with an estimated 5% risk of developing pancreatic cancer in 20 years. Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of solid pancreatic lesions (SPL) has an excellent sensitivity (85-90%) and specificity (98-100%) for diagnosing pancreatic malignancy. However, data on the performance characteristics of EUS-FNA in CP are mixed.

AIMS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aim to examine data from published studies on the diagnostic performance of EUS-FNA in detecting pancreatic malignancy in CP.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Cochrane, EMBASE, Scopus databases for studies published in English language that reported performance characteristics of EUS-FNA for SPL up to November 2020. Two reviewers independently conducted screening, full text review and data extraction according to the PRISMA guidelines. Quality of included studies was assessed using the risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. The parameters of interest were sensitivity, specificity, negative, and positive likelihood ratios. Cochran Q test and I statistics were used to determine the between-study heterogeneity. Funnel plots were used to describe publication bias.

RESULTS

A total of 6753 studies were identified on initial search. Studies that reported EUS-FNA of cystic pancreas lesions were excluded. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Seven studies were retrospective, and one was prospective. A total of 593 patients with CP underwent EUS-FNA for SPL. The pooled sensitivity of EUS-FNA was 65% (95% CI 52.6-75.6%, I2 = 44%), specificity was 96.8% (75-99.7%, I2  = 89%), negative likelihood ratio (NLR) 41.4 (11.1-149.6, I2 = 70%), positive likelihood ratio (PLR) 24.1 (2.8-208, I2 = 90%). The pooled data from seven studies that compared 901 non-CP vs. 127 CP showed that the sensitivity of EUS-FNA in diagnosing pancreatic malignancy was 91.5 vs. 65.3% [OR (95% CI) 5.5 (2.9-10.2), I2: 31.8%]. The specificity pooled from six studies [333 non-CP vs. 357 CP] was 95.9% vs. 82.4%, [OR (95% CI) 1.3 (0.2-9.8), I2 = 73%]. The risk of bias was serious in one study, low in four studies and moderate in three studies.

CONCLUSION

This pooled meta-analysis shows a low sensitivity of EUS-FNA in diagnosing malignancy in CP patients with SPL in comparison to patients without CP. Modalities such as EUS-fine needle biopsy have high sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing pancreatic cancer and should be considered in patients with CP and suspected pancreatic malignancy.

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.

The Utility of Endoscopic-Ultrasonography-Guided Tissue Acquisition for Solid Pancreatic Lesions

Endoscopic-ultrasonography-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) has been widely performed for the definitive diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs). As the puncture needles, puncture techniques, and sample processing methods have improved, EUS-TA has shown higher diagnostic yields and safety. Recently, several therapeutic target genomic biomarkers have been clarified in pancreatic ductal carcinoma (PDAC). Although only a small proportion of patients with PDAC can benefit from precision medicine based on gene mutations at present, precision medicine will also be further developed for SPLs as more therapeutic target genomic biomarkers are identified. Advances in next-generation sequencing (NGS) techniques enable the examination of multiple genetic mutations in limited tissue samples. EUS-TA is also useful for NGS and will play a more important role in determining treatment strategies. In this review, we describe the utility of EUS-TA for SPLs.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy Using 22G Franseen Needles without Rapid On-Site Evaluation for Diagnosis of Intraabdominal Masses

Background: The impact of rapid on-site cytologic evaluation (ROSE) on endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is widely debated. This study aims to assess the diagnostic performance of EUS-FNB in the absence of ROSE in abdominal masses. Methods: Patients with abdominal masses undergoing EUS-FNB using 22-gauge Franseen needles and the slow-pull technique were prospectively enrolled in this study. Macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) was performed without ROSE. Results: 100 patients were recruited between 2018 and 2020. Seventy-eight patients had neoplasms, and twenty-two patients had benign diseases. Common diagnoses included pancreatic cancer (n = 27), mesenchymal tumors (n = 17), and metastatic tumors (n = 14). The mean mass size was 3.9 ± 2.6 cm. The median pass number was three. Eighty-nine percent had adequate specimens for histologic evaluation. Malignancy increased the odds of obtaining adequate tissue (OR 5.53, 95% CI, 1.36–22.5). For pancreatic cancer, FNB had a sensitivity of 92.3%, a specificity of 100%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 100%, a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97%, and an AUROC of 0.96. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and AUROC for mesenchymal cell tumors were 100%, 95.9%, 84.2%, 100%, and 0.98, respectively. For metastatic tumors, FNB was 100% sensitive and specific, with an AUROC of 1.00. There were no procedure-related complications. Conclusions: 22-gauge Franseen needles with the slow-pull technique and MOSE without ROSE provide excellent diagnostic performances for malignant lesions. Thus, MOSE should be implemented in real-world practice, and ROSE can be obviated when EUS-FNB is employed.

Endoscopic tissue sampling - Part 1: Upper gastrointestinal and hepatopancreatobiliary tracts. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

1: ESGE recommends that, where there is a suspicion of eosinophilic esophagitis, at least six biopsies should be taken, two to four biopsies from the distal esophagus and two to four biopsies from the proximal esophagus, targeting areas with endoscopic mucosal abnormalities. Distal and proximal biopsies should be placed in separate containers.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 2: ESGE recommends obtaining six biopsies, including from the base and edge of the esophageal ulcers, for histologic analysis in patients with suspected viral esophagitis.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 3: ESGE recommends at least six biopsies are taken in cases of suspected advanced esophageal cancer and suspected advanced gastric cancer.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 4: ESGE recommends taking only one to two targeted biopsies for lesions in the esophagus or stomach that are potentially amenable to endoscopic resection (Paris classification 0-I, 0-II) in order to confirm the diagnosis and not compromise subsequent endoscopic resection.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 5: ESGE recommends obtaining two biopsies from the antrum and two from the corpus in patients with suspected Helicobacter pylori infection and for gastritis staging.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 6: ESGE recommends biopsies from or, if endoscopically resectable, resection of gastric adenomas.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 7: ESGE recommends fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles equally for sampling of solid pancreatic masses.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 8: ESGE suggests performing peroral cholangioscopy (POC) and/or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition in indeterminate biliary strictures. For proximal and intrinsic strictures, POC is preferred. For distal and extrinsic strictures, EUS-guided sampling is preferred, with POC where this is not diagnostic.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 9: ESGE suggests obtaining possible non-neoplastic biopsies before sampling suspected malignant lesions to prevent intraluminal spread of malignant disease.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. 10: ESGE suggests dividing EUS-FNA material into smears (two per pass) and liquid-based cytology (LBC), or the whole of the EUS-FNA material can be processed as LBC, depending on local experience.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Liver Disease: Where Do We Stand?

As the burden of liver disease in the general populace steadily increases, so does the need for both advanced diagnostic and treatment options. Endoscopic ultrasound is a reliable diagnostic and therapeutic method that has an established role, foremost in pancreatobiliary pathology. This paper aims to summarize the growing role of endoscopic ultrasound in hepatology based on the search of the current literature. A number of applications of endoscopic ultrasound are reviewed, including both noninvasive methods and tissue acquisition in focal and diffuse liver disease, portal hypertension measurement, detection and management of gastric and esophageal varices, treatment of focal liver lesions and staging of pancreatobiliary malignancies, treatment of cystic and solid liver lesions, as well as liver abscess drainage. Both hepatologists and endoscopists should be aware of the evolving role of endoscopic ultrasound in liver disease. The inherent invasive nature of endoscopic examination limits its use to a targeted population identified using noninvasive methods. Endoscopic ultrasound is one the most versatile methods in gastroenterology, allowing immediate access with detection, sampling, and treatment of digestive tract pathology. Further expansion of its use in hepatology is immanent.

Endobronchial ultrasound in diagnosing and staging of lung cancer by Acquire 22G TBNB versus regular 22G TBNA needles: study protocol of a randomised clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Accurate diagnosis and staging of lung cancer is crucial because it directs treatment and prognosis. Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) and endoscopic ultrasound with bronchoscope fine-needle aspiration (EUS-B-FNA) are important in this process by sampling hilar/mediastinal lymph nodes and centrally located lung tumours. With the upcoming of immunotherapy and targeted therapies, assessment of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and molecular profiling has become important but is often impossible in cytological samples obtained through standard 22G TBNA needles. Recently, a three-pronged cutting edge 22G needle was developed that allows for transbronchial needle biopsy (TBNB). Our objective is to determine if EBUS/EUS-B-guided nodal/lung tumour sampling with Acquire 22G TBNB needles results in an improved suitability rate for the assessment of PD-L1 expression in comparison to standard 22G TBNA needles in patients with a final diagnosis of lung cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is an investigator-initiated, parallel group randomised clinical trial. Patients are recruited at respiratory medicine outpatient clinics of participating university and general hospitals in the Netherlands, Poland and Italy. In total 158 adult patients with (suspected) lung cancer are included if they have an indication for mediastinal/hilar lymph node or lung tumour sampling by EBUS-TBNA and/or EUS-B-FNA based on current clinical guidelines. Web-based randomisation between the two needles will be performed. Samples obtained from mediastinal/hilar lymph nodes and/or primary tumour will be processed for cytology smears and cell block analysis and reviewed by blinded reference pathologists. An intention-to-treat analysis will be applied. Patients with missing data will be excluded from analysis for that specific variable but included in the analysis of other variables. This study is financially supported by Boston Scientific.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by the local Ethics Committee (Medisch Ethische Toetsingscommissie Amsterdam Medical Center (AMC)). Dissemination will involve publication in a peer-reviewed biomedical journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NL7701; Pre-results.

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.

GIE Editorial Board top 10 topics: advances in GI endoscopy in 2020

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy's Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Editorial Board reviewed a systematic literature search of original endoscopy-related articles published during 2020 in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and 10 other high-impact medical and gastroenterology journals. Votes from each individual board member were tallied to identify a consensus list of the 10 most significant topic areas in GI endoscopy over the calendar year of study using 4 criteria: significance, novelty, impact on national health, and impact on global health. The 10 areas identified were as follows: artificial intelligence in endoscopy, coronavirus disease 2019 and GI practice, third-space endoscopy, lumen-apposing metal stents, single-use duodenoscopes and other disposable equipment, endosonographic needle technology and techniques, endoscopic closure devices, advances in GI bleeding management, improvements in polypectomy techniques, and bariatric endoscopy. Each board member contributed a summary of important articles relevant to 1 to 2 topic areas, leading to a collective summary that is presented in this document of the "top 10" endoscopic advances of 2020.

Impact of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition on Decision-Making in Precision Medicine for Pancreatic Cancer: Beyond Diagnosis

Precision medicine in cancer treatment refers to targeted therapy based on the evaluation of biomarkers. Although precision medicine for pancreatic cancer (PC) remains challenging, novel biomarker-based therapies, such as pembrolizumab, olaparib, and entrectinib, have been emerging. Most commonly, endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) had been used for the diagnosis of PC until now. However, advances in EUS-TA devices and biomarker testing, especially next-generation sequencing, have opened up the possibility of sequencing of various genes even in limited amounts of tissue samples obtained by EUS-TA, and identifying potential genetic alterations as therapeutic targets. Precision medicine benefits only a small population of patients with PC, but biomarker-based therapy has shown promising results in patients who once had no treatment options. Now, the role of EUS-TA has extended beyond diagnosis into decision-making regarding the treatment of PC. In this review, we mainly discuss tissue sampling by EUS-TA for biomarker testing and the current status of precision medicine for PC.

Comparative diagnostic accuracy of EUS needles in solid pancreatic masses: a network meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue sampling is the standard of care for diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions. While many two-way comparisons between needle types have been made in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it is unclear which size and type of needle offers the best probability of diagnosis. We therefore performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare different sized and shaped needles to rank the diagnostic performance of each needle. Methods  We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases through August, 2020 for RCTs that compared the diagnostic accuracy of EUS fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and biopsy (FNB) needles in solid pancreatic masses. Using a random-effects NMA under the frequentist framework, RCTs were analyzed to identify the best needle type and sampling technique. Performance scores (P-scores) were used to rank the different needles based on pooled diagnostic accuracy. The NMA model was used to calculate pairwise relative risk (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals. Results  Review of 2577 studies yielded 29 RCTs for quantitative synthesis, comparing 13 different needle types. All 22G FNB needles had an RR > 1 compared to the reference 22G FNA (Cook) needle. The highest P-scores were seen with the 22G Medtronic FNB needle (0.9279), followed by the 22G Olympus FNB needle (0.8962) and the 22G Boston Scientific FNB needle (0.8739). Diagnostic accuracy was not significantly different between needles with or without suction. Conclusions  In comparison to FNA needles, FNB needles offer the highest diagnostic performance in sampling pancreatic masses, particularly with 22G FNB needles.

A Comprehensive Narrative Review on the Evolving Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Focal Solid Liver Lesions Diagnosis and Management

The implications of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) have expanded considerably in recent years to cover more fields in invasive gastroenterology practice, as both an investigative and therapeutic modality. The utility of EUS in the diagnosis and management of focal liver lesions has gained a special attractiveness recently. The EUS probe proximity to the liver and its excellent spatial resolution enables real-time images coupled with several enhancement techniques, such as contrast-enhanced (CE) EUS. Aside from its notable capability to execute targeted biopsies and therapeutic interventions, EUS has developed into a hopeful therapeutic tool for the management of solid liver lesions. Herein, we provide a comprehensive state-of-the-art review on the efficacy and safety of EUS in the diagnosis and management of focal solid liver lesions. Medline/PubMed and Embase database searches were conducted by two separate authors (T.K. and W.S.), all relevant studies were assessed, and relevant data was extracted and fully reported. EUS-guided diagnosis of focal liver lesions by sonographic morphologic appearance and cytological and histopathological finding of biopsies obtained via fine needle aspiration/biopsy have been shown to significantly improve the diagnosis of solid liver lesions compared with traditional imaging tools. Similarly, EUS-guided treatment has been shown to consistently have excellent technical success, high efficacy, and minor adverse events. The evolving valuable evidences of EUS utility might satisfy the unmet need of optimizing management of focal solid liver lesions.