Fine needle biopsy is superior to fine needle aspiration in endoscopic ultrasound guided sampling of pancreatic masses: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Evaluation of fine-needle core biopsy specimens for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Diagnostic utility and helpful histological features

AIMS

With the advent of new biopsy devices, fine-needle core biopsy specimens can be obtained from pancreas masses. This study aimed to report the histological spectrum of intrapancreatic adenocarcinoma on fine-needle core biopsy and the accuracy of sampling.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We identified 423 SharkCore™ fine-needle core biopsies taken from patients with a high clinical concern for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. For each, we recorded patient age and sex, percentage of diagnostic tissue in each sample and tumour site, size and histological findings. The cases came from 392 patients (193 men, 199 women; mean age 69 years). Median diagnostic tissue amount in the samples was 30%. Common histological findings included desmoplasia (36%), single atypical cells (44%), haphazard glandular growth pattern (68%), nuclear pleomorphism > 4:1 (39%), incomplete gland lumens (18%) and detached atypical epithelial strips (37%). Additional levels were ordered on 143 cases. Final clinical diagnoses associated with the 423 cases were adenocarcinoma (n = 343), pancreatitis (n = 22), intraductal neoplasm or other benign/low-grade process (n = 16) and unknown (n = 42, patients lost to follow-up). Of the adenocarcinoma cases, the diagnosis was established by the evaluated fine-needle core biopsy sample alone in 178, by fine-needle aspiration biopsy alone in 30, by both concurrently in 89 and by subsequent biopsy or resection in 37 cases. Among 68 cases called suspicious on fine-needle core biopsy, 78% ultimately represented adenocarcinoma.

CONCLUSIONS

Fine-needle core biopsy allows for histological diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, using known histological parameters. Common findings include single atypical cells, desmoplasia, haphazard gland growth and nuclear pleomorphism. Cases interpreted as suspicious often represent malignancy.

The additive diagnostic value of cytology in fine needle biopsy of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A tertiary center experience

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic ultrasound guide fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is the main diagnostic tool for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. In most instances, only histology is obtained via FNB, without sending cytological slides. The aim of our study was to assess the additive diagnostic yield of cytology performed through FNB.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of all patients with histological diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma who were diagnosed by EUS-FNB.

RESULTS

Overall, 80 patients were included in the study period. The overall concordance between cytology and histology all FNB needles was 78.2%. Notably, cytological assessment improved the diagnostic yield for malignancy by 12.8%. The overall kappa coefficient correlation between histology and cytology was .501, 95% CI 0.361-0.641. However, the kappa correlation for suspicious of malignancy and malignant was excellent of .872, 95% CI 0.733-1, suggesting that cytology is crucial when histology is inconclusive. Further analysis showed that the Acquire and Sharkcore needles outperformed the Procore needle in term of concordance between cytology and histology (kappa correlation of .527, 95% CI 0.331-0.724, .515, 95% CI 0.265-0.764, and .297, 95% CI -0.051-0.646), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Performing cytology specimen when using FNB improves the diagnostic yield in pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Current perspectives on the diversification of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and biopsy

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) has undergone significant advancements since it was first reported in 1992. Initially focused on the pancreas, EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) has now been extended to encompass all organs proximal to the gastrointestinal system. Recently, a novel fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needle with an end-cut tip was developed, allowing for the collection of specimens suitable for histological assessment, a feat hard to achieve with traditional needles. The FNB needle holds promise for applications in immunohistochemistry staining and genetics evaluation, and it has the potential to yield specimens of comparable quality to core needle biopsy during percutaneous puncture, especially for lesions beyond the pancreas, such as lymph nodes. This review focuses on the efficacy of EUS-FNA/FNB for extended target regions, specifically lymph nodes, spleen, adrenal gland, and ascites. The indications for EUS-FNA have greatly expanded beyond the pancreas over the years, and future improvements and innovations in puncture needles will allow for the collection of higher-quality specimens, which is expected to play a significant part in personalized cancer treatment.

Acute Pancreatitis Revealing a Diagnosis of Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma

Acute pancreatitis is a common gastroenterological condition that can occur due to several causes. While not required for diagnosis, imaging is often performed and may reveal unexpected findings such as pancreatic masses. Malignancies such as lymphoma are uncommon causes of acute pancreatitis, especially as the initial presentation of malignancy. We present a case of a young patient with acute pancreatitis caused by diffuse large B-cell lymphoma with extranodal disease secondarily involving the pancreas. Our case highlights the importance of keeping a broad differential for acute pancreatitis and considering rare etiologies such as pancreatic lymphoma in patients without another obvious culprit.

The yield of cytology and histology obtained by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration and biopsy needles in the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration and biopsy (EUS-FNA, -FNB) are the mainstay for tissue diagnosis of pancreatic lesions. Traditionally, FNA was performed for obtaining cytology and also histology if available from the puncture. Since their advent, however, FNB needles have been intended mainly to obtain core biopsies for histological specimens.

AIMS

We aimed to assess the yield of cytology obtained via both FNA and FNB needles.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed including all patients who were diagnosed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma obtained via EUS-FNA/FNB needles.

RESULTS

Overall, 227 patients were included. Of them, 85 patients underwent FNB, versus 142 patients who had FNA. The average age in the FNB group was 70.46 ± 11.29 years, versus 71.44 ± 11.80 in the FNA group, P = 0.57. Notably, cytological analysis diagnosed malignancy equally in both groups (69.4% in the FNB group, vs. 65.5% in the FNA group). The compatibility rate of cytology with histology was 76.5% in the FNB group, versus 76.1% in the FNA group (P = 0.69). The agreement level between cytology obtained by FNA and FNB, versus histology obtained by both needles, was moderate (kappa = 0.48, 95% CI 0.39-0.57). Similarly, the agreement level between cytology and histology in the FNB group was moderate as well (kappa = 0.5, 95% CI 0.36-0.64).

CONCLUSION

Cytological assessment yielded an equal performance as compared to histological assessment with both needles. We recommend obtaining cytology specimens in pancreatic solid lesion puncture by FNB needle.

Current status and issues in genomic analysis using EUS-FNA/FNB specimens in hepatobiliary-pancreatic cancers

Comprehensive genomic profiling based on next-generation sequencing has recently been used to provide precision medicine for various advanced cancers. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) play essential roles in the diagnosis of abdominal masses, mainly pancreatic cancers. In recent years, CGP analysis using EUS-FNA/FNB specimens for hepatobiliary-pancreatic cancers has increased; however, the success rate of CGP analysis is not clinically satisfactory, and many issues need to be resolved to improve the success rate of CGP analysis. In this article, we review the transition from EUS-FNA to FNB, compare each test, and discuss the current status and issues in genomic analysis of hepatobiliary-pancreatic cancers using EUS-FNA/FNB specimens.

Diagnostic Accuracy of ki-67 Labeling Index in Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Fine-Needle Aspiration Cytology and Biopsy of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the Ki-67 labeling index (LI) between endoscopic ultrasonography-fine-needle aspiration cytology/biopsy (EUS-FNAC/FNB) and surgical specimens of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PanNENs).

METHODS

Conventional meta-analysis and diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) reviews were performed on 17 eligible studies. The DTA review involved calculating the sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (OR), and area under the curve (AUC) of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve. In addition, subgroup analysis was conducted based on EUS-FNAC and FNB, tumor grade, and tumor size.

RESULTS

The overall concordance rate of WHO grade based on Ki-67 LI between the EUS-FNAC/FNB and the surgical specimen was 0.767 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.713-0.814). Concordance rates of the EUS-FNAC and EUS-FNB subgroups were 0.741 (95% CI, 0.681-0.794) and 0.839 (95% CI, 0.738-0.906), respectively. In the DTA review for grade 3, the sensitivity and specificity were calculated to be 0.786 (95% CI, 0.590-0.917) and 0.998 (95% CI, 0.987-1.000), respectively. The diagnostic OR and AUC of the SROC curve were 150.220 (95% CI, 46.145-489.000) and 0.983, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity were observed to be highest in the grade 1 and 3 subgroups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher concordance of tumor grade based on Ki-67 LI was observed between EUS-FNAC/FNB and surgical specimens, indicating the potential usefulness of Ki-67 LI in predicting PanNEN tumor grade in EUS-FNAC/FNB.

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.

ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Biliary Strictures

A biliary stricture is an abnormal narrowing in the ductal drainage system of the liver that can result in clinically and physiologically relevant obstruction to the flow of bile. The most common and ominous etiology is malignancy, underscoring the importance of a high index of suspicion in the evaluation of this condition. The goals of care in patients with a biliary stricture are confirming or excluding malignancy (diagnosis) and reestablishing flow of bile to the duodenum (drainage); the approach to diagnosis and drainage varies according to anatomic location (extrahepatic vs perihilar). For extrahepatic strictures, endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition is highly accurate and has become the diagnostic mainstay. In contrast, the diagnosis of perihilar strictures remains a challenge. Similarly, the drainage of extrahepatic strictures tends to be more straightforward and safer and less controversial than that of perihilar strictures. Recent evidence has provided some clarity in multiple important areas pertaining to biliary strictures, whereas several remaining controversies require additional research. The goal of this guideline is to provide practicing clinicians with the most evidence-based guidance on the approach to patients with extrahepatic and perihilar strictures, focusing on diagnosis and drainage.

Actual pressure generated by various suction technique and suctioning liquid weight through endoscopic ultrasound-guided aspiration needles

OBJECTIVES

Suction pressure is one of the most important factors influencing the amount of tissue obtained during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNA/FNB). In this study we aimed to elucidate actual suction pressure generated by various suction methods and the weight of suctioning liquid.

METHODS

Different types of fine needles and suction techniques were used, including the slow pull technique (SPT), dry suction technique (DST), wet suction technique (WST), neutralizing negative pressure technique (NNPT), and residual negative pressure technique (RNPT). Actual suction pressure was measured and the amount of suctioning liquid was weighed.

RESULTS

Actual suction pressure and weight of the suctioning liquid were lower using SPT than using DST, while they were higher when using WST compared with those using DST. In general, the actual suction pressure increased and the weight of suctioning liquid decreased as the diameter of the FNA needles decreased. While weight of the suctioning liquid using FNB needles was significantly larger than that using FNA needles. In general, the actual suction pressure generated using RNPT was larger than that using NNPT.

CONCLUSIONS

WST is superior to SPT and DST in terms of actual suction pressure and weight of suctioning liquid. Diameter of the FNA needle was an important factor that may affect the actual suction pressure and weight of suctioning liquid. FNB needles are superior to FNA needles when it comes to the weight of suctioning liquid. Actual suction pressure obtained by novel suction methods (NNPT and RNPT) may provide a basis for future research.

Neuroendocrine Tumor Diagnosed Through Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy of a Lung Mass

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is an excellent modality for tissue acquisition and has been shown to be superior to EUS-fine-needle aspiration in several studies. Although tissue sampling of lung nodules using EUS-fine-needle aspiration has been reported in the literature, the use of EUS-FNB for tissue acquisition of parenchymal lung mass has rarely been reported in the literature. Our report highlights that EUS-FNB is safe and effective for lung lesions that are near the esophageal wall.

A Meta-Analysis Comparing Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Aspiration With Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Biopsy

BACKGROUND

The superiority between endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is still a debate. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the diagnostic value and safety of these 2 needles in sampling of all solid lesions and separately pancreatic lesions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library were searched for randomized controlled studies that reported the comparison of FNA and FNB in solid mass. Outcome measures included diagnostic accuracy, number of needle passes, diagnostic adequacy, presence of tissue cores, and adverse events. Standard error, upper and lower confidence intervals at 95% confidence interval for the risk were obtained using Review Manager Version 5.3 which was also used to generate forest plots for pooled analysis. The random or fixed effect model was applied depending on the heterogeneity ( I2 ).

RESULTS

Eighteen randomized control trial studies with a total of 2718 patients (1141 patients with EUS-FNA, 1108 with EUS-FNB, and remaining 469 patients were sampled with both needles alternatively) were included in the meta-analysis.FNB group has relatively good diagnostic accuracy relative risk (RR): 0.94, 0.92-0.97; P =0.0002), diagnostic adequacy (RR: 0.95, 0.9-1.0; P =0.04) and high quality histologic yield compared (RR: 0.77, 0.64-0.93; P =0.007) with the FNA group in solid gastrointestinal lesions, and the number of needle passes to obtain sufficient tissue (mean difference: 0.54, 0.45-0.64; P <0.00001) was lower in the FNB group. For solid pancreatic disease only, there was no difference in diagnostic accuracy (RR: 0.97, 0.93-1.01, P =0.13) or quality histologic yield (RR: 0.60, 0.29-1.23; P =0.16). The rate of adverse events (RR: 1.04, 0.48-2.29; P =0.92) did not significantly differ between FNA and FNB groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In solid gastrointestinal lesions, FNB is associated with a relatively better diagnostic adequacy, diagnostic adequacy and tissue cores rates, and less number of needle passes. For solid pancreatic disease only, there is no difference in diagnostic accuracy or tissue cores rates.

Comparison of 22-gauge standard and Franseen needles in EUS-guided tissue acquisition for diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This large multicenter randomized controlled trial compared the diagnostic yields of 22-gauge standard and 22-gauge Franseen needles for EUS-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) of solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with solid pancreatic lesions were prospectively randomized to EUS-TA using standard or Franseen needles. Samples obtained with the first needle pass and with second and subsequent passes were evaluated separately. The primary endpoint was the rate of accuracy for diagnosis of malignancy. Other endpoints were technical success rate, sample cellularity, adverse events, diagnostic accuracy in patient subgroups, and the diagnostic accuracy and numbers of second and subsequent needle passes.

RESULTS

Of 523 patients undergoing EUS-TA, 260 were randomized to using standard 22-gauge needles and 263 to 22-gauge Franseen needles. The technical success rate in each group was 99.6%, with similar adverse event rates in the standard (1.5%) and Franseen (.8%) needle groups. First-pass EUS-TA using the Franseen needle resulted in significantly greater diagnostic accuracy (84.0% vs 71.2%, P < .001) and sensitivity (82.4% vs 66.7%, P < .001) than first-pass EUS-TA using a standard needle and also resulted in superior diagnostic accuracy in patients requiring immunostaining. Second and subsequent EUS-TA using Franseen needles showed significantly greater accuracy (94.7% vs 90.0%, P = .049) and sensitivity (94.0% vs 88.6%, P = .047) and required fewer needle passes (1.81 vs 2.03, P = .008) than using standard needles.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-TA with the Franseen needle is superior to EUS-TA with a standard needle with respect to diagnostic accuracy per pass, particularly in patients who require immunostaining, and number of passes when using macroscopic on-site evaluation. (Clinical trial registration numbers: UMIN000030634 and jRCTs052180062.).

The diagnostic performance of combined conventional cytology with smears and cell block preparation obtained from endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for intra-abdominal mass lesions

BACKGROUND/AIM

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the primary method for tissue acquisition of intra-abdominal masses. However, the main limitation of cytology alone is the lack of tissue architecture and inadequate samples. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of combined conventional cytology and cell block preparation obtained from EUS-FNA of intra-abdominal masses without Rapid On-site Evaluation (ROSE).

METHODS

Cytologic smears and cell block slides of 166 patients undergoing EUS-FNA during 2010-2015 were reviewed by an experienced cytopathologist blinded to clinical data.

RESULTS

125 patients had neoplastic lesions. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma was the most common etiology (35.5%), followed by lymph node metastasis (27.7%). The mean mass size was 2.5±1.3 cm. The mean number of passes was 1.9±1.28. Tissue adequacy for conventional cytology and cell block preparation was 78.9% and 78.1%, respectively. Factors associated with tissue adequacy were assessed. For cytology, lesions of > 2.1 cm, masses in the pancreatic body or tail, malignancy, and pancreatic cancer were positively associated with adequate cellularity. For cell block preparation, lesions of > 3 cm and malignancy were associated with increased tissue adequacy. The conventional cytology alone had a sensitivity of 68.5%, a specificity of 95.7%, and an area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) of 0.821. The cell block preparation alone had a sensitivity of 65.4%, a specificity of 96%, and an AUROC of 0.807. The combined conventional cytology and cell block preparation performed significantly better than either method alone (p<0.05), as demonstrated by an increased AUROC of 0.853. Furthermore, cell block detected malignancy in 9.3% of cases where the cytologic smears failed to identify malignant cells.

CONCLUSIONS

The combined conventional cytology and cell block preparation increased the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA compared to either method alone. This approach should be implemented in routine practice, especially where ROSE is unavailable.

Pooled diagnostic parameters of artificial intelligence in EUS image analysis of the pancreas: A descriptive quantitative review

EUS is an important diagnostic tool in pancreatic lesions. Performance of single-center and/or single study artificial intelligence (AI) in the analysis of EUS-images of pancreatic lesions has been reported. The aim of this study was to quantitatively study the pooled rates of diagnostic performance of AI in EUS image analysis of pancreas using rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis methodology. Multiple databases were searched (from inception to December 2020) and studies that reported on the performance of AI in EUS analysis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma were selected. The random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled rates. In cases where multiple 2 × 2 contingency tables were provided for different thresholds, we assumed the data tables as independent from each other. Heterogeneity was assessed by I²% and 95% prediction intervals. Eleven studies were analyzed. The pooled overall accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 86% (95% confidence interval [82.8–88.6]), 90.4% (88.1–92.3), 84% (79.3–87.8), 90.2% (87.4–92.3) and 89.8% (86–92.7), respectively. On subgroup analysis, the corresponding pooled parameters in studies that used neural networks were 85.5% (80–89.8), 91.8% (87.8–94.6), 84.6% (73–91.7), 87.4% (82–91.3), and 91.4% (83.7–95.6)], respectively. Based on our meta-analysis, AI seems to perform well in the EUS-image analysis of pancreatic lesions.

A New Preoperative Scoring System for Predicting Aggressiveness of Non-Functioning Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms

The management of non-functioning pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (NF-PanNENs) is still controversial. This study aimed to develop a new scoring system for treatment decisions at initial diagnosis based on the identification of the predictive factors for aggressive NF-PanNENs. Seventy-seven patients who had been pathologically diagnosed with NF-PanNENs were enrolled. We retrospectively reviewed 13 variables that could be assessed preoperatively. Univariate and multivariate stepwise logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors for the aggressiveness of NF-PanNENs, and a scoring system was developed by assigning weighted points proportional to their β regression coefficient. Tumor size > 20 mm on contrast-enhanced computed tomography, tumor non-vascularity, and Ki-67 labeling index ≥5% on endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration specimens were identified as independent factors for predicting the aggressiveness of NF-PanNENs. The new scoring system, developed using the identified factors, had an excellent discrimination ability, with area under the curve of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.85–0.99), and good calibration (p = 0.72, Hosmer-Lemeshow test). Ten-year overall survival rates in low-risk (0 point), intermediate-risk (1 to 2 points), and high-risk (3 to 4 points) groups were 100%, 90.9%, and 24.3%, respectively. This new scoring system would be useful for treatment decisions and prognostic prediction at initial diagnosis.

Case Report: Insulinoma Co-Existing With Type 2 Diabetes - Advantages and Challenges of Treatment With Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Radiofrequency Ablation

The coexistence of insulinoma and type 2 diabetes is rare and the diagnostic process is often challenging. Continuous glucose monitoring system devices, which are more readily available nowadays, provide a useful tool for the diagnosis and evaluation of treatment response. Curative surgery is often the mainstay of treatment for insulinoma. Here, we report a Chinese patient with insulinoma diagnosed simultaneously with type 2 diabetes. His insulinoma was managed with endoscopic ultrasound guided-radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA) and the patient achieved complete resolution of hypoglycaemic episodes. The case illustrates that while EUS-RFA is an emerging non-invasive treatment modality for pancreatic lesions, limitations exist especially when histological confirmation is essential.

Needle-based Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy (nCLE) for Evaluation of Pancreatic Cystic Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Given the variable diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs), novel imaging techniques including needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (nCLE) have been devised. The aim of this study was to perform a structured systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic performance and safety of nCLE for the diagnosis of PCLs.

METHODS

Individualized search strategies were developed in accordance with PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines and meta-analysis analyzed according to the Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy working group methodology. Measured outcomes included diagnostic characteristics and procedure-associated adverse events. A bivariate model was used to compute combined weighted sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative likelihood ratio (LR), diagnostic odds ratio, and summary receiver operating characteristic curve with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Seven studies (n=324; mean age: 63.99±5.36 y; 52.47% female) were included. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive LR, and negative LR of nCLE was 85% (95% CI, 71-93; I2=74.20%), 99% (95% CI, 90-100; I2=72.60%), 78.66 (95% CI, 7.99-774.68; I2=26.86%), and 0.15 (95% CI, 0.07-0.31; I2=75.84%), respectively. Diagnostic accuracy as measured by summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 99% (95% CI, 98-100). The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 534 (95% CI, 50-5664; I2=58.00%). Postprocedure pancreatitis developed in 1% (95% CI, 0-3; I2=5.64%) of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of this meta-analysis, nCLE appears to be an effective and safe technique for the diagnostic evaluation of PCLs. Although moderate-to-high amounts of heterogeneity were present, our results demonstrated that nCLE has a diagnostic accuracy of 99% with a low rate of adverse events.

Adequacy evaluation and use of pancreatic adenocarcinoma specimens for next-generation sequencing acquired by endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNA and FNB

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA), especially endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), is the mainstay of tissue acquisition for the diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) using flexible biopsy needles has been used for patients with PDAC in an effort to increase diagnostic yields and biomarker testing. However, the role of EUS-TA in biomarker testing for personalized therapy or precise chemotherapy for PDAC is not well established.

METHODS

PDAC cases with specimens acquired through concurrent EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB were identified retrospectively. Smears were prepared from EUS-FNA sampling, and cell blocks (CBs) were prepared from EUS-FNB sampling. Rapid onsite evaluation was conducted for all cases for diagnostic adequacy. The adequacy for biomarker testing, including next-generation sequencing (NGS) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) assays, was evaluated, and cases with smears and CBs adequate for NGS were processed for targeted NGS.

RESULTS

There were 26 PDAC cases concurrently sampled by EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB. EUS-FNA smears for all 26 cases and EUS-FNB CBs for 20 cases (77%) were diagnostic for PDAC. Twenty-one smears (81%) and 11 CBs (42%) were adequate for NGS. Nine cases with both smears and CBs adequate for NGS underwent NGS, which identified clinically significant gene mutation variants, including KRAS, TP53, and SMAD4 mutations.

CONCLUSIONS

Both EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB can provide optimal material for targeted NGS for PDACs. In PDAC cases subjected to concurrent EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB, EUS-FNA specimens had greater diagnostic yields and more adequate material for NGS than EUS-FNB specimens, whereas EUS-FNB was more suitable for IHC-based biomarker testing.

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.

EUS-Guided Biopsy with a Novel Puncture Biopsy Forceps Needle-Feasibility Study

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with fine needle aspiration (FNA) or biopsy (FNB) to diagnose lesions in the gastrointestinal tract is common. Demand for histology sampling to identify treatment-specific targets is increasing. Various core biopsy FNB needles to obtain tissue for histology are currently available, however, with variable (37-97%) histology yields. In this multicenter study, we evaluated performance, safety, and user experience of a novel device (the puncture biopsy forceps (PBF) needle). Twenty-four procedures with the PBF needle were performed in 24 patients with a suspected pancreatic lesion (n = 10), subepithelial lesion (n = 10), lymph node (n = 3), or pararectal mass (n = 1). In 20/24 (83%) procedures, the PBF needle yielded sufficient material for interpretation (sample adequacy). In 17/24 (71%), a correct diagnosis was made with the material from the PBF needle (diagnostic accuracy). All participating endoscopists experienced a learning curve. (Per)procedural technical issues occurred in four cases (17%), but there were no adverse events. The PBF needle is a safe and potentially useful device to obtain an EUS-guided biopsy specimen. As the design of the PBF needle is different to core biopsy FNB needles, specific training will likely further improve the performance of the PBF needle. Furthermore, the design of the needle needs further improvement to make it more robust in clinical practice.

Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration vs fine needle biopsy for pancreatic masses, subepithelial lesions, and lymph nodes

Endoscopic ultrasound tissue acquisition, in the form of both fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB), is utilized for pancreatic mass lesions, subepithelial lesions, and lymph node biopsy. Both procedures are safe and yield high diagnostic value. Despite its high diagnostic yield, EUS-FNA has potential limitations associated with cytological aspirations, including inability to determine histologic architecture, and a small quantitative sample for further immunohistochemical staining. EUS-FNB, with its larger core biopsy needle, was designed to overcome these potential limitations. However, it remains unclear which technique should be used and for which lesions. Comparative trials are plagued by heterogeneity at every stage of comparison; including variable needles used, and different definitions of endpoints, which therefore limit generalizability. Thus, we present a review of prospective trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses on studies examining EUS-FNA vs EUS-FNB. Prospective comparative trials of EUS-FNA vs EUS-FNB primarily focus on pancreatic mass lesions, and yield conflicting results in terms of demonstrating the superiority of one method. However, consistent among trials is the potential for diagnosis with fewer passes, and a larger quantity of sample achieved for next generation sequencing. With regard to subepithelial lesions and lymph node biopsy, fewer prospective trials exist, and larger prospective studies are necessary. Based on the available literature, we would recommend EUS-FNB for peri-hepatic lymph nodes.

Comparison between modified wet suction and dry suction technique for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy in pancreatic solid lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Although endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy is widely applied, there is no clear consensus on the optimal biopsy technique. We described a modified wet suction technique (MWEST) with the aim to compare the efficacy and safety between MWEST and the dry suction technique (DST).

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, crossover, single-blinded study, patients with suspected pancreatic malignancy were randomized to the DST (group A) or MWEST (group B) for the first pass, and the two techniques were performed alternately. The primary outcome was the comparison of specimen adequacy and diagnostic yield between the techniques. Secondary outcomes included the macroscopic visible core length, blood contamination of specimens, and adverse events of both techniques.

RESULTS

From January 2019 to September 2019, 216 passes were performed in 50 patients. The specimen adequacy was significantly higher in "per-lesion" (P = 0.026), "per-pass" (cytology: P = 0.034; histology: P = 0.042), and first-pass analysis (P = 0.034) for MWEST than for DST. In diagnostic yield, MWEST showed significantly superior histological yield (P = 0.014) and first-pass analysis (κ: MWEST: 0.743 and DST: 0.519) compared with DST. The median macroscopic visible core lengths were 8 mm (interquartile range: 3.25-15 mm) and 10 mm (interquartile range: 5.25-15 mm) for DST and MWEST, respectively (P = 0.036). Blood contamination was significantly more serious in DST than in MWEST (cytology: P = 0.021; histology: P = 0.042).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy with MWEST resulted in significantly better quality of specimen, histological, and first-pass diagnostic yields and comparable safety compared with the DST. MWEST is preferred for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy in pancreatic solid lesions.

Comparison of fine-needle aspiration and fine-needle biopsy devices for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid lesions: a systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition is extensively used, but the optimal sampling device is still a matter of debate. We performed meta-analyses on studies comparing fine-needle aspiration (FNA) with fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles, and studies comparing different FNB needles.

METHODS

Online databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 50 cases with a suspected solid pancreatic or nonpancreatic lesion that compared FNA with FNB needles. Outcome measures included diagnostic accuracy, adequacy, number of passes, presence of tissue cores, and adverse events. We also performed meta-regression analysis on the effect of FNB design on diagnostic accuracy. Quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool.

RESULTS

18 RCTs comparing FNA with FNB needles were included. FNB provided a higher pooled diagnostic accuracy (87 % vs. 80 %; P = 0.02) and tissue core rate (80 % vs. 62 %; P = 0.002), and allowed diagnosis with fewer passes (P = 0.03), in both pancreatic and nonpancreatic lesions. A total of 93 studies were included comparing different FNB devices. Pooled diagnostic accuracy was higher for forward-facing bevel needles than for the reverse bevel needle. In this analysis, study quality was low and heterogeneity was high (I2  = 80 %).

CONCLUSION

FNB outperformed FNA when sampling pancreatic and nonpancreatic lesions. Forward-facing bevel FNB needles seemed to outperform the reverse bevel FNB needle, but the low quality of evidence prevents us from making strong recommendations on the optimal FNB design.

Role of Endoscopic Ultrasonography and Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in the Diagnosis of Pancreatic Cancer

Pancreatic cancer has the poorest prognosis among all cancers, and early diagnosis is essential for improving the prognosis. Along with radiologic modalities, such as computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), endoscopic modalities play an important role in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. This review evaluates the roles of two of those modalities, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. EUS can detect pancreatic cancer with higher sensitivity and has excellent sensitivity for the diagnosis of small pancreatic cancer that cannot be detected by other imaging modalities. EUS may be useful for the surveillance of pancreatic cancer in high-risk individuals. Contrast-enhanced EUS and EUS elastography are also useful for differentiating solid pancreatic tumors. In addition, EUS-guided fine needle aspiration shows excellent sensitivity and specificity, even for small pancreatic cancer, and is an essential examination method for the definitive pathological diagnosis and treatment decision strategy. On the other hand, ERCP is invasive and performed less frequently for the purpose of diagnosing pancreatic cancer. However, ERCP is essential in cases that require evaluation of pancreatic duct stricture that may be early pancreatic cancer or those that require differentiation from focal autoimmune pancreatitis.

Primary Pancreatic Candidiasis Mimicking Pancreatic Cancer in an Immunocompetent Patient

Pancreatic candidiasis can develop in patients with acute pancreatitis, compromised immune responses, or iatrogenic intervention. This paper reports a case of pancreatic candidiasis presenting as a solid pancreatic mass in a patient without the risk factors. A previously healthy 37-year-old man visited the emergency department with left flank pain. Abdominal CT revealed a 5 cm, irregular heterogeneous enhancing mass accompanied by a left adrenal mass. Positron emission tomography-computed tomography and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) could not discriminate pancreatic cancer from infectious disease. A laparoscopic exploration was performed for an accurate diagnosis. After distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy and left adrenalectomy, pancreatic candidiasis and adrenal cortical adenoma were diagnosed based on the pathology findings. His condition improved after the treatment with fluconazole. This paper reports a case of primary pancreatic candidiasis mimicking pancreatic cancer in an immunocompetent patient with a review of the relevant literature.

Effectiveness of introducing a 20-gauge core biopsy needle with a core trap in EUS-FNA/B for diagnosing pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) is a standard method for pathological diagnosis of pancreatic solid lesions. The EchoTip ProCore 20G® (PC20), a 20-gauge biopsy needle with a forward-bevel core trap, has been available in Japan since 2015.

METHODS

We compared the efficacy of the PC20 with that of the EchoTip ProCore 22G® (PC22) and Acquire 22G® (AC22) in EUS-FNA/B for diagnosing pancreatic cancer. This retrospective study included 191 patients with pancreatic cancer who underwent EUS-FNA/B using the PC20, PC22, or AC22 at our facility from April 2013 to October 2019. We investigated the patients' clinical characteristics and the diagnostic accuracy and safety of each needle.

RESULTS

A sufficient stroke length of puncture was secured in all patients. The maximum length under EUS was shorter with the AC22 (22.1 ± 2.2 mm) than PC20 (30.6 ± 0.7 mm, p < 0.01) and PC22 (30.3 ± 0.8 mm, p < 0.01). The histological accuracy was 96.4% with the PC20 but only 58.8% with the PC22 (adjusted p (p-adj) < 0.0001) and 75.0% with the AC22 (p-adj = 0.06). The diagnostic accuracy of the combination of histology and cytology was 96.4% with the PC20, while it was 72.1% with the PC22 (p-adj < 0.0001) and 91.7% with the AC22 (p-adj > 0.99). One patient (0.9%) in the PC20 group developed mild pancreatitis, but no adverse events occurred with the other needles.

CONCLUSIONS

The PC20 showed better diagnostic capability than the PC22. The diagnostic efficacy was similar between the PC20 and AC22. The high histological accuracy of the PC20 could be advantageous for lesions in which histological assessment is critical.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for the diagnosis and grading of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a retrospective analysis of 110 cases

BACKGROUND

Data on the reliability of the Ki-67 index and grading calculations from endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs) are controversial. We aimed to assess the accuracy of these data compared with histology.

METHODS

Cytological analysis from EUS-FNA in patients with suspected PanNETs (n = 110) were compared with resection samples at a single institution. A minimum of 2000 cells were considered to be adequate for grading. Correlation and agreement between cytology and histology in grading and Ki-67 values, respectively, were investigated. Secondary outcomes included the diagnostic performance of EUS-FNA.

RESULTS

EUS-FNA samples were adequate for PanNET diagnosis and PanNET grading in 98/110 (89.1 %) and 77/110 (70.0 %) patients, respectively; thus, 77 samples were adequate for comparing cytology vs. histology. There were 67 (62.0 %), 40 (36.4 %), and 1 (0.9 %) patients with a final diagnosis of G1, G2, and G3 tumors, respectively. EUS-FNA grading was concordant with surgical pathology in 81.8 % of patients; under- and overgrading occurred in 15.6 % and 2.6 %, respectively. The overall level of agreement for grading was moderate (Cohen's κ = 0.59, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.34 - 0.78). Spearman's rho for Ki-67 in tumors ≤ 20 mm and > 20 mm was strong and moderate, respectively (rho = 0.68, 95 %CI 0.47 - 0.83; rho = 0.59, 95 %CI 0.35 - 0.75). The Bland - Altman plot showed that the Ki-67 values were comparable and reproducible between the two measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

Although they were not available for a significant number of patients, grading and Ki-67 values from cytology correlated with histology moderately to strongly.

Optimizing cytological specimens of EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions: A pilot study to the effect of a smear preparation training for endoscopy personnel on sample quality and accuracy

BACKGROUND

In the absence of rapid on-side pathological evaluation, endoscopy staff generally "smears" endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) specimens on a glass slide. As this technique is vulnerable to preparation artifacts, we assessed if its quality could be improved through a smear-preparation-training for endoscopy staff.

METHODS

In this prospective pilot study, 10 endosonographers and 12 endoscopy nurses from seven regional EUS-centers in the Netherlands were invited to participate in a EUS-FNA smear-preparation-training. Subsequently, post training slides derived from solid pancreatic lesions were compared to pre-training "control" slides. Primary outcome was to assess if the training positively affects smear quality and, consequently, diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions.

RESULTS

Participants collected and prepared 71 cases, mostly pancreatic head lesions (48%). Sixty-eight controls were selected from the pretraining period. The presence of artifacts was comparable for smears performed before and after training (76% vs 82%, P = .36). Likewise, smear cellularity (≥50% target cells) before and after training did not differ (44% (30/68) vs 49% (35/71), P = .48). Similar, no difference in diagnostic accuracy for malignancy was detected (P = .10).

CONCLUSION

In this pilot EUS-FNA smear-preparation-training for endoscopy personnel, smear quality and diagnostic accuracy were not improved after the training. Based on these results, we plan to further study other training programs and possibilities.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy Needles Provide Higher Diagnostic Yield Compared to Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Needles When Sampling Solid Pancreatic Lesions: A Meta-Analysis

Background/Aims

Studies comparing the utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for solid pancreatic lesions have been inconclusive with no clear superiority. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the diagnostic accuracy and safety between the two sampling techniques.

Methods

We performed a systematic search of randomized controlled trials published between 2012 and 2019. The primary outcome was overall diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes included adverse event rates, cytopathologic and histopathologic accuracy, and the mean number of passes required to obtain adequate tissue between FNA and FNB needles. Fixed and random effect models with pooled estimates of target outcomes were developed.

Results

Eleven studies involving 1,365 participants were included for analysis. When compared to FNB, FNA had a significant reduction in diagnostic accuracy (81% and 87%, p=0.005). In addition, FNA provided reduced cytopathologic accuracy (82% and 89%, p=0.04) and an increased number of mean passes required compared to FNB (2.3 and 1.6, respectively, p<0.0001). There was no difference in adverse event rate between FNA and FNB needles (1.8% and 2.3% respectively, p=0.64).

Conclusions

FNB provides superior diagnostic accuracy without compromising safety when compared to FNA. FNB should be readily considered by endosonographers when evaluating solid pancreatic masses.

New Devices for Endoscopic Treatments in Gastroenterology: A Narrative Review

Endoscopy is in a period of continuous innovations in terms of image quality, endoscopes, post-processing software and lastly, application of Artificial Intelligence. Therapeutic boundaries have expanded, widening the grey zone between endoscopy and surgery, and increasing endoscopic approaches in clinical scenarios where, until a few years ago, surgery was the only option. New scopes and accessories have made it easier to access critical areas such as the biliary tree and the small bowel intestine. In the field of hepato-pancreato-biliary endoscopy (HPB), it is now possible to directly access the biliary ducts or cystic lesions though dedicated stents and scopes, rather than having to rely only on fluoroscopy and ultrasound, increasing the diagnostic and therapeutic options by applying a three-dimensional approach. This narrative review will give an overview of some of the most relevant emerging fields in luminal and HPB endoscopy, highlighting advantages and main limitations of the techniques, and providing considerations for future development.

Evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration versus fine-needle biopsy and impact of rapid on-site evaluation for pancreatic masses

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) is traditionally considered a first-line strategy for diagnosing pancreatic lesions; however, given less than ideal accuracy rates, fine-needle biopsy (FNB) has been recently developed to yield histological tissue. The aim of this study was to compare diagnostic yield and safety between EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB in sampling of pancreatic masses. Patients and methods  This was a multicenter retrospective study to evaluate efficacy and safety of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for pancreatic lesions. Baseline characteristics including sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy, were evaluated. Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) diagnostic adequacy, cell-block accuracy, and adverse events were analyzed. Subgroup analyses comparing FNA versus FNB route of tissue acquisition and comparison between methods with or without ROSE were performed. Multivariable logistic regression was also performed. Results  A total of 574 patients (n = 194 FNA, n = 380 FNB) were included. Overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of FNB versus FNA were similar [(89.09 % versus 85.62 %; P  = 0.229), (98.04 % versus 96.88 %; P  = 0.387), and 90.29 % versus 87.50 %; P  = 0.307)]. Number of passes for ROSE adequacy and cell-block accuracy were comparable for FNA versus FNB [(3.06 ± 1.62 versus 3.04 ± 1.88; P  = 0.11) and (3.08 ± 1.63 versus 3.35 ± 2.02; P  = 0.137)]. FNA + ROSE was superior to FNA alone regarding sensitivity and accuracy [91.96 % versus 70.83 %; P  < 0.001) and (91.80 % versus 80.28 %; P  = 0.020)]. Sensitivity of FNB + ROSE and FNB alone were superior to FNA alone [(92.17 % versus 70.83 %; P  < 0.001) and (87.44 % versus 70.83 %; P  < 0.001)]. There was no difference in sensitivity though improved accuracy between FNA + ROSE versus FNB alone [(91.96 % versus 87.44 %; P  = 0.193) and (91.80 % versus 80.72 %; P  = 0.006)]. FNB + ROSE was more accurate than FNA + ROSE (93.13 % versus 91.80 % ; P  = 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed ROSE was a significant predictor of accuracy [OR 2.60 (95 % CI, 1.41-4.79)]. One adverse event occurred after FNB resulting in patient death. Conclusion  EUS-FNB allowed for more consistent cell-block evaluation as compared to EUS-FNA. EUS-FNA + ROSE was found to have a similar sensitivity to EUS-FNB alone suggesting a reduced need for ROSE as part of the standard algorithm of pancreatic sampling. While FNB alone produced similar diagnostic findings to EUS-FNA + ROSE, FNB + ROSE still was noted to increase diagnostic yield. This finding may favor a unique role for FNB + ROSE, suggesting it may be useful in cases when previous EUS-guided sampling may have been indeterminate.

Modified Endoscopic Ultrasound Needle to Obtain Histological Core Tissue Samples: A Retrospective Analysis

Background/Aims

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration is very effective for providing specimens for cytological evaluation. However, the ability to provide sufficient tissue for histological evaluation has been challenging due to the technical limitations of dedicated core biopsy needles. Recently, a modified EUS needle has been introduced to obtain tissue core samples for histological analysis. We aimed to determine (1) its ability to obtain specimens for histological assessment and (2) the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) using this needle.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed consecutive cases of FNB using modified EUS needles for 342 lesions in 303 patients. The cytology and histological specimens were analyzed. Diagnostic accuracy was calculated.

Results

Adequate cytological and histological assessment was possible in 293/342 (86%) and 264/342 (77%) lesions, respectively. Diagnostic accuracy of the cytological specimen was 294/342 (86%) versus 254/342 (74%) for the histological specimen (p<0.01). Diagnostic accuracy of the combined cytological and histological assessment was 323/342 (94.4%), which was significantly higher than that of both histology alone (p<0.001) and cytology alone (p=0.001).

Conclusions

EUS-FNB with the modified EUS needle provided histologic tissue cores in the majority of cases and achieved excellent diagnostic accuracy with few needle passes.

Diagnostic yield and agreement on fine-needle specimens from solid pancreatic lesions : comparing the smear technique to liquid-based cytology

Background and study aims  The traditional "smear technique" for processing and assessing endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is sensitive to artifacts. Processing and evaluation of specimens collected in a liquid medium, liquid-based cytology (LBC) may be a solution. We compared the diagnostic value of EUS-FNA smears to LBC in pancreatic solid lesions in the absence of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE). Patients and methods  Consecutive patients who required EUS-FNA of a solid pancreatic lesion were included in seven hospitals in the Netherlands and followed for at least 12 months. Specimens from the first pass were split into two smears and a vial for LBC (using ThinPrep and/or Cell block). Smear and LBC were compared in terms of diagnostic accuracy for malignancy, sample quality, and diagnostic agreement between three cytopathologists. Results  Diagnostic accuracy for malignancy was higher for LBC (82 % (58/71)) than for smear (66 % (47/71), P  = 0.04), but did not differ when smears were compared to ThinPrep (71 % (30/42), P  = 0.56) or Cell block (62 % (39/63), P  = 0.61) individually. Artifacts were less often present in ThinPrep (57 % (24/42), P  = 0.02) or Cell block samples (40 % (25/63), P  < 0.001) than smears (76 % (54/71)). Agreement on malignancy was equally good for smears and LBC (ĸ = 0.71 versus ĸ = 0.70, P  = 0.98), but lower for ThinPrep (ĸ = 0.26, P  = 0.01) than smears. Conclusion  After a single pass, LBC provides higher diagnostic accuracy than the conventional smear technique for EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions in the absence of ROSE. Therefore, LBC, may be an alternative to the conventional smear technique, especially in centers lacking ROSE.

A prospective, randomized, multicenter clinical trial comparing 25-gauge and 20-gauge biopsy needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND

Various core biopsy needles have previously been developed for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). However, the properties of needle gauge in the diagnostic outcomes of solid pancreatic lesions remain unknown. This trial compared the procurement rates of histologic cores from solid pancreatic lesions with EUS-FNB using 20- and 25-gauge (G) FNB needles.

METHODS

In a prospective randomized multicenter clinical trial, patients with solid pancreatic lesions underwent EUS-FNB with either a 20-gauge or a 25-gauge FNB needle. The rates of histologic core procurement, overall diagnostic accuracy, and adverse events were compared between the two groups (20-gauge or 25-gauge FNB needle).

RESULTS

In total, 88 patients (48 men, 40 women, mean age 65.7 years) were enrolled. No significant differences were found in the demographic characteristics between the two groups (20-gauge or 25-gauge FNB needle). The procurement rate of histologic cores in the 20-guage FNB needle group (41/45, 91.1%) was significantly higher than that in the 25-guage FNB needle group (32/43, 74.4%, P = 0.037). However, no significant differences were found in the overall diagnostic accuracy between 20-guage FNB needle (40/45, 88.9%) and 25-guage FNB needle (34/43, 79.1%, P = 0.208). No procedure-related adverse events were observed in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Although both FNB needles provided high overall diagnostic accuracy, the reliability of the 20-guage FNB needle is better than the 25-guage FNB needle when retrieving samples for histological analysis.

Macroscopic onsite evaluation using endoscopic ultrasound fine needle biopsy as an alternative to rapid onsite evaluation

Background and aims  This study aimed to evaluate the performance of Macroscopic On-site Evaluation (MOSE) using a novel endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine needle biopsy (FNB) needle (22-G Franseen-tip needle, Acquire, Boston Scientific Incorporated, Boston, Massachusetts, United States), and without using Rapid On-Site Evaluation (ROSE). Method  Between May 2016 and August 2016, all consecutive patients referred to our center for EUS tissue acquisition (TA) for solid lesions underwent EUS-FNB with the 22-G Franseen-tip needle unless contra-indicated. The operator performed MOSE. If no macroscopic core was visualized, a second pass was performed. The final diagnosis was defined as unequivocal histology from EUS-TA with compatible 18 months follow-up, surgical resection, or both. We retrospectively analyzed the performance of MOSE. Results  A total of 46 consecutive patients was included, and 54 solid lesions were biopsied. The endosonographer visualized core tissue in 93 % (50/54) of targets with a single pass, of which the pathologist confirmed histologic core fragments in 94 % (47/50). Four lesions required two passes, and the overall correlation between MOSE and histologic core fragments was 94 % (48/51). Diagnostic adequacy was 98 % (53/54) with one biliary target biopsied without significant material. The overall diagnostic accuracy was 94 %. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for malignancy were 92 %, 100 %, 100 %, and 81 %, respectively. No adverse events were reported. Conclusion  Our study demonstrated that MOSE using the 22-G Franseen-tip needle could limit needle passes by accurately estimating histologic core fragments. It also demonstrated that high diagnostic adequacy and accuracy of > 90 % could be achieved without ROSE.

Comparison between 22G aspiration and 22G biopsy needles for EUS-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: A meta-analysis

Robust data in favor of clear superiority of 22G fine-needle biopsy (FNB) over 22G FNA for an echoendoscopic-guided sampling of pancreatic masses are lacking. The objective of this study is to compare the diagnostic outcomes and sample adequacy of these two needles. Computerized bibliographic search on the main databases was performed and restricted to only randomized controlled trials. Summary estimates were expressed regarding risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval. A total of 11 trials with 833 patients were analyzed. The two needles resulted comparable in terms of diagnostic accuracy (RR 1.02, 0.97–1.08; P = 0.46), sample adequacy (RR 1.01, 0.96–1.06; P = 0.61), and histological core procurement (RR 1.01, 0.89–1.15; P = 0.86). Pooled sensitivity in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer was 93.1% (87.9%–98.4%) and 90.4% (86.3%–94.5%) with biopsy and aspirate, respectively, whereas specificity for detecting pancreatic cancer was 100% with both needles. Analysis of the number of needle passes showed a nonsignificantly positive trend in favor of FNB (mean difference: −0.32, −0.66–0.02; P = 0.07). Our meta-analysis stands for a nonsuperiority of 22G FNB over 22G FNA; hence, no definitive recommendations on the use of a particular device can be made.

The difference in histological yield between 19G EUS-FNA and EUS-fine-needle biopsy needles

Background and Objective:

EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) with acquisition of tissue core is possible with the use of 19G fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and dedicated biopsy needles. Published data of direct comparisons between biopsy needles are more limited compared to the abundant data comparing EUS-FNA with EUS-FNB. We performed a retrospective study to determine the difference in histologic yield between 19G FNA needle and EUS-FNB needles in patients with solid masses.

Materials and Methods:

Consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNB of solid masses from January 2014 to July 2018 were identified from a database. The difference in histologic yield between needles was analyzed.

Results:

A total of 159 patients underwent 179 EUS-FNB procedures (median of 2 needle passes [range: 1–4]). The use of 19G FNA, 19G, 20G, and 22G FNB needles allowed acquisition of a histologic core in 67.4% (29/43), 72.5% (29/40), 82.1% (46/56), and 75.9% (22/29), respectively (P = 0.368). A significant difference in the yield of histologic core was detected when 19G FNA needle was compared with 22G Acquire™ FNB needle (67.4% [29/43] vs. 94.1% [16/17], P = 0.032). The presence of histologic core was significantly associated with a positive diagnosis (95.6% vs. 30.2%, P < 0.0001).

Conclusion:

EUS-FNB with acquisition of histologic core improved the diagnostic yield. Dedicated FNB needles appeared to achieve a higher yield of histologic core compared to 19G FNA needles.