Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration and Biopsy Device for Lymphadenopathy

Lymphadenopathy Tissue Sampling by EUS-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy Contributes to Meeting the Conditions for Genomic Profiling

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) performed with a Franseen needle or Fork-tip needle enables greater tissue acquisition. However, it is unknown whether EUS-FNB could contribute to lymphadenopathy genomic profiling. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of EUS-FNB using a Franseen or Fork-tip needle for tissue acquisition and genomic profiling in patients with lymphadenopathy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with abdominal lymphadenopathy who underwent EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA)/EUS-FNB were included in this study. The amount of acquired tissue and its suitability for genomic profiling were compared between FNA and FNB. Specimen quality was evaluated by a widely used pathologic adequacy scoring system (0: insufficient; 1 to 2: cytologic; 3: limited histologic; 4 to 5: sufficient histologic). The criteria of FoundationOne CDx (F1CDx) and NCC Oncopanel (NOP) were used to assess the suitability for genomic profiling.

RESULTS

In total, 72 patients underwent EUS-FNA, and the other 20 patients underwent EUS-FNB. The pathologic adequacy score and suitability for genomic profiling based on the criteria were significantly higher for FNB than for FNA [histologic adequacy score: 5 (4 to 5) versus 3 (0 to 5), P<0.01; F1CDx: 16.7% vs. 0%, P=0.01; NOP: 66.7% vs. 7.5%, P<0.01]. In multivariate analysis, EUS-FNB was identified as the only factor that influenced the suitability for genomic profiling based on the above-mentioned criteria (odds ratio 19.5, 95% CI: 3.74-102, P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNB performed using Franseen or Fork-tip needles may result in greater lymphadenopathy tissue acquisition and thus enhanced suitability for genomic profiling compared with EUS-FNA.

22-gauge Co-Cr versus stainless-steel Franseen needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition in patients with solid pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) using Franseen needles is reportedly useful for its high diagnostic yield. This study compared the diagnostic yield and puncturing ability of EUS-TA using 22-gauge cobalt-chromium (CO-Cr) needles with those of stainless-steel Franseen needles in patients with solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

Outcomes were compared between the 22-gauge Co-Cr Franseen needle (December 2019 to November 2020; group C) and stainless-steel needle (November 2020 to May 2022; group S).

RESULTS

A total of 155 patients (group C, 75; group S, 80) were eligible. The diagnostic accuracy was 92.0% in group C and 96.3% in group S with no significant intergroup differences (p=0.32). The rate of change in the operator (from training fellows to experts) was 20.0% (15/75) in group C and 7.5% (6/80) in group S. Stainless-steel Franseen needles showed less inter-operator difference than Co-Cr needles (p=0.03).

CONCLUSION

Both Co-Cr and stainless-steel Franseen needles showed high diagnostic ability. Stainless-steel Franseen needles are soft and flexible; therefore, the range of puncture angles can be widely adjusted, making them suitable for training fellows to complete the procedure.

Mediastinal Abscess Formation after EUS-Guided Sampling in a Young Patient with Sarcoidosis: Be Aware of the Increased Risk!

International guidelines establish EUS-guided sampling as safe and accurate for the evaluation of mediastinal solid lesions, such as lymphadenopathies of unknown origin, and point out an increased risk of severe infectious complications induced by needle puncture in mediastinal cystic lesions. A retrospective case series and a systematic review documented an increased risk of mediastinal abscess formation after EUS-guided lymph nodes sampling in patients with sarcoidosis. The authors describe a case of a 38-year-old male patient with a final diagnosis of sarcoidosis, who developed a large mediastinal abscess after EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of mediastinal lymphadenopathies. Endoscopists should be aware of the potential increased risk of severe infectious complications when sampling mediastinal lymph nodes in suspected sarcoidosis, and a strategy to minimize such risk should be pursued.

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.

Comparison of Fine-Needle Biopsy (FNB) versus Fine-Needle Aspiration (FNA) Combined with Flow Cytometry in the Diagnosis of Deep-Seated Lymphoma

Evidence comparing ultrasound endoscopy-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) with EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in deep-seated lymphoma tissue sampling is insufficient. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of immunohistochemistry (IHC) or flow cytometry (FCM) on specimens obtained from EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA in the diagnosis and staging of deep-seated lymphomas. This real-world, dual-center study prospectively evaluated all eligible specimens from patients who underwent EUS-FNB/FNA over an 8-year period. 53 patients were enrolled, with 23 patients in the EUS-FNB group and 30 patients in the EUS-FNA group. FNB yielded specimens with longer core tissues (0.80 mm [0.55, 1.00] vs. 0.45 mm [0.30, 0.50], p = 0.009) and higher scores of specimen adequacy [4 (3.75, 4.00) vs. 3 (1.00, 4.00), p = 0.025]. Overall analysis revealed that the diagnostic accuracy of IHC based on specimens acquired from EUS-FNB was significantly higher than that of EUS-FNA (91.30% vs. 60.00%, p = 0.013). After controlling confounding factors including lesion size and endoscopists, EUS-FNB with IHC maintained a higher-level diagnostic accuracy compared to EUS-FNA (OR = 1.292 [1.037-1.609], p = 0.023). When FCM was additionally used to analyze the specimen acquired from EUS-FNA, the diagnostic yield was significantly improved (ROC AUC: 0.733 vs. 0.550, p = 0.015), and the AUC of FNB alone or combined with FCM was 0.739 and 0.761. Conclusions: FNB needles generate higher histopathological diagnostic accuracy and specimen quality than FNA for the deep-seated lymphoma. Though the application of FCM significantly improves the diagnostic efficacy of EUS-FNA, FNB was still the preferred diagnostic modality with a shorter procedure time, comparable diagnostic accuracy, and better cost-effectiveness.

Diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in Positron Emission Tomography - Computed Tomography (PET-CT)-positive mediastinal lymphadenopathies in patients with thoracic or extra-thoracic malignancies

BACKGROUND

The high sensitivity of PET-CT can identify hypermetabolic mediastinal adenopathies during cancer management, but specificity is low and a biopsy is sometimes required to eliminate benign adenopathies.

METHODS

This prospective diagnostic accuracy study included patients with hypermetabolic mediastinal lymphadenopathies revealed on PET-CT during either the initial management of a cancer, treatment evaluation, or monitoring. All patients underwent EUS-FNA. Diagnoses of malignancy based on cytological analysis following EUS-FNA were compared with clinical and radiological follow-up information. The treatment strategy decided before the results of the EUS-FNA pathology reports (Multidisciplinary Team Meeting [MTM-1]) was recorded and compared to the treatment strategy decided once pathological data from EUS-FNA were available (MTM-2).

MAIN FINDINGS

Between 2013 and 2018, 75 patients were included with 47 eligible and evaluable patients. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of EUS-FNA were 93%, 100%, 100% and 90%, respectively. The concordance value between the therapeutic strategies determined for MTM-1 and MTM-2 was 44.7%. There were no significant differences in the intensity of fixation on PET-CT between malignant and benign lesions.

CONCLUSION

The diagnostic accuracy of the minimally invasive EUS-FNA procedure is sufficiently robust to avoid the need for diagnostic surgery. The combination of PET-CT and EUS-FNA may alter the therapeutic strategy that would be considered after PET-CT alone.

REGISTRATION

NCT01892501.

Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle biopsy vs fine-needle aspiration for lymph nodes tissue acquisition: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition represents the choice of methods for suspected lymph nodes (LNs) located next to the gastrointestinal tract. This study aimed to compare the pooled diagnostic performance of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) and fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for LNs sampling.

Methods

We searched PubMed/MedLine and Embase databases through August 2021. Primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy; secondary outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, sample adequacy, optimal histological core procurement, number of passes, and adverse events. We performed a pairwise meta-analysis using a random-effects model. The results are presented as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference along with 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

We identified nine studies (1,276 patients) in this meta-analysis. Among these patients, 66.4% were male; the median age was 67 years. Diagnostic accuracy was not significantly different between the two approaches (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.81–2.10; P = 0.270). The accuracy of EUS-FNB was significantly higher when being performed with newer end-cutting needles (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.17–3.00; P = 0.009) and in abdominal LNs (OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.52–4.05; P &lt; 0.001) than that of EUS-FNA. No difference in terms of sample adequacy was observed between the two approaches (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.46–4.26; P = 0.550); however, histological core procurement and diagnostic sensitivity with EUS-FNB were significantly higher than those with EUS-FNA (OR, 6.15; 95% CI, 1.51–25.07; P = 0.010 and OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.27–2.74, P = 0.001). The number of needle passes needed was significantly lower in the EUS-FNB group than in the EUS-FNA group (mean difference, −0.54; 95% CI, −0.97 to −0.12; P = 0.010).

Conclusions

EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB perform similarly in LN sampling; however, FNB performed with end-cutting needles outperformed FNA in terms of diagnostic accuracy.

Endoscopic Ultrasound Fine-Needle Biopsy versus Fine-Needle Aspiration for Tissue Sampling of Abdominal Lymph Nodes: A Propensity Score Matched Multicenter Comparative Study

Simple Summary

Lymph node (LN) sampling or staging is crucial to the management of malignancies. The use of endoscopic ultrasound for lymph node sampling can be performed with EUS fine-needle aspiration (FNA) or EUS fine-needle biopsy (FNB). However, it remains unclear whether EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB is superior for sampling of abdominal lymph nodes. In this study, we retrospectively compared a large volume of patients who underwent lymph node sampling using EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB. Most patients were diagnosed with metastatic colorectal disease. We found that EUS-FNB had a higher diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity compared to EUS-FNA. Both modalities had no adverse events. Thus, the results support the use of EUS-FNB for abdominal lymph node sampling.

Abstract

There is a paucity of evidence on the comparison between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle biopsy (FNB) and fine-needle aspiration (FNA) for lymph node (LNs) sampling. The aim of this study was to compare these two approaches in a multicenter series of patients with abdominal tumors. Out of 502 patients undergoing EUS sampling, two groups following propensity score matching were compared: 105 undergoing EUS-FNB and 105 undergoing EUS-FNA. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, sample adequacy, optimal histological core procurement, number of passes, and adverse events. Median age was 64.6 years, and most patients were male in both groups. Final diagnosis was LN metastasis (mainly from colorectal cancer) in 70.4% of patients in the EUS-FNB group and 66.6% in the EUS-FNA group (p = 0.22). Diagnostic accuracy was significantly higher in the EUS-FNB group as compared to the EUS-FNA group (87.62% versus 75.24%, p = 0.02). EUS-FNB outperformed EUS-FNA also in terms of diagnostic sensitivity (84.71% vs. 70.11%; p = 0.01), whereas specificity was 100% in both groups (p = 0.6). Sample adequacy analysis showed a non-significant trend in favor of EUS-FNB (96.1% versus 89.5%, p = 0.06) whereas the histological core procurement rate was significantly higher with EUS-FNB (94.2% versus 51.4%; p < 0.001). No procedure-related adverse events were observed. These findings show that EUS-FNB is superior to EUS-FNA in tissue sampling of abdominal LNs.