Comparison of 22G reverse-beveled versus standard needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions

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.

Comparison of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for diagnosis of solid pancreatic mass lesions: a meta-analysis of prospective studies

Objective: To quantitatively compare the diagnostic value of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) in solid pancreatic mass lesions using a systematic evaluation method.Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted on public databases to include studies comparing the diagnostic value of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB in solid pancreatic mass lesions. The combined effect size was estimated using mean difference (MD) and risk difference (RD) respectively, and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated.Results: The 12 articles (7 RCTs and 5 cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria of this study. The meta-analysis showed that compared with EUS-FNB, EUS-FNA had lower diagnostic accuracy (RD: -0.08, 95% CI: -0.15, -0.01) and specimen adequacy (RD: -0.08, 95% CI: -0.15, -0.02), while higher required number of needle passes (MD: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.12, 0.73). However, EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA presented similar overall complications (RD: 0.00, 95% CI: -0.01, 0.02) and technical failures (RD: -0.01, 95% CI: -0.02, 0.00), without statistically significant differences.Conclusions: Compared with EUS-FNA, EUS-FNB seems to be a better choice for diagnosing suspected pancreatic lesions.

Comparation of 5 ml and 10 ml Negative Pressures with Wet-suction Techniques for EUS-FNA of Solid Lesions: A Single-center Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The negative pressure selectable for the wet-suction technique remains uncertain. The aim was to investigate the quality of sampling and diagnostic accuracy with solid lesions by 5 mL and 10 mL negative pressure with wet-suction techniques.

METHODS

This is a single-center, crossover, randomized controlled trial conducted with a random sampling technique. In all, 160 patients consecutively undergoing EUS-FNA for solid lesions were randomized in a ratio of 1:1 into 2 groups, the 5 mL and 10 mL negative pressure wet-suction group. The main outcome was to compare the sample quality between the 2 groups. The secondary outcome was to compare the histologic and cytologic diagnostic accuracy of solid lesions.

RESULTS

Pancreatic (n=129) and nonpancreatic (n=27) lesions from 156 lesions were examined. The sample quality concluding cellularity, adequacy, integrity, and blood contamination were comparable between the 2 groups. However, in subgroup analysis, we found 19G FNA provided more integrity of specimen in 5 mL than in 10 mL group (100% vs. 82.9%, P=0.025). In contrast, this benefit was not noteworthy in the 22G FNA subgroup. And there was no statistically significant in histologic (87.82% vs. 87.18%, P=1.000) and cytologic (78.85% vs. 80.77%, P=0.778) accuracy between 5 mL and 10 mL groups.

CONCLUSION

When using the wet-suction technique, 5 mL and 10 mL negative pressure offer equivalent sample quality and diagnostic accuracy. However, the 19G FNA can obtain better sample quality with 5 mL negative pressure than 10 mL negative pressure.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy Versus Aspiration for Tissue Sampling Adequacy for Molecular Testing in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is limited literature on sample adequacy for molecular testing in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma obtained via endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle aspiration (FNA) versus EUS fine-needle biopsy (FNB). We aimed to compare these two modalities regarding sample adequacy for molecular and genomic sequencing.

METHODS

We reviewed all patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who underwent EUS at Saint Luke's Hospital from 2018 to 2021. The patients were categorized based on the method of EUS tissue acquisition, specifically FNA or FNB. A comprehensive evaluation was conducted for all cases by cytotechnologists.

RESULTS

Out of 132 patients who underwent EUS-guided biopsies, 76 opted for FNA, 48 opted for FNB, and 8 opted for a combination of both. The average number of passes required for FNB and FNA was 2.58 ± 1.06 and 2.49 ± 1.07, respectively (p = 0.704), indicating no significant difference. Interestingly, 71.4% (35) of FNB-obtained samples were deemed adequate for molecular testing, surpassing the 32.1% (26) adequacy observed with FNA (p < 0.001). Additionally, 46.4% (26) of FNB-obtained samples were considered adequate for genomic testing, a notable improvement over the 23.8% (20) adequacy observed with FNA (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Although the number of passes required for cytologic diagnosis did not differ significantly between EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA, the former demonstrated superiority in obtaining samples adequate for molecular testing. Tumor surface area and cellularity were crucial parameters in determining sample adequacy for molecular testing, irrespective of the chosen tissue acquisition modality.

UK and Ireland Joint Advisory Group (JAG) consensus statements for training and certification in diagnostic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

International endoscopy societies vary in their approach for credentialing individuals in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) to enable independent practice; however, there is no consensus in this or its implementation. In 2019, the Joint Advisory Group on GI Endoscopy (JAG) commissioned a working group to examine the evidence relating to this process for EUS. The aim of this was to develop evidence-based recommendations for EUS training and certification in the UK.

METHODS

Under the oversight of the JAG quality assurance team, a modified Delphi process was conducted which included major stakeholders from the UK and Ireland. A formal literature review was made, initial questions for study were proposed and recommendations for training and certification in EUS were formulated after a rigorous assessment using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool and subjected to electronic voting to identify accepted statements. These were peer reviewed by JAG and relevant stakeholder societies before consensus on the final EUS certification pathway was achieved.

RESULTS

39 initial questions were proposed of which 33 were deemed worthy of assessment and finally formed the key recommendations. The statements covered four key domains, such as: definition of competence (13 statements), acquisition of competence (10), assessment of competence (5) and postcertification mentorship (5). Key recommendations include: (1) minimum of 250 hands-on cases before an assessment for competency can be made, (2) attendance at the JAG basic EUS course, (3) completing a minimum of one formative direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS) every 10 cases to allow the learning curve in EUS training to be adequately studied, (4) competent performance in summative DOPS assessments and (5) a period of mentorship over a 12-month period is recommended as minimum to support and mentor new service providers.

CONCLUSIONS

An evidence-based certification pathway has been commissioned by JAG to support and quality assure EUS training. This will form the basis to improve quality of training and safety standards in EUS in the UK and Ireland.

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.

Tissue amount and diagnostic yield of a novel franseen EUS-FNB and a standard EUS-FNA needle-A randomized controlled study in solid pancreatic lesions

Background and Objectives

Several types of needles are available for EUS-guided tissue sampling of pancreatic lesions. Whereas fine-needle aspiration (FNA) needles typically provide cytological samples, fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles are designed to obtain microcores with preserved tissue architecture. The aim of this study was to compare tissue amount and diagnostic yield between a modified Franseen-type FNB needle (TopGain; Medi-Globe GmbH, Grassau, Germany) and a standard FNA needle.

Methods

We performed a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled study between June 2020 and September 2021, including patients with a solid pancreatic lesion referred for EUS-guided tissue sampling at 3 centers in Denmark. The patients were randomized 1:1 to either FNA needle or the novel FNB needle. Primary outcomes included the number of obtained tissue microcores and total and diagnostic tissue area.

Results

Sixty-four patients were included. The median number of tissue microcores procured per pass was significantly higher in the FNB group compared with FNA (3 vs. 2, P < 0.001). Similarly, the mean total tissue area (2.74 vs. 0.44 mm2, P < 0.001) and mean diagnostic tissue area (1.74 vs. 0.28 mm2, P < 0.001) were more than 6-fold larger in the FNB samples compared with FNA. The median number of passes needed for a diagnostic sample was 1 for the FNB needle and 2 for FNA needle (P = 0.12). The novel FNB needle provided a higher percentage of samples of excellent quality (P = 0.002).

Conclusions

The novel Franseen-type FNB needle seems to be significantly superior to a conventional FNA needle. The results of this study underline excellent performance of crown-cut needles.

EUS-guided fine needle biopsy is able to provide diagnosis in rare osteoclast-like giant cells undifferentiated carcinoma of the pancreas: Report of two cases

Undifferentiated carcinoma of the pancreas with osteoclast-like giant cells (UC-OGC) is a rare subtype of pancreatic cancer, accounting for less than 1% of all pancreatic tumors. Preoperative diagnosis is cumbersome as cross-sectional imaging is often not capable to distinguish between UCOGC and other pancreatic tumors such as pancreatic adenocarcinoma, mucinous carcinoma or neuroendocrine tumors and specific tumor markers seem to be lacking. Endoscopic ultrasound r `m(EUS) with tissue acquisition via fine-needle aspiration (FNA) or biopsy (FNB) with microscopic HE staining and immunohistochemistry allows for an accurate diagnosis, thus influencing further treatment. We present herein the cases of two patients with osteoclast-like giant cells tumors of the pancreas diagnosed by EUS-guided fine needle biopsy and perform a literature review on the role of EUS-guided biopsy for diagnosis.

Wet-suction versus slow-pull technique for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy: a multicenter, randomized, crossover trial

BACKGROUND : It is unknown whether there is an advantage to using the wet-suction or slow-pull technique during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) with new-generation needles. We aimed to compare the performance of each technique in EUS-FNB.

METHODS

 This was a multicenter, randomized, single-blind, crossover trial including patients with solid lesions of ≥ 1 cm. Four needle passes with 22 G fork-tip or Franseen-type needles were performed, alternating the wet-suction and slow-pull techniques in a randomized order. The primary outcome was the histological yield (samples containing an intact piece of tissue of at least 550 μm). Secondary end points were sample quality (tissue integrity and blood contamination), diagnostic accuracy, and adequate tumor fraction.

RESULTS

 Overall, 210 patients with 146 pancreatic and 64 nonpancreatic lesions were analyzed. A tissue core was retrieved in 150 (71.4 %) and 129 (61.4 %) cases using the wet-suction and the slow-pull techniques, respectively (P = 0.03). The mean tissue integrity score was higher using wet suction (P = 0.02), as was the blood contamination of samples (P < 0.001). In the two subgroups of pancreatic and nonpancreatic lesions, tissue core rate and tissue integrity score were not statistically different using the two techniques, but blood contamination was higher with wet suction. Diagnostic accuracy and tumor fraction did not differ between the two techniques.

CONCLUSION

 Overall, the wet-suction technique in EUS-FNB resulted in a higher tissue core procurement rate compared with the slow-pull method. Diagnostic accuracy and the rate of samples with adequate tumor fraction were similar between the two techniques.

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.

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.

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.).

Endoscopic ultrasound with combined fine needle aspiration plus biopsy improves diagnostic yield in solid pancreatic masses

GOALS

Our aim was to compare the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) versus combined fine needle aspiration and fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNA + FNB) in the evaluation of solid pancreatic masses (SPMs).

BACKGROUND

EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB are established methods to diagnose SPMs. No studies have evaluated the efficacy of combination of both (EUS-FNA + FNB). Our senior author (MRS) hypothesized that combining the two techniques by using a single FNB needle improves diagnostic yield and started combination technique in October 2016.

STUDY

Patients who underwent EUS for SPMs by MRS during January 2014-September 2019 were included. They were divided into the EUS-FNA group and EUS-FNA + FNB group. EUS-FNA was performed using a 22 or 25 gauge Expect Slimline needle (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA) and EUS-FNA + FNB was performed using a single 22 or 25 gauge Shark-core needle (Medtronics, Minneapolis, MN, USA). Our primary outcome was to compare the diagnostic yield in the two groups.

RESULTS

Among 105 patients included, 58 were in the EUS-FNA group and 47 were in the EUS-FNA + FNB group. EUS-FNA + FNB group had significantly higher diagnostic yield and required fewer needle passes compared to EUS-FNA group, 95.7% vs. 77.6%, p = .01: and 4 vs. 5, p = .002; respectively. Procedural duration was similar in both groups but the combined technique required less number of needles per procedure. There was no difference in adverse events in the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that combined EUS-FNA + FNB had higher diagnostic yield compared to EUS-FNA in SPMs along with less number of needle passes and needles required. Further prospective studies are needed to validate these findings and cost-effectiveness of this strategy.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided interventions in the management of pancreatic cancer

There has been a growing interest in developing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided interventions for pancreatic cancer, some of which have become standard of care. There are two main factors that drive these advancements to facilitate treatment of patients with pancreatic cancer, ranging from direct locoregional therapy to palliation of symptoms related to inoperable pancreatic cancer. Firstly, an upper EUS has the capability to access the entire pancreas-lesions in the pancreatic head and uncinate process can be accessed from the duodenum, and lesions in the pancreatic body and tail can be accessed from the stomach. Secondly, there has been a robust development of devices that allow through-the-needle interventions, such as placement of fiducial markers, brachytherapy, intratumoral injection, gastroenterostomy creation, and ablation. While these techniques are rapidly emerging, data from a multicenter randomized controlled trial for some procedures are awaited prior to their adoption in clinical settings.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided side-fenestrated needle biopsy sampling is sensitive for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors but inadequate for tumor grading: a prospective study

Accurate pretreatment grading of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs) is important to guide patient management. We aimed to evaluate endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy sampling (EUS-FNB) for the preoperative diagnosis and grading of PanNETs. In a tertiary-center setting, patients with suspected PanNETs were prospectively subjected to 22-gauge, reverse-bevel EUS-FNB. The EUS-FNB samples (Ki-67_EUS) and corresponding surgical specimens (Ki-67_SURG) were analyzed with Ki-67 indexing and thereafter tumor grading, (GRADE_EUS) and (GRADE_SURG) respectively. In total 52 PanNET-patients [median age: 66 years; females: 25/52; surgical resection 22/52 (42%)] were included. EUS-FNB was diagnostic in 44/52 (85%). In 42 available FNB-slides, the median neoplastic cell count was 1034 (IQR: 504-3667) with 32/42 (76%), 22/42 (52%), and 14/42 (33%) cases exceeding 500, 1000, and 2000 neoplastic cells respectively. Ki-67_SURG was significantly higher compared to Ki-67_EUS with a moderate correlation comparing Ki-67_EUS and Ki-67_SURG (Pearson r = 0.60, r² = 0.36, p = 0.011). The GRADE_EUS had a weak level of agreement (κ = 0.08) compared with GRADE_SURG. Only 2/12 (17%) G2-tumors were correctly graded in EUS-FNB-samples. EUS-guided fine needle biopsy sampling is sensitive for preoperative diagnosis of PanNET but biopsy quality is relatively poor. Therefore, the approach seems suboptimal for pretreatment grading of PanNET.

Current role of endoscopic ultrasound in the diagnosis and management of pancreatic cancer

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has emerged as an invaluable tool for the diagnosis, staging and treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). EUS is currently the most sensitive imaging tool for the detection of solid pancreatic tumors. Conventional EUS has evolved, and new imaging techniques, such as contrast-enhanced harmonics and elastography, have been developed to improve diagnostic accuracy during the evaluation of focal pancreatic lesions. More recently, evaluation with artificial intelligence has shown promising results to overcome operator-related flaws during EUS imaging evaluation. Currently, an appropriate diagnosis is based on a proper histological assessment, and EUS-guided tissue acquisition is the standard procedure for pancreatic sampling. Newly developed cutting needles with core tissue procurement provide the possibility of molecular evaluation for personalized oncological treatment. Interventional EUS has modified the therapeutic approach, primarily for advanced pancreatic cancer. EUS-guided fiducial placement for local targeted radiotherapy treatment or EUS-guided radiofrequency ablation has been developed for local treatment, especially for patients with pancreatic cancer not suitable for surgical resection. Additionally, EUS-guided therapeutic procedures, such as celiac plexus neurolysis for pain control and EUS-guided biliary drainage for biliary obstruction, have dramatically improved in recent years toward a more effective and less invasive procedure to palliate complications related to PDAC. All the current benefits of EUS in the diagnosis and management of PDAC will be thoroughly discussed.

EUS-FNA Biopsies to Guide Precision Medicine in Pancreatic Cancer: Results of a Pilot Study to Identify KRAS Wild-Type Tumours for Targeted Therapy

Background

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a leading cause of cancer death and lacks effective treatment options. Diagnostic endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) biopsies represent an appealing source of material for molecular analysis to inform targeted therapy, as they are often the only available tissue for patients presenting with PDAC irrespective of disease stage. However, EUS-FNA biopsies are typically not used to screen for precision medicine studies due to concerns about low tissue yield and quality. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibition has shown promise in clinical trials of unselected patients with advanced pancreatic cancer, but has not been prospectively tested in KRAS wild-type patients. Here, we examine the clinical utility of EUS-FNA biopsies for molecular screening of KRAS wild-type PDAC patients for targeted anti-EGFR therapy to assess the feasibility of this approach.

Patients and Methods

Fresh frozen EUS-FNA or surgical biopsies from PDAC patient tumours were used to screen for KRAS mutations. Eligible patients with recurrent, locally advanced, or metastatic KRAS wild-type status who had received at least one prior line of chemotherapy were enrolled in a pilot study (ACTRN12617000540314) and treated with panitumumab at 6mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was 4-month progression-free survival (PFS).

Results

275 patient biopsies were screened for KRAS mutations, which were detected in 88.3% of patient samples. 8 eligible KRAS wild-type patients were enrolled onto the interventional study between November 2017 and December 2020 and treated with panitumumab. 4-month PFS was 14.3% with no objective tumour responses observed. The only grade 3/4 treatment related toxicity observed was hypomagnesaemia.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates proof-of-principle feasibility to molecularly screen patients with pancreatic cancer for targeted therapies, and confirms diagnostic EUS-FNA biopsies as a reliable source of tumour material for molecular analysis. Single agent panitumumab was safe and tolerable but led to no objective tumour responses in this population.

Performance of EUS-FNB in solid pancreatic masses: a lesson from 463 consecutive procedures and a practical nomogram

The study's main goal was the diagnostic adequacy of pancreatic endoscopic ultrasonographic (EUS) fine-needle biopsy (FNB) and associated predictive factors. The secondary objective was to define the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB in the diagnosis of pancreatic masses and pancreatic malignancies. None of the studies reported the diagnostic adequacy and accuracy of EUS. We retrospectively identified patients with solid pancreatic lesions that underwent EUS-FNB between 2013, and 2018. We calculated diagnostic adequacy and related factors. Using definitive histology on the surgically resected specimen as the gold standard, we calculated diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of EUS-FNB. We identified a total of 463 procedures. Diagnostic specimens were adequate in 436 procedures (94.1%), while 27 biopsies provided insufficient samples (5.9%). The multivariate analysis showed that lesion size and needle caliper were the only factors influencing diagnostic adequacy. The use of a biopsy needle (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.30-0.1.63, P 0.400) did not improve sample adequacy. We calculated sensitivity (100%), specificity (93.2%), diagnostic accuracy (93.2%), positive predictive value (97.1%), and negative predictive value (100%) using resected specimen as the gold standard. We found no significant complications. EUS-FNB is a reliable technique for the histological characterization of solid pancreatic masses.

Performance of a new flexible 19 G EUS needle in pancreatic solid lesions located in the head and uncinate process: A prospective multicenter study

Background and study aims  The poor flexibility of large-bore EUS needles often leads to technical failure when sampling from the duodenum. The aim of this study was to evaluate the technical and diagnostic performances of a new Menghini tip 19G nitinol EUS needle for sampling pancreatic solid lesions in the head and uncinate process. Patients and methods  This was a European prospective multicenter single-arm study. A maximum of four passes were allowed. In case of failure, different needles were permitted. Results  We included 75 patients (51 % males) with lesions in the head (n = 68; 91 %) and uncinate process (n = 7; 9 %) (mean size: 33 ± 12 mm; number of passes: 1.8 ± 0.9). Technical success was seen in 71 of 75 (94.7 %). Diagnostic rates were 89.3 % (67/75) and 94.4 % (67/71) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analysis, respectively. In the eight cases with failure, diagnosis was obtained with another needle (n = 4), from another lesion (n = 3) or with follow-up (n = 1). A histological sample was obtained in 64 patients (ITT 85.3 % and PP 90 %) and immunohistochemistry was successfully performed in 13 of 15 lesions in which it was required. No differences between rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) and non-ROSE groups were observed regarding diagnostic success (87.5 % vs 91 %, P  = 0.582) and diagnosis at the first pass (70 % vs 81 %, P  = 0.289). Number of passes was lower in the ROSE group (1.4 + 0.9 vs 2.2 + 0.7, P  < 0.001). One adverse event was recorded (1.3 %) consisting in a duodenal perforation after a single session EUS-ERCP. Conclusions  The new nitinol Menghini tip 19G EUS needle showed high technical diagnostic success in safely sampling solid lesions in the head and uncinate process of the pancreas.

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.

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.

The Impact of Recent Advances in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition on the Management of Pancreatic Cancer

Over the last few decades, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition has become the method of choice for the pathological diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions. Due to its high diagnostic yield and low complication rate, EUS-guided tissue acquisition has surpassed percutaneous sampling techniques. For many years, EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) was traditionally used to obtain cytological aspirates of solid pancreatic lesions, with sensitivity values ranging from 80 to 90% for the diagnosis of malignancy. Nevertheless, despite numerous technical advances, EUS-FNA still presents some limitations. Therefore, EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) has been introduced to provide tissue core biopsies, allowing histological assessment. A newly developed generation of FNB needles has demonstrated an outstanding diagnostic accuracy of over 95% for solid pancreatic lesions and provides samples appropriate for ancillary testing, such as immunohistochemistry and tumour molecular profiling. As a result, EUS-FNB is rapidly replacing EUS-FNA and is now the recommended technique for EUS-guided tissue acquisition in pancreatic cancer. Furthermore, with the recent expansion of neoadjuvant treatment criteria and with the advent of novel and personalised anti-cancer therapies, EUS-FNB is gaining a pivotal role in pancreatic cancer management and might soon be generalised to all patients, independent of disease stage. In this article, the authors present an updated review of the role of EUS-guided tissue acquisition in pancreatic cancer. Current indications, several technical aspects and new applications of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB are discussed.

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.

Comparing Needles and Methods of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy to Optimize Specimen Quality and Diagnostic Accuracy for Patients With Pancreatic Masses in a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Given the lack of procedure standardization, findings vary from analyses of pancreatic tissues collected by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy. It is not clear which needle and technique yield the best specimen for analysis. We compared the specimen quality and accuracy of diagnoses made from samples collected by fine-needle biopsy needles using different collection techniques.

METHODS

Patients found to have pancreatic masses during imaging (n = 129) were assigned randomly to groups from whom pancreatic tissue samples were collected by reverse-bevel, Menghini-tip, franseen, or fork-tip needles. A second randomization determined the technical sequence of biopsies in each patient (suction, no suction, and stylet retraction). Two independent pathologists, blinded to the type of needle and sampling technique, analyzed all the samples. Final diagnoses of malignancy were made based on surgical resection, death from cancer progression, or findings from radiology or clinical follow-up evaluations (reference standard). The primary objective was to compare the cellularity of the samples collected, defined as the proportion of core tissue in the biopsy sample. Secondary objectives were to compare the accuracy of diagnoses made from biopsy samples and identify factors associated with high cellularity.

RESULTS

One-hundred and nine patients had a final diagnosis of malignancy (84.5%) and 20 patients had benign disease (15.5%). Samples collected by fork-tip or franseen needles had significantly higher cellularity than samples collected by reverse-bevels or Menghini-tip needles (P < .001). Neoplasias were identified with greater than 90% accuracy using samples collected by fork-tip or franseen needles (P < .001 compared with other needles). On multivariable regression analysis, use of franseen needles (odds ratio [OR], 4.42; 95% CI, 2.58-7.58; P < .001) or fork-tip needles (OR, 3.86; 95% CI, 2.24-6.64; P < .001), stylet retraction (OR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.21-3.72; P = .008), no suction (OR, 2.74; 95% CI, 1.57-4.80; P < .001), and pancreatic mass larger than 3 cm (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.21-3.05; P = .005) were associated with high cellularity of the sample.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with suspected pancreatic cancer, samples with the highest degree of cellularity in a single biopsy, resulting in a diagnostic accuracy of 90% of higher, were collected by fine-needle biopsy using the franseen or fork-tip needle. Clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT04085055.

Diagnosis of Pancreatic Solid Lesions, Subepithelial Lesions, and Lymph Nodes Using Endoscopic Ultrasound

Currently, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become widely accepted and has considerable advantages over computed tomography (CT) and other imaging modalities, given that it enables echostructure assessment in lesions with <1 cm diameter and permits high resolution imaging. EUS-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) provides consistent results under ultrasound guidance and has been considered more effective compared to CT- or ultrasound-guided lesion biopsy. Moreover, complication rates, including pancreatitis and bleeding, have been extremely low, with <1% morbidity and mortality rates, thereby suggesting the exceptional overall safety of EUS-TA. The aggressive use of EUS for various lesions has been key in facilitating early diagnosis and therapy. This review summarizes the diagnostic ability of EUS for pancreatic solid lesions, subepithelial lesions, and lymph nodes where it is mainly used. EUS has played an important role in diagnosing these lesions and planning treatment strategies. Future developments in EUS imaging technology, such as producing images close to histopathological findings, are expected to further improve its diagnostic ability. Moreover, tissue acquisition via EUS is expected to be used for precision medicine, which facilitates the selection of an appropriate therapeutic agent by increasing the amount of tissue collected and improving genetic analysis.

High Sensitivity of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB in Lymphadenopathy Caused by Metastatic Disease: A Prospective Comparative Study

Background/Aims

The diagnostic work-up of lymphadenopathy is challenging but important to determine the correct therapy. Nevertheless, few studies have addressed the topic of endosonography (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition in lymphadenopathy. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the accuracy and safety of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling (EUS-FNB) in intrathoracic and intraabdominal lymphadenopathy.

Methods

In a tertiary care center, patients with lymphadenopathy referred for EUS-guided sampling were included prospectively from 2014 to 2019 (NCT02360839). In all cases, EUS-FNB (22 gauge) and EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) (25 gauge) were performed. The patients were randomized to the first needle pass with FNB or FNA. Study outcomes were the diagnostic accuracy and adverse event rate.

Results

Forty-eight patients were included (median age: 69 years [interquartile range, 59–76]; 24/48 females [50%]). The final diagnoses were metastasis (n=17), lymphoma (n=11), sarcoidosis (n=6), and inflammatory disease (n=14). The diagnostic performance of the two modalities was comparable, including a high sensitivity for metastatic nodes (EUS-FNB: 87% vs. EUS-FNA: 100%, p=0.5). The sensitivity for lymphoma was borderline superior in favor of EUS-FNB (EUS-FNB: 55% vs. EUS-FNA: 9%, p=0.06). No adverse events were recorded.

Conclusions

In lymphadenopathy, both EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA are safe and highly sensitive for metastatic lymph node detection. Lymphoma diagnosis is challenging regardless of the needle used.

Evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy for preoperative pancreatic solid lesions

OBJECTIVES

Obtaining an accurate preoperative diagnosis is crucial. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for preoperative pancreatic solid lesions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively assessed all patients who underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) or EUS-FNB to evaluate solid pancreatic lesions preoperatively at our center between July 2013 and June 2020. We enrolled 71 patients who underwent EUS-FNA using a 22 G conventional needle (FNA group) and 34 patients who underwent EUS-FNB using a 22 G Franseen needle (FNB group). Overall, 105 patients were analyzed. We employed propensity-matched analysis and adjusted the confounders.

RESULTS

No procedural adverse events were encountered. Both groups showed no significant differences in the procedure time, technical success rate, and rate of operator changes from trainee to expert. Regarding diagnostic accuracy, the FNB group (88.2%; 30/34) was higher but not significantly different from the FNA group (85.3%; 29/34) (p > .99). Furthermore, the FNB group (median 2, IQR;2-3) had a significantly lower number of punctures than the FNA group (median 3, IQR; 2-4) (p = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

The FNB needle provides higher diagnostic accuracy and requires significantly fewer punctures than conventional needles even at facilities with no available rapid on-site evaluation. Thus, using the FNB needle can be useful for preoperative pancreatic solid lesions.

IS THE NEW PROCORE 20G DOUBLE FORWARD-BEVEL NEEDLE CAPABLE TO OBTAIN BETTER HISTOLOGICAL SAMPLES BY ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND FOR DIAGNOSING SOLID PANCREATIC LESIONS?

BACKGROUND

Fine needle biopsy (FNB) histological samples by endoscopic ultrasound. It is important to obtain representative histological samples of solid biliopancreatic lesions without a clear indication for resection. The role of new needles in such task is yet to be determined.

AIM

To compare performance assessment between 20G double fine needle biopsy (FNB) and conventional 22G fine needle aspiration (FNA) needles for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biopsy.

METHODS

This prospective study examined 20 patients who underwent the random puncture of solid pancreatic lesions with both needles and the analysis of tissue samples by a single pathologist.

RESULTS

The ProCore 20G FNB needle provided more adequate tissue samples (16 vs. 9, p=0.039) with better cellularity quantitative scores (11 vs. 5, p=0.002) and larger diameter of the histological sample (1.51±1.3 mm vs. 0.94±0.55 mm, p=0.032) than the 22G needle. The technical success, puncture difficulty, and sample bleeding were similar between groups. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy were 88.9%, 100%, and 90% and 77.8%, 100%, and 78.9% for the 20G and 22G needles, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The samples obtained with the ProCore 20G FNB showed better histological parameters; although there was no difference in the diagnostic performance between the two needles, these findings may improve pathologist performance.

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.

Randomized controlled trial comparing the Franseen needle with the Fork-tip needle for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EUS-guided FNA primarily provides cytologic samples. EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB) with needles that provide histologic specimens may enhance diagnostic yield and facilitate accessory tissue staining. Several different needle designs are currently available and design superiority is unknown. We designed a randomized controlled trial to compare 2 commonly used EUS-FNB needles in their ability to provide histologic tissue samples (primary endpoint) and to reach an accurate diagnosis (secondary endpoint).

METHODS

A total of 150 lesions from 134 patients (November 2018 to June 2019) were randomized 1:1 between biopsy with a Franseen needle and a Fork-tip needle. The groups were compared regarding the quality of the tissue samples and diagnostic accuracy.

RESULTS

Of 150 lesions, 75 were pancreatic and 75 were other solid lesions in and around the GI tract. There was no statistically significant difference between the Franseen needle and the Fork-tip needle in the yield of adequate histologic samples, 71 of 75 (94.7%) versus 72 of 75 (96%), (P = 1.00), an absolute difference of -1.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], -8.1% to 5.4%). The 2 groups were similar in the diagnostic accuracy of histologic analysis, 64 of 75 (85.3%) versus 68 of 75 (90.7%) (P = .45), absolute difference -5.4% (95% CI, -15.7% to 5%); and in the diagnostic accuracy of combined cytologic and histologic analysis, 65 of 75 (86.7%) versus 69 of 75 (92%) (P = .43), absolute difference -5.3% (95% CI, -15.2% to 4.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in the performance of the Franseen needle versus the Fork-tip needle. Both needles achieved a high yield of histologic tissue samples and high diagnostic accuracy. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03672032.).

Wet- versus dry-suction techniques for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid lesions: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The optimal sampling techniques for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) remain unclear and have not been standardized. The aim of this study was to compare the wet-suction and dry-suction techniques for sampling solid lesions in the pancreas, mediastinum, and abdomen.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, crossover, randomized controlled trial with randomized order of sampling techniques. The 296 consecutive patients underwent EUS-FNA with 22G needles and were randomized in a ratio of 1:1 into two separate groups that received the dry-suction and wet-suction techniques in a different order. The primary outcome was to compare the histological diagnostic accuracy of dry suction and wet suction for malignancy. The secondary outcomes were to compare the cytological diagnostic accuracy and specimen quality.

RESULTS

Among the 269 patients with pancreatic (n = 161) and non-pancreatic (n = 108) lesions analyzed, the wet-suction technique had a significantly better histological diagnostic accuracy (84.9 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 79.9 % - 89.0 %] vs. 73.2 % [95 %CI 67.1 % - 78.7 %]; P = 0.001), higher specimen adequacy (94.8 % vs. 78.8 %; P < 0.001), and less blood contamination (P < 0.001) than the dry-suction technique. In addition, sampling non-pancreatic lesions with two passes of wet suction provided a histological diagnostic accuracy of 91.6 %.

CONCLUSIONS

The wet-suction technique in EUS-FNA generates better histological diagnostic accuracy and specimen quality than the dry-suction technique. Furthermore, sampling non-pancreatic lesions with two passes of EUS-FNA with wet suction may provide a definitive histological diagnosis when rapid on-site evaluation is not routinely available.

Comparison of the reverse bevel versus Franseen type endoscopic ultrasound needle

BACKGROUND

Reverse bevel (RB) needle is widely used for endoscopic ultrasound fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). A 3-plane symmetrical needle with Franseen geometry (FG) has recently become available.

AIM

To compare the clinical efficacy of FG to that of RB needle.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of all adult patients who underwent EUS-FNB for solid and mixed lesions either with 22G RB needle or 22G FG needle between January 2016 and February 2019 was undertaken. All cytology slides were reviewed by an independent gastrointestinal cytopathologist blinded to the needle used and the initial cytology report. The primary and secondary outcomes were to assess the sample adequacy using Euro-cytology criteria and the number of cell clusters, respectively.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twenty six procedures were included in the study. RB needle was used in 128 procedures and FG needle in 98 procedures. The baseline characteristics of both groups were comparable. On multivariable analysis, FG needle (P = 0.02) and location of the lesion (P < 0.01) were independently associated with adequate tissue. Further, the use of FG needle (P = 0.04) and the size of the lesion (P = 0.02) were independently associated with acquisition of increased number of cell clusters.

CONCLUSION

FG needle is superior to RB needle in acquiring adequate tissue and attaining higher number of cell clusters for solid and mixed lesions.

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.

Factors associated with diagnostic accuracy, technical success and adverse events of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is used to diagnose lesions within or adjacent to the digestive tract. However, there is no report on the overall diagnostic accuracy, technical success, and adverse events of FNB. The aims of this study were to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to comprehensively assess the diagnostic accuracy, technical success, and adverse events of FNB.

METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant articles published in English from January 1998 to May 2019 (No. CRD42019141647). Primary outcomes were EUS-FNB related diagnostic accuracy rate, technical success rate, and adverse event rate.

RESULTS

A total of 51 articles including 5330 patients met our criteria. The overall EUS-FNB related diagnostic accuracy rate, technical success rate, and adverse event rate was 90.82% [95% confidence interval (CI) 88.69-92.76%], 99.71% [95% CI 99.35-99.93%], and 0.59% [95% CI 0.29-1.0%], respectively. Biopsy with 22G needle could increase the diagnostic accuracy rate and technical success rate to 92.17% [95% CI 89.32-94.61%] and 99.88% [95% CI 99.64-99.99%], respectively, and decrease the adverse event to 0.37% [95% CI 0.08-0.87%]. Moreover, it showed that 22G needle was an independent factor associated with a higher diagnostic accuracy rate and technical success rate and a lower adverse event rate (P = 0.04, P < 0.001, and P = 0.04, respectively) by univariate and multivariate meta-regression analyses.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy is a feasible and safe procedure for lesions within or adjacent to the digestive tract. Biopsy using 22G needle could increase the diagnostic accuracy rate and technical success rate and decrease adverse event rate during the FNB procedure.

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

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

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.

Present and Future of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition in Solid Pancreatic Tumors

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) is a well-established method for pathological diagnosis of solid pancreatic neoplasm. It can be performed either as EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) or EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUSFNB). The incidence of adverse events related to EUS-TA is less than 1%. The factors that affect the diagnostic accuracy and specimen adequacy include the techniques used, type and size of the needle, competency of endosonographers, presence of cytopathologists/ cytotechnologists, and rapid on-site examination. EUS-TA may contribute to precision medicine through obtaining tissue samples for next-generation sequencing. The current status, several clinical issues for diagnostic yield and adverse events, and future perspectives of EUS-FNA/FNB for diagnosing pancreatic neoplasm have been discussed in this review article.

Comparative accuracy of needle sizes and designs for EUS tissue sampling of solid pancreatic masses: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Variable diagnostic performance of sampling techniques during EUS-guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic masses based on needle type (FNA versus fine-needle biopsy [FNB]) and gauge (19-gauge vs 22-gauge vs 25-gauge) has been reported. We performed a systematic review with network meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided techniques for sampling solid pancreatic masses.

METHODS

Through a systematic literature review to November 2018, we identified 27 randomized controlled trials (2711 patients) involving adults undergoing EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses that evaluated the diagnostic performance of FNA and FNB needles based on needle gauge. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were sample adequacy, histologic core procurement rate, and number of needle passes. We performed pairwise and network meta-analyses and appraised the quality of evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology.

RESULTS

In the network meta-analysis, no specific EUS-guided tissue sampling technique was superior, based on needle type (FNA vs FNB) or gauge (19-gauge vs 22-gauge vs 25-gauge) (low-quality evidence). Specifically, there was no difference between 25-gauge FNA versus 22-gauge FNA (relative risk [RR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.17) and 22-gauge FNB versus 22-gauge FNA (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.89-1.18) needles for diagnostic accuracy, sample adequacy, and histologic core procurement. Findings were confirmed in sensitivity analysis restricted to studies with no rapid on-site cytologic evaluation and no use of the fanning technique.

CONCLUSION

In a network meta-analysis, no specific EUS-guided tissue sampling technique was superior with regard to diagnostic accuracy, sample adequacy, or histologic procurement rate for solid pancreatic masses, with low confidence in estimates.

Agreement on endoscopic ultrasonography-guided tissue specimens: Comparing a 20-G fine-needle biopsy to a 25-G fine-needle aspiration needle among academic and non-academic pathologists

BACKGROUND AND AIM

A recently carried out randomized controlled trial showed the benefit of a novel 20-G fine-needle biopsy (FNB) over a 25-G fine-needle aspiration (FNA) needle. The current study evaluated the reproducibility of these findings among expert academic and non-academic pathologists.

METHODS

This study was a side-study of the ASPRO (ASpiration versus PROcore) study. Five centers retrieved 74 (59%) consecutive FNB and 51 (41%) FNA samples from the ASPRO study according to randomization; 64 (51%) pancreatic and 61 (49%) lymph node specimens. Samples were re-reviewed by five expert academic and five non-academic pathologists and rated in terms of sample quality and diagnosis. Ratings were compared between needles, expert academic and non-academic pathologists, target lesions, and cytology versus histological specimens.

RESULTS

Besides a higher diagnostic accuracy, FNB also provided for a better agreement on diagnosing malignancy (ĸ = 0.59 vs ĸ = 0.76, P < 0.001) and classification according to Bethesda (ĸ = 0.45 vs ĸ = 0.61, P < 0.001). This equally applied for expert academic and non-academic pathologists and for pancreatic and lymph node specimens. Sample quality was also rated higher for FNB, but agreement ranged from poor (ĸ = 0.04) to fair (ĸ = 0.55). Histology provided better agreement than cytology, but only when a core specimen was obtained with FNB (P = 0.004 vs P = 0.432).

CONCLUSION

This study shows that the 20-G FNB outperforms the 25-G FNA needle in terms of diagnostic agreement, independent of the background and experience of the pathologist. This endorses use of the 20-G FNB needle in both expert and lower volume EUS centers.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses: the fine needle aspiration or fine needle biopsy dilemma. Is the best needle yet to come?

Fine needle aspiration (FNA) is currently the standard of care for sampling pancreatic solid masses by using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). The accuracy of the technique is reported to be high, especially if coupled with the rapid on site evaluation (ROSE), and it has a high safety profile. However, FNA presents some limitations, such as the small amount of tissue that can be collected and the inability of obtaining a core tissue with intact histological architecture, which is relevant to perform immunohistochemical analysis, molecular profiling and, therefore, targeted therapies. Moreover, the presence of the ROSE by an expert cytopathologist is very important to maximize the diagnostic yield of FNA technique; however, it is not widely available, especially in small centers. Hence, the introduction of EUS fine needle biopsy (FNB) with a new generation of needles, which show a high safety profile too and a satisfying diagnostic accuracy even in the absence of ROSE, could be the key to overcome the limitations of FNA. However, FNB has not yet shown diagnostic superiority over FNA. Considering all the technical aspects of FNA and FNB, the different types of needle currently available, comparisons in term of diagnostic yield, and the different techniques of sampling, a tailored approach should be used in order to determine the needle that is most appropriate for the different specific scenarios.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration vs core needle biopsy for solid pancreatic lesions: Comparison of diagnostic accuracy and procedural efficiency

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided core needle biopsies (CNB) are increasingly being performed to diagnose solid pancreatic lesions. However, studies have been conflicting in terms of CNB improving diagnostic accuracy and procedural efficiency vs fine-needle aspiration (FNA), which this study aims to elucidate.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected on consecutive patients with solid pancreatic or peripancreatic lesions at a single tertiary care center from November 2015 to November 2016 that underwent either FNA or CNB. Patient demographics, characteristics of lesions, diagnostic accuracy, final and follow-up pathology, use of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), complications, and procedure variables were obtained.

RESULTS

A total of 75 FNA and 48 CNB were performed; of these, 13 patients had both. Mean passes were lower with CNB compared to FNA (2.4 vs 2.9, P = .02). Use of ROSE was higher for FNA (97.3% vs 68.1%, P = .001). Mean procedure time was shorter with CNB (34.1 minutes vs 51.2 minutes, P = .02) and diagnostic accuracy was similar (89.2% vs 89.4%, P = .98). There was no difference in diagnostic accuracy when ROSE was performed for CNB vs not performed (93.5% vs 85.7%, P = .58). Additionally, diagnostic accuracy of combined FNA and CNB procedures was 92.3%, which was comparable to FNA (P = .73) or CNB (P = .52) alone.

CONCLUSION

FNA and CNB had comparable safety and diagnostic accuracy. Use of CNB resulted in less number of passes and shorter procedure time as compared to FNA. Moreover, diagnostic accuracy for CNB with or without ROSE was similar.

Endoscopic ultrasonography in pancreatic diseases: advances in tissue acquisition

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) improved the diagnostic performance and upgraded the role of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) into an interventional modality, able to guide patient management and treatment.This review aimed to highlight the advances, emerging practices, procedural techniques and technological innovations in EUS tissue acquisition in pancreatic diseases. Methods  A thorough review of the literature was performed using PubMed to identify articles that describe techniques, advances, and practices in EUS tissue acquisition in gastrointestinal diseases. Conclusion  Since the first EUS-FNA procedure, EUS guided-tissue acquisition has been evolving continuously. Development of needles with innovative tip design enabled procurement of larger samples with preserved histological architecture. Moreover, sampling techniques and complementary methods, such as contrast harmonic imaging and EUS-elastography, have been introduced in an effort to improve diagnostic performance and sample adequacy.