Histologic retrieval rate of a newly designed side-bevelled 20G needle for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic lesions

Comparison of clinical/histological outcomes according to puncture sites in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy for large pancreatic masses: Multicenter randomized prospective pilot study

OBJECTIVES

There are no recommendations regarding the optimal puncture site in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). This multicenter randomized prospective study compared the diagnostic accuracy and histological findings according to the sampling site for pancreatic masses larger than 3 cm.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with pancreatic masses larger than 3 cm indicated for EUS-FNB were included in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups for the initial puncture site (central vs. peripheral sampling of the masses). A minimum of four passes were performed, alternating between the center and the periphery. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy.

RESULTS

A total of 100 patients were equally divided into the central group and the peripheral group. The final diagnosis revealed malignancy in 95 patients (pancreatic cancer [n = 89], neuroendocrine tumor [n = 4], lymphoma [n = 1], metastatic carcinoma [n = 1]), and benign conditions in five patients (chronic pancreatitis [n = 4], autoimmune pancreatitis [n = 1]). There was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between the puncture sites. However, combining samples from both areas resulted in higher diagnostic accuracy (97.0%) compared to either area alone, with corresponding values of 88.0% for the center (P = 0.02) and 85.0% for the periphery (P = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Both central sampling and peripheral sampling showed equivalent diagnostic accuracy in detecting malignancy. However, combining samples from both areas generated superior diagnostic yield compared to using either sampling site alone. For pancreatic masses larger than 3 cm, it is advisable to consider sampling from various areas of the masses to maximize the diagnostic yield.

Clinical usefulness of tissue acquisition of pancreatic cystic lesions using an endoscopic ultrasound-guided needle for histological analysis

Background and study aims There are rare data on the usefulness of endosonography-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) in patients with pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs). This study aimed to determine the accuracy of EUS-TA with ProCore 20G (PC20) for differentiating between mucinous neoplasia (MN) and non-MNs (n-MN) and identifying malignant PCLs, as well as its adverse events (AEs) in patients with PCLs without a classificatory diagnosis by imaging exams. Patients and methods In this observational, retrospective, single-center study, all patients with PCL who underwent EUS-TA due to diagnostic doubts in imaging studies were consecutively recruited from June 2017 to December 2021. The outcomes were to determine the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-TA with PC20 for differentiating between MN and n-MN, identifying malignant PCLs, and the AEs. Results Herein, 145 patients underwent EUS-TA, with 83 women (57.2%) and a mean age of 62.2 years. The mean size was 2.3 cm, with 81 patients (77.9%) having a PCL < 3.0 cm. The final diagnosis was made by EUS-TA (n = 81), surgery (n = 58), and follow-up (n = 6). The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy for differentiating between MNs and n-MNs and identifying malignant PCLs were 92.6%, 98.4%, 98.7%, 91.3%, and 95.2% (kappa=0.9), and 92%, 99.2%, 95.8%, 98.3%, and 97.9% (kappa = 0.93), respectively. The AE rate was 2.7%, with no deaths in this cohort. Conclusions EUS-TA with PC20 has high accuracy and technical success with a low AE rate for PCL diagnosis.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

OBJECTIVES

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Diagnostic Yield of Transabdominal Ultrasound-Guided Core Needle Method in Biopsies of Pancreatic Lesions

ABSTRACT

In this study, it was aimed to contribute to the selection of the method to perform pancreatic lesion biopsies.Data of patients, who had undergone a percutaneous biopsy because of pancreatic masses in our institution in the period between January 2015 and November 2019, were evaluated retrospectively. The percutaneous biopsy method, the type of needle used in the procedure, and periprocedural complications were listed. Pathology and cytology reports in the archive were reviewed, and biopsy results were divided into 3 groups as benign, malignant, and inadequate. Of 308 patients included in the study, the diagnostic accuracy was verified in 124 patients through the assessment of surgical outcomes, results of biopsies from metastatic lesions, or follow-up findings. The verified results were classified as true-positives and true-negatives.Of a total of 308 patients included in the study, 23 underwent a fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) and 285 underwent a core needle biopsy (CNB). No statistical differences were observed in sample acquisition success and complications between the groups.Of the lesions with a confirmed pathological diagnosis, 67.74% were malignant and 32.26% were benign. The diagnosis was correct in 107 of 112 CNB patients (95.54%) and 9 of 12 FNAB patients (75.00%). When the success of the 2 methods was compared, it was found that outcomes of CNB were statistically more successful compared with those of FNAB.A transabdominal ultrasound-guided percutaneous CNB is a safe method with a high diagnostic yield to perform a biopsy of the pancreas.

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.

Endoscopic Ultrasound Advanced Techniques for Diagnosis of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumours

Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors (GISTs) are subepithelial lesions (SELs) that commonly develop in the gastrointestinal tract. GISTs, unlike other SELs, can exhibit malignant behavior, so differential diagnosis is critical to the decision-making process. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is considered the most accurate imaging method for diagnosing and differentiating SELs in the gastrointestinal tract by assessing the lesions precisely and evaluating their malignant risk. Due to their overlapping imaging characteristics, endosonographers may have difficulty distinguishing GISTs from other SELs using conventional EUS alone, and the collection of tissue samples from these lesions may be technically challenging. Even though it appears to be less effective in the case of smaller lesions, histology is now the gold standard for achieving a final diagnosis and avoiding unnecessary and invasive treatment for benign SELs. The use of enhanced EUS modalities and elastography has improved the diagnostic ability of EUS. Furthermore, recent advancements in artificial intelligence systems that use EUS images have allowed them to distinguish GISTs from other SELs, thereby improving their diagnostic accuracy.

Historical perspective on needle development: From the past to the future

With the introduction of EUS, endoscopy was no longer limited to luminal indications. However, the method was unable to distinguish malignant from benign lesions. Consequently, needles designed for tissue acquisition under EUS-guidance was designed. Initially, the needles were designed for fine needle aspiration (FNA); nevertheless, with increased requirement for the precured tissue in terms of quality and quantity, newly design needles aimed at obtaining tissue cores for histological assessment were developed. Recent studies demonstrate superiority of these fine needle biopsy needles (FNB) compared to FNA needles.

Endosonography-Guided Tissue Acquisition for Diagnosis of Squamous Carcinoma of the Pancreas: A Report of Three Cases

While approximately 85% of neoplasms are ductal pancreatic adenocarcinomas (DPA), adenosquamous pancreatic carcinoma (APC) is a rare subtype of pancreatic cancer that exhibits aggressive behavior and poor prognosis. The authors report three cases of primary APC diagnosed through endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) using the new ProCore 20G needle, which had been developed to improve fine-needle aspiration results by providing more tissue for histopathology. Given its ability for microcore retrieval, pancreatic stroma examination, and excellent histopathology results, EUS-TA has exhibited exceptional diagnostic yield among patients with solid pancreatic lesions. All three APC cases presented herein had been accurately diagnosed using immunohistochemistry after microcore acquisition.

Impact of biliary stents on the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic head lesions: A multicenter study

Background and Objectives

There is no clear evidence of a negative impact of biliary stents on the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for diagnosing pancreatic head lesions. We aimed to evaluate the association between the presence of biliary stents and the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB.

Materials and Methods

A multicenter retrospective study including all jaundiced patients secondary to pancreatic head masses was performed. Patients were divided into two groups according to the presence of a biliary stent placed before EUS-FNB. Pathological results were classified according to the Papanicolaou classification and compared against the final diagnosis. Diagnostic measures in the two groups were compared. Multivariate logistic regression analyses including potential factors affecting EUS-FNB accuracy were performed.

Results

Overall, 842 patients were included, 495 (58.8%) without and 347 (41.2%) with biliary stent. A plastic or a metal stent was placed in 217 (62.5%) and 130 (37.5%) cases, respectively. Diagnostic sensitivity and accuracy were significantly higher in patients without biliary stent than in those with stent (91.9% and 92.1% vs. 85.9% and 86.4%, P = 0.010 At multivariate analyses, lesion size (odds ratio [OR]: 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-1.09, P = 0.01) and presence of biliary stent (OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.32-0.89, P = 0.01) were independently associated with diagnostic accuracy. In the subgroup of patients with biliary stent, the type of stent (plastic vs. metal) did not impact EUS-FNB yield, whereas the use of larger bore needles enhanced diagnostic accuracy (OR: 2.29, 95% CI: 1.28-4.12, P = 0.005).

Conclusions

In this large retrospective study, an indwelling biliary stent negatively impacted the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB. Preferably, EUS-FNB should precede endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, especially in the case of small tumors.

Effectiveness of Menghini-Type Needles for Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration of Pancreatic Masses

BACKGROUND

Cutting needles are thought to be effective as biopsy needles. A few types of cutting needles are available for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), and the Menghini-type needle is an end-type cutting needle.

AIMS

A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare the results of EUS-FNA using a Menghini-type needle (needle M) versus a conventional needle (needle S).

METHODS

The main eligibility criteria were as follows: patients with a pancreatic mass referred for EUS-FNA, ≥ 20 years old, and a performance status < 4. The primary outcome was the sample quality. The secondary outcomes were factors associated with the sample quality, diagnostic accuracy, and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 97 patients were enrolled in this study. The sample quality for total puncture with needle M (92.8%) was significantly higher than that with needle S (81.4%) (p = 0.0305). The tumor size (p = 0.033) and type of needle (p = 0.031) were significant factors associated with adequate tissue collection in univariate and multivariate analyses (odds ratio [OR] 2.71; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-6.54; p = 0.027 for tumor size, and OR 2.93; 95% CI 1.23-8.21; p = 0.0153 for type of needle). The diagnostic accuracy of each needle was 88.7% (86/97) with needle M and 73.2% (71/97) with needle S. Adverse events occurred in 2 of the 97 patients (0.02%).

CONCLUSION

A Menghini-type needle was able to obtain core tissue for histology more effectively than a conventional aspiration needle.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

UMIN registration number of 000020668.

The Role of EUS and EUS-FNA in Differentiating Benign and Malignant Gallbladder Lesions

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has greater spatial resolution than other diagnostic imaging modalities. In addition, if gallbladder lesions are found and gallbladder cancer is suspected, EUS is an indispensable modality, enabling detailed tests for invasion depth evaluation using the Doppler mode and ultrasound agents. Furthermore, for gallbladder lesions, EUS fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) can be used to differentiate benign and malignant forms of conditions, such as xanthogranulomatous cholecystitis, and collect evidence before chemotherapy. EUS-FNA is also useful for highly precise and specific diagnoses. However, the prevention of bile leakage, an accidental symptom, is highly important. Advancements in next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies facilitate the application of multiple parallel sequencing to EUS-FNA samples. Several biomarkers are expected to stratify treatment for gallbladder cancer; however, NGS can unveil potential predictive genomic biomarkers for the treatment response. It is believed that NGS may be feasible with samples obtained using EUS-FNA, further increasing the demand for EUS-FNA.

A deep learning model to detect pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma on endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy

Histopathological diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) on endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) specimens has become the mainstay of preoperative pathological diagnosis. However, on EUS-FNB specimens, accurate histopathological evaluation is difficult due to low specimen volume with isolated cancer cells and high contamination of blood, inflammatory and digestive tract cells. In this study, we performed annotations for training sets by expert pancreatic pathologists and trained a deep learning model to assess PDAC on EUS-FNB of the pancreas in histopathological whole-slide images. We obtained a high receiver operator curve area under the curve of 0.984, accuracy of 0.9417, sensitivity of 0.9302 and specificity of 0.9706. Our model was able to accurately detect difficult cases of isolated and low volume cancer cells. If adopted as a supportive system in routine diagnosis of pancreatic EUS-FNB specimens, our model has the potential to aid pathologists diagnose difficult cases.

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.

Endoscopic Ultrasound Features Associated with Malignancy and Aggressiveness of Nonhypovascular Solid Pancreatic Lesions: Results from a Prospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 On contrast-enhanced imaging studies, nonhypovascular (i. e., isovascular and hypervascular) patterns can be observed in solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs) of different nature, prognosis, and management. We aimed to identify endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) features of nonhypovascular SPLs associated with malignancy/aggressiveness. The secondary aims were EUS tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) outcome and safety in this setting of patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 This prospective observational study included patients with nonhypovascular SPLs detected on cross-sectional imaging and referred for EUS-TA. Lesion features (size, site, margins, echotexture, vascular pattern, and upstream dilation of the main pancreatic duct) were recorded. Malignancy/aggressiveness was determined by evidence of carcinoma at biopsy/surgical pathology, signs of aggressiveness (perineural invasion, lymphovascular invasion, and/or microscopic tumor extension/infiltration or evidence of metastatic lymph nodes) in the surgical specimen, radiologic detection of lymph nodes or distant metastases, and/or tumor growth > 5 mm/6 months. Uni- and multivariate analyses were performed to assess the primary aim.

RESULTS

 A total of 154 patients with 161 SPLs were enrolled. 40 (24.8 %) lesions were defined as malignant/aggressive. Irregular margins and size > 20 mm were independent factors associated with malignancy/aggressiveness (p < 0.001, OR = 5.2 and p = 0.003, OR = 2.1, respectively). However, size > 20 mm was not significant in the subgroup of other-than-neuroendocrine tumor (NET) lesions. The EUS-TA accuracy was 92 %, and the rate of adverse events was 4 %.

CONCLUSION

 Irregular margins on EUS are associated with malignancy/aggressiveness of nonhypovascular SPLs. Size > 20 mm should be considered a malignancy-related feature only in NET patients. EUS-TA is safe and highly accurate for differential diagnosis in this group of patients.

Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition Using a 20-Gauge Menghini Needle with a Lateral Forward Bevel and a 22-Gauge Franseen Needle: A Single-Center Large Cohort Study

Background/Aims

Several fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles are available for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition. However, there is disagreement on which type of needle has the best diagnostic yield. The aim of this study was to compare the performance and safety of two commonly used EUS-FNB needles.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNB between June 2016 and March 2020 in our hospital. Two types of needles were evaluated: a 20-gauge Menghini needle with a lateral forward bevel and a 22-gauge Franseen needle. Rapid on-site evaluation was performed in all the cases. A multivariate analysis was performed to clarify the negative predictive factors for obtaining a histological diagnosis. Propensity score matching was performed to compare the diagnostic yields of these two needles.

Results

We analyzed 666 patients and 690 lesions. The overall diagnostic rate of histology alone was 88.8%, and the overall adverse event rate was 1.5%. Transduodenal access and small lesions (≤2 cm) were identified as negative predictive factors for obtaining a histological diagnosis. After propensity score matching, 482 lesions were analyzed. The diagnostic accuracy rates of histology in the M and F needle groups were 89.2% and 88.8%, respectively (p=1.00).

Conclusions

Both the needles showed high diagnostic yield, and no significant difference in performance was observed between the two.

Comparison between EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology and EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy histology for the evaluation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Studies comparing EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) with EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for the evaluation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) are lacking. We aimed at comparing EUS-FNA with EUS-FNB in terms of Ki-67 proliferative index (PI) estimation capability, cellularity of the samples, and reliability of Ki-67 PI/tumor grading compared with surgical specimens.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with pNETs on EUS and/or surgical specimens were retrospectively identified. Specimens were re-evaluated to assess Ki-67 PI feasibility, sample cellularity by manual counting, and determination of Ki-67 PI value. Outcomes in the EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB groups were compared. Kendall rank test was used for Ki-67 PI correlation between EUS and surgical specimens. Subgroup analysis including small (≤20 mm), non-functioning pNETs was performed.

RESULTS

Three-hundred samples from 292 lesions were evaluated: 69 EUS-FNA cytology and 231 EUS-FNB histology. Ki-67 PI feasibility was similar for EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB (91.3% vs. 95.7%, p = 0.15), while EUS-FNB performed significantly better in the subgroup of 179 small pNETs (88.2% vs. 96.1%, p = 0.04). Rate of poor cellulated (<500 cells) specimens was equal between EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB. A significant correlation for Ki-67 PI values between EUS and 92 correspondent surgical specimens was found in both groups, but it was stronger with EUS-FNB (tau = 0.626, p < 0.0001 vs. tau = 0.452, p = 0.031). Correct grading estimation was comparable between the two groups (p = 0.482).

CONCLUSION

Our study showed stronger correlation for Ki-67 values between EUS-FNB and surgical specimens, and that EUS-FNB outperformed EUS-FNA in the evaluation of small pNETs. EUS-FNB should become standard of care for grading assessment of suspected pNETs.

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.

Prospective study of EUS-guided tissue acquisition with a 20G core biopsy needle with a forward bevel for solid pancreatic mass

There is a growing need for tissue collection for immunostaining and genetic testing. Recently, several fine-needle biopsy needles are commercially available for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition.This prospective historical controlled study evaluates a 20G core biopsy needle with a forward bevel for solid pancreatic masses larger than 15 mm in diameter. The primary endpoint was the accuracy of histological diagnosis. The secondary endpoints included technical success rate, sample adequacy for histology, cytological diagnostic accuracy, and adverse events.Seventy consecutive patients were enrolled between January and October 2017. We achieved technical success in all cases regardless of the puncture sites or the endosonographer's experience. The final diagnoses were neoplasms in 67 patients (95.7%; pancreatic cancer in 65 patients, neuroendocrine neoplasm in 1, and malignant lymphoma in 1) and benign lesions in 3 patients (4.3%; autoimmune pancreatitis in 2 patients and mass-forming pancreatitis in 1). The obtained specimens were adequate for histological evaluation in all cases and the histological accuracy was 91.4% (95% confidence interval, 82.3-96.8%, P < .05) with the sensitivity and specificity of 91.0% and 100%, respectively. The cytological diagnostic accuracy was 95.7% and all patients were accurately diagnosed by combining cytological and histological examinations. As for adverse events, an asymptomatic needle fracture occurred in 1 case (1.4%).This 20G core biopsy needle with a forward bevel showed a high accuracy of histological diagnosis for solid pancreatic masses.

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.

Overlooked risk for needle tract seeding following endoscopic ultrasound-guided minimally invasive tissue acquisition

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided minimally invasive tissue acquisition can be performed by two approaches as follows: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). These have been evolved into leading approaches and widely used for the histological diagnosis of tumors in the gastrointestinal tract and adjacent organs. However, the role of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB in disease diagnosis and evaluation remains controversial. Although the incidence of surgery-associated complications remains low, the consequences of needle tract seeding can be serious or even life-threatening. Recently, increasing case reports of needle tract seeding are emerging, especially caused by EUS-FNA. This complication needs serious consideration. In the present work, we integrated these case reports and the related literature, and summarized the relevant cases and technical characteristics of needle tract seeding caused by EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB. Collectively, our findings provided valuable insights into the prevention and reduction of such serious complication.

Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition for small solid pancreatic lesions

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition is sometimes required to diagnose small solid pancreatic lesions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided tissue acquisition for small solid pancreatic lesions and the differences in diagnostic yield among different needles. Patients and method  We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients who had undergone EUS-guided tissue acquisition for solid pancreatic lesions less than 2 cm between November 2012 and June 2019. Three types of needles were evaluated in this study: a 22-gauge fine-needle aspiration (FNA) Lancet needle, a 20-gauge fine-needle biopsy (FNB) Menghini needle with a lateral forward bevel, and a 22-gauge FNB Franseen needle. We evaluated the diagnostic yield and safety of the procedure using these needles. Results  We analyzed 160 patients with 163 lesions. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 92.0 %, 100 %, and 92.6 %, respectively. In the histological plus cytological diagnosis, accuracies of the Lancet, Menghini, and Franseen needles were 92.7 %, 97.0 %, and 85.7 %, respectively ( P  = 0.10). In the histological diagnosis alone, the negative predictive values (NPVs) of the Lancet, Menghini, and Franseen needles were 13.3 %, 53.3 %, and 27.3 %, respectively ( P  = 0.08). Adverse events occurred in four cases (2.5 %): one postprocedural bleeding, two cases of pancreatitis, and one pancreatic abscess. Conclusions  EUS-guided tissue acquisition for small solid pancreatic lesions has a high diagnostic yield and safety. This study suggested a difference in the diagnostic yield of each needle for small solid pancreatic lesions.

Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic lesions after inconclusive percutaneous ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition

INTRODUCTION

After a failed percutaneous ultrasound (US)-guided sampling, it is recommended that endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition (TA) be performed for non-resectable solid pancreatic lesions according to the European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology. However, the diagnostic performance of EUS-guided TA in this setting is unknown.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the performance and safety of EUS-guided TA in patients with a previous failed percutaneous biopsy. We also evaluated the diagnostic delays between the percutaneous approach and EUS diagnosis.

RESULTS

Over a period of 2 years, 49 patients were identified (29 males, mean age 65 years). The reasons for failure of percutaneous sampling were inadequate samples in 25 (52.1%) cases and lesions that were not visible or targetable in 24 (47.9%) cases. In one case, EUS-guided TA was not performed because of the interposition of a metallic biliary stent. No adverse events were recorded for both the percutaneous and EUS approaches. The median diagnostic delay was 12 days. Overall, the sensitivity and accuracy of EUS-guided TA were 92.7 and 93.7%, respectively. A subgroup analysis examined cases with inadequate samples obtained with the percutaneous approach, and the sensitivity and accuracy of EUS-guided TA were 85.7 and 88%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

EUS-guided TA is safe and accurate for the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions after a previous inconclusive percutaneous approach.

Randomized trial comparing fork-tip and side-fenestrated needles for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The aim of this study was to compare the performance of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy using fork-tip or side-fenestrated needles in patients with solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

A randomized controlled study was conducted in a single academic center on patients who underwent sampling with fork-tip or side-fenestrated 22-gauge or 25-gauge needles. Three passes were performed, each independently evaluated by a blinded pathologist and by endosonographers for macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE). The primary outcome was histologic yield; secondary aims were safety, diagnostic yield, sample quality, number of needle passes required to establish a diagnosis, and reliability of MOSE.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-two patients were enrolled. Both 22-gauge and 25-gauge fork-tip needles retrieved significantly higher rates of histologic samples than side-fenestrated needles (P < .013). Safety and diagnostic accuracy were comparable in the 2 arms, whereas sample quality (tissue integrity and blood contamination) was significantly better in the fork-tip group (P < .0001). The median number of diagnostic passes was lower using fork-tip needles (P = .054). The agreement between MOSE and pathologic evaluation was almost perfect in the fork-tip group and fair in the side-fenestrated group.

CONCLUSIONS

Both needles showed equivalent safety and diagnostic accuracy. However, fork-tip needles provided a higher rate of extremely good-quality histologic samples and required fewer needle passes to reach a diagnosis. MOSE is a highly reliable tool when fork-tip needles are used compared with side-fenestrated needles. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03622229.).

Improved diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle biopsy with histology specimen processing

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) has emerged as a safe, efficacious alternative to fine needle aspiration (FNA) for tissue acquisition. EUS-FNB is reported to have higher diagnostic yield while preserving specimen tissue architecture. However, data on the optimal method of EUS-FNB specimen processing is limited.

AIM

To evaluate EUS-FNB with specimen processing as histology vs EUS-FNA cytology with regards to diagnostic yield and specimen adequacy.

METHODS

All EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB performed at our institution from July 1, 2016, to January 31, 2018, were retrospectively analyzed. We collected data on demographics, EUS findings, pathology, clinical outcomes, and procedural complications in two periods, July 2016 through March 2017, and April 2017 through January 2018, with predominant use of FNB in the second data collection time period. FNA specimens were processed as cytology with cell block technique and reviewed by a cytopathologist; FNB specimens were fixed in formalin, processed for histopathologic analysis and immunohistochemical staining, and reviewed by an anatomic pathologist. Final diagnosis was based on surgical pathology when available, repeat biopsy or imaging, and length of clinical follow up.

RESULTS

One hundred six EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB procedures were performed. FNA alone was performed in 17 patients; in 56 patients, FNB alone was done; and in 33 patients, both FNA and FNB were performed. For all indications, diagnostic yield was 47.1% (8/17) in FNA alone cases, 85.7% (48/56) in FNB alone cases, and 84.8% (28/33) in cases where both FNA and FNB were performed (P = 0.0039). Specimens were adequate for pathologic evaluation in 52.9% (9/17) of FNA alone cases, in 89.3% (50/56) of FNB alone cases, and 84.8% (28/33) in cases where FNA with FNB were performed (P = 0.0049). Tissue could not be aspirated for cytology in 10.0% (5/50) of cases where FNA was done, while in 3.4% (3/89) of FNB cases, tissue could not be obtained for histology. In patients who underwent FNA with FNB, there was a statistically significant difference in both specimen adequacy (P = 0.0455) and diagnostic yield (P = 0.0455) between the FNA and FNB specimens (processed correspondingly as cytology or histology).

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNB has a higher diagnostic yield and specimen adequacy than EUS-FNA. In our experience, specimen processing as histology may have contributed to the overall increased diagnostic yield of EUS-FNB.

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 newer generation endoscopic ultrasound core needles in the diagnostic evaluation of gastrointestinal lesions

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition is now an imperative technique for the diagnosis of multiple diseases in the gastrointestinal tract and nearby structures. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and fine needle biopsy via dedicated FNB needles (EUS-FNB) are two standard-essential tools for tissue acquisition. The choice of needle type is an important factor determining appropriate tissue acquisition. Multiple studies have compared EUS-FNA versus EUS-FNB on different lesions also there are several studies evaluated different needles in terms of sampling adequacy and cytological and histological accuracy. Prior studies comparing prior-generation FNB needles to FNA did not show an increased diagnostic yield with FNB. However, the newer-generation needles have demonstrated enhanced performance compared with their predecessors. As they may provide a large amount of tissue for the cytological and histological evaluation, rapid onsite specimen evaluation (ROSE), and immunohistochemical and molecular analyses, which may be very important for targeted therapy. In this review, we discuss current evidence and literature on the use of the newer generation needles for pancreatic and non-pancreatic lesions.

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.

Outcomes of biliopancreatic EUS in patients with surgically altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy: a multicenter study

Background and study aims  Little is known about outcomes of biliopancreatic endosonography (EUS) in patients with surgically altered upper gastrointestinal (gastrointestinal) anatomy. We aimed to assess the rate of procedural success and EUS-related adverse events (AEs), according to post-surgical anatomies. Patients and methods  Retrospective study including patients with post-surgical altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy who underwent EUS for evaluation of the biliopancreatic region between January 2008 and June 2018 at eight European centers. Results  Of 242 patients (162 males, mean age 66.4 ± 12.5), 86 had (35.5 %) Billroth II, 77 (31.8 %) pancreaticoduodenectomy, 23 (9.5 %) Billroth I, 19 (7.9 %) distal esophagectomy, 15 (6.2 %) total gastrectomy, 14 (5.8 %) sleeve gastrectomy, and eight (3.3 %) Roux-en-Y. Sleeve gastrectomy, Billroth I, and pancreaticoduodenectomy were associated with high rates of success (100 %, 95.7 %, and 92.2 %, respectively). Visualization of the head of the pancreas was significantly impacted by total gastrectomy, Billroth II, and Roux-en-Y (success rates 6.7 %, 53.7 %, and 57.1 %, respectively). Examination of the pancreatic body and tail was impaired in esophagectomy and total gastrectomy (82.4 % and 71.4 %, respectively). Technical success and diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) was 78.2 % and 71.3 % (95 % CI, 60.6-80.5), respectively. Four (1.6 %) AEs were observed: one mucosal tearing in a Billroth II patient, one cardiac arrest in a distal esophagectomy patient, one bleed after EUS-TA in a Billroth I patient, and one acute pancreatitis after EUS-TA in a sleeve gastrectomy patient. Conclusions  The yield of bilio-pancreatic EUS is dependent on lesion location and surgery type. Before considering EUS in these patients, one must carefully consider whether the lesion may be approachable by EUS.

Comparison of a 22-gauge Franseen-tip needle with a 20-gauge forward-bevel needle for the diagnosis of type 1 autoimmune pancreatitis: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study (COMPAS study)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Histologic diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) using EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) is difficult. To address this issue, new fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles were recently developed. Here, we prospectively evaluated 2 newly designed EUS-FNB needles for histologic evaluation in patients with type 1 AIP.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial comparing biopsy specimens obtained with a 22-gauge Franseen needle or a 20-gauge forward-bevel needle in patients with suspected type 1 AIP. AIP was diagnosed according to international consensus diagnostic criteria. The primary endpoint was the sensitivity of EUS-FNB needles, and secondary endpoints were the amount of specimen obtained, histology of the pancreas based on evaluation of lymphoplasmacytic sclerosing pancreatitis (LPSP), and contribution of histologic findings to the diagnosis of AIP.

RESULTS

One hundred ten patients were randomly assigned to the Franseen group (22-gauge Franseen needle) or the forward-bevel group (20-gauge forward-bevel needle). EUS-FNB sampling was successful in all patients. Nine patients were excluded because of diagnoses other than AIP. Compared with the forward-bevel needle, the Franseen needle obtained a significantly greater number of high-power fields. Of 101 patients, 39 patients (78%) in the Franseen group and 23 patients (45%) in the Forward-bevel group were diagnosed with level 1 or 2 LPSP (P = .001). Thirty-six patients could not be diagnosed with type 1 AIP without EUS-FNB specimen results.

CONCLUSIONS

The 22-gauge Franseen needle should be routinely used for histologic diagnosis of type 1 AIP. (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN 000027668.).

Percutaneous Computed Tomography-Guided Coaxial Core Biopsy for the Diagnosis of Pancreatic Tumors

Endoscopic, ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) with rapid on-site evaluation is recommended as a first choice in the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions. Since EUS facilities and rapid on-site evaluation are not widely available, even in medical centers, an alternative for precise diagnoses of pancreatic tumor is warranted. The percutaneous computed tomography-guided, core needle biopsy (CT-CNB) is a commonly applicable method for biopsies. Our institute has developed a fat-transversing approach for pancreatic biopsies which is able to approach most tumors in the pancreas without penetrating organs or vessels. Herein, we report a 15-year experiment of pancreatic tumor coaxial CT-CNB in 420 patients. The success rate of tissue yielding by the technique was 99.3%. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 93.2%, 100%, and 93.4%, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy could be increased to 96.4% in 2016–2018 (after the learning curve period). The overall complication rate was 8.6%. Neither life-threatening major complications, nor seeding through the biopsy tract, were observed. Our study supported the hypothesis that CT-CNB could be a complementary option for diagnostic tissue acquisition in patients with unresectable or metastatic pancreatic tumors when EUS-TA is either unsuitable or unavailable.

New Era of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition: Next-Generation Sequencing by Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Sampling for Pancreatic Cancer

Pancreatic cancer is a lethal cancer with an increasing incidence. Despite improvements in chemotherapy, patients with pancreatic cancer continue to face poor prognoses. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) is the primary method for obtaining tissue samples of pancreatic cancer. Due to advancements in next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies, multiple parallel sequencing can be applied to EUS-TA samples. Genomic biomarkers for therapeutic stratification in pancreatic cancer are still lacking, however, NGS can unveil potential predictive genomic biomarkers of treatment response. Thus, the importance of NGS using EUS-TA samples is becoming recognized. In this review, we discuss the recent advances in EUS-TA application for NGS of pancreatic cancer.