Comparing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) versus fine needle biopsy (FNB) in the diagnosis of solid lesions: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2016;17:198. [PMID: 27071386 PMCID: PMC4830051 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-016-1316-2]

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.

A comparison of the antegrade core trap and reverse bevel needles for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling of liver mass: a prospective randomized cross over study

BACKGROUND

Data on the use of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) of solid liver mass (SLM) for pathology is limited.

METHODS

To prove superiority of the diagnostic rate of the newly designed modified Menghini-type needle with a beveled side-slot near the needle tip with slot cutting edge directed 20-gauge antegrade bevel (group A) over the original 22-gauge reverse bevel (group B) for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) of solid liver mass (SLM) in a prospective crossover randomized controlled trial.

RESULTS

The overall diagnostic accuracy rate of the 52 passes was 86.5% (45/52) and of group A versus B were 88.5% (23/26) versus 84.6% (22/26), respectively, p = 0.858. Tissue adequacy levels of both groups were not significantly different (grade A: B: C = 18:6:2 versus 16:7:3), p = 0.839). Grading of blood contamination of both groups was not significantly different. However, it was found that the group-A needles could biopsy tissue of significantly longer length than that of the group B; 1.3 cm (SD = 0.76) versus 0.8 cm (SD = 0.54); p = 0.007.

CONCLUSION

The use of EUS-FNB of SLM is highly effective with similar levels of efficacy and number of adverse events between both types of needles.

THE TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Thai Clinical Trial Registration No. TCTR2018081002.

Diagnostic and Prognostic Values of KRAS Mutations on EUS-FNA Specimens and Circulating Tumor DNA in Patients With Pancreatic Cancer

INTRODUCTION

The ability of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) to differentiate pancreatic cancer from other benign pancreatic lesions is unsatisfactory. This study explored the diagnostic value of KRAS gene mutations and plasma circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in patients with pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

The prospective cohort study comprised 149 consecutive patients with solid pancreatic lesions who underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). KRAS subtype mutations were analyzed by digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) in EUS-FNA histopathology tissue samples, and blood samples were sent for plasma ctDNA analysis. The final diagnosis was based on surgical resection pathology or follow-up for at least 2 years.

RESULTS

Adding KRAS mutation ddPCR increased the sensitivity and accuracy of EUS-FNA from 71.4% to 91.6% (P < 0.001) and 75.8% to 88.6% (P < 0.001), respectively. By comparison, the sensitivities of circulating biomarkers ctDNA and CA19-9 were only 35.2% and 71.2%. The area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of EUS-FNA and KRAS ddPCR combination was >0.90 for distinguishing pancreatic cancer from benign lesions, whereas the AUC of EUS-FNA and CA19-9 combination was 0.83. The median survival time was significantly shorter in patients with G12D KRAS mutations than that in patients with other mutations (180 vs 240 days, P < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

FNA tissue sample KRAS mutation analysis in tissues significantly improves the diagnostic accuracy of cyto/histopathological evaluation in EUS-FNA samples. The combination of EUS-FNA and tissue sample KRAS ddPCR provided a more accurate method for pancreatic cancer diagnosis, superior to the combination of EUS-FNA and CA19-9/ctDNA. G12D KRAS mutations in pancreatic cancer were independently associated with poor overall survival.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) from peritoneal lesions: a prospective cohort pilot study

Background

Diagnostic laparoscopy is often a necessary, albeit invasive, procedure to help resolve undiagnosed peritoneal diseases. Previous retrospective studies reported that EUS-FNA is feasible on peritoneal and omental lesions, however, EUS-FNA provided a limited amount of tissue for immunohistochemistry stain (IHC).

Aim

This pilot study aims to prospectively determine the effectiveness of EUS-FNB regarding adequacy of tissue for IHC staining, diagnostic rate and the avoidance rate of diagnostic laparoscopy or percutaneous biopsy in patients with these lesions.

Methods

From March 2017 to June 2018, patients with peritoneal or omental lesions identified by CT or MRI at the King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand were prospectively enrolled in the study. All Patients underwent EUS-FNB. For those with negative pathological results of EUS-FNB, percutaneous biopsy or diagnostic laparoscopy was planned. Analysis uses percentages only due to small sample sizes.

Results

A total of 30 EUS-FNB passes were completed, with a median of 3 passes (range 2–3 passes) per case. For EUS-FNB, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of EUS-FNB from peritoneal lesions were 63.6%, 100%, 100%, 20% and 66.7% respectively. Adequate tissue for IHC stain was found in 25/30 passes (80%). The tissues from EUS results were found malignant in 7/12 patients (58.3%). IHC could be done in 10/12 patients (83.3%). Among the five patients with negative EUS results, two underwent either liver biopsy of mass or abdominal paracentesis, showing gallbladder cancer and adenocarcinoma. Two patients refused laparoscopy due to advanced pancreatic cancer and worsening ovarian cancer. The fifth patient had post-surgical inflammation only with spontaneous resolution. The avoidance rate of laparoscopic diagnosis was 58.3%. No major adverse event was observed.

Conclusions

EUS-FNB from peritoneal lesions provided sufficient core tissue for diagnosis and IHC. Diagnostic laparoscopy can often be avoided in patients with peritoneal lesions.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12876-021-01953-9.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and the management of pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related mortality in western countries. Early diagnosis of pancreatic cancers plays a key role in the management by identification of patients who are surgical candidates. The advancement in the radiological imaging and interventional endoscopy (including endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic enteral stenting techniques) has a significant impact in the diagnostic evaluation, staging and treatment of pancreatic cancer. The multidisciplinary involvement of radiology, gastroenterology, medical oncology and surgical oncology is central to the management of patients with pancreatic cancers. This review aims to highlight the diagnostic and therapeutic role of EUS in the management of patients with pancreatic malignancy, especially pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Randomized controlled trial comparing a conventional needle and a novel needle for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided histology of peripancreatic masses

INTRODUCTION

Cytological study of samples obtained by Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) allows for recognition of clear signs of malignant transformation. However, certain neoplasms can be difficult to diagnose without histological analysis. Recently, a novel EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) needle was developed to increase tissue acquisition. This study set out to investigate the usefulness of this novel EUS-FNB needle (NEFN) in terms of obtaining a proper histology compared with a conventional EUS-FNA needle (CEFN).

METHODS

This investigation was a prospective, single-blind, randomized study in a single academic hospital. Primary outcome was the acquisition rate of an appropriate and sufficient specimen for histologic assessment. Secondary outcomes were diagnostic yield of peripancreatic masses using a CEFN and a NEFN. Furthermore, we assessed the feasibility of determining K-ras mutation status according to needle type.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 56 consecutive patients. Technical success rates were 96.6% (28/29) for the CEFN and 100% (27/27) for the NEFN (P = 1.000). No complications occurred during or after the procedure in either needle group. An adequate sample for cytologic diagnosis was obtained in 89.7% (26/29) of patients in the CEFN group vs 96.3% (26/27) of patients in the NEFN group (P = .612). For histologic diagnosis, a sample with a biopsy adequacy score of 2 or more was obtained in 41.4% (12/29) of CEFN-acquired samples vs 88.9% (24/27) of NEFN-acquired samples (P < .001). K-ras mutation analysis using histologic specimens was possible in 13 (44.8%) CEFN-acquired samples and 25 (92.6%) of NEFN-acquired samples. This difference was significant (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study suggests that the NEFN is an effective and reliable alternative compared to a CEFN in terms of tissue acquisition rate and quality of histologic sampling.

Tissue acquisition and pancreatic masses: Which needle and which acquisition technique should be used?

Background and study aims  Pancreatic cancer represents the fourth most common cause of cancer-related deaths in Western countries and the need of a low-risk investigation to obtain an accurate histopathological diagnosis has become increasingly pressing. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) with fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is the standard method for obtaining samples from pancreatic masses. In recent years, there has been an increasing need to obtain histological specimens during EUS procedures, rather than cytological ones, to guide oncological treatment options, leading to the so-call "FNB concept." Different needles have been developed for fine-needle biopsy (FNB) in recent years, enabling acquisition of larger specimens on which to perform histological and molecular analyses. The aim of this narrative review was to assess the role of EUS-guided FNA and FNB in patients with pancreatic masses, and to identify which needle and which acquisition technique should be used to improve tissue acquisition.

Lung cancer biopsies: Comparison between simple 22G, 22G upgraded and 21G needle for EBUS-TBNA

Introduction: Novel technologies are currently used for lung cancer diagnosis. EBUS-TBNA 22G is considered one of the most important tools. However; there are still issues with the sample size.Patients and Methods: 223 patients underwent EBUS-TBNA with a 21G Olympus needle, 22GUS Mediglobe and 22GUB Mediglobe. In order to evaluate the efficiency of 22GUB novel needle design. In order to evaluate the sample size of each needle, we constructed cell blocks and measured the different number of slices from each biopsy site. Results: The 22GUB novel needle had similar and larger number of slices from each biopsy site compared to 21G needle. Discussion: Firstly as a novel methodology we used the number of slices from the constructed cell blocks in order to evaluate the sample size. Secondly, we should seek novel needle designs and not only concentrate on the volume of the sample size.

A case of gastric carcinoma with lymphoid stroma diagnosed by an endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling is indicated to achieve an accurate diagnosis of subepithelial lesions of the stomach when a standard biopsy fails. Gastric carcinoma with lymphoid stroma (GCLS) is located under the epithelial layer with dense lymphocytic infiltration, making a pathological diagnosis by a biopsy difficult. We herein report a case of the pathological diagnosis of GCLS using an endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy. The patient underwent distal gastrectomy and was diagnosed with Epstein-Barr virus-negative cancer.

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.

Efficacy of 3 fine-needle biopsy techniques for suspected pancreatic malignancies in the absence of an on-site cytopathologist

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) has a high diagnostic accuracy for pancreatic tumors. Most reports have focused on the diagnostic yield of cytology or histology; the ability of various FNA/B techniques to obtain an adequate mass of cells or tissue has rarely been investigated.

METHODS

Patients with suspected pancreatic malignancy underwent EUS-FNB using a 22-gauge ProCore needle by either the stylet slow-pull-back technique (group A), conventional negative suction after stylet removal (group B), or non-suction after stylet removal (group C) in the absence of an on-site cytopathologist. The adequacy of the 3 techniques based on the diagnostic yield, cellularity, blood contamination, and core-tissue acquisition was evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 50 patients (27 males) were analyzed. The mean tumor size was 21 to 40 mm in 54%. The rate of a good or excellent proportion of cellularity was highest in group A compared with groups B and C (72% vs 60% vs 50%, P = .049). A >25% rate of blood contamination was more prevalent in group B (30% vs 42% vs 10%, P = .009). The rate of adequate core-tissue acquisition was not different (52% vs 34% vs 50%, P = .140). Based on the multivariate generalized estimation equation, the stylet slow-pull-back technique and a tumor size >40 mm were favorable factors for diagnostic adequacy.

CONCLUSIONS

The stylet slow-pull-back technique might enable acquisition of tissue and assessment of cellularity for the diagnosis of pancreatic tumors suspected to be malignant. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT0002190.).

A multicenter randomized trial comparing a 25-gauge EUS fine-needle aspiration device with a 20-gauge EUS fine-needle biopsy device

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Several studies have compared EUS-guided FNA with fine-needle biopsy (FNB), but none have proven superiority. We performed a multicenter randomized controlled trial to compare the performance of a commonly used 25-gauge FNA needle with a newly designed 20-gauge FNB needle.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with a solid lesion were randomized in this international multicenter study between a 25-gauge FNA (EchoTip Ultra) or a 20-gauge FNB needle (ProCore). The primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy for malignancy and the Bethesda classification (non-diagnostic, benign, atypical, malignant). Technical success, safety, and sample quality were also assessed. Multivariable and supplementary analyses were performed to adjust for confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 608 patients were allocated to FNA (n = 306) or FNB (n = 302); 312 pancreatic lesions (51%), 147 lymph nodes (24%), and 149 other lesions (25%). Technical success rate was 100% for the 25-gauge FNA and 99% for the 20-gauge FNB needle (P = .043), with no differences in adverse events. The 20-gauge FNB needle outperformed 25-gauge FNA in terms of histologic yield (77% vs 44%, P < .001), accuracy for malignancy (87% vs 78%, P = .002) and Bethesda classification (82% vs 72%, P = .002). This was robust when corrected for indication, lesion size, number of passes, and presence of an on-site pathologist (odds ratio, 3.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.55-8.56; P = .004), and did not differ among centers (P = .836).

CONCLUSION

The 20-gauge FNB needle outperformed the 25-gauge FNA needle in terms of histologic yield and diagnostic accuracy. This benefit was irrespective of the indication and was consistent among participating centers, supporting the general applicability of our findings. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02167074.).

Analysis of Fine-Needle Biopsy vs Fine-Needle Aspiration in Diagnosis of Pancreatic and Abdominal Masses: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needles with side fenestrations are used to collect aspirates for cytology analysis and biopsy samples for histologic analysis. We conducted a large, multicenter study to compare the accuracy of diagnosis via specimens collected with fine-needle biopsy (FNB) versus fine-needle aspiration (FNA) for patients with pancreatic and nonpancreatic masses.

METHODS

We performed a prospective single-blind study at 5 tertiary care centers in China. The study comprised 408 patients undergoing EUS for a solid mass (>1 cm) in the pancreas, abdomen, mediastinum, or pelvic cavity, from December 2014 through January 2016. Patients were randomly assigned to groups (1:1) for assessment by FNA (n = 190) or FNB (n = 187). After lesions were identified by EUS, samples were collected in a total of 4 passes by each needle. All procedures were performed by experienced endosonographers; cytologists and pathologists were blinded to the sample collection method. Patients were followed for at least 48 weeks, and final diagnoses were obtained after surgery, imaging analysis, or resolution of lesion. The primary aim was to compare diagnostic yields of EUS-FNA with EUS-FNB for all solid masses, then separately as pancreatic and nonpancreatic masses. The secondary endpoint was the quality of histologic specimen.

RESULTS

Findings from FNB analysis were accurate for 91.44% of all cases, compared with 80.00% for all FNA cases, based on final patient diagnoses (P = .0015). In patients with pancreatic masses (n = 249), findings from histologic analysis of FNBs were accurate for 92.68% of the cases, compared with 81.75% for FNAs (P = .0099). In cytology analysis of pancreatic masses, samples collected by FNB accurately identified 88.62% of all pancreatic lesions, whereas samples collected by FNA accurately identified 79.37% (P = .00468). Analyses of samples of nonpancreatic masses collected by FNA versus FNB produced similar diagnostic yields.

CONCLUSIONS

In a prospective study of patients with pancreatic masses, we found EUS-guided FNB samples to produce more accurate diagnoses than samples collected by EUS-guided FNA samples. No difference in diagnostic yield was seen between EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for nonpancreatic masses. Clinical Trials.gov no: NCT02327065.

Esophagus lyomyoma diagnosed with convex endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS)

Esophageal lyomyoma are rare benign tumors of the esophagus and they remain usually undiagnosed until local compression symptoms occur in the esophagus. Gastroscopy or esophageal ultrasonography (EUS) are usually the methods of choice for diagnosis. Moreover; surgery is the solution for this entity. In our case we present diagnosis of esophageal lyomyoma using convex probe endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) with a fine needle aspiration of 22G.

Comparison of modified wet suction technique and dry suction technique in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for solid lesions: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Several suction techniques have been developed recently to enhance tissue acquisition when sampling solid lesions using endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). The aim of this study is to determine whether a new modified wet suction technique (MWST) compared with the conventional dry suction technique (DRST) shall present better outcomes with respect to diagnostic yield and specimen quality of solid lesions in the intra-abdomen and mediastinum.

Methods/design

This is a single-blind, randomized, controlled, superiority trial conducted at four large tertiary care centers in China. Two hundred and ninety-six patients with solid lesions referred for EUS-FNA will be randomly assigned to group A, using DRST for the first pass, or group B, using MWST for the first pass in a ratio of 1:1. Following a 2 × 2 cross-over design, the pass sequence for group A is DRST, MWST, DRST, MWST. For group B, the pass sequence is MWST, DRST, MWST, DRST. All procedures will be performed by experienced echoendoscopists, and the patients and assessors (cytologists and pathologists) will be blinded during the entire study. The primary outcome measure is the diagnosis yield. Secondary outcome measures are specimen quality, including assessment of quantity of cell, tissue integrity, and blood contamination.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first large-scale randomized controlled trial to compare MWST with DRST when sampling solid lesions in the intra-abdomen and mediastinum. The results may contribute to future multicenter clinical trials in standardizing suction techniques during EUS-FNA.

Trial registration

Clinical Trials.gov, NCT02789371. Retrospectively registered on 6 June 2016.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2380-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Novel biomarkers and endoscopic techniques for diagnosing pancreaticobiliary malignancy

The UK incidence of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is 9 per 100,000 population, and biliary tract cancer occurs at a rate of 1–2 per 100,000. The incidence of both cancers is increasing annually and these tumours continue to be diagnosed late and at an advanced stage, limiting options for curative treatment. Population-based screening programmes do not exist for these cancers, and diagnosis currently is dependent on symptom recognition, but often symptoms are not present until the disease is advanced. Recently, a number of promising blood and urine biomarkers have been described for pancreaticobiliary malignancy and are summarised in this review. Novel endoscopic techniques such as single-operator cholangioscopy and confocal endomicroscopy have been used in some centres to enhance standard endoscopic diagnostic techniques and are also evaluated in this review.

Team work and cytopathology molecular diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is expected to become the second leading cause of cancer-associated death in the next decade or so. It is widely accepted that tumorigenesis is linked to specific alterations in key genes and pancreatic neoplasms are some of the best characterized at the genomic level. Recent whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing analyses confirmed that PDAC is frequently characterized by mutations in a set of four genes among others: KRAS, TP53, CDKN2A/p16, and SMAD4. Sequencing, for example, is the preferable technique available for detecting KRAS mutations, whereas in situ immunochemistry is the main approach for detecting TP53 gene alteration. Nevertheless, the diagnosis of PDAC is still a clinical challenge, involving adequate acquisition of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and specific pathological assessment from tissue architecture to specific biomolecular tests. The aim of the present review is to provide a complete overview of the current knowledge of the biology of pancreatic cancer as detected by the latest biomolecular techniques and, moreover, to propose a paradigm for strict teamwork collaboration in order to improve the correct use of diagnostic sources.

Slow-pull and different conventional suction techniques in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic solid lesions using 22-gauge needles

AIM

To evaluate the cytological diagnostic capacity and sample quality of the slow-pull technique and compare them with different suction techniques.

METHODS

From July 2010 to December 2015, 102 patients with pancreatic solid lesions who underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) with 22-gauge needles were retrospectively evaluated. EUS-FNA diagnosis was based on a cytological examination, and final diagnosis was based on a comprehensive standard of cytological diagnosis, surgical pathology and clinical or imaging follow-up. Cytological specimens were characterized for cellularity and blood contamination. The cytological diagnostic capacity and sample quality of the slow-pull technique and suction techniques with 5-mL/10-mL/20-mL syringes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of all of the EUS-FNA procedures, the slow-pull technique and suction techniques with 5-mL/10-mL/20-mL syringes were used in 31, 19, 34 and 18 procedures, respectively. There were significant differences between these four suction techniques in terms of cytological diagnostic accuracy (90.3% vs 63.2% vs 58.8% vs 55.6%, P = 0.019), sensitivity (88.2% vs 41.7% vs 40.0% vs 36.4%, P = 0.009) and blood contamination (score ≥ 2 for 29.0% vs 52.6% vs 70.6% vs 72.2%, P = 0.003). The accuracy and sensitivity of the slow-pull technique were significantly higher than those of the suction techniques using 5-mL (P = 0.03, P = 0.014), 10-mL (P = 0.005; P = 0.006) and 20-mL syringes (P = 0.01, P = 0.01). Blood contamination was significantly lower in the slow-pull technique than in the suction techniques with 10-mL (P = 0.001) and 20-mL syringes (P = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

The slow-pull technique may increase the cytological diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity with slight blood contamination during EUS-FNA when using 22-gauge needles for solid pancreatic masses.