Prospective Study for Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition Using 25- and 22-Gauge Core Biopsy Needles in Solid Pancreatic Masses

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.

A 22-G or a 25-G Needle: Which One to Use in the Diagnostics of Solid Pancreatic Lesions? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

With the 12th highest incidence and a common late diagnostic at advanced stages, neoadjuvant therapies for pancreatic cancer are important, but they require a confirmed diagnosis. Being a diagnostic standard, the clarification of the clinical relevance of needle gauges is needed, as larger ones may retrieve more tissue for diagnostics, but may also increase the risk of complications. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the efficiency of the most commonly used 22-G and 25-G needles for EUS guided biopsy in solid pancreatic lesions. The MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, Cochrane (CENTRAL), and Scopus databases were searched with "EUS", "needle", "FNA", "pancreas", "prospective", "22G", and "25G" keywords. Mixed effects were assessed in the model, with a mean of 86% and a 95% confidence interval. Fourteen prospective studies that compared the efficiency of 22-G and 25-G biopsy needles in 508 and 524 lesions, respectively, were analyzed, along with 332 specimens biopsied using both needle sizes. The groups did not significantly differ in the outcomes. A low degree of heterogeneity was observed overall, except for specimen adequacy. Moreover, 22-G and 25-G needles have comparable safety and efficacy for focal pancreatic lesion biopsies without a high risk of complications.

Small biopsies for pancreatic lesions: Is there still room for fine needle aspiration?

Pancreatic carcinoma is an aggressive tumour with increasing incidence in both sexes worldwide. Early detection is, therefore, essential for patient management. A recent advancement involves the utilization of larger, thicker gauge needles, which enable the collection of core-type biopsies (FNB). Here, we investigated the role of fine needle aspiration and cytopathology in the diagnostic workflow of pancreatic lesions. A search query was designed to search for articles in the PubMed database comparing FNA and FNB for biopsy of pancreatic lesions, and detailed data were extracted from selected studies. Statistical analyses were performed using the R package meta version 6.2. Twenty-one studies made the final cut for data extraction. Overall, median age was 64.3 years (±6.1; 47.6-71.5), male: female proportion 53.9 (±11.3; 27.6-67.4), lesion size 3.1 cm (±0.5; 1.9-4.2 cm) and percentage of malignant cases 78.3% (±26.8; 2.1-100). FNA and FNB diagnostic yield was 85.8% (±10.3; 70.0-100.0) and 89.2% (±7.7; 70.0-98.6), respectively. Average accuracy was 89.5% (±11.7; 63.0-100.0) for FNA and 90.8% (±7.1; 77.0-100.0) for FNB. Adverse effects rate was 1.0% (±1.3; 0-4.3) for FNA and 2.2% (±4.4; 0-16.1) for FNB. None of the selected variables had a significant statistical difference between both methods. FNA and FNB perform similarly for diagnostic material acquisition in pancreatic lesions. The best outcome comes from the association of both techniques, emphasizing the value of combining cytological and histological morphology for the most accurate analysis.

Comparing the diagnostic adequacy of 25-Gauge fork-tip versus franseen versus reverse-bevel-type needles in EUS-guided tissue acquisition: A prospective randomized study with a retrospective control

Background and Objectives

EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB) is an established technique for the acquisition of tissue to diagnose lesions of the gastrointestinal tract and surrounding organs. Recently, newer-generation FNB needles have been introduced, including a second-generation reverse-bevel and the third-generation fork-tip and Franseen needles. We aimed to determine if there was any difference between these needles in terms of cytopathological diagnostic yield, sample cellularity, or sample bloodiness.

Methods

One hundred twenty-seven consecutive patients undergoing EUS-guided FNB of any solid lesion were randomized to use either a Franseen or fork-tip needle in a 1:1 ratio and were compared with 60 consecutive historical cases performed with reverse-bevel needles. Patient and procedure characteristics were recorded. Cases were reviewed by a blinded cytopathologist and graded based on cellularity and bloodiness. Overall diagnostic yield was calculated for each study arm.

Results

One hundred seventy-six cases were eligible for analysis, including 109 pancreatic masses, 24 lymphoid lesions, 17 subepithelial lesions, and 26 other lesions. The final diagnosis was malignancy in 127 cases (72%). EUS-guided FNB was diagnostic in 141 cases (80%) overall and in 89% of cases where malignancy was the final diagnosis. There was no difference in diagnostic yield, sample cellularity, or sample bloodiness between the different needle types. There was no difference in adverse events between groups.

Conclusions

EUS-guided FNB performed using 25-gauge Franseen, fork-tip, and reverse-bevel needles resulted in similar diagnostic yield, sample cellularity, and sample bloodiness. Our results may not be extrapolated to larger-caliber needles of the same design.

Comparison between three types of needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid masses: a multicenter observational study

It is debatable which needle has clear superiority of diagnostic performance in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle biopsy (FNB) of solid pancreatic masses. This study aimed to compare the performance of three needles and determine the variables that affect diagnostic accuracy. From March 2014 to May 2020, 746 patients with solid pancreatic masses who underwent EUS-FNB using three types of needles (Franseen needle, Menghini-tip needle, and Reverse-bevel needle) were retrospectively reviewed. Multivariate analysis using a logistic regression model was used to identify factors related to diagnostic accuracy. There were significant differences between the groups regarding the procurement rate of the histologic and optimal quality cores (Franseen vs. Menghini-tip vs. Reverse-bevel: 98.0% [192/196] vs. 85.8% [97/113] vs. 91.9% [331/360], P < 0.001 and 95.4% [187/196] vs. 65.5% [74/113] vs. 88.3% [318/360], P < 0.001, respectively). The sensitivity and accuracy using histologic samples were 95.03% and 95.92% for Franseen, 82.67% and 88.50% for Menghini-tip, and 82.61% and 85.56% for Reverse-bevel needles, respectively. In direct comparison between the needles using histologic samples, the Franseen needle showed significantly superior accuracy than the Menghini-tip (P = 0.018) and Reverse-bevel needles (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis indicated that tumor size ≥ 2 cm (odds ratio [OR] 5.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.40-8.47, P < 0.001) and fanning technique (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.00-2.86, P = 0.047) were significantly associated with an accurate diagnosis. EUS-FNB using the Franseen needle enables the acquisition of a larger and more adequate histologic core tissue and achieves an accurate histological diagnosis when using the fanning technique.

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.

Randomized trial comparing the 25G and 22G Franseen needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition from solid pancreatic masses for adequate histological assessment

BACKGROUND

The effects of the Franseen needle size in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) of solid pancreatic masses remain unclear. This study aimed to compare 25G and 22G Franseen needles in terms of adequate tissue acquisition from solid pancreatic masses.

METHODS

In this single-center, crossover, randomized noninferiority trial, eligible patients underwent EUS-FNB with both 25G and 22G Franseen needles in a randomized order between November 2018 and August 2020. Tissue specimens from each pass were separately evaluated based on the cellularity scoring system. The primary outcome was the proportion of acquired specimens allowing adequate histological assessment (cellularity score ≥3). A -15% noninferiority margin was assumed.

RESULTS

Data from 88 patients were analyzed, which showed malignant and benign lesions in 84 (95.5%) and four (4.5%) patients, respectively. Of the 88 specimens, 62 (70.5%) and 69 (78.4%) acquired using 25G and 22G needles, respectively, allowed adequate histological assessment. The adjusted proportion difference was -6.6% (95% confidence interval -8.8% to -4.5%), indicating noninferiority of the 25G Franseen needle (P < 0.001). The diagnostic accuracies of the 25G and 22G needles were 86.4% and 89.8%, respectively, with no significant difference (P = 0.180). Adverse events occurred in one patient.

CONCLUSIONS

The 25G Franseen needle showed a noninferior adequate tissue acquisition and similar diagnostic performance compared to that of the 22G Franseen needle. However, a 15% noninferiority margin was high for clinical use; thus, further consideration is needed (Clinical Trial Registry no. UMIN000034596).

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A comparison between 25-gauge and 22-gauge Franseen needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of pancreatic and peripancreatic masses: a randomized non-inferiority study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (FNB) are the current standard of care for sampling pancreatic and peripancreatic masses. Recently, a 22G EUS-FNB needle with Franseen geometry was developed, and this device was also introduced in a 25G platform. We compared the performance of the 25G and 22G Franseen needles for EUS-guided sampling of pancreatic and peripancreatic solid masses.

METHODS

We conducted a parallel-group randomized non-inferiority trial at a tertiary-care center from November 2018 to May 2019. The primary outcome was the quality of the histologic core assessed using the Gerke score. The optimal histologic core is indicated by a Gerke score of 4 or 5, which enables optimal histologic interpretation. The overall diagnostic accuracy and adverse event rate were also evaluated.

RESULTS

140 patients were enrolled and randomized (1:1) to the 25G and 22G groups. Tissue acquisition by EUS-FNB was successful in all patients. The optimal histologic core procurement rate was 87.1 % (61/70) for the 25G needle vs. 97.1 % (68/70) for the 22G; difference -10 % (95 % confidence interval -17.35 % to -2.65 %). High quality specimens were more frequently obtained in the 22G group than in the 25G group (70.0 % [49/70] vs. 28.6 % [20 /70], respectively; P < 0.001). The overall diagnostic accuracy did not differ between the groups (97.4 % for 25G vs. 100 % for 22G).

CONCLUSIONS

The 25G Franseen needle was inferior to the 22G needle in histologic core procurement. Therefore, for cases in which tissue architecture is pivotal for diagnosis, a 22G needle, which procures relatively higher quality specimens than the 25G needle, should be used.

[Clinical and Technical Guideline for Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Tissue Acquisition of Pancreatic Solid Tumor: Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy]

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence- based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.

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.

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.

Clinical and Technical Guideline for Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-Guided Tissue Acquisition of Pancreatic Solid Tumor: Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE)

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a task force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice. (Gut Liver 2021;15:-374)

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.

Clinical and Technical Guideline for Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-Guided Tissue Acquisition of Pancreatic Solid Tumor: Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE)

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in 8 categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.

Anticoagulation and antiplatelet management in gastrointestinal endoscopy: A review of current evidence

The role of endoscopic procedures, in both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes is continually expanding and evolving rapidly. In this context, endoscopists will encounter patients prescribed on anticoagulant and antiplatelet medications frequently. This poses an increased risk of intraprocedural and delayed gastrointestinal bleeding. Thus, there is now greater importance on optimal pre, peri and post-operative management of anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet therapy to minimise the risk of post-procedural bleeding, without increasing the risk of a thromboembolic event as a consequence of therapy interruption. Currently, there are position statements and guidelines from the major gastroenterology societies. These are available to assist endoscopists with an evidenced-based systematic approach to anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet management in endoscopic procedures, to ensure optimal patient safety. However, since the publication of these guidelines, there is emerging evidence not previously considered in the recommendations that may warrant changes to our current clinical practices. Most notably and divergent from current position statements, is a growing concern regarding the use of heparin bridging therapy during warfarin cessation and its associated risk of increased bleeding, suggestive that this practice should be avoided. In addition, there is emerging evidence that anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet therapy may be safe to be continued in cold snare polypectomy for small polyps (< 10 mm).

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.

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.

The diagnostic performance of novel torque technique for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition in solid pancreatic lesions: A prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Although several techniques for improved outcomes in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition have been reported, the reported diagnostic yield for pancreatic masses is not satisfactory. The effects of novel technique (torque method) on twisting the scope in the clockwise or counterclockwise direction during EUS-fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) are unknown. We compared the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNB for pancreatic masses using the torque and standard techniques.

METHODS

From April 20, 2017, to March 16, 2018, 124 consecutive patients with solid pancreatic mass who underwent EUS-FNB using either the torque or standard technique were randomly assigned. Three passes were made with each technique, comprising 10 uniform to-and-fro movements on each pass with a 10-mL syringe suction. The primary outcome was procurement rates of histologic cores, and the secondary outcomes were the diagnostic performance and technical failure.

RESULTS

There were significant differences between the groups regarding the procurement rate of the histologic core and optimal quality core (standard vs torque: 87.1% [54/62] vs 98.4% [61/62], P = 0.038 and 79.0% [49/62] vs 93.5% [58/62], P = 0.037). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive values of EUS-FNB were 85.45%, 100%, 100%, and 46.67%, respectively, for the standard technique and 96.49%, 100%, 100%, and 71.43%, respectively, for the torque technique. The diagnostic accuracies of the standard and torque techniques were 87.10% and 96.77%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The torque technique for EUS-FNB offered acceptable technical feasibility and superior diagnostic performance, including optimal histologic core procurement, compared with the standard technique.

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.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Collaboration of community hospital endosonographers improves diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasonography guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic lesions

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition (TA) is the method of choice for establishing a pathological diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions. Data on quality and yield of EUS-guided TA performed in community hospitals are lacking. A study was performed to determine and improve the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided TA in a group of community hospitals. Methods  Following analysis of the last 20 EUS-guided TA procedures of solid pancreatic lesions performed in each of four community hospitals, a collaborative EUS interest group was formed and a prospective registry was started. During meetings of the interest group, feedback on results per center were provided and strategies for improvement were discussed. Results  In the BEFORE team formation cohort, 80 procedures were performed in 66 patients. In the AFTER team formation cohort, 133 procedures were performed in 125 patients. After team formation, the rate of adequate sample increased from 80 % (95 %CI [0.7 - 0.9]) to 95 % (95 %CI [0.9 - 1.0]) , diagnostic yield of malignancy improved from 28 % (95 %CI [0.2 - 0.4]) to 64 % (95 % CI [0.6 - 0.7]), and sensitivity of malignancy improved from 63 % (95 %CI [0.4 - 0.8]) to 84 % (95 %CI [0.8 - 0.9]). Multivariate regression analysis revealed team formation to be the only variable significantly associated with an increased rate of adequate sample. Conclusions  Formation of a regional EUS interest group with regular feedback on results per center, and discussions on methods and techniques used, significantly improved the outcome of EUS-guided TA procedures in patients with solid pancreatic lesions in community hospitals.

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.).

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy of Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration (FNA) Using 22-gauge and 25-gauge Needles for Pancreatic Masses

BACKGROUND Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has been used for detecting pancreatic cancer. We aimed to compare the diagnostic yield of both 22-gauge and 25-gauge EUS-FNA for the detection of pancreatic cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS We searched the electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library up to June 13, 2017. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. RESULTS We analyzed data from 1824 patients from 16 included studies. The estimated pooled data for the 22-gauge needles reported sensitivity was 0.89 (0.83-0.93), specificity was 1.00 (0.74-1.00), positive LR was 485.28 (2.55-92 000) and negative LR was 0.11 (0.07-0.17). Results for the 25-gauge needles showed the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative LR was 0.90 (0.86-0.93), 0.99 (0.89-1.00), 59.53 (7.99-443.66), and 0.10 (0.07-0.14), respectively. The 25-gauge needle had significantly higher pooled sensitivity than the 22-gauge needle (0.90 vs. 0.87, χ²=5.26, P=0.02) while there was no difference in the pooled specificity (0.96 vs. 0.98, χ²=2.12, P=0.15). The quality of most studies was assessed favorable using QUADAS-2 (quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-2). CONCLUSIONS Our findings revealed that the 25-gauge EUS-FNA used for pancreatic lesions could have a higher diagnostic yield than using 22-gauge EUS-FNA. Nevertheless, well-designed prospective studies recruiting more patients are needed.

Utility of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy for Next-Generation Sequencing of Pancreatic Exocrine Malignancies

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy and aspiration (EUS FNB/A) are the standard diagnostic tests for pancreatic malignancies. Oncologists increasingly use tumor genomic analysis for management. Adequacy of FNB/A tissue for next-generation sequencing (NGS) has not been evaluated. This study examined FNB/A and other biopsy types for features that might predict adequacy for NGS.

METHODS

Seventy-six pancreatic exocrine malignancy biopsies submitted for NGS were assessed for adequacy, which was compared with other tumor/biopsy features.

RESULTS

Twenty-two (29%) of 76 samples were inadequate, including 16 (30%) of 54 FNBs and 4 (57%) of 7 FNAs. Larger-gauge needles were associated with adequacy in all samples (P = 0.0047) and in FNBs (P = 0.05). Metastatic samples were more likely to be adequate for NGS compared with pancreatic samples (P = 0.0357). Percutaneous biopsies were more likely to be adequate than EUS-guided FNB/As, although this trend was not significant (P = 0.0558). Other tumor/biopsy characteristics were not associated with adequacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic US FNA and FNB provided similar NGS adequacy rates. Metastatic lesions accessible by percutaneous biopsy may be preferable to EUS FNB/A of primary lesions for obtaining tissue for NGS. All biopsies, including EUS FNB, were more likely to be successful using larger-gauge needles.

Endobronchial Ultrasound-guided Transbronchial Needle Aspiration With a 19-G Needle Device

BACKGROUND

Endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS)-guided transbronchial needle aspiration is a well-established first-line minimally invasive modality for mediastinal lymph node sampling. Although results are excellent overall, the technique underperforms in certain situations. We aimed to describe our results using a new 19-G EBUS-guided transbronchial needle aspiration device to determine safety and feasibility of this approach.

METHODS

We completed a retrospective chart review of all cases performed to the time of data analysis at each of 3 study sites.

RESULTS

A total of 165 procedures were performed with a total of 297 individual lymph nodes or lesions sampled with the 19-G device by 10 bronchoscopists. Relatively large targets were selected for sampling with the device (mean lymph node size: 20.4 mm; lung lesions: 33.5 mm). A specific diagnosis was obtained in 77.3% of cases with an additional 13.6% of cases with benign lymphocytes, for a procedural adequacy rate of 90.9%. Procedure sample adequacy was 88.6% in suspected malignant cases, 91.0% in suspected sarcoidosis/lymphadenopathy cases, and 85.7% of cases with suspected lymphoma. On a per-node basis, a specific diagnosis was noted in 191/280 (68.2%) of samples, with an additional 61 showing benign lymphocytes for a per-node sample adequacy rate of 90%. One case (0.6%) of intraprocedure bleeding was noted.

CONCLUSIONS

A new flexible 19-G EBUS needle was successfully and safely applied in a large patient cohort for sampling of lung and enlarged mediastinal lesions with high diagnostic rates across clinical indications.

A comparison of the efficiency of 22G versus 25G needles in EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic mass assessment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Our aim in this study was to compare the efficiency of 25G versus 22G needles in diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions by EUS-FNA. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. Studies were identified in five databases using an extensive search strategy. Only randomized trials comparing 22G and 25G needles were included. The results were analyzed by fixed and random effects. A total of 504 studies were found in the search, among which 4 randomized studies were selected for inclusion in the analysis. A total of 462 patients were evaluated (233: 25G needle/229: 22G needle). The diagnostic sensitivity was 93% for the 25G needle and 91% for the 22G needle. The specificity of the 25G needle was 87%, and that of the 22G needle was 83%. The positive likelihood ratio was 4.57 for the 25G needle and 4.26 for the 22G needle. The area under the sROC curve for the 25G needle was 0.9705, and it was 0.9795 for the 22G needle, with no statistically significant difference between them (p=0.497). Based on randomized studies, this meta-analysis did not demonstrate a significant difference between the 22G and 25G needles used during EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions.

Present status and perspectives of endosonography 2017 in gastroenterology

Endoscopic ultrasound has become an essential tool in modern gastroenterology and abdominal surgery. Compared with all other endoscopic methods, it has the most potential for innovation and its future looks bright. Thus, we compiled this summary of established and novel applications of endoscopic ultrasound methods to inform the reader about what is already possible and where future developments will lead in improving patient care further. This review is structured in four parts. The first section reports on developments in diagnostic endoscopic ultrasound, the second looks at semi-invasive endoscopic ultrasound, and the third discusses advances in therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound. An overview on the future prospects of endoscopic ultrasound methods concludes this article.

Imaging modalities for characterising focal pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND

Increasing numbers of incidental pancreatic lesions are being detected each year. Accurate characterisation of pancreatic lesions into benign, precancerous, and cancer masses is crucial in deciding whether to use treatment or surveillance. Distinguishing benign lesions from precancerous and cancerous lesions can prevent patients from undergoing unnecessary major surgery. Despite the importance of accurately classifying pancreatic lesions, there is no clear algorithm for management of focal pancreatic lesions.

OBJECTIVES

To determine and compare the diagnostic accuracy of various imaging modalities in detecting cancerous and precancerous lesions in people with focal pancreatic lesions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index until 19 July 2016. We searched the references of included studies to identify further studies. We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include studies reporting cross-sectional information on the index test (CT (computed tomography), MRI (magnetic resonance imaging), PET (positron emission tomography), EUS (endoscopic ultrasound), EUS elastography, and EUS-guided biopsy or FNA (fine-needle aspiration)) and reference standard (confirmation of the nature of the lesion was obtained by histopathological examination of the entire lesion by surgical excision, or histopathological examination for confirmation of precancer or cancer by biopsy and clinical follow-up of at least six months in people with negative index tests) in people with pancreatic lesions irrespective of language or publication status or whether the data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched the references to identify relevant studies and extracted the data. We planned to use the bivariate analysis to calculate the summary sensitivity and specificity with their 95% confidence intervals and the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) to compare the tests and assess heterogeneity, but used simpler models (such as univariate random-effects model and univariate fixed-effect model) for combining studies when appropriate because of the sparse data. We were unable to compare the diagnostic performance of the tests using formal statistical methods because of sparse data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 54 studies involving a total of 3,196 participants evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of various index tests. In these 54 studies, eight different target conditions were identified with different final diagnoses constituting benign, precancerous, and cancerous lesions. None of the studies was of high methodological quality. None of the comparisons in which single studies were included was of sufficiently high methodological quality to warrant highlighting of the results. For differentiation of cancerous lesions from benign or precancerous lesions, we identified only one study per index test. The second analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous versus benign lesions, provided three tests in which meta-analysis could be performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing cancer were: EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.79 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 1.00), specificity 1.00 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.00); EUS: sensitivity 0.95 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.99), specificity 0.53 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.74); PET: sensitivity 0.92 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.97), specificity 0.65 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.84). The third analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous lesions from benign lesions, only provided one test (EUS-FNA) in which meta-analysis was performed. EUS-FNA had moderate sensitivity for diagnosing precancerous or cancerous lesions (sensitivity 0.73 (95% CI 0.01 to 1.00) and high specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.15 to 1.00), the extremely wide confidence intervals reflecting the heterogeneity between the studies). The fourth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (dysplasia) provided three tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing invasive carcinoma were: CT: sensitivity 0.72 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.87), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.97); EUS: sensitivity 0.78 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.94), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.98); EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.66 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.99), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.98). The fifth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) versus precancerous (low- or intermediate-grade dysplasia) provided six tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing cancer (high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) were: CT: sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.00 to 1.00), specificity 0.96 (95% CI 0.00 to 1.00); EUS: sensitivity 0.86 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.92), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.96); EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.47 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.70), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.00); EUS-FNA carcinoembryonic antigen 200 ng/mL: sensitivity 0.58 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.83), specificity 0.51 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.81); MRI: sensitivity 0.69 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.86), specificity 0.93 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.00); PET: sensitivity 0.90 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.96), specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.99). The sixth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) provided no tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The seventh analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous (intermediate- or high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) provided two tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing cancer were: CT: sensitivity 0.83 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.92), specificity 0.83 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.93) and MRI: sensitivity 0.80 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.92), specificity 0.81 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.95), respectively. The eighth analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous (intermediate- or high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) or benign lesions provided no test in which meta-analysis was performed.There were no major alterations in the subgroup analysis of cystic pancreatic focal lesions (42 studies; 2086 participants). None of the included studies evaluated EUS elastography or sequential testing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We were unable to arrive at any firm conclusions because of the differences in the way that study authors classified focal pancreatic lesions into cancerous, precancerous, and benign lesions; the inclusion of few studies with wide confidence intervals for each comparison; poor methodological quality in the studies; and heterogeneity in the estimates within comparisons.

Impact of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling with a new core needle on the need for onsite cytopathologic assessment: a preliminary study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

FNA is the primary method of EUS tissue acquisition. In an attempt to improve our yield of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, we compared fine-needle biopsy (FNB) sampling without rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE) with FNA with ROSE and assessed the concordance of FNA and FNB sampling.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data from consecutive patients. Patients underwent FNB sampling and FNA of the same single lesion, with the same needle gauge and number of passes. FNA with ROSE was performed with a standard FNA needle. FNB sampling was performed with a new dedicated core needle. FNA samples were assessed with ROSE, and a final interpretation was provided by cytopathology staff; FNB samples were analyzed by surgical pathologists, each not made aware of the other's opinion.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients underwent 312 passes in 42 different lesions. A diagnosis of malignancy was more likely with FNB sampling than with FNA (72.7% vs 66.7%, P = .727), although statistical significance was not reached. FNA and FNB sampling had similar sensitivities, specificities, and accuracies for cancer (81.5% vs 88.9%, 100% vs 100%, and 84.8% vs 90.9%, respectively). FNB sampling provided qualitative information not reported on FNA, such as degree of differentiation in malignancy, metastatic origin, and rate of proliferation in neuroendocrine tumors.

CONCLUSIONS

FNB sampling without ROSE using a dedicated core needle performed as well as FNA with ROSE in this small cohort, suggesting that FNB sampling with this new core needle may eliminate the need for an onsite cytopathologic assessment, without loss of diagnostic accuracy.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided techniques for diagnosing pancreatic mass lesions: Can we do better?

The diagnostic approach to a possible pancreatic mass lesion relies first upon various non-invasive imaging modalities, including computed tomography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging techniques. Once a suspect lesion has been identified, tissue acquisition for characterization of the lesion is often paramount in developing an individualized therapeutic approach. Given the high prevalence and mortality associated with pancreatic cancer, an ideal approach to diagnosing pancreatic mass lesions would be safe, highly sensitive, and reproducible across various practice settings. Tools, in addition to radiologic imaging, currently employed in the initial evaluation of a patient with a pancreatic mass lesion include serum tumor markers, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). EUS-FNA has grown to become the gold standard in tissue diagnosis of pancreatic lesions.