Comparing endoscopic ultrasound-guided core biopsies of solid pancreatic and extrapancreatic lesions: a large single-operator experience with a new fine-needle biopsy needle

Current Practice Patterns of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Sampling for Pancreatic Solid Mass in Korea: Outcomes of a National Survey

Background/Aims

Although endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) are widely used for tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid mass, the optimal strategy of this procedure has not been established yet. The aim of this nationwide study was to investigate the current practice patterns of EUS-FNA/FNB for pancreatic solid mass in Korea.

Methods

The Policy-Quality Management of the Korean Pancreatobiliary Association (KPBA) developed a questionnaire containing 22 questions. An electronic survey consisting of the questionnaire was distributed by e-mail to members registered to the KPBA.

Results

A total of 101 respondents completed the survey. Eighty respondents (79.2%) performed preoperative EUS-FNA/FNB for operable pancreatic solid mass. Acquire needles (60.4%) were used the most, followed by ProCore needles (47.5%). In terms of need size, most respondents (>80%) preferred 22-gauge needles regardless of the location of the mass. Negative suction with a 10-mL syringe (71.3%) as sampling technique was followed by stylet slow-pull (41.6%). More than three needle passes for EUS-FNA/FNB was performed by most respondents (>80%). The frequency of requiring repeated procedure was significantly higher in respondents with a low individual volume (<5 per month, p=0.001). Prophylactic antibiotics were routinely used in 39 respondents (38.6%); rapid on-site pathologic evaluation was used in 6.1%.

Conclusions

According to this survey, practices of EUS-FNA/FNB for pancreatic solid mass varied substantially, some of which differed considerably from the recommendations present in existing guidelines. These results suggest that the development of evidence-based quality guidelines fitting Korean clinical practice is needed to establish the optimal strategy for this procedure.

The Right Treatment Strategy for the Right Patient: A Biomarker-Driven Approach to Neoadjuvant vs. Surgery-First Management of Resectable and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer

Simple Summary

Routine neoadjuvant therapy for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer is gaining popularity, but its true oncological benefit remains disputed. Whilst the genotypic and phenotypic heterogeneity of pancreatic cancer is becoming increasingly appreciated, there is currently no method to determine whether certain patients will benefit from a neoadjuvant approach and whether others will benefit from a surgery-first approach. In this study, a previously validated prognostic triple biomarker panel is shown to predict genetic subtypes and clinical phenotypes of pancreatic cancer and also the optimal treatment strategy (neoadjuvant vs. surgery-first) for patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.

Abstract

The genomic heterogeneity of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is becoming increasingly appreciated. We aimed to evaluate the ability of a triple biomarker panel (S100A4, Ca-125, and mesothelin) to predict: (i) genetic PDAC subtypes; (ii) clinical phenotypes; and (iii) the optimal treatment strategy (neoadjuvant vs. surgery-first) in resectable and borderline resectable PDAC. Patients who underwent resection for resectable and borderline resectable PDAC were included from one single-institutional cohort and one multi-institutional cohort from the Australian Pancreatic Genome Initiative (APGI). Tumors were immunohistochemically evaluated for S100A4, Ca-125, and mesothelin, and a subset from the APGI cohort underwent RNA sequencing. This study included 252 and 226 patients from the single institution and the APGI cohorts, respectively. Triple-negative biomarker status correlated with non-squamous PDAC genotypes (p = 0.020), lower rates of distant recurrence (p = 0.002), and longer median overall survival (mOS) with the surgery-first approach compared with neoadjuvant treatment (33.3 vs. 22.2 mths, p = 0.038) in resectable PDAC. In contrast, the triple-positive disease was associated with longer mOS with neoadjuvant treatment compared with the surgery-first approach (29.5 vs. 13.7 mths, p = 0.021) in resectable and borderline resectable PDAC. In conclusion, the triple biomarker panel predicts genetic PDAC subtypes, clinical phenotypes, and optimal treatment strategies in resectable and borderline resectable PDAC.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy Using 22G Franseen Needles without Rapid On-Site Evaluation for Diagnosis of Intraabdominal Masses

Background: The impact of rapid on-site cytologic evaluation (ROSE) on endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is widely debated. This study aims to assess the diagnostic performance of EUS-FNB in the absence of ROSE in abdominal masses. Methods: Patients with abdominal masses undergoing EUS-FNB using 22-gauge Franseen needles and the slow-pull technique were prospectively enrolled in this study. Macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) was performed without ROSE. Results: 100 patients were recruited between 2018 and 2020. Seventy-eight patients had neoplasms, and twenty-two patients had benign diseases. Common diagnoses included pancreatic cancer (n = 27), mesenchymal tumors (n = 17), and metastatic tumors (n = 14). The mean mass size was 3.9 ± 2.6 cm. The median pass number was three. Eighty-nine percent had adequate specimens for histologic evaluation. Malignancy increased the odds of obtaining adequate tissue (OR 5.53, 95% CI, 1.36–22.5). For pancreatic cancer, FNB had a sensitivity of 92.3%, a specificity of 100%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 100%, a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97%, and an AUROC of 0.96. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and AUROC for mesenchymal cell tumors were 100%, 95.9%, 84.2%, 100%, and 0.98, respectively. For metastatic tumors, FNB was 100% sensitive and specific, with an AUROC of 1.00. There were no procedure-related complications. Conclusions: 22-gauge Franseen needles with the slow-pull technique and MOSE without ROSE provide excellent diagnostic performances for malignant lesions. Thus, MOSE should be implemented in real-world practice, and ROSE can be obviated when EUS-FNB is employed.

Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration vs fine needle biopsy in solid lesions: A multi-center analysis

BACKGROUND

While endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) is considered a preferred technique for tissue sampling for solid lesions, fine needle biopsy (FNB) has recently been developed.

AIM

To compare the accuracy of FNB vs FNA in determining the diagnosis of solid lesions.

METHODS

A retrospective, multi-center study of EUS-guided tissue sampling using FNA vs FNB needles. Measured outcomes included diagnostic test characteristics (i.e., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy), use of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), and adverse events. Subgroup analyses were performed by type of lesion and diagnostic yield with or without ROSE. A multivariable logistic regression was also performed.

RESULTS

A total of 1168 patients with solid lesions (n = 468 FNA; n = 700 FNB) underwent EUS-guided sampling. Mean age was 65.02 ± 12.13 years. Overall, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were superior for FNB vs FNA (84.70% vs 74.53%; 99.29% vs 96.62%; and 87.62% vs 81.55%, respectively; P < 0.001). On subgroup analyses, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of FNB alone were similar to FNA + ROSE [(81.66% vs 86.45%; P = 0.142), (100% vs 100%; P = 1.00) and (88.40% vs 85.43%; P = 0.320]. There were no difference in diagnostic yield of FNB alone vs FNB + ROSE (P > 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed no significant predictor for better accuracy. On subgroup analyses, FNB was superior to FNA for non-pancreatic lesions; however, there was no difference between the techniques among pancreatic lesions. One adverse event was reported in each group.

CONCLUSION

FNB is superior to FNA with equivalent diagnostic test characteristics compared to FNA + ROSE in the diagnosis of non-pancreatic solid lesions. Our results suggest that EUS-FNB may eliminate the need of ROSE and should be employed as a first-line method in the diagnosis of solid lesions.

Confirming Whether Fine Needle Biopsy Device Shortens the Learning Curve of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition Without Rapid Onsite Evaluation

Background/Aims

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition requires a long learning curve. We aimed to compare the skill maturation curves between fine needle aspiration (FNA) and biopsy (FNB) for tissue acquisition.

Methods

The initial 60 procedures performed by the trainee endosonographer (30 FNA vs. 30 FNB) were consecutively enrolled. The difference in procedure performance was compared between the two groups. Learning curves were assessed. Twenty additional cases were subsequently enrolled to assess the consistency of performance in the FNB group.

Results

The FNB group acquired larger tissue samples (2.35 vs. 0.70 mm²; p<0.001) with lower blood content (p=0.001) and higher tissue quality (p=0.017) compared with the FNA group. In addition, the FNB group required less needle pass to establish a diagnosis (2.43 vs. 2.97; p=0.006). A threshold diagnostic sensitivity of ≥80% was achieved after performing 10 FNB procedures. The number of needle passes significantly decreased after conducting 20 FNB procedures (1.80 vs. 2.70; p=0.041). The diagnostic sensitivity and number of needle passes remained the same in the subsequent FNB procedures. By contrast, this skill maturation phenomenon was not observed after performing 30 FNA procedures.

Conclusions

In EUS-guided tissue acquisition, the FNB needle was more efficient and thus shortened the learning curve of EUS-guided tissue acquisition in trainee endosonographers.

Endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle biopsies of pancreatic lesions: Prospective study of histology quality using Franseen needle

BACKGROUND

The introduction of fine needle biopsies (FNB) to clinical practice presents a changing trend towards histology in the endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA).

AIM

To evaluate the clinical performance of a new FNB needle, the 22-gauge (22G) Franseen needle, when sampling pancreatic solid lesions.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with an indication for EUS-TA for the assessment of pancreatic solid lesions were included in this prospective, single-center, single-arm trial. Each patient underwent a puncture of the lesion two times using the 22G Franseen needle and the obtained samples were directly placed into formalin for histological analysis. The primary study endpoint was the rate of high-quality obtained specimen. Secondary endpoints included the length and diameter of the core specimen, the diagnostic accuracy and the complication rate.

RESULTS

From June 2017 to December 2018, forty patients with pancreatic solid lesions (22 females; mean age 67.2 years) were enrolled. Tissue acquisition was achieved in all cases. High-quality histology, rated with Payne score 3, was obtained in 37/40 cases (92.5%) after two needle passes. The mean size of the acquired histological core tissue was 1.54 mm × 0.39 mm. The diagnostic accuracy for the correct diagnosis was 85% (34/40). Only one adverse event was occurred, consisting of a self-limiting bleeding in the puncture site.

CONCLUSION

The 22G Franseen needle achieved according to our standardized protocol a high rate of histological core procurement, and a high diagnostic accuracy, with one minor adverse event reported.

Prospective evaluation of 25-gauge Franseen needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic masses

Background and study aims  The ideal puncture needle for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling is maneuverable and easy to puncture with, and can obtain sufficient material in almost one pass. The novel 25-gauge Franseen needle may provide a good balance between maneuverability and sample yield. Patients and methods  Between July 2017 and December 2018, 116 patients with solid pancreatic masses were prospectively enrolled and investigated. We evaluated the diagnostic yield associated with using the 25-gauge Franseen needle for EUS-guided sampling of pancreatic masses. Results  The technical success rate was 100 % (116/116). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy for malignancy were 98 % (105/107), 100 % (9/9), 100 % (105/105), 82 % (9/11), and 98 % (114/116), respectively. Cumulative sensitivities for malignancy were 87 % (93/107) on pass 1, 97 % (104/107) on pass 2, and 98 % (105/107) on pass 3, respectively, with no increase in sensitivity after 4 or more. An adequate specimen for histological assessment was obtained in 79 % (92/116) of cases. Multivariate logistic analyses showed that lesion size smaller than 13 mm was a risk factor for failure of obtaining an adequate specimen for histological assessment ( P  = 0.010) Conclusions  The novel 25-gauge Franseen needle showed excellent diagnostic yield for solid pancreatic masses. However, its ability to obtain an adequate specimen for histological assessment may still be insufficient, especially when dealing with small lesions.

Diagnostic yield of Franseen and Fork-Tip biopsy needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition: a meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Although newer needle designs are thought to improve diagnostic outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy, there is limited evidence on their diagnostic performance. The aim of this meta-analysis was to provide a pooled estimate of the diagnostic performance and safety profile of Franseen and Fork-tip fine-needle biopsy needles. Patients and methods  Computerized bibliographic search on the main databases was performed through March 2019. The primary endpoint was sample adequacy. Secondary outcomes were diagnostic accuracy, optimal histological core procurement, mean number of needle passes, pooled specificity and sensitivity. Safety data were also analyzed. Results  Twenty-four studies with 6641 patients were included and pancreas was the prevalent location of sampled lesions. Overall sample adequacy with the two newer needles was 94.8 % (93.1 % - 96.4 %), with superiority of Franseen needle over Fork-tip (96.1 % versus 92.4 %, P  < 0.001). Sample adequacy in targeting pancreatic masses was 95.6% and both needles produced results superior to fine-needle aspiration (FNA) (odds ratio 4.29, 1.49 - 12.35 and 1.79, 1.01 - 3.19 with Franseen and Fork-tip needle, respectively). The rate of histological core procurement was 92.5%, whereas diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity were 95 % and 92.8 %, again with no difference between the two needles. Number of needle passes was significantly lower in comparison to FNA (mean difference: -0.42 with Franseen and -1.60 with Fork-tip needle). No significant adverse events were registered. Conclusion  Our meta-analysis speaks in favor of use of newer biopsy needles as a safe and effective tool in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration and Biopsy in Gastrointestinal Subepithelial Tumors

The incidence of asymptomatic and incidentally found upper gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors (SETs) is increasing with the implementation of national cancer screening and the development of high-resolution endoscopy in Korea. However, endoscopy alone cannot be used to determine whether SETs are benign or malignant. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is used to further characterize these lesions through the examination of their layered structure, internal echogenicity, size, and relationship to the extramural structure. These provide additional information on whether the lesion is benign or malignant. Nevertheless, the sensitivity and specificity of EUS alone in predicting malignancy is unsatisfactory. Recent guidelines have recommended deciding the timing of EUS-fine needle aspiration and biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) for SETs based on tumor size, malignant features on endoscopy, and high-risk features on EUS. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA/B is reportedly influenced by factors including needle size, number of needle passes, use of suction, use of a stylet in the needle assembly, fanning technique, availability of an on-site cytopathologist, and experience of the endosonographer. Therefore, according to the characteristics of the SETs, various subsequent methods and techniques should be appropriately employed to improve the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA/B.