A prospective, randomized trial comparing 25-gauge and 22-gauge needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic masses

The World Health Organization Reporting System for Pancreaticobiliary Cytopathology: Overview and Summary

The recently published WHO Reporting System for Pancreaticobiliary Cytopathology (World Health Organization [WHO] System) is an international approach to the standardized reporting of pancreaticobiliary cytopathology, updating the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology System for Reporting Pancreaticobiliary Cytology (PSC System). Significant changes were made to the categorization of benign neoplasms, intraductal neoplasms, mucinous cystic neoplasms, and malignant neoplasms considered low grade. Benign neoplasms, such as serous cystadenoma, categorized as Neoplastic: benign in the PSC system, are categorized as Benign/negative for malignancy in the WHO system. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor, solid-pseudopapillary neoplasm, and gastrointestinal stromal tumor, categorized as Neoplastic: other in the PSC system, are categorized as Malignant in the WHO System in accord with their classification in the 5th edition WHO Classification of Digestive System Tumours (2019). The two new categories of Pancreaticobiliary Neoplasm Low-risk/grade and Pancreaticobiliary Neoplasm High-risk/grade are mostly limited to intraductal neoplasms and mucinous cystic neoplasms. Low-risk/grade lesions are mucinous cysts, with or without low-grade epithelial atypia. High-risk/grade lesions contain neoplastic epithelium with high-grade epithelial atypia. Correlation with clinical, imaging, and ancillary studies remains a key tenet. The sections for each entity are written to highlight key cytopathological features and cytopathological differential diagnoses with the pathologist working in low resource setting in mind. Each section also includes the most pertinent ancillary studies useful for the differential diagnosis. Sample reports are provided for each category. Finally, the book provides a separate section with risk of malignancy and management recommendations for each category to facilitate decision-making for clinicians.

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.

Consensus statements on endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition. Guidelines from the Asian Endoscopic Ultrasound Group

OBJECTIVES

This consensus was developed by the Asian EUS Group (AEG), who aimed to formulate a set of practice guidelines addressing various aspects of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA).

METHODS

The AEG initiated the development of consensus statements and formed an expert panel comprising surgeons, gastroenterologists, and pathologists. Three online consensus meetings were conducted to consolidate the statements and votes. The statements were presented and discussed in the first two consensus meetings and revised according to comments. Final voting was conducted at a third consensus meeting. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system was adopted to define the strength of the recommendations and quality of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 20 clinical questions and statements regarding EUS-TA were formulated. The committee recommended that fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles be preferred over conventional fine-needle aspiration (FNA) needles for EUS-TA of subepithelial lesions. For solid pancreatic masses, rapid on-site evaluation is not routinely recommended when FNB needles are used. For dedicated FNB needles, fork-tip and Franseen-tip needles have essentially equivalent performance.

CONCLUSION

This consensus provides guidance for EUS-TA, thereby enhancing the quality of EUS-TA.

Telecytology versus in-room cytopathologist for EUS-guided FNA or fine-needle biopsy sampling of solid pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Rapid on-site-evaluation (ROSE) with an in-room cytopathologist (ROSE-P) has been shown to improve the diagnostic yield of specimens obtained from patients undergoing EUS-guided FNA or fine-needle biopsy sampling (EUS-FNAB) of pancreatic lesions. Recently, there has been an increased interest and use of ROSE using telecytology (ROSE-T) to optimize clinical workflows and to address social distancing mandates created during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The purpose of this study was to compare diagnostic outcomes of ROSE-P and ROSE-T.

METHODS

A single-center cohort study of patients who underwent EUS-FNAB of solid pancreatic lesions with ROSE was conducted. The primary outcome was overall diagnostic yield of cancer. All patients who underwent EUS-FNAB were entered into a prospectively maintained database. Statistical analyses were performed using descriptive statistics and univariate analysis.

RESULTS

There were 165 patients in each arm. There was no difference in diagnostic yield between ROSE-P and ROSE-T (96.4% vs 94.5%, P = .428). ROSE-T was associated with an increased use of 22-gauge needles (P = .006) and more needle passes (P < .001). No significant differences were found in age, gender, lesion size, needle type, procedure times, or adverse events between the 2 groups (P < .05 for all). More pancreatic tail lesions were sampled in the ROSE-P group (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

ROSE-T was not associated with any difference in final histologic diagnosis for EUS-FNAB of solid pancreatic masses. This has important implications for optimizing clinical workflows.

Risk of Bleeding with Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition in Patients on Antithrombotic Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The present guidelines stratify endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) as a high-bleeding risk procedure in patients on antithrombotics. However, the data regarding the same are conflicting. Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to analyze the bleeding event rates associated with EUS-TA in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy.

METHODS

A literature search from January 2000 to August 2022 was done for studies on EUS-guided TA in patients receiving antithrombotics. The primary outcome was incidence of overall and major bleeding. Pooled event rates across studies were expressed with summative statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled risk of overall bleeding and major bleeding in patients on antithrombotics was 2.0% (0.6-3.4) and 0.8% (0.0-1.6), respectively. In patients taking thienopyridine or anticoagulants, the pooled risk of overall bleeding and major bleeding was 2.4% (0.9-3.9) and 1.7% (0.4-3.1), respectively. Patients on antithrombotics had a higher odd of overall bleeding (OR 2.12, 1.20-3.83) and major bleeding (OR 3.58, 1.11-11.52) compared to controls. The odds of overall bleeding (OR 0.95, 95%CI 0.38-2.42) and major bleeding (OR 1.57, 95%CI 0.45-5.54) were comparable between patients on antithrombotics who continued and those who discontinued it preprocedural.

CONCLUSION

Despite an increase risk of bleeding with EUS-TA in patients on antithrombotics, the pooled incidence remains low. Compared to the previous guidelines stating thienopyridine use as high risk for bleeding, the present analysis showed a bleeding rate of less than 1%. Discontinuing antithrombotics prior to EUS-TA does not reduce the bleeding risk significantly, requiring strict monitoring.

Cumulative sum learning curves guiding multicenter multidisciplinary quality improvement of EUS-guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic lesions

Background and study aims  In this study, we evaluated the performance of community hospitals involved in the Dutch quality in endosonography team regarding yield of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition (TA) of solid pancreatic lesions using cumulative sum (CUSUM) learning curves. The aims were to assess trends in quality over time and explore potential benefits of CUSUM as a feedback-tool. Patients and methods  All consecutive EUS-guided TA procedures for solid pancreatic lesions were registered in five community hospitals between 2015 and  2018. CUSUM learning curves were plotted for overall performance and for performance per center. The American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy-defined key performance indicators, rate of adequate sample (RAS), and diagnostic yield of malignancy (DYM) were used for this purpose. Feedback regarding performance was provided on multiple occasions at regional interest group meetings during the study period. Results  A total of 431 EUS-guided TA procedures in 403 patients were included in this study. The overall and per center CUSUM curves for RAS improved over time. CUSUM curves for DYM revealed gradual improvement, reaching the predefined performance target (70 %) overall, and in three of five contributing centers in 2018. Analysis of a sudden downslope development in the CUSUM curve of DYM in one center revealed temporary absence of a senior cytopathologist to have had a temporary negative impact on performance. Conclusions  CUSUM-derived learning curves allow for assessment of best practices by comparison among peers in a multidisciplinary multicenter quality improvement initiative and proved to be a valuable and easy-to-interpret means to evaluate EUS performance over time.

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

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

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 validity of 25-gauge endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle in lymph node staging of lung cancer

Background

Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration is recommended for lymph node (LN) staging in lung cancer. Although 22-gauge needles are widely used, they may make some stations difficult to puncture owing to an acute angle. A thinner 25-gauge needle was introduced in Japan at the end of 2016 and offered structural advantages such as improved flexibility and penetrability. We aimed to validate the clinical utility of the 25-gauge needle in LN staging.

Methods

Patients who underwent endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration for LN staging of lung cancer using the 25-gauge needle at our institution between November 2016 and March 2019 were included. Patient characteristics, staging procedures, pathology findings, and genetic testing success rates were assessed.

Results

Data of 130 patients were included in the analysis. The sampling rate was 87.6% (589/672 lesions). In addition to stations #4R, #7, and #11, which are generally easy to puncture, multiple stations (40.1%) were sampled. The diagnostic accuracy of combined computed tomography and fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography was 82.3% and that of additional endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration was 96.9%. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values validated using resected specimens were 97.1% (34/35), 100% (41/41), 100% (34/34), and 97.6% (41/42), respectively. The success rate of genetic testing was 100% (34/34).

Conclusions

The new 25-gauge needle enabled us to approach a wide range of LNs with a desirable sampling rate and diagnostic accuracy in LN staging using endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration, while providing enough tissue for genetic testing.

Factors of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition for Successful Next-Generation Sequencing in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

Background/Aims

Recent advances in understanding the genetics of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) have led to the potential for a personalized approach. Several studies have described the feasibility of generating genetic profiles of PDAC with next-generation sequencing (NGS) of samples obtained through endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA). The aim of this study was to find the best EUS-TA approach for successful NGS of PDAC.

Methods

We attempted to perform NGS with tissues from 190 patients with histologically proven PDAC by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy at Samsung Medical Center between November 2011 and February 2015. The medical records of these patients were retrospectively reviewed for parameters including tumor factors (size, location, and T stage), EUS-TA factors (needle gauge [G], needle type, and number of needle passes) and histologic factors (cellularity and blood contamination). The sample used for NGS was part of the EUS-TA specimen that underwent cytological and histological analysis.

Results

NGS could be successfully performed in 109 patients (57.4%). In the univariate analysis, a large needle G (p=0.003) and tumor located in the body/tail (p=0.005) were associated with successful NGS. The multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the needle G was an independent factor of successful NGS (odds ratio, 2.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.08 to 4.47; p=0.031).

Conclusions

The needle G is an independent factor associated with successful NGS. This finding may suggest that the quantity of cells obtained from EUS-TA specimens is important for successful NGS.

Factors influencing diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in pancreatic and biliary tumors

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is influenced by several factors, primarily operator expertise. Formal training in EUS-FNA, as suggested by the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines, is not always available and is often expensive and time-consuming. In this study we evaluate factors influencing the diagnostic accuracy of pancreatic EUS-FNA.

METHODS

In a retrospective study, 557 consecutive EUS-FNAs were evaluated. Several variables relating to the procedures were considered to calculate the EUS-FNA performance over eight years.

RESULTS

A total of 308 out of 557 EUS-FNAs were selected. Overall sensitivity of EUS-FNA was 66% (95% CI: 60.8-71.8), specificity 100%, and diagnostic accuracy 69% (95% CI: 64.0-74.4). An increase in diagnostic accuracy was observed to >90% using a new fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needle and in the case of simultaneous sampling of primary and metastatic lesions. Diagnostic accuracy >80% was observed after 250 procedures, in the absence of rapid on-site cytopathological examination (ROSE). Multivariate logistic regression analysis confirmed that the FNB needle, operator skill, and double EUS-FNA sampling are associated with high diagnostic accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

The learning curve for EUS-FNA may be longer and a considerable number of procedures are needed to achieve high diagnostic accuracy in the absence of ROSE. However, the use of FNB needles and the simultaneous sampling of primary and metastatic lesions can rapidly improve the diagnostic accuracy of the procedure.

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

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

Diagnostic utility of EUS-guided tissue acquisition in children: A tertiary care center experience

Background and Objectives:

EUS is frequently utilized for tissue acquisition in adult patients. However, the literature is limited regarding the utility of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration or biopsy (FNA or FNB) in children. In this study, we aim to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and diagnostic utility of EUS-FNA/FNB in children with various gastrointestinal diseases.

Methods:

The data of children (≤18 years) who underwent EUS-FNA/FNB from March 2014 to June 2020 were analyzed, retrospectively. The following parameters were analyzed: technical success, adverse events, and impact on the final diagnosis.

Results:

Sixty-seven children (32 – boys, 14.8 ± 2.9 years, range 8–18 years), underwent EUS-guided tissue acquisition procedures using standard therapeutic echoendoscope during the study period. The indications included solid pancreatic lesions in 29 (43.3%), mediastinal or abdominal lymphadenopathy in 30 (44.7%), cystic pancreatic lesions in 5 (7.5%), subepithelial lesions in 2 (3%), and retroperitoneal mass in 1 (1.5%). EUS-FNA and-FNB were performed in 42 and 25 children, respectively. All the procedures could be successfully performed and there was no major procedure-related adverse event. Minor adverse events included self-limiting throat pain (10) and abdominal pain (3), self-limited bleeding at puncture site (3), and transient fever (1). EUS-FNA/FNB provided a histopathological diagnosis in 59 (88.1%) children.

Conclusion:

EUS-guided tissue acquisition using standard echoendoscope is feasible and safe in the pediatric age group. EUS-FNA/FNB establishes diagnosis in majority of the children when performed for appropriate clinical indication.

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).

The safety and efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided ablation therapy for solid pancreatic tumors: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Recently, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided ablation therapy, as a minimally invasive technique, has shown its potential to substitute surgery in treating solid pancreatic tumors, such as small potential malignant pancreatic tumors, small insulinomas and locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (LAPDAC). Therefore, we conducted this systematic review to assess the safety and efficacy of EUS-guided ablation therapy for solid pancreatic tumors.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library and Web of Science databases from inception to February 2020. The endpoints were clinical success and complications rates. The pooled event rate was calculated using Comprehensive Meta Analysis software.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies with a total of 158 patients were included in our final analysis. The major types of solid pancreatic tumors were nonfunction pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (n = 78, 49.4%), LAPDAC (n = 48, 30.4%) and insulinomas (n = 26, 16.5%). Overall, the pooled clinical success rate was 85.9% (95% confidence interval (CI): 75.4-92.4%, I ² = 25.18%), pooled complications rate was 29.1% (95% CI: 18.6-42.3%, I ² = 50.40%). Subgroup analysis was performed based on ablation methods, which showed clinical success rate for radiofrequency ablation (RFA) was 83.5% (95% CI: 67.9-92.4%), and 87.9% (95% CI: 66.2-96.4%) for ethanol ablation (EA). In terms of complications rate, it was 32.2% (95% CI: 19.4-48.4%) for RFA, and 21.2% (95% CI: 6.8-49.9%) for EA.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-guided ablation therapy is a promising alternative treatment for solid pancreatic tumors, especially for p-NETs and insulinomas < 2 cm, with rarely severe complications. Further prospective studies with long-term follow-up are warranted in future.

Pathologic interpretation of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration cytology/biopsy for pancreatic lesions

Pathologic interpretation of endoscopic ultrasound–guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) cytology/biopsy specimens is one of the most challenging tasks in cytology and surgical pathology practice, as the procedure often yields minimal amounts of diagnostic material and contains contaminants, such as blood cells and normal intestinal mucosa. EUS-FNA cytology/biopsy will nevertheless become a more popular procedure for evaluation of various pancreatic lesions because they are difficult to approach with conventional endoscopic procedures. Pathologists should understand the structural differences and limitations of EUS-FNA that make pathologic diagnosis difficult. Ancillary tests are available for differential diagnosis of EUS-FNA for various pancreatic lesions. Immunostains are the most commonly used ancillary tests, and pathologists should able to choose the necessary panel for differential diagnosis. Pathologists should review clinical history and radiologic and/or EUS findings before selecting an immunostain panel and making a pathologic diagnosis. In addition, one’s threshold of malignancy should be adjusted according to the appropriate clinical setting to avoid under-evaluation of pathologic diagnoses. Clinico-pathologic correlation is essential in pathologic evaluation of EUS-FNA for pancreatic lesions. Pathologists can reduce errors by correlating clinical and radiologic findings when evaluating EUS-FNA. Some molecular tests can be applied in differential diagnosis of pancreatic neoplastic and cystic lesions. Molecular data should be used as supportive evidence of a specific disease entity, rather than direct evidence, and should be correlated with clinico-pathologic findings to avoid errors in pathologic diagnosis.

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

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

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.

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.

Diagnostic accuracy of fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions guided by endoscopic ultrasound elastography

Background:

Real-time elastography (RTE) may increase the diagnostic accuracy of fine-needle aspiration guided by endoscopic ultrasound. The aim of this study was to establish the diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of this combined methodological approach in a cohort of patients with solid pancreatic masses.

Methods:

We reviewed data from 54 patients with solid pancreatic lesions referred to our institution between January 2014 and June 2015. RTE, assessed in terms of strain ratio, was performed both qualitatively and semi-quantitatively, and a 25G needle was inserted into the most suspicious part of the lesion. Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, positive and negative predictive values were calculated.

Results:

The median lesion size was 35 mm (interquartile range: 25-43 mm). A diagnosis of adenocarcinoma was confirmed in 85.1% of cases. RTE, with a strain ratio cutoff of 4.21, showed a sensitivity of 86.9%, a specificity of 75%, and diagnostic accuracy of 85.1%. The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the combined methodology were 94.4%, 93.4%, and 100%, respectively. The positive predictive value was 100%, the negative predictive value 72.7% and the negative likelihood ratio 6.5. No severe adverse events were registered.

Conclusion:

The combination of RTE with endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration appears to be an efficient and safe technique for the characterization of solid pancreatic masses.

A quarter century of EUS-FNA: Progress, milestones, and future directions

Tissue acquisition using EUS has considerably evolved since the first EUS-FNA was reported 25 years ago. Its introduction was an important breakthrough in the endoscopic field. EUS-FNA has now become a part of the diagnostic and staging algorithm for the evaluation of benign and malignant diseases of the gastrointestinal tract and of the organs in its proximity, including lung diseases. This review aims to present the history of EUS-FNA development and to provide a perspective on the recent developments in procedural techniques and needle technologies that have significantly extended the role of EUS and its clinical applications. There is a bright future ahead for EUS-FNA in the years to come as extensive research is conducted in this field and various technologies are continuously implemented into clinical practice.

Comparison of 22-gauge standard fine needle versus core biopsy needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of suspected pancreatic cancer: a randomized crossover trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is effective for tissue diagnosis of pancreatic mass. To improve diagnostic yield and drawbacks, 22-gauge (G) core biopsy (FNB) needle has been developed. This study aims to compare 22G FNA and FNB needles for EUS-guided sampling of suspected pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

This is a randomized controlled crossover trial. A total of 60 patients with suspected unresectable pancreatic cancer referred for EUS-guided sampling were randomly assigned to two groups. Both groups had 22G FNA and FNB needles performed in a randomized order. The primary endpoint was the cytological, histological and overall diagnostic accuracy of pancreatic cancer.

RESULTS

FNA and FNB needles reported similar level of diagnostic accuracy (FNA needle 95% vs. FNB needle 93.3%; p = .564), and it was not statistically different. However, cytological cellularity was significantly higher in the FNB needles compared to FNA needles (odds ratio 2.75, 95% confidence interval (CI)). There were no procedure-related complications in both needles.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided sampling for pancreatic cancer using 22G FNA is comparable to FNB needles. The cytological quality of specimen is better in the FNB needle.

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.

Risk factors associated with adverse events during endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling

Background and aim

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is commonly used to obtain tissue external to the gastrointestinal tract. EUS-FNA is relatively safe, but occasionally adverse events have been reported. There is scarcity of data on risk factors of adverse events. The aim of this study is to identify risk factors associated with EUS-FNA.

Methods

In this multicenter case-control study, we retrospectively reviewed 4,097 cases between 2009 and 2012 at 15 hospitals in Korea. Among the patients there were 104 cases (2.5%) who had adverse events of which 12 (0.29%) were severe. We matched 520 controls (1:5 ratios) stratified by hospital to analyze the potential risk factors.

Results

The most common adverse events were pancreatitis (45/104, 43.3%) and infection (46/104, 44.2%). Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) on the same day was a risk factor of all adverse events [OR = 2.41, 95% CI (1.41, 4.12)], pancreatitis [OR = 2.31, 95% CI (1.02, 5.25)], and infection [OR = 2.75, 95% CI (1.31, 5.78)]. More than 15 to-and-fro movements during puncture increased the risk of pancreatitis [OR = 2.30, 95% CI (1.11, 4.77)] and infection [OR = 3.65, 95% CI (1.55, 8.59)]. A higher number of punctures was positively correlated with pancreatitis [OR = 1.34, 95% CI (1.08, 1.67)] but negatively correlated with infection [OR = 0.66, 95% CI (0.48, 0.89)].

Conclusions

EUS-FNA is a safe procedure in which serious adverse events are rare. We define some risk factors of adverse events during EUS-FNA, including ERCP on the same day, a higher number of punctures, and more than 15 to-and-fro movements.

22G versus 25G biopsy needles for EUS-guided tissue sampling of solid pancreatic masses: a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

No comparative study of 22-gauge biopsy needles (PC22) and 25-gauge biopsy needles (PC25) has been conducted. We prospectively compared the diagnostic accuracy of PC22 and PC25 in patients with pancreatic and peripancreatic solid masses.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized noninferiority clinical study from January 2013 to May 2014 at Samsung Medical Center. A cytological and histological specimen of each pass was analyzed separately by an experienced pathologist. The primary outcome was to assess the diagnostic accuracy using the PC22 or PC25. Secondary outcomes included the optimal number of passes for adequate diagnosis, core specimen yield, sample adequacy, and complication rates.

RESULTS

Diagnostic accuracy of combining cytology with histology in three cumulative passes was 97.1% (100/103) for the PC22 and 91.3% (94/103) for the PC25 group. Thus, noninferiority of PC25 to PC22 was not shown with a 10% noninferiority margin (difference, -5.8%; 95% CI, -12.1 to -0.5%). In a pairwise comparison with each needle type, two passes was non-inferior to three passes in the PC22 (96.1% vs. 97.1%; difference, -0.97%; 95% CI -6.63 to 4.69%) but noninferiority of two passes to three passes was not shown in the PC25 group (87.4% vs. 91.3%; difference, -3.88%; 95% CI, -13.5 to 5.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Non-inferiority of PC25 to PC22 diagnostic accuracy was not observed for solid pancreatic or peripancreatic masses without on-site cytology. PC22 may be a more ideal device because only two PC22 needle passes was sufficient to establish an adequate diagnosis, whereas PC25 required three or more needle passes.

New Developments in Endoscopic Ultrasound Tissue Acquisition

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition has greatly evolved since the first EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration was reported nearly 25 years ago. EUS-guided tissue acquisition has become the procedure of choice for sampling of the pancreas, subepithelial lesions, and other structures adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract. This review focuses on recent developments in procedural techniques and needle technologies for EUS-guided tissue acquisition.

The new transbronchial diagnostic approach for the metastatic lung tumor from renal cell carcinoma-a case report

Endobronchial ultrasound-guided needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is a well-established procedure with high diagnostic yield and safety. However, the standard 22 gauge needles sometimes cause major bleeding particularly in hypervascular tumors like metastatic lung tumors from renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The 25 gauge needles are already introduced to endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), and are considered as one of the standard devices due to their comparable diagnostic outcome, lower complication risk, and the better manipulability. Recently, the new 25 gauge needles have been applied to EBUS-TBNA. In present case, we were able to obtain a definitive diagnosis of the metastatic RCC by EBUS-TBNA using the 25 gauge needle. The new thin needle might be a better option for hypervascular tumors of the lung.

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.

Comparison of two different size needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions: A meta-analysis of prospective controlled trials

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aimed to provide a pooled analysis of prospective controlled trials comparing the diagnostic accuracy of 22-G and 25-G needles on endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS-FNA) of the solid pancreatic mass.

METHODS

We established a rigorous study protocol according to Cochrane Collaboration recommendations. We systematically searched the PubMed and Embase databases to identify articles to include in the meta-analysis. Sensitivity, specificity, and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated for 22-G and 25-G needles of individual studies from the contingency tables.

RESULTS

Eleven prospective controlled trials included a total of 837 patients (412 with 22-G vs 425 with 25-G). Our outcomes revealed that 25-G needles (92% [95% CI, 89%-95%]) have higher sensitivity than 22-G needles (88% [95% CI, 84%-91%]) on solid pancreatic mass EUS-FNA (P = 0.046). However, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups in overall diagnostic specificity (P = 0.842). The pooled positive and negative likelihood ratio of the 22-G needle were 12.61 (95% CI, 5.65-28.14) and 0.16 (95% CI, 0.12-0.21), respectively. The pooled positive likelihood ratio was 12.61 (95% CI, 5.65-28.14), and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.16 (95% CI, 0.12-0.21) for the 22-G needle. The pooled positive likelihood ratio was 8.44 (95% CI, 3.87-18.42), and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.13 (95% CI, 0.09-0.18) for the 25-G needle. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.97 for the 22-G needle and 0.96 for the 25-G needle.

CONCLUSION

Compared to the study of 22-G EUS-FNA needles, our study showed that 25-G needles have superior sensitivity in the evaluation of solid pancreatic lesions by EUS-FNA.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic lesions with 22 versus 25 Gauge needles: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robust data in favour of a clear superiority of 22 versus 25 Gauge needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration are still lacking.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare the diagnostic sensitivity, specificity and safety of these two needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

A computerized bibliographic search was restricted to randomized controlled trials only. Pooled effects were calculated using a random-effects model and expressed in terms of risk ratio and 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

We analysed seven trials with 689 patients and 732 lesions (295 sampled with 22 Gauge needle, 309 with 25 Gauge needle, and 128 with both needles). A non-significant superiority of 25 Gauge in terms of pooled sensitivity (risk ratio: 0.93, 0.91-0.95 versus 0.89, 0.85-0.94 of 22 Gauge needle; p = 0.13) and no difference in terms of specificity (1.00, 0.98-1.00 in both groups; p = 0.85) were observed. Sample adequacy was similar between the two devices (risk ratio: 1.03, 0.99-1.06; p = 0.15). Very few adverse events were observed and did not impact on patient outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis reveals non-superiority of 25 Gauge over 22 Gauge; hence no definitive recommendations over the use of one particular device can be made.

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

Background and Aims

Although thicker needles theoretically allow more tissue to be collected, their decreased flexibility can cause mechanical damage to the endoscope, technical failure, and sample blood contamination. The effects of needle gauge on diagnostic outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) of pancreatic mass lesions remain unknown. This study compared procurement rates of histologic cores obtained from EUS-FNB of pancreatic masses using 25- and 22-gauge core biopsy needles.

Patients and Methods

From March 2014 to July 2014, 66 patients with solid pancreatic mass underwent EUS-FNB with both 25- and 22-gauge core biopsy needles. Among them, 10 patients were excluded and thus 56 patients were eligible for the analyses. Needle sequences were randomly assigned, and two passes were made with each needle, consisting of 10 uniform to-and-fro movements on each pass with 10 mL syringe suction. A pathologist blinded to needle sequence evaluated specimens for the presence of histologic core.

Results

The mean patient age was 65.8 ± 9.5 years (range, 44–89 years); 35 patients (62.5%) were men. The mean pancreatic mass size was 35.3 ± 17.1 mm (range 14–122.3 mm). Twenty-eight patients (50%) had tumors at the pancreas head or uncinate process. There were no significant differences in procurement rates of histologic cores between 25-gauge (49/56, 87.5%) and 22-gauge (46/56, 82.1%, P = 0.581) needles or diagnostic accuracy using only histologic cores (98% and 95%). There were no technical failures or procedure-related adverse events.

Conclusions

The 25-gauge core biopsy needle could offer acceptable and comparable outcomes regarding diagnostic performance including histologic core procurement rates compared to the 22-gauge core biopsy needle, although the differences were not statistically significant.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01795066

A prospective randomized study comparing 25-G and 22-G needles of a new platform for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of solid masses

BACKGROUND

A new needle platform for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy has been developed that allows interchangeability of all needle sizes.

AIMS

To prospectively compare the efficacy of the new 25-G needles and 22-G needles for obtaining an adequate aspirate of solid masses.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trial of 144 patients referred for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic masses, intraparietal tumours, or lymph-nodes, randomized to the 25-G or 22-G needle arms.

RESULTS

An adequate specimen was obtained from 74.3% of cases. The sample tended to be more adequate in the 25-G compared to the 22-G group (81% vs. 68%; p=0.09). Crossover was required in 14 (19%) and 12 (17%) cases in the 22-G and in the 25-G groups, respectively (p=0.7). The overall rate of adequacy improved from 74% before crossover to 90% after crossover (p<0.01). When comparing the two groups after crossover, the rate of obtaining adequate samples was significantly higher in the 25-G arm than in the 22-G arm (95.8% vs. 86.1%; p=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

The 25-G needle was superior to the 22-G needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy. The adequacy and diagnostic accuracy improved after crossover, reaching 90%.

PDX-1 mRNA expression in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle cytoaspirate: perspectives in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration is routinely used in the diagnostic work up of pancreatic cancer but has a low sensitivity. Studies showed that Pancreatic Duodenal Homeobox-1 (PDX-1) is expressed in pancreatic cancer, which is associated with a worse prognosis. We aimed to verify whether the assessment of PDX-1 in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration samples may be helpful for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

mRNA of 54 pancreatic cancer and 25 cystic lesions was extracted. PDX-1 expression was assessed by Real-Time PCR.

RESULTS

In all but two patients with pancreatic cancer, PDX-1 was expressed and was found positive in 7 patients with pancreatic cancer in which cytology was negative. The positivity was associated with a probability of 0.98 (95% CI 0.90-1.00) of having cancer and the negativity with one of 0.08 (95% CI 0.01-0.27). The probability of cancer rose to 1.00 (95% CI 0.97-1.00) for patients positive to both PDX-1 and cytology and fell to 0.0 (95% CI 0.00-0.15) in patients negative for both.

CONCLUSIONS

PDX-1mRNA is detectable in samples of pancreatic cancer. Its quantification may be helpful to improve the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.

High and low negative pressure suction techniques in EUS-guided fine-needle tissue acquisition by using 25-gauge needles: a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) has a high diagnostic accuracy for pancreatic diseases. However, although most reports have typically focused on cytology, histological tissue quality has rarely been investigated. The effectiveness of EUS-FNA combined with high negative pressure (HNP) suction was recently indicated for tissue acquisition, but has not thus far been tested in a prospective, randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the adequacy of EUS-FNA with HNP for the histological diagnosis of pancreatic lesions by using 25-gauge needles.

DESIGN

Prospective, single-blind, randomized, controlled crossover trial.

SETTING

Seven tertiary referral centers.

PATIENTS

Patients referred for EUS-FNA of pancreatic solid lesions. From July 2011 to April 2012, 90 patients underwent EUS-FNA of pancreatic solid masses by using normal negative pressure (NNP) and HNP with 2 respective passes. The order of the passes was randomized, and the sample adequacy, quality, and histology were evaluated by a single expert pathologist.

INTERVENTION

EUS-FNA by using NNP and HNP.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The adequacy of tissue acquisition and the accuracy of histological diagnoses made by using the EUS-FNA technique with HNP.

RESULTS

We found that 72.2% (65/90) and 90% (81/90) of the specimens obtained using NNP and HNP, respectively, were adequate for histological diagnosis (P = .0003, McNemar test). For 73.3% (66/90) and 82.2% (74/90) of the specimens obtained by using NNP and HNP, respectively, an accurate diagnosis was achieved (P = .06, McNemar test). Pancreatitis developed in 1 patient after this procedure, which subsided with conservative therapy.

LIMITATIONS

This was a single-blinded, crossover study.

CONCLUSION

Biopsy procedures that combine the EUS-FNA with HNP techniques are superior to EUS-FNA with NNP procedures for tissue acquisition. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000005939.).

Diagnostic efficacy of cell block immunohistochemistry, smear cytology, and liquid-based cytology in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic lesions: a single-institution experience

Background

The diagnostic efficiency of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) cytology varies widely depending on the treatment method of the specimens. The present study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of cell block (CB) immunohistochemistry, smear cytology (SC), and liquid-based cytology (LBC) in patients with pancreatic lesions without consulting an on-site cytopathologist.

Methods

This study prospectively enrolled 72 patients with pancreatic lesions. The EUS-FNA specimens were examined by SC, LBC, and CB immunohistochemistry. The diagnostic efficacy of the 3 methods was then compared. Patients’ final diagnosis was confirmed by surgical resection specimens, diagnostic imaging, and clinical follow-up.

Results

Our results included 60 malignant and 12 benign pancreatic lesions. The diagnostic sensitivity (90%), negative predictive value (66.7%), and accuracy (91.7%) of CB immunohistochemistry were significantly higher than those of SC (70.0%, 30.0%, and 75.0%, respectively) and LBC (73.3%, 31.6%, and 77.8%, respectively) (all P<0.05). The combination of CB and SC, or CB and LBC, did not significantly increase the efficacy compared to CB immunohistochemistry alone.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that in the absence of an on-site cytopathologist, CB immunohistochemistry on EUS-FNA specimens offers a higher diagnostic efficacy in patients with pancreatic lesions than does SC and LBC.

High-quality endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration tissue acquisition

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration is a multistep procedure that involves proper clinical indication, correct selection of needles, adapting evidence-based techniques such as the fanning maneuver and not routinely using suction or the stylet for tissue sampling, and establishing reliable cytopathology support. Integrating cytopathology in the training curriculum and developing a more flexible platform of needles and echoendoscopes are likely to further advance the field of endosonography. This review aims to summarize the technical issues that are key to performing high-quality endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration.

Is diagnostic accuracy of fine needle aspiration on solid pancreatic lesions aspiration-related? A multicentre randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration has a central role in the diagnostic algorithm of solid pancreatic masses. Data comparing the fine needle aspiration performed with different aspiration volume and without aspiration are lacking. We compared endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration performed with the 22 gauge needle with different aspiration volumes (10, 20 and 0 ml), for adequacy, diagnostic accuracy and complications.

METHODS

Prospective clinical study at four referral centres. Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration was performed with a 22G needle with both volume aspiration (10 and 20 cc) and without syringe, in randomly assigned sequence. The cyto-pathologist was blinded as to which aspiration was used for each specimen.

RESULTS

100 patients met the inclusion criteria, 88 completed the study. The masses had a mean size of 32.21±11.24 mm. Sample adequacy evaluated on site was 87.5% with 20 ml aspiration vs. 76.1% with 10 ml (p=0.051), and 45.4% without aspiration (20 ml vs. 0 ml p<0.001; 10 ml vs. 0 ml p<0.001). The diagnostic accuracy was significantly better with 20 ml than with 10 ml and 0 ml (86.2% vs. 69.0% vs. 49.4% p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A significantly higher adequacy and accuracy were observed with the 20 ml aspiration puncture, therefore performing all passes with this volume aspiration may improve the diagnostic power of fine needle aspiration.

Randomized controlled trial comparing stylet-free endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with 22-G and 25-G needles

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Previous studies comparing endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) results with different gauge needles have all been carried out with the stylet in place and show no clear advantage to the larger 22-G needle. Similar data for stylet-free EUS-FNA (SF-EUS-FNA) are unavailable. The aim of the present study was to determine whether diagnostic yield and specimen adequacy is superior with the 22-G needle as compared to the 25-G needle.

METHODS

All patients ≥ 18 years referred for solid-lesion EUS-FNA were eligible. Patients with suspected diagnosis of lymphoma, gastrointestinal stromal tumor, sarcoidosis, significant coagulopathy (international normalized ratio > 1.5 or platelets < 50000/mm(3)), use of clopidogrel within 7 days of EUS, and pregnancy were excluded. The two needles were compared regarding diagnostic yield, sample adequacy, bloodiness, ease of puncture, visibility, number of passes, failures, and complications.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty consecutive patients were included and 126 lesions were sampled. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for the 22-G SF-EUS-FNA were 83%, 100%, 100% and 56%, respectively, and for the 25-G SF-EUS-FNA were 88.8%, 100%, 100% and 76.5%, respectively (P=NS). There were no significant differences between the 22-G and the 25-G FNA needles in sample adequacy, bloodiness, ease of puncture, FNA failure, visibility, number of passes and complications; and no significant differences between either needle were found in relation to lesion site.

CONCLUSION

For SF-EUS-FNA, the larger 22-G needle offers no advantage over the smaller 25-G needle.

Diagnostic evaluation of solid pancreatic masses

Determining the etiology of a solid pancreatic lesion is a critical first step toward developing an appropriate treatment plan for patients with a benign or malignant pancreatic mass. Technological advances in cross-sectional and endoscopic imaging modalities offer pancreatic imaging options with degrees of resolution that were not available even 15-20 years ago. In most cases, the nature of a solid pancreatic mass can be determined using computerized tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration. Knowledge about the basics of these modalities, as well as their strengths and limitations, plays an important role in understanding how patients with solid pancreatic masses should be evaluated.