22-gauge core vs 22-gauge aspiration needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of abdominal masses

Diagnostic accuracy and safety of EUS-guided end-cutting fine-needle biopsy needles for tissue sampling of abdominal and mediastinal lymphadenopathies: a prospective multicenter series

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The role of the newer EUS fine-needle biopsy needles in lymphadenopathies (LAs) is still under evaluation. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and adverse event rate of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling (EUS-FNB) in diagnosing LAs.

METHODS

From June 2015 to June 2022, all patients referred to 4 institutions for EUS-FNB of mediastinal and abdominal LAs were enrolled. Twenty-two-gauge Franseen tip or 25-gauge fork-tip needles were used. The criterion standard for positive results was surgery or imaging and clinical evolution over a follow-up of at least 1 year.

RESULTS

One hundred consecutive patients were enrolled, consisting of those with a new diagnosis of LA (40%), presence of LA with a previous history of neoplasia (51%), or suspected lymphoproliferative disease (9%). EUS-FNB was technically feasible in all LA patients with 2 to 3 passes (mean, 2.62 ± .93). The overall sensitivity, positive predictive value, specificity, negative predictive value, and accuracy for EUS-FNB were 96.20%, 100%, 100%, 87.50%, and 97.00%, respectively. Histologic analysis was feasible in 89% of cases. Cytologic evaluation was performed in 67% of specimens. A statistical difference between the accuracy of the 22-gauge or 25-gauge needle (P = .63) was not found. A subanalysis on lymphoproliferative disease revealed a sensitivity and accuracy of 89.29% and 90.0%, respectively. No adverse events were recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNB with new end-cutting needles is a valuable and safe method to diagnose LAs. The high quality of histologic cores and the good amount of tissue allowed a complete immunohistochemical analysis of metastatic LAs and precise subtyping of the lymphomas. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02855151.).

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

A Meta-Analysis Comparing Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Aspiration With Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Biopsy

BACKGROUND

The superiority between endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is still a debate. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the diagnostic value and safety of these 2 needles in sampling of all solid lesions and separately pancreatic lesions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library were searched for randomized controlled studies that reported the comparison of FNA and FNB in solid mass. Outcome measures included diagnostic accuracy, number of needle passes, diagnostic adequacy, presence of tissue cores, and adverse events. Standard error, upper and lower confidence intervals at 95% confidence interval for the risk were obtained using Review Manager Version 5.3 which was also used to generate forest plots for pooled analysis. The random or fixed effect model was applied depending on the heterogeneity ( I2 ).

RESULTS

Eighteen randomized control trial studies with a total of 2718 patients (1141 patients with EUS-FNA, 1108 with EUS-FNB, and remaining 469 patients were sampled with both needles alternatively) were included in the meta-analysis.FNB group has relatively good diagnostic accuracy relative risk (RR): 0.94, 0.92-0.97; P =0.0002), diagnostic adequacy (RR: 0.95, 0.9-1.0; P =0.04) and high quality histologic yield compared (RR: 0.77, 0.64-0.93; P =0.007) with the FNA group in solid gastrointestinal lesions, and the number of needle passes to obtain sufficient tissue (mean difference: 0.54, 0.45-0.64; P <0.00001) was lower in the FNB group. For solid pancreatic disease only, there was no difference in diagnostic accuracy (RR: 0.97, 0.93-1.01, P =0.13) or quality histologic yield (RR: 0.60, 0.29-1.23; P =0.16). The rate of adverse events (RR: 1.04, 0.48-2.29; P =0.92) did not significantly differ between FNA and FNB groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In solid gastrointestinal lesions, FNB is associated with a relatively better diagnostic adequacy, diagnostic adequacy and tissue cores rates, and less number of needle passes. For solid pancreatic disease only, there is no difference in diagnostic accuracy or tissue cores rates.

High Expression of a tRNAPro Derivative Associates with Poor Survival and Independently Predicts Colorectal Cancer Recurrence

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most lethal cause of cancer-related deaths in Europe. Fragments of tRNA^Pro are conserved among vertebrates, characterized by pleiotropic regulatory functions and have been found to discriminate colorectal tumors from normal colorectal mucosa. In the current study, we investigated the prognostic utility of 5′-tiRNA-Pro^TGG levels in CRC. For this purpose, total RNA was extracted from 155 malignant colorectal tumors and 74 adjacent non-cancerous tissue specimens, polyadenylated and reverse-transcribed using an oligo-dT adapter as primer. Real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) was used to assess the levels of 5′-tiRNA-Pro^TGG. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrated that high 5′-tiRNA-Pro^TGG levels predict both poor disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) of CRC patients. Of note, high 5′-tiRNA-Pro^TGG levels retain their unfavorable prognostic value in patients with rectal cancer and/or moderately differentiated CRC (grade II). More importantly, multivariate cox regression analysis highlighted that the overexpression of 5′-tiRNA-Pro^TGG constitutes an adverse prognostic factor predicting short-term relapse of CRC patients independently of the established prognosticators in CRC. Finally, bioinformatics analysis unveiled a potentially critical role of 5′-tiRNA-Pro^TGG regarding the maintenance of cellular homeostasis, signaling, cell communication, and cellular motility.

Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle biopsy vs fine-needle aspiration for lymph nodes tissue acquisition: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition represents the choice of methods for suspected lymph nodes (LNs) located next to the gastrointestinal tract. This study aimed to compare the pooled diagnostic performance of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) and fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for LNs sampling.

Methods

We searched PubMed/MedLine and Embase databases through August 2021. Primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy; secondary outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, sample adequacy, optimal histological core procurement, number of passes, and adverse events. We performed a pairwise meta-analysis using a random-effects model. The results are presented as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference along with 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

We identified nine studies (1,276 patients) in this meta-analysis. Among these patients, 66.4% were male; the median age was 67 years. Diagnostic accuracy was not significantly different between the two approaches (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.81–2.10; P = 0.270). The accuracy of EUS-FNB was significantly higher when being performed with newer end-cutting needles (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.17–3.00; P = 0.009) and in abdominal LNs (OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.52–4.05; P &lt; 0.001) than that of EUS-FNA. No difference in terms of sample adequacy was observed between the two approaches (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.46–4.26; P = 0.550); however, histological core procurement and diagnostic sensitivity with EUS-FNB were significantly higher than those with EUS-FNA (OR, 6.15; 95% CI, 1.51–25.07; P = 0.010 and OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.27–2.74, P = 0.001). The number of needle passes needed was significantly lower in the EUS-FNB group than in the EUS-FNA group (mean difference, −0.54; 95% CI, −0.97 to −0.12; P = 0.010).

Conclusions

EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB perform similarly in LN sampling; however, FNB performed with end-cutting needles outperformed FNA in terms of diagnostic accuracy.

Diagnostic Concordance of Cytology and Histology in Samples Obtained via Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy (EUS-FNB)

Introduction Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration and biopsy (FNA/FNB) to obtain cytological aspirates and histological core samples, respectively, are the standard of care for diagnosing lesions in/adjacent to the upper/lower gastrointestinal tract. Due to the lack of standardization of tissue processing, it is unclear whether core samples should be sent only for histology (formalin) or cytology (CytoLyt), or both. The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic concordance rates between cytology and histology on EUS-FNB core samples. Methods A total of 227 patients underwent EUS-FNB between October-2017 and February-2019 by a single therapeutic endoscopist; 44 core-tissue samples (41 patients) were placed alternately in CytoLyt (cytology) and formalin (histology), with equal passes into each, to best achieve a proportionate sample amount. The patient's demographics, medical history, pertinent imaging, EUS indication/findings were reviewed. Main outcomes included concordance rates between cytology-histology and diagnostic accuracy for malignancy. Results Cytology and histology were discordant in five cases (11.5%); four with negative cytology but a definite diagnosis of malignancy achieved with histology. One case was suspected as neoplasm on cytology but further characterized as benign on histology. Cytology failed to sub-characterize an additional four mass-like pancreatic benign entities, due to inadequate tissue architecture assessment in the CytoLyt sample. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of cytology for diagnosis of malignancy were 87.88% (95%CI: 71.8-96.6), 90.91% (95%CI: 58.7-99.7), 96.67% (95%CI: 81.6-99.4), and 71.43% (95%CI: 49.4-86.4). Discussion We observed 11.5% diagnostic discordance between cytology and histology on EUS-FNB core samples, with histology being superior. Future multicenter prospective randomized studies are needed to establish an accurate and cost-effective diagnostic process.

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.

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.

Comparing Needles and Methods of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy to Optimize Specimen Quality and Diagnostic Accuracy for Patients With Pancreatic Masses in a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Given the lack of procedure standardization, findings vary from analyses of pancreatic tissues collected by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy. It is not clear which needle and technique yield the best specimen for analysis. We compared the specimen quality and accuracy of diagnoses made from samples collected by fine-needle biopsy needles using different collection techniques.

METHODS

Patients found to have pancreatic masses during imaging (n = 129) were assigned randomly to groups from whom pancreatic tissue samples were collected by reverse-bevel, Menghini-tip, franseen, or fork-tip needles. A second randomization determined the technical sequence of biopsies in each patient (suction, no suction, and stylet retraction). Two independent pathologists, blinded to the type of needle and sampling technique, analyzed all the samples. Final diagnoses of malignancy were made based on surgical resection, death from cancer progression, or findings from radiology or clinical follow-up evaluations (reference standard). The primary objective was to compare the cellularity of the samples collected, defined as the proportion of core tissue in the biopsy sample. Secondary objectives were to compare the accuracy of diagnoses made from biopsy samples and identify factors associated with high cellularity.

RESULTS

One-hundred and nine patients had a final diagnosis of malignancy (84.5%) and 20 patients had benign disease (15.5%). Samples collected by fork-tip or franseen needles had significantly higher cellularity than samples collected by reverse-bevels or Menghini-tip needles (P < .001). Neoplasias were identified with greater than 90% accuracy using samples collected by fork-tip or franseen needles (P < .001 compared with other needles). On multivariable regression analysis, use of franseen needles (odds ratio [OR], 4.42; 95% CI, 2.58-7.58; P < .001) or fork-tip needles (OR, 3.86; 95% CI, 2.24-6.64; P < .001), stylet retraction (OR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.21-3.72; P = .008), no suction (OR, 2.74; 95% CI, 1.57-4.80; P < .001), and pancreatic mass larger than 3 cm (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.21-3.05; P = .005) were associated with high cellularity of the sample.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with suspected pancreatic cancer, samples with the highest degree of cellularity in a single biopsy, resulting in a diagnostic accuracy of 90% of higher, were collected by fine-needle biopsy using the franseen or fork-tip needle. Clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT04085055.

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

Background/Aims

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

Effectiveness of introducing a 20-gauge core biopsy needle with a core trap in EUS-FNA/B for diagnosing pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) is a standard method for pathological diagnosis of pancreatic solid lesions. The EchoTip ProCore 20G® (PC20), a 20-gauge biopsy needle with a forward-bevel core trap, has been available in Japan since 2015.

METHODS

We compared the efficacy of the PC20 with that of the EchoTip ProCore 22G® (PC22) and Acquire 22G® (AC22) in EUS-FNA/B for diagnosing pancreatic cancer. This retrospective study included 191 patients with pancreatic cancer who underwent EUS-FNA/B using the PC20, PC22, or AC22 at our facility from April 2013 to October 2019. We investigated the patients' clinical characteristics and the diagnostic accuracy and safety of each needle.

RESULTS

A sufficient stroke length of puncture was secured in all patients. The maximum length under EUS was shorter with the AC22 (22.1 ± 2.2 mm) than PC20 (30.6 ± 0.7 mm, p < 0.01) and PC22 (30.3 ± 0.8 mm, p < 0.01). The histological accuracy was 96.4% with the PC20 but only 58.8% with the PC22 (adjusted p (p-adj) < 0.0001) and 75.0% with the AC22 (p-adj = 0.06). The diagnostic accuracy of the combination of histology and cytology was 96.4% with the PC20, while it was 72.1% with the PC22 (p-adj < 0.0001) and 91.7% with the AC22 (p-adj > 0.99). One patient (0.9%) in the PC20 group developed mild pancreatitis, but no adverse events occurred with the other needles.

CONCLUSIONS

The PC20 showed better diagnostic capability than the PC22. The diagnostic efficacy was similar between the PC20 and AC22. The high histological accuracy of the PC20 could be advantageous for lesions in which histological assessment is critical.

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.

Comparison of smear cytology and liquid-based cytology in EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic lesions: experience from a large tertiary center

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Studies comparing the diagnostic efficacy of liquid-based cytology (LBC) and smear cytology (SC) of pancreatic tissue sampling obtained via EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) are still insufficient, mainly because results were controversial. We compared the diagnostic efficiency of LBC and SC of EUS-FNA of pancreatic lesions in one of the largest tertiary hospitals in China.

METHODS

A retrospective database search (January 2015 to January 2019) was performed for patients who underwent EUS-FNA with both LBC and SC. Demographic, cytologic, and endosonographic data were collected from 819 patients; 514 cases met the inclusion criteria. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were compared. Rapid on-site evaluation was not available in all cases.

RESULTS

Three hundred eighty-five cases (74.90%) had confirmed malignancy, and 40 cases (7.78%) confirmed benign neoplasm. Adequate tissue sampling rates showed no significant difference between the 2 groups. The sensitivity, accuracy, and negative predictive value (NPV) of LBC were higher than those of SC with statistical significance (71.4% vs 55.1%, 76.1% vs 61.6%, and 40.6% vs 27.7%, respectively). The sensitivity, accuracy, and NPV of combined SC and LBC were higher than those of LBC alone with statistical significance (83.9% vs 71.4%, 86.5% vs 76.1%, and 56.8% vs 40.6%, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed that pancreatic neck/body/tail lesions (P = .003), solid lesions (P < .001), 22-gauge needle size (P < .001), and number of needle passage >3 (P = .041) were associated with higher diagnostic sensitivity in all participants using LBC, whereas number of needle passage >3 (P = .017) was associated with higher diagnostic sensitivity using SC.

CONCLUSIONS

LBC was more accurate and sensitive than SC in EUS-FNA of pancreatic lesions with higher NPV when rapid on-site evaluation is unavailable. Pancreatic neck/body/tail lesions, solid lesions, 22-gauge needle, and more than 3 passes were associated with higher sensitivity when using LBC. Performing more than 3 passes is associated with higher sensitivity when using SC.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration for the diagnosis of intra-abdominal lymphadenopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: It is difficult to diagnose the cause of abdominal lymphadenopathy without determining the primary lesions. With the advent of curved ultrasound endoscopy, EUS-FNA can sample lymph nodes safely, accurately and conveniently. Due to the lack of formal quantitative and comprehensive literature review to determine the diagnostic value of EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of enlarged intra-abdominal lymph nodes of unknown origin, we conducted this study to systematically evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA in the enlarged intra-abdominal lymph nodes.Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of intra-abdominal lymphadenopathy. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library to collect related studies and diagnostic performance data. We used a random-effects model to estimate the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Heterogeneity was assessed by subgroup and meta-regression analysis.Results: Twelve eligible studies involved 774 patients were identified. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of all studies is 94% (95% CI: 91% to 96%) and 98% (95% CI: 96% to 99%), respectively. The pooled positive and negative likelihood ratios are 17.44 (95% CI, 6.50 to 46.79) and 0.09 (95% CI: 0.06 to 0.14). The pooled DOR is 277.82 (95% CI, 97.65 to 790.46).Conclusions: EUS-FNA is a safe and feasible technique with high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of abdominal lymph node enlargement. Considering the limitations and heterogeneity, high-quality studies are needed to further explore the diagnostic value of EUS-FNA.

Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration: A single-center analysis

Background: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNAB) has become an important modality for identification of intra-abdominal masses. This study analyzed the accuracy of EUS-FNAB in a single medical center and explored factors related to positive diagnosis. Materials and methods: In total, 77 patients with EUS-FNAB were retrospectively reviewed from July 2016 to February 2020. "Atypical (tends to be neoplasm/malignancy)," "suspicious (first consider neoplasm/malignancy)," and "malignant" were defined as positive cytology. The final diagnoses were based on histopathologic examination. The positive rate of EUS-FNAB for the diagnosis of neoplasm and its associations with age, sex, target puncture mass size, liver function, tumor markers, albumin, hypertension, and diabetes were examined. Results: Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of EUS-FNAB cytologic diagnoses in all patients were 77.9% (60/77), 76.1% (54/71), 100%, 100%, and 26.1% (6/23), respectively. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of EUS-FNAB cytologic diagnoses in the pancreas were 80.0% (48/60), 79.3% (46/58), 100%, 100%, and 14.3% (2/14), respectively. The results of EUS-FNAB in pancreatic masses showed that the level of CA19-9 was higher in the true positive group than in the false-negative group (p<0.05). There were no factors associated with the true positive cytologic diagnoses (p>0.05). Conclusions: Our single-medical center study showed that EUS-FNAB is an accurate diagnostic procedure for the evaluation of intra-abdominal masses. Further follow-up is required to explore factors associated with the true positive cytology.

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.

Uncovering the clinical impact of kallikrein-related peptidase 5 (KLK5) mRNA expression in the colorectal adenoma-carcinoma sequence

Background Kallikrein-related peptidases (KLKs) are a subgroup of serine proteases located on chromosome 19q13.3. Most KLKs have been extensively studied as potential biomarkers for several carcinomas and other diseases. KLK5 was originally identified from a keratinocyte library, and its enzyme was purified from the stratum corneum of human skin. KLK5 was shown to be differentially expressed in a variety of endocrine tumors, although it is not as yet examined widely in colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods In this study, we quantitatively assessed the mRNA expression status of KLK5 in 197 colorectal tissues from 133 patients (70 cancerous and their paired normal colonic mucosa for 64 of them, as well as 63 colorectal adenomas) by quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) using TaqMan probes. Statistical analysis evaluated the results. Results It was shown that KLK5 expression is reduced following the histologically non-cancerous-adenoma sequence (p<0.001), whereas it is increased during the sequence adenoma-carcinoma (p<0.001). Furthermore, KLK5 positive expression is associated with positive nodal status (p=0.022), advanced tumor stage (p=0.038) and high histological grade (p=0.033). Cox univariate analysis revealed that KLK5 positive expression is associated with disease-free survival (DFS) (p=0.028) and overall survival (OS) of patients (p=0.048). Kaplan-Meyer survival models showed that patients with positive KLK5 expression have lower DFS (p=0.009) and OS (p=0.019). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis demonstrated for first time that KLK5 expression had significant discriminatory values between cancer and adenoma tissues (area under the curve [AUC] 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.69-0.85, p=0.03). Conclusions KLK5 mRNA expression may be useful for the differentiation of CRC from colorectal adenoma and represents a potential unfavorable prognostic biomarker for CRC.

Endoscopic ultrasonography in pancreatic diseases: advances in tissue acquisition

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) improved the diagnostic performance and upgraded the role of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) into an interventional modality, able to guide patient management and treatment.This review aimed to highlight the advances, emerging practices, procedural techniques and technological innovations in EUS tissue acquisition in pancreatic diseases. Methods  A thorough review of the literature was performed using PubMed to identify articles that describe techniques, advances, and practices in EUS tissue acquisition in gastrointestinal diseases. Conclusion  Since the first EUS-FNA procedure, EUS guided-tissue acquisition has been evolving continuously. Development of needles with innovative tip design enabled procurement of larger samples with preserved histological architecture. Moreover, sampling techniques and complementary methods, such as contrast harmonic imaging and EUS-elastography, have been introduced in an effort to improve diagnostic performance and sample adequacy.

Comparison between 22G aspiration and 22G biopsy needles for EUS-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: A meta-analysis

Robust data in favor of clear superiority of 22G fine-needle biopsy (FNB) over 22G FNA for an echoendoscopic-guided sampling of pancreatic masses are lacking. The objective of this study is to compare the diagnostic outcomes and sample adequacy of these two needles. Computerized bibliographic search on the main databases was performed and restricted to only randomized controlled trials. Summary estimates were expressed regarding risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval. A total of 11 trials with 833 patients were analyzed. The two needles resulted comparable in terms of diagnostic accuracy (RR 1.02, 0.97–1.08; P = 0.46), sample adequacy (RR 1.01, 0.96–1.06; P = 0.61), and histological core procurement (RR 1.01, 0.89–1.15; P = 0.86). Pooled sensitivity in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer was 93.1% (87.9%–98.4%) and 90.4% (86.3%–94.5%) with biopsy and aspirate, respectively, whereas specificity for detecting pancreatic cancer was 100% with both needles. Analysis of the number of needle passes showed a nonsignificantly positive trend in favor of FNB (mean difference: −0.32, −0.66–0.02; P = 0.07). Our meta-analysis stands for a nonsuperiority of 22G FNB over 22G FNA; hence, no definitive recommendations on the use of a particular device can be made.

Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Fine-Needle Aspiration and Endoscopic Ultrasound-Fine-Needle Biopsy for Solid Lesions in a Multicenter, Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is the standard of care for tissue sampling of solid lesions adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract. Fine-needle biopsy (FNB) may provide higher diagnostic yield with fewer needle passes. The aim of this study was to assess the difference in diagnostic yield between FNA and FNB.

METHODS

This is a multicenter, prospective randomized clinical trial from 6 large tertiary care centers. Patients referred for tissue sampling of solid lesions were randomized to either FNA or FNB of the target lesion. Demographics, size, location, number of needle passes, and final diagnosis were recorded.

RESULTS

After enrollment, 135 patients were randomized to FNA (49.3%), and 139 patients were randomized to FNB (50.7%).The following lesions were sampled: mass (n = 210, 76.6%), lymph nodes (n = 46, 16.8%), and submucosal tumors (n = 18, 6.6%). Final diagnosis was malignancy (n = 192, 70.1%), reactive lymphadenopathy (n = 30, 11.0%), and spindle cell tumors (n = 24, 8.8%). FNA had a diagnostic yield of 91.1% compared with 88.5% for FNB (P = .48). There was no difference between FNA and FNB when stratified by the presence of on-site cytopathology or by type of lesion sampled. A median of 1 needle pass was needed to obtain a diagnostic sample for both needles.

CONCLUSIONS

FNA and FNB obtained a similar diagnostic yield with a comparable number of needle passes. On the basis of these results, there is no significant difference in the performance of FNA compared with FNB in the cytologic diagnosis of solid lesions adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01698190.

Alternative Splicing Detection Tool-a novel PERL algorithm for sensitive detection of splicing events, based on next-generation sequencing data analysis

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) can provide researchers with high impact information regarding alternative splice variants or transcript identifications. However, the enormous amount of data acquired from NGS platforms make the analysis of alternative splicing events hard to accomplish. For this reason, we designed the "Alternative Splicing Detection Tool" (ASDT), an algorithm that is capable of identifying alternative splicing events, including novel ones from high-throughput NGS data. ASDT is available as a PERL script at http://aias.biol.uoa.gr/~mtheo and can be executed on any system with PERL installed. In addition to the detection of annotated and novel alternative splicing events from high-throughput NGS data, ASDT can also analyze the intronic regions of genes, thus enabling the detection of novel cryptic exons residing in annotated introns, extensions of previously annotated exons, or even intron retentions. Consequently, ASDT demonstrates many innovative and unique features that can efficiently contribute to alternative splicing analysis of NGS data.

Non-coding RNAs: the riddle of the transcriptome and their perspectives in cancer

Non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs) constitute a heterogeneous group of RNA molecules in terms of biogenesis, biological function as well as length and structure. These biological molecules have gained attention recently as a potentially crucial layer of tumor cell progression or regulation. ncRNAs are expressed in a broad spectrum of tumors, and they play an important role not only in maintaining but also in promoting cancer development and progression. Recent discoveries have revealed that ncRNAs may act as key signal transduction mediators in tumor signaling pathways by interacting with RNA or proteins. These results reinforce the hypothesis, that ncRNAs constitute therapeutic targets, and point out their clinical potential as stratification markers. The major purpose of this review is to mention the emergence of the importance of ncRNAs, as molecules which are correlated with cancer, and to discuss their clinical implicit as prognostic diagnostic indicators, biomarkers, and therapeutic targets.

Randomized crossover trial comparing EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration with EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy for gastric subepithelial tumors

AIM

The purpose of this study is to compare the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for gastric subepithelial tumors (SET).

METHODS

Patients diagnosed SET derived from fourth layer of the stomach were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned to undergo both EUS-FNA using standard needle and EUS-FNB using a core biopsy needle alternatively to the same lesion a total of four times per session. The specimen was carefully examined for the presence of a macroscopic visible core, appearing as threadlike yellowish or bloody pieces of tissue and blinded histocytologic analyses were conducted. For spindle cell lesions by hematoxylin and eosin staining (H&E) on histologic evaluation, immunohistochemical staining was performed in all cases to confirm the pathological diagnosis.

RESULTS

A total of 23 patients were enrolled and underwent paired EUS-FNA and -FNB sampling. The diagnostic rate due to immunohistochemical staining was 73.9% and 91.3%, respectively (P = .120). The rate of obtaining specimens with a macroscopic yellowish core and only a bloody core among the tissue specimens were respectively 43.5% and 52.2% for EUS-FNA and 69.6% and 30.4% for EUS-FNB. The diagnostic rate for a yellowish core (84.6%) and a bloody core (84.2%, P = .971) did not differ significantly.

CONCLUSION

Both techniques were equivalently safe and successful in terms of a high diagnostic yield for gastric SET. And the tissue that can be immunohistochemically stained is present even in the specimens that appear to be a macroscopically bloody core.

A case report of gastric linitis plastica diagnosed by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration

RATIONALE

There is currently no consensus on the ideal method for obtaining deep tissue biopsy material of advanced gastric LP. EUS-FNA has potential as a useful diagnostic method. Thus, we report the case of a 46-year-old male with advanced gastric linitis plastica (LP) who was diagnosed using endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA).

PATIENT CONCERNS

The patient underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) because of epigastric pain at a local clinic. The gastric fold swelling was pointed out by the EGD and despite the suspected advanced gastric LP, biopsy indicated Group 1. Repeat biopsy did not suggest malignancy. The patient was referred to our institution.

DIAGNOSES

Endoscopic ultrasound indicated gastric wall thickening mainly in the greater curvature of the gastric corpus. Low-level echoes were detected throughout the entire gastric wall, and gastric wall layers had been disappeared. EUS-FNA of the gastric wall indicated signet ring cell carcinoma.

INTERVENTIONS

As a result of EUS - FNA, it became a policy to administer chemotherapy. In accordance with the patient's wishes, he was referred to another institution for chemotherapy.

OUTCOMES

Normal biopsy did not give a definitive pathological diagnosis, and final diagnosis of LP was obtained with EUS-FNA.

LESSONS

We expect that EUS-FNA can be utilized as a relatively non-invasive, highly sensitive, and specific pathological diagnostic procedure for advanced gastric LP. EUS-FNA should be considered as one way to obtain a deep tissue biopsy of advanced gastric LP.