Comparison of specimen quality among the standard suction, slow-pull, and wet suction techniques for EUS-FNA: A multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial

Comparation of 5 ml and 10 ml Negative Pressures with Wet-suction Techniques for EUS-FNA of Solid Lesions: A Single-center Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The negative pressure selectable for the wet-suction technique remains uncertain. The aim was to investigate the quality of sampling and diagnostic accuracy with solid lesions by 5 mL and 10 mL negative pressure with wet-suction techniques.

METHODS

This is a single-center, crossover, randomized controlled trial conducted with a random sampling technique. In all, 160 patients consecutively undergoing EUS-FNA for solid lesions were randomized in a ratio of 1:1 into 2 groups, the 5 mL and 10 mL negative pressure wet-suction group. The main outcome was to compare the sample quality between the 2 groups. The secondary outcome was to compare the histologic and cytologic diagnostic accuracy of solid lesions.

RESULTS

Pancreatic (n=129) and nonpancreatic (n=27) lesions from 156 lesions were examined. The sample quality concluding cellularity, adequacy, integrity, and blood contamination were comparable between the 2 groups. However, in subgroup analysis, we found 19G FNA provided more integrity of specimen in 5 mL than in 10 mL group (100% vs. 82.9%, P=0.025). In contrast, this benefit was not noteworthy in the 22G FNA subgroup. And there was no statistically significant in histologic (87.82% vs. 87.18%, P=1.000) and cytologic (78.85% vs. 80.77%, P=0.778) accuracy between 5 mL and 10 mL groups.

CONCLUSION

When using the wet-suction technique, 5 mL and 10 mL negative pressure offer equivalent sample quality and diagnostic accuracy. However, the 19G FNA can obtain better sample quality with 5 mL negative pressure than 10 mL negative pressure.

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

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

Comparison of the slow-pull and aspiration methods of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration for next-generation sequencing-compatible tissue collection in non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Personalized treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has advanced rapidly, and elucidating the genetic changes that trigger this disease is crucial for appropriate treatment selection. Both slow-pull and aspiration methods of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) are accepted methods for collecting samples suitable for next-generation sequencing (NGS) to examine driver gene mutations and translocations in NSCLC. Here, we aimed to determine which of these two methods is superior for obtaining higher-quality samples from patients with NSCLC.

METHODS

Seventy-one patients diagnosed with NSCLC via EBUS-TBNA using the slow-pull or aspiration (20-mL negative pressure) methods between July 2019 and September 2022 were included. A total of 203 tissue samples from the 71 patients were fixed in formalin, embedded in paraffin, and mounted on slides. The presence of tissue cores, degree of blood contamination, and number of tumor cells were compared between the groups. The success rate of NGS, using Oncomine Dx Target Test Multi-CDx, was also compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The slow-pull method was associated with a higher yield of tissue cores, lower degree of blood contamination, and higher number of tumor cells than the aspiration method. The success rate of the NGS was also significantly higher for the slow-pull group (95%) than for the aspiration group (68%).

CONCLUSION

Overall, these findings suggest that the slow-pull method is a superior technique for EBUS-TBNA to obtain high-quality tissue samples for NGS. The slow-pull method may contribute to the identification of driver gene mutations and translocations and facilitate personalized treatment of NSCLC.

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).