Evaluation of the SharkCore® needle for EUS-guided core biopsy of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

The role of needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy in the diagnosis of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a highly accurate method for diagnosing pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs); however, some PNETs are difficult to diagnose. Recently, the efficacy of needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (nCLE) in diagnosing solid pancreatic masses has been reported. However, the efficacy of nCLE in the diagnosis of PNETs remains unknown and only a small number of cases have been reported. Hence, this study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of nCLE in the diagnosis of PNETs.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective study evaluated 30 consecutive patients with suspected PNETs on contrast-enhanced computed tomography, who consented to nCLE combined with EUS-FNA and were diagnosed using EUS-FNA or surgical resection. The diagnostic criteria for PNETs using nCLE were based on the nesting and trabecular and glandular arrangement of tumor cell clusters surrounded by capillary vessels and fibrosis, as reported in previous studies.

RESULTS

The diagnosis using nCLE was classified into three categories: misdiagnosis in three cases (10%), non-diagnostic in six cases (20%), and diagnostic in 21 cases (70%). nCLE was able to diagnose PNET in one of the two cases with inconclusive EUS-FNA.

CONCLUSIONS

Although further development of the resolution and optimization of the diagnostic criteria are required, nCLE may constitute a useful diagnostic option in cases of inconclusive EUS-FNA for PNETs.

Comparison of 19G FNA Versus 22G FNB Needles for Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Sampling of Subepithelial Tumors: Is Bigger Better?

OBJECTIVES

To compare the diagnostic efficiency of 19G fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and 22G fine-needle biopsy (FNB) in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling for subepithelial tumors (SETs).

METHODS

The data of patients with SETs who underwent 19G FNA or 22G FNB were reviewed retrospectively in two tertiary hospitals. Tissue cores were assessed by macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE). Cytological or histological diagnosis were classified as definite, suspect, or no diagnosis.

RESULTS

Seventy five patients (mean age: 55 years, 44 males) underwent 19G EUS-FNA (31) or 22G EUS-FNB (44). The overall diagnostic yield was 82.7%. The rate of definite cytological diagnoses was 9.7% (3/31) in 19G and 13.6% (6/44) in 22G group (x2  = 1.520, P = .468). In terms of MOSE, 19G needle, requiring only two punctures, achieved a higher good tissue core rate than 22G group (100.0% [31/31] versus 84.1% [37/44], x2  = 5.440, P = .020]). For histological diagnosis, the 19G group achieved higher definite rate than the 22G group, 93.6% (29/31) versus 65.9% (29/44) (x2  = 7.957, P = .019) on the first puncture, 90.3% (28/31) versus 63.6% (28/44) (x2  = 7.139, P = .028) on the second puncture, 96.8% (30/31) versus 70.5% (31/44) (x2  = 7.319, P = .026) on both the first and second punctures, and 96.8% (30/31) versus 72.7% (32/44) (x2  = 7.538, P = .023) on all three punctures.

CONCLUSIONS

The 19G EUS-FNA requires only two punctures to achieve better tissue core quality by MOSE and yields a higher rate of histological diagnosis than 22G ProCore needle for SETs. The bigger 19G FNA needle seems to play an important role in the evaluation of SETs.

Sensitivity of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology and biopsy for a diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A comparative analysis

The utility of endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration cytology (EUS-FNAC) or endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNAB) for diagnosis of small and large pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDACs) remains in question. We addressed this by analyzing 97 definitively diagnosed cases of PDAC, for which both EUS-FNAC and EUS-FNAB had been performed. We subclassified the 97 solid masses into small (n = 35) or large (n = 62) according to the maximum tumor diameter (<24 mm or ≥24 mm) and compared the diagnostic sensitivity (truly positive rate) of EUS-FNAC and of EUS-FNAB for small and large masses. Diagnostic sensitivity of EUS-FNAC did not differ between large and small masses (79.0% vs. 60.0%; p = 0.0763). However, the diagnostic sensitivity of EUS-FNAB was significantly higher for large masses (85.5% vs. 62.9%; p = 0.0213). Accurate EUS-FNAC-based diagnosis appeared to depend on the degree of cytological atypia of cancer cells, which was not associated with quantity of cancer cells. The accuracy of EUS-FNAB-based diagnosis appeared to depend on cancer cell viability in large masses and cancer volume in small masses. Based on the advantages or disadvantages in each modality, both modalities play an important role in the qualitative diagnosis of PDAC as a complementary procedure.

Fine Needle Biopsies of Solid Pancreatic Lesions: Tissue Acquisition Technique and Needle Design Do Not Impact Specimen Adequacy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Data on adequacy of EUS guided biopsies using different tissue acquisition techniques and fine needle aspiration needle designs have been inconclusive. Data on newer fine needle biopsy (FNB) needles are scarce. This study compared the performance of 3 acquisition techniques and 2 fine needle biopsy designs in solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

Single-center, randomized, pilot clinical trial (Trial registration number NCT03264092). Patients undergoing EUS biopsy of pancreatic lesions were randomized to 1 of 3 acquisition techniques (dry suction, wet suction, slow pull) and 1 of 2 22G FNB needle designs. The primary outcome was specimen cellularity. Secondary outcomes included blood contamination and number of passes needed for diagnosis.

RESULTS

A total of 52 (35.3%), 49 (33.3%) and 46 (31.3%) specimens were obtained with slow pull, dry suction and wet suction, respectively. A total of 56 (38%) and 91 (62%) specimens were obtained with each needle, respectively. No difference in cellularity scores was identified by technique (3.28 vs 3.55 vs 2.94; p = 0.081) or needle type (3.45 vs 3.15; p = 0.19). The same was true for blood contamination and diagnostic pass. A diagnosis was reached after 3 passes in 51 patients (93%). Histological diagnosis was possible in 45 specimens (82%). No severe adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Cellularity of pancreatic specimens obtained with FNB needles via EUS was not influenced by technique and needle design. Three passes were enough to obtain a histological diagnosis in most patients. Larger clinical trials are required to validate the results of this study.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided side-fenestrated needle biopsy sampling is sensitive for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors but inadequate for tumor grading: a prospective study

Accurate pretreatment grading of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs) is important to guide patient management. We aimed to evaluate endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy sampling (EUS-FNB) for the preoperative diagnosis and grading of PanNETs. In a tertiary-center setting, patients with suspected PanNETs were prospectively subjected to 22-gauge, reverse-bevel EUS-FNB. The EUS-FNB samples (Ki-67_EUS) and corresponding surgical specimens (Ki-67_SURG) were analyzed with Ki-67 indexing and thereafter tumor grading, (GRADE_EUS) and (GRADE_SURG) respectively. In total 52 PanNET-patients [median age: 66 years; females: 25/52; surgical resection 22/52 (42%)] were included. EUS-FNB was diagnostic in 44/52 (85%). In 42 available FNB-slides, the median neoplastic cell count was 1034 (IQR: 504-3667) with 32/42 (76%), 22/42 (52%), and 14/42 (33%) cases exceeding 500, 1000, and 2000 neoplastic cells respectively. Ki-67_SURG was significantly higher compared to Ki-67_EUS with a moderate correlation comparing Ki-67_EUS and Ki-67_SURG (Pearson r = 0.60, r² = 0.36, p = 0.011). The GRADE_EUS had a weak level of agreement (κ = 0.08) compared with GRADE_SURG. Only 2/12 (17%) G2-tumors were correctly graded in EUS-FNB-samples. EUS-guided fine needle biopsy sampling is sensitive for preoperative diagnosis of PanNET but biopsy quality is relatively poor. Therefore, the approach seems suboptimal for pretreatment grading of PanNET.

Optimal Techniques for EUS-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration of Pancreatic Solid Masses at Facilities without On-Site Cytopathology: Results from Two Prospective Randomised Trials

Background: EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has emerged as the primary modality for the cytologic diagnosis of pancreatic solid masses. The aim of this study is to determine whether technical factors including suction (S), non-suction (NS), capillary sampling with stylet slow-pull (CSSS), and the number of needle actuations (to-and-fro needle movements) may affect the accuracy of EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid masses at facilities without on-site cytopathology. Methods: The diagnostic yield of malignancy, blood contamination and cellularity at each sample acquired from EUS-FNA with or without S and different numbers of actuation (10, 15 and 20) were measured (study I). The optimal actuation number was determined and a head-to-head comparison trial between S and CSSS was performed (study II). Results: In study I, significant blood contamination was seen using S with 20 compared with 15 actuations (p = 0.002). Diagnostic yield of malignancy was not significantly different between 10, 15, and 20 actuations with S, whereas it was statistically higher for 15 actuations compared with 10 actuations with NS (p = 0.001). In study II, no difference was noted in diagnostic yield with 15 actuations between S and CSSS (88% vs. 90%, p = 0.74). Conclusions: Increasing actuation in NS resulted in a better diagnostic yield for EUS-FNA without significant blood contamination, whereas increasing actuation in S did not change the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA while causing significant blood contamination. With 15 actuations, the diagnostic yield was comparable between S and CSSS.

Utility of contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography for predicting the prognosis of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PanNENs), including Grade 1 (G1) or G2 tumors, can have a poor prognosis. This study investigated the value of contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography (CH-EUS) for predicting the prognosis of PanNENs.

METHODS

This single-center, retrospective study included 47 consecutive patients who underwent CH-EUS and were diagnosed with PanNEN by surgical resection or EUS-guided fine needle aspiration between December 2011 and February 2016. Patients were divided into aggressive and non-aggressive groups according to the degree of clinical malignancy. CH-EUS was assessed regarding its capacity for diagnosing aggressive PanNEN, the correspondence between contrast patterns and pathological features, and its ability to predict the prognosis of PanNEN.

RESULTS

There were 19 cases of aggressive PanNEN and 28 cases of non-aggressive PanNEN. The aggressive group included three G1, four G2, three G3 tumors, three mixed neuroendocrine non-neuroendocrine neoplasms, and six neuroendocrine carcinomas. CH-EUS was superior to contrast-enhanced computed tomography for the diagnosis of aggressive PanNEN (P < 0.001): hypo-enhancement on CH-EUS was an indicator of aggressive PanNEN, with sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of 94.7%, 100%, 100%, 96.6%, and 97.9%, respectively. Among G1/G2 PanNENs, cases with hypo-enhancement on CH-EUS had a poorer prognosis than those with hyper/iso-enhancement (P = 0.0009). Assessment of 36 resected specimens showed that hypo-enhancement on CH-EUS was associated with smaller and fewer vessels and greater degree of fibrosis.

CONCLUSION

Contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography may be useful for predicting the prognosis of PanNENs.

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

Background/Aims

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in the Diagnosis of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms

Although pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PNENs) are relatively rare tumors, their number is increasing with advances in diagnostic imaging modalities. Even small lesions that are difficult to detect using computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging can now be detected with endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). Contrast-enhanced EUS is useful, and not only diagnosis but also malignancy detection has become possible by evaluating the vascularity of tumors. Pathological diagnosis using EUS with fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is useful when diagnostic imaging is difficult. EUS-FNA can also be used to evaluate the grade of malignancy. Pooling the data of the studies that compared the PNENs grading between EUS-FNA samples and surgical specimens showed a concordance rate of 77.5% (κ-statistic = 0.65, 95% confidence interval = 0.59–0.71, p < 0.01). Stratified analysis for small tumor size (2 cm) showed that the concordance rate was 84.5% and the kappa correlation index was 0.59 (95% confidence interval = 0.43–0.74, p < 0.01). The evolution of ultrasound imaging technologies such as contrast-enhanced and elastography and the artificial intelligence that analyzes them, the evolution of needles, and genetic analysis, will further develop the diagnosis and treatment of PNENs in the future.

Randomized controlled trial comparing the Franseen needle with the Fork-tip needle for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EUS-guided FNA primarily provides cytologic samples. EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB) with needles that provide histologic specimens may enhance diagnostic yield and facilitate accessory tissue staining. Several different needle designs are currently available and design superiority is unknown. We designed a randomized controlled trial to compare 2 commonly used EUS-FNB needles in their ability to provide histologic tissue samples (primary endpoint) and to reach an accurate diagnosis (secondary endpoint).

METHODS

A total of 150 lesions from 134 patients (November 2018 to June 2019) were randomized 1:1 between biopsy with a Franseen needle and a Fork-tip needle. The groups were compared regarding the quality of the tissue samples and diagnostic accuracy.

RESULTS

Of 150 lesions, 75 were pancreatic and 75 were other solid lesions in and around the GI tract. There was no statistically significant difference between the Franseen needle and the Fork-tip needle in the yield of adequate histologic samples, 71 of 75 (94.7%) versus 72 of 75 (96%), (P = 1.00), an absolute difference of -1.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], -8.1% to 5.4%). The 2 groups were similar in the diagnostic accuracy of histologic analysis, 64 of 75 (85.3%) versus 68 of 75 (90.7%) (P = .45), absolute difference -5.4% (95% CI, -15.7% to 5%); and in the diagnostic accuracy of combined cytologic and histologic analysis, 65 of 75 (86.7%) versus 69 of 75 (92%) (P = .43), absolute difference -5.3% (95% CI, -15.2% to 4.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in the performance of the Franseen needle versus the Fork-tip needle. Both needles achieved a high yield of histologic tissue samples and high diagnostic accuracy. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03672032.).

Fine Needle Aspiration versus Fine Needle Biopsy of Biliopancreatic Lesions: Are They Really Opposing Techniques or Can They Be Complementary? Our Experience in a Large Cohort of Cases from a Single Institution

INTRODUCTION

Nowadays, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA), and fine needle biopsy (FNB) are considered the best procedures for the diagnosis of biliopancreatic lesions. These methods represent a milestone since they proved to be both safe for the patient and useful to achieve diagnostic material useful to plan the best treatment strategy.

OBJECTIVE

Since in the literature, a debate between cytology and histology supporters is still ongoing and the trend is changing in favor of FNB, we would like to present our experience about the diagnostic yield of FNA and FNB. The aim of our study is to highlight FNA versus FNB diagnostic role of biliopancreatic lesions, highlight advantages, and drawbacks of these procedures, and our view on these 2 procedures and whether they should still be considered complementary or opposing techniques.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed our hospital series of 469 EUS diagnostics procedures of biliopancreatic lesions performed in 419 patients, between 2015 and 2019.

RESULTS

The overall adequacy rates of FNA and FNB were, respectively, 98.9 and 100%. Stratifying cases according to anatomic location of the mass (pancreas vs. biliary system), we detected 168 malignancies out of 349 pancreatic lesions (168/349; 48.1%), while biliary system cases positive for malignancy represented 33.8% (23/68 cases) (p value = 0.045, χ2 test). As for concomitant FNB, our series displayed a high rate of diagnostic concordance (88.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite numerous data published, it is still unclear which is the most feasible method to use; therefore, we compared FNA, FNB, or their combination to understand the best applicable technique. Our experience confirmed that FNA is extremely efficient in the diagnosis of biliopancreatic lesions, especially in the hands of expert endoscopists and pathologists. Considering anatomic location, EUS-FNA is more accurate for mass-forming neoplasms in the pancreatic parenchyma rather than for lesions of the biliary system. Moreover, concomitant FNB usually confirmed the cytological diagnosis, allowing a deeper immunohistochemical characterization of the neoplasia. This proves that a "pure" cytology and "pure" histology approach should be looked differently since these are complementary techniques especially if we can obtain a cellblock from FNA.

Histological diagnosis and grading of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy using a 25-gauge needle with a core trap: A multicenter prospective trial

OBJECTIVES

Preoperative grading of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNET) is challenging. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the use of a 25-gauge needle with a core trap for diagnosis and grading of PanNET.

METHODS

This multicenter prospective trial was registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN000021409). Consecutive patients with suspected PanNET between June 2016 and November 2017 were enrolled. All patients underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) using a 25-gauge needle with a core trap. Samples obtained after the first needle pass were used for central pathological review. EUS-FNB was evaluated in terms of (i) technical success rate, (ii) adequacy for histological evaluation, (iii) complication rate during the procedure, and (iv) concordance between PanNET grading on EUS-FNB and that after analysis of the resected tumor.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients were enrolled. Of the 36/52 patients who underwent surgical resection, 31 were finally diagnosed with PanNET and were eligible for analysis. The technical success rate of EUS-FNB was 100%. The rate of adequacy for histological evaluation was 90.3%. There were no complications related to EUS-FNB. The concordance rate between PanNET grading on EUS-FNB and that after analysis of the resected tumor was 82.6% (95% confidence interval = 61.22-95.05, P = 0.579).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNB using a 25-gauge needle with a core trap is feasible, providing histological samples are of sufficient quality for diagnosis and grading of PanNET.

Modified Endoscopic Ultrasound Needle to Obtain Histological Core Tissue Samples: A Retrospective Analysis

Background/Aims

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration is very effective for providing specimens for cytological evaluation. However, the ability to provide sufficient tissue for histological evaluation has been challenging due to the technical limitations of dedicated core biopsy needles. Recently, a modified EUS needle has been introduced to obtain tissue core samples for histological analysis. We aimed to determine (1) its ability to obtain specimens for histological assessment and (2) the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) using this needle.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed consecutive cases of FNB using modified EUS needles for 342 lesions in 303 patients. The cytology and histological specimens were analyzed. Diagnostic accuracy was calculated.

Results

Adequate cytological and histological assessment was possible in 293/342 (86%) and 264/342 (77%) lesions, respectively. Diagnostic accuracy of the cytological specimen was 294/342 (86%) versus 254/342 (74%) for the histological specimen (p<0.01). Diagnostic accuracy of the combined cytological and histological assessment was 323/342 (94.4%), which was significantly higher than that of both histology alone (p<0.001) and cytology alone (p=0.001).

Conclusions

EUS-FNB with the modified EUS needle provided histologic tissue cores in the majority of cases and achieved excellent diagnostic accuracy with few needle passes.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of solid mass lesions of the pancreas: A retrospective comparison study of fine-needle aspiration and fine-needle biopsy

BACKGROUND

Although endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) has emerged as an alternative to fine-needle aspiration (FNA) for the sampling of solid pancreatic mass lesions, it remains unclear which method is more effective. We compared the diagnostic yields of FNA, FNB, and combined FNA/FNB at a tertiary care institution.

METHODS

Specimens from EUS-FNA (04/2014-08/2017) and EUS-FNB (10/2015-08/2017) with SharkCore needle of pancreatic solid mass lesions were retrieved. Clinical, radiologic, and pathologic data was recorded. Pathology results of malignancy/neoplasms with uncertain malignant potential were considered as true positive. The "negative" cases included were with ≥6 months of follow-up. Nondiagnostic cases showed unremarkable pancreatic tissue, nonpancreatic elements, atypia, or features suspicious for malignancy. Diagnostic yield was defined as percentage of lesions sampled in which a benign or malignant tissue diagnosis, as defined above, was obtained. Statistical comparisons were performed using Fisher's exact test and univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 76 FNA only cases, 88 FNB only cases, and 40 combined FNA/FNB cases. Diagnostic yields were 70% (FNA), 70% (FNB), and 83% (FNA/FNB), which were not statistically different. Increase in lesion size and presence of ROSE were significantly associated with a diagnostic outcome on both univariable and multivariable analysis, unlike the number of passes.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrate that for solid pancreatic lesions, the diagnostic yields of FNA, FNB, and combined FNA and FNB are comparable. Presence of ROSE and increasing lesion size increased the diagnostic yield while the number of passes had no significant impact.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration vs fine-needle biopsy for the diagnosis of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) as a method of obtaining preoperative diagnosis of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs) has been reported in several series. Fine-needle biopsies (FNB) are increasingly employed to obtain core specimens during EUS. However, the differences in efficacy between these sampling methods in the diagnosis of PanNETs still needs to be defined. Patients and methods  Over a 13-year period, all patients who underwent EUS-guided tissue sampling of suspicious pancreatic lesions with clinical, endoscopic and pathologic details were entered into an electronic database. Lesions underwent EUS-FNA or FNB sampling, or a combination of the two. The accuracy and safety of different EUS-guided sampling methods for confirmed PanNETs were investigated. Results  A total of 91 patients (M/F: 42/49, median age: 57 years), who underwent 102 EUS procedures had a final diagnosis of PanNET. Both EUS-guided sampling modalities were used in 28 procedures, EUS-FNA alone was used in 61 cases, while EUS-FNB alone in 13 cases. Diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB alone, including the inadequate specimens, was 77.5 % (95 %CI: 68.9 - 86.2 %) and 85.4 % (95 %CI: 74.6 - 96.2 %), respectively. The combination of both sampling modalities established the diagnosis in 96.4 % of cases (27/28) (95 %CI: 89.6 - 100 %), significantly superior to EUS-FNA alone ( P  = 0.023). Diagnostic sensitivity among the adequate samples for EUS-FNA, EUS-FNB and for the combination of the two methods was 88.4 % (95 %CI: 80.9 - 96.0 %), 94.3 % (95 %CI: 86.6 - 100 %) and 100 % (95 %CI: 100 - 100 %). There was one reported complication, a post-FNA bleeding, treated conservatively. Conclusions  EUS-FNB improves diagnostic sensitivity and confers additional information to cytological assessment of PanNETs.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy is superior to fine-needle aspiration in assessing pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

Background and study aims  Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs) outcomes are dependent upon grading by Ki67. This study compared endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) to fine-needle aspiration (FNA) in assessing PanNETs. Patients and methods  All pancreatic histology for PanNET between January 2009 and June 2017 was included if EUS sampling was performed prior to surgical resection. Ki67 and grade from FNA and FNB samples was compared to surgical histology using correlation coefficient and kappa values. Subgroup analysis was performed for purely solid lesions, lesions < 2 cm and FNB needle type. Results  One hundred sixity-four patients had PanNET of which 57 underwent surgical resection. Thirty-five lesions underwent FNA and 26 FNB (4 had both) confirming PanNET. 23/ of 35 FNA samples reported Ki67/grading compared to all 26 FNB samples ( P  = 0.0006). Compared to surgical histology, Ki67 on FNA correlated poorly overall (r = -0.08), in solid lesions (r = -0.102) and lesions < 2 cm (r = -0.149) whereas FNB correlated moderately overall (r = 0.65), in solid lesions (r = 0.64) and lesions < 2 cm (r = 0.61). Tumor grade showed poor agreement (kappa) with FNA overall (0.026), in solid lesions (0.044) and lesions < 2 cm (0.00) whereas FNB showed moderate-good agreement overall (0.474), in solid lesions (0.58) and lesions < 2 cm (0.745). Fork-tip FNB needles Ki67 showed strong correlation with surgical histology (r = 0.788) compared to reverse bevel FNB needles (r = 0.521). Both FNB needles showed moderate agreement with tumor grade. Conclusion  FNB samples were significantly more likely than FNA to provide adequate material for Ki67/grading and showed a closer match to surgical histology. FNB needle types require prospective investigation.

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

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

EUS-guided core biopsies of pancreatic solid masses using a new fork-tip needle: A multicenter prospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling (EUS sampling) is a safe and effective technique. The study aim was to evaluate the presence of a histological core from pancreatic lesions using a new 25G fork-tip needle.

METHODS

Observational multicenter prospective and analytical study, including consecutive patients with solid pancreatic masses referred for EUS-guided sampling. At each needle pass, the endoscopist performed macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE). The primary outcome was the histological core procurement rates. Secondary outcomes were the evaluation of interobserver agreement between endoscopists and pathologists, adequacy of EUS samples for the diagnosis and post-procedure adverse events.

RESULTS

100 patients were enrolled in 3 centers. The mean size of the lesions was 28.5 mm (SD 11.7). Final diagnoses were adenocarcinoma (68%), neuroendocrine tumor (21%), inflammatory mass/benign lesions (8.0%), and pancreatic metastasis (3.0%). The pathologists described the presence of a core in 67 samples (67.0% of patients), with poor agreement with MOSE (kappa, 0. 12; 95% CI: 0.03-0.28). The diagnostic accuracy was 93%. We observed 6% of mild adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The new 25-gauge core needle showed good overall adequacy and a good rate of histological specimens during EUS sampling of solid pancreatic masses, with a minimum number of passes and no major complications. Clinicaltrial.gov number, NCT02946840.

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.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration vs core needle biopsy for solid pancreatic lesions: Comparison of diagnostic accuracy and procedural efficiency

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided core needle biopsies (CNB) are increasingly being performed to diagnose solid pancreatic lesions. However, studies have been conflicting in terms of CNB improving diagnostic accuracy and procedural efficiency vs fine-needle aspiration (FNA), which this study aims to elucidate.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected on consecutive patients with solid pancreatic or peripancreatic lesions at a single tertiary care center from November 2015 to November 2016 that underwent either FNA or CNB. Patient demographics, characteristics of lesions, diagnostic accuracy, final and follow-up pathology, use of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), complications, and procedure variables were obtained.

RESULTS

A total of 75 FNA and 48 CNB were performed; of these, 13 patients had both. Mean passes were lower with CNB compared to FNA (2.4 vs 2.9, P = .02). Use of ROSE was higher for FNA (97.3% vs 68.1%, P = .001). Mean procedure time was shorter with CNB (34.1 minutes vs 51.2 minutes, P = .02) and diagnostic accuracy was similar (89.2% vs 89.4%, P = .98). There was no difference in diagnostic accuracy when ROSE was performed for CNB vs not performed (93.5% vs 85.7%, P = .58). Additionally, diagnostic accuracy of combined FNA and CNB procedures was 92.3%, which was comparable to FNA (P = .73) or CNB (P = .52) alone.

CONCLUSION

FNA and CNB had comparable safety and diagnostic accuracy. Use of CNB resulted in less number of passes and shorter procedure time as compared to FNA. Moreover, diagnostic accuracy for CNB with or without ROSE was similar.

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.