Endoscopic Ultrasound Fine-Needle Aspiration versus Fine-Needle Biopsy for Lymph Node Diagnosis: A Large Multicenter Comparative Analysis

Lymphadenopathy Tissue Sampling by EUS-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy Contributes to Meeting the Conditions for Genomic Profiling

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) performed with a Franseen needle or Fork-tip needle enables greater tissue acquisition. However, it is unknown whether EUS-FNB could contribute to lymphadenopathy genomic profiling. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of EUS-FNB using a Franseen or Fork-tip needle for tissue acquisition and genomic profiling in patients with lymphadenopathy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with abdominal lymphadenopathy who underwent EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA)/EUS-FNB were included in this study. The amount of acquired tissue and its suitability for genomic profiling were compared between FNA and FNB. Specimen quality was evaluated by a widely used pathologic adequacy scoring system (0: insufficient; 1 to 2: cytologic; 3: limited histologic; 4 to 5: sufficient histologic). The criteria of FoundationOne CDx (F1CDx) and NCC Oncopanel (NOP) were used to assess the suitability for genomic profiling.

RESULTS

In total, 72 patients underwent EUS-FNA, and the other 20 patients underwent EUS-FNB. The pathologic adequacy score and suitability for genomic profiling based on the criteria were significantly higher for FNB than for FNA [histologic adequacy score: 5 (4 to 5) versus 3 (0 to 5), P<0.01; F1CDx: 16.7% vs. 0%, P=0.01; NOP: 66.7% vs. 7.5%, P<0.01]. In multivariate analysis, EUS-FNB was identified as the only factor that influenced the suitability for genomic profiling based on the above-mentioned criteria (odds ratio 19.5, 95% CI: 3.74-102, P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNB performed using Franseen or Fork-tip needles may result in greater lymphadenopathy tissue acquisition and thus enhanced suitability for genomic profiling compared with EUS-FNA.

Comparison of 19-gauge conventional and Franseen needles for the diagnosis of lymphadenopathy and classification of malignant lymphoma using endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) using a 19-gauge needle is an efficient sampling method for the diagnosis of lymphadenopathy. This study compared 19-gauge conventional and Franseen needles for the diagnosis of lymphadenopathy and classification of malignant lymphoma (ML).

METHODS

Patient characteristics, number of needle passes, puncture route, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of cytology/histology for lymphadenopathy were analyzed in patients diagnosed with lymphadenopathy by EUS-FNA using conventional or Franseen needles.

RESULTS

Between 2012 and 2022, 146 patients met the inclusion criteria (conventional [n=70] and Franseen [n=76]). The median number of needle passes was significantly lower in the conventional group than in the Franseen group (3 [1-6] vs. 4 [1-6], p=0.023). There were no significant differences in cytological/histological diagnoses between the two groups. For ML, the immunohistochemical evaluation rate, sensitivity of flow cytometry, and cytogenetic assessment were not significantly different in either group. Bleeding as adverse events (AEs) were observed in three patients in the Franseen group.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the 19-gauge conventional and Franseen needles showed high accuracy in lymphadenopathy and ML classification. Considering sufficient tissue collection and the avoidance of AEs, the use of 19-gauge conventional needles seems to be a good option for the diagnosis of lymphadenopathy.

Current perspectives on the diversification of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and biopsy

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) has undergone significant advancements since it was first reported in 1992. Initially focused on the pancreas, EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) has now been extended to encompass all organs proximal to the gastrointestinal system. Recently, a novel fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needle with an end-cut tip was developed, allowing for the collection of specimens suitable for histological assessment, a feat hard to achieve with traditional needles. The FNB needle holds promise for applications in immunohistochemistry staining and genetics evaluation, and it has the potential to yield specimens of comparable quality to core needle biopsy during percutaneous puncture, especially for lesions beyond the pancreas, such as lymph nodes. This review focuses on the efficacy of EUS-FNA/FNB for extended target regions, specifically lymph nodes, spleen, adrenal gland, and ascites. The indications for EUS-FNA have greatly expanded beyond the pancreas over the years, and future improvements and innovations in puncture needles will allow for the collection of higher-quality specimens, which is expected to play a significant part in personalized cancer treatment.

Pancreatobiliary Lymphadenopathy: Etiology, Location, and Factors Predicting Good Yield of Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Biopsy

Introduction

Pancreatobiliary lymphadenopathy (PBL) may be due to a number of benign or malignant causes. Tissue sampling of these lymph nodes (LN) can be possible with the help of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). Aim of this study was to identify the etiology of the PBL, morphology, and factors predicting good yield of biopsy with EUS.

Materials and methods

All patients found to have pancreatobiliary lymph node (PBLN) enlargement (>10 mm) on abdominal imaging and referred for EUS-guided biopsy were included in this prospective observational study. The facility of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) was not available. Adequacy of the tissue specimen was assessed by the endoscopist with macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) and then sent to histopathologist for final diagnosis. Factors predicting good yield of biopsy were then analyzed.

Results

Of the total 87 patients with PBL, 54 (62.1%) were males. Mean age of the patients was 52.0 (±13.4) and range 18-80 years. The commonest locations of PBL were porta hepatis 37 (42.5%), peripancreatic 24 (27.6%), celiac 16 (18.4%), and others 10 (11.5%). Histological reports showed: neoplastic tissue in 34 (39.1%), non-neoplastic in 20 (23%), normal lymphoid tissue (27.6%) and suboptimal in 9 (10.3%). Among the 34 neoplastic causes, 26 had metastatic adenocarcinoma, 5 had lymphoma, and 3 had metastatic neuroendocrine tumors. Among the 20 non-neoplastic causes, 10 had tuberculosis, 4 had anthracosis, and 6 had other findings. Factors predicting good yield of biopsy were a PBLN size ≥12 mm and satisfactory MOSE on both univariate [PBLN (p = 0.005); MOSE (p < 0.0001)] and multivariate [PBLN (p = 0.011); MOSE (p < 0.0001)] analysis.

Conclusion

The commonest etiology of PBLN enlargement was metastatic adenocarcinoma among the neoplastic causes and tuberculosis among the non-neoplastic causes. The most common PBLNs approached by EUS were in portahepatis and peripancreatic regions. A good biopsy yield can be predicted with PBLN size of ≥12 mm and a satisfactory MOSE.

How to cite this article

Tasneem AA, Yaseen T, Laeeq SM, et al. Pancreatobiliary Lymphadenopathy: Etiology, Location, and Factors Predicting Good Yield of Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Biopsy. Euroasian J Hepato-Gastroenterol 2024;14(1):40-43.

Comparing the diagnostic adequacy of 25-Gauge fork-tip versus franseen versus reverse-bevel-type needles in EUS-guided tissue acquisition: A prospective randomized study with a retrospective control

Background and Objectives

EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB) is an established technique for the acquisition of tissue to diagnose lesions of the gastrointestinal tract and surrounding organs. Recently, newer-generation FNB needles have been introduced, including a second-generation reverse-bevel and the third-generation fork-tip and Franseen needles. We aimed to determine if there was any difference between these needles in terms of cytopathological diagnostic yield, sample cellularity, or sample bloodiness.

Methods

One hundred twenty-seven consecutive patients undergoing EUS-guided FNB of any solid lesion were randomized to use either a Franseen or fork-tip needle in a 1:1 ratio and were compared with 60 consecutive historical cases performed with reverse-bevel needles. Patient and procedure characteristics were recorded. Cases were reviewed by a blinded cytopathologist and graded based on cellularity and bloodiness. Overall diagnostic yield was calculated for each study arm.

Results

One hundred seventy-six cases were eligible for analysis, including 109 pancreatic masses, 24 lymphoid lesions, 17 subepithelial lesions, and 26 other lesions. The final diagnosis was malignancy in 127 cases (72%). EUS-guided FNB was diagnostic in 141 cases (80%) overall and in 89% of cases where malignancy was the final diagnosis. There was no difference in diagnostic yield, sample cellularity, or sample bloodiness between the different needle types. There was no difference in adverse events between groups.

Conclusions

EUS-guided FNB performed using 25-gauge Franseen, fork-tip, and reverse-bevel needles resulted in similar diagnostic yield, sample cellularity, and sample bloodiness. Our results may not be extrapolated to larger-caliber needles of the same design.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy in the Diagnostic Work-Up of Deep-Seated Lymphadenopathies and Spleen Lesions: A Monocentric Experience

EUS-FNB has been introduced in clinical practice as a less invasive diagnostic approach with respect to surgery. We performed a single-center retrospective study on the diagnostic efficacy of EUS-guided FNB, including 171 patients with lymph nodes, splenic, and extranodal lesions that underwent EUS for FNB at our institution. Excluding 12 patients who did not undergo FNB and 25 patients with a previous diagnosis of a solid tumor, we included 134 patients with clinical/radiological suspect of a lymphoproliferative disease, including 20 patients with a previous history of lymphoma. Out of the 134 biopsies, material of diagnostic quality was obtained in 111 procedures (84.3%). Histological examination of the EUS-FNB samples produced an actionable diagnosis in 100 cases (74.6%). Among the patients without an actionable diagnosis, a second, different diagnostic procedure produced a further eight diagnoses of lymphoma. Therefore, the sensitivity of EUS-FNB for diagnosing lymphomas was calculated to be 86.4% (51/59). Assignment of lymphomas to WHO classification subtypes was possible in 47/51 (92%) of the cases. In conclusion, EUS-FNB is an effective procedure for the histological characterization of lesions that are suspected to be lymphoproliferative disease, allowing for an actionable diagnosis in 75% of cases.

Comparison of Fine-Needle Biopsy (FNB) versus Fine-Needle Aspiration (FNA) Combined with Flow Cytometry in the Diagnosis of Deep-Seated Lymphoma

Evidence comparing ultrasound endoscopy-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) with EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in deep-seated lymphoma tissue sampling is insufficient. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of immunohistochemistry (IHC) or flow cytometry (FCM) on specimens obtained from EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA in the diagnosis and staging of deep-seated lymphomas. This real-world, dual-center study prospectively evaluated all eligible specimens from patients who underwent EUS-FNB/FNA over an 8-year period. 53 patients were enrolled, with 23 patients in the EUS-FNB group and 30 patients in the EUS-FNA group. FNB yielded specimens with longer core tissues (0.80 mm [0.55, 1.00] vs. 0.45 mm [0.30, 0.50], p = 0.009) and higher scores of specimen adequacy [4 (3.75, 4.00) vs. 3 (1.00, 4.00), p = 0.025]. Overall analysis revealed that the diagnostic accuracy of IHC based on specimens acquired from EUS-FNB was significantly higher than that of EUS-FNA (91.30% vs. 60.00%, p = 0.013). After controlling confounding factors including lesion size and endoscopists, EUS-FNB with IHC maintained a higher-level diagnostic accuracy compared to EUS-FNA (OR = 1.292 [1.037-1.609], p = 0.023). When FCM was additionally used to analyze the specimen acquired from EUS-FNA, the diagnostic yield was significantly improved (ROC AUC: 0.733 vs. 0.550, p = 0.015), and the AUC of FNB alone or combined with FCM was 0.739 and 0.761. Conclusions: FNB needles generate higher histopathological diagnostic accuracy and specimen quality than FNA for the deep-seated lymphoma. Though the application of FCM significantly improves the diagnostic efficacy of EUS-FNA, FNB was still the preferred diagnostic modality with a shorter procedure time, comparable diagnostic accuracy, and better cost-effectiveness.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition beyond the pancreas

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) offers the ability to obtain tissue material via a fine needle under direct visualization for cytological or pathological examination. Prior studies have looked at EUS tissue acquisition; however, most reports have been centered around lesions of the pancreas. This paper aims to review the literature on EUS tissue acquisition in other organs (beyond the pancreas) such as the liver, biliary tree, lymph nodes, and upper and lower gastrointestinal tracts. Furthermore, techniques for obtaining tissue samples under EUS guidance continue to evolve. Specifically, some of the techniques that endoscopists employ are suction techniques (i.e., dry heparin, dry suction technique, wet suction technique), the slow pull technique, and the fanning technique. Apart from acquisition techniques, the type and size of the needle utilized play a major role in the quality of samples. This review describes the indications for tissue acquisition for each organ, and also describes and compares the various tissue acquisition techniques, as well as the different needles used according to their shape and size.

Primary Pancreatic Lymphoma Evaluated by Fine-Needle Aspiration

OBJECTIVES

Primary pancreatic lymphoma (PPL) is rare, mimicking pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) clinically and radiologically. The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical, radiologic, and pathological characteristics of PPL diagnosed by fine-needle aspiration (FNA) in our institution.

METHODS

Patient clinical, radiologic, and pathological information was collected from the electronic health record system.

RESULTS

In total, 11 of 4,353 pancreatic FNAs met the criteria. The most common clinical symptom was jaundice, followed by abdominal pain, weight loss, and diarrhea. Abnormal laboratory findings included elevated alkaline phosphatase, total bilirubin, lactate dehydrogenase, and cancer antigen 19-9. Abnormal radiologic findings included pancreatic mass, biliary dilatation, vessel encasement, and common bile duct encasement and thickening. Five patients underwent more than 1 tissue sampling procedure before the final diagnosis of lymphoma. Final pathologic diagnosis included 7 large B-cell lymphomas and 4 follicular lymphomas. Flow cytometric analysis was performed on 9 specimens, and all demonstrated an aberrant monoclonal B-cell population.

CONCLUSIONS

PPL mimics PDAC clinically and radiologically and could be a challenge for pathologic diagnosis if lymphoma is not included in the differential diagnosis during immediate evaluation. If lymphoma is suspected during immediate evaluation, PPL could be reliably diagnosed by FNA with the aid of ancillary studies.

Disseminated tuberculosis following invasive procedures for peripancreatic lymph node tuberculosis with portal vein obstruction: a case report

Peripancreatic tuberculous lymphadenopathy can mimic pancreatic cancer on imaging. There have only a few reports on varices from portal vein obstruction due to abdominal tuberculous lymphadenopathy. Iatrogenic disseminated tuberculosis is also rare. Herein, we present a rare case of peripancreatic tuberculous lymphadenopathy with ruptured duodenal varices due to portal vein obstruction. The patient presented to our hospital with hematemesis. Computed tomography revealed a peripancreatic mass. Duodenal varices rupture from portal vein obstruction due to pancreatic cancer were initially suspected. The patient underwent portal vein stenting for portal vein obstruction and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for diagnosis, which revealed granulomas indicative of tuberculosis. The patient was discharged once because fine-needle aspiration did not lead to a definitive diagnosis of tuberculosis. Subsequently, he developed disseminated tuberculosis. Peripancreatic tuberculous lymphadenopathy can cause ectopic varices with portal vein obstruction. Tuberculosis should also be included in the differential diagnosis in the case of portal vein obstruction, to facilitate early treatment and avoid unnecessary surgery. Furthermore, fine-needle aspiration or portal vein stenting for tuberculous lesions can cause disseminated tuberculosis. Since a diagnosis might not be made until after several fine-needle aspirations have been conducted, careful follow-up is necessary after the procedure for such lesions.

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.

Managing adverse events after endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of the biliary tract and pancreatic fluid collections: Narrative review (with video)

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided therapeutic procedures have become increasingly common in clinical practice. The development of EUS-guided fine needle aspiration cytology led to the concept of interventional EUS. However, it carries a considerable risk of adverse events (AEs), which occur in approximately 23% of the procedures performed for the drainage of pancreatic fluid collections and 2.5-37.0% of those performed for drainage of the biliary tract. Although the vast majority of AEs occurring after EUS-guided drainage are mild, a deep understanding of such events is necessary for their appropriate management. Because EUS-guided drainage is a novel procedure, there have been few studies of the topic. To our knowledge, this is the first narrative review that focuses on the management and resolution of AEs occurring after EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections or the biliary tract. We also include an explanatory video.

Endoscopic ultrasound assessment and tissue acquisition of mediastinal and abdominal lymph nodes

The differential diagnosis between benign and malignant lymph nodes (LNs) has a fundamental role in the characterization and staging of malignant conditions, as well as in subsequent patients’ management. All imaging modalities (i.e. computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging) rely mainly on size; endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) criteria based on B-mode evaluation and Doppler features fail to adequately characterize with high specificity LNs nature. The introduction of EUS-elastography and contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS are useful techniques to increase the diagnostic yield in identifying metastatic LNs, to identify which suspicious LN should require pathological characterization and, finally, to target tissue acquisition. EUS-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) is increasingly being used for diagnosing lymphadenopathy whenever the characterization modifies patients’ subsequent management and when no superficial LN is accessible. Since target therapy are currently available (i.e. lung cancer, breast cancer), EUS-TA of malignant LNs could be required to identify tumor biology. In this field, both fine needle aspiration and biopsy needles are able to guarantee accurate results with almost perfect specificity and sub-optimal sensitivity. We finally propose a diagnostic algorithm based on most recent, high-level evidence for the diagnostic approach to suspected LNs assessment.

Editors' Choice of Noteworthy Clinical Endoscopy Publications in the First Decade

This is a special review to celebrate the 10^th anniversary of Clinical Endoscopy. Each deputy editor has selected articles from one’s subspecialty that are significant in terms of the number of downloads, citations, and clinical importance. The articles included original articles, review articles, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

Usefulness of a target sample check illuminator in the detection of target specimens in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy samples: Multicenter prospective study

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) uses a thin needle, rendering unclear whether the collected sample contains pathological evidence. We examined the usefulness of our target sample check illuminator (TSCI) through a multicenter prospective trial.

METHODS

We included 52 consecutive patients. After assessing EUS-FNB samples by conventional (visual observation) and TSCI methods, we evaluated consistency with the histopathological diagnosis. We compared the target sample confirmation rate between conventional and TSCI methods and evaluated the diagnostic ability separately.

RESULTS

Comparison between the conventional and TSCI methods revealed the following: (i) for all cases: sensitivity, 51.0% (25/49) vs. 95.9% (47/49) (P = 0.001); specificity, 100% (3/3) vs. 66.7% (2/3); positive predictive value (PPV), 100% (25/25) vs. 97.9% (47/48); and negative predictive value (NPV), 11.1% (3/27) vs. 50.0% (2/4) (P = 0.002); (ii) for pancreatic masses: sensitivity, 28.0% (7/25) vs. 96.0% (24/25) (P < 0.001); specificity, 100% (2/2) vs. 100% (2/2); PPV, 100% (7/7) vs. 100% (24/24); and NPV, 10.0% (2/20) vs. 66.7% (2/3) (P < 0.001) (the TSCI method showed significantly better sensitivity and NPV than the conventional method); and (iii) for lymph node tumors: sensitivity, 75.0% (18/24) vs. 95.8% (23/24) (P = 0.025); specificity, 100% (1/1) vs. 0% (0/1); PPV, 100% (18/18) vs. 95.8% (23/24); and NPV, 14.3% (1/7) vs. 0% (0/1).

CONCLUSIONS

The TSCI improved the sensitivity, NPV, and accuracy of target sample confirmation for pancreatic mass EUS-FNB. Although the proportion of samples not including a target region was quite low, which could strongly influence our results, the TSCI method can be used in EUS-FNB when rapid on-site evaluation cannot be performed. (A multicenter prospective study for the utility of a target sample check illuminator, Clinical Trial ID: UMIN000023349).

Endoscopic Ultrasound Fine-Needle Biopsy versus Fine-Needle Aspiration for Tissue Sampling of Abdominal Lymph Nodes: A Propensity Score Matched Multicenter Comparative Study

Simple Summary

Lymph node (LN) sampling or staging is crucial to the management of malignancies. The use of endoscopic ultrasound for lymph node sampling can be performed with EUS fine-needle aspiration (FNA) or EUS fine-needle biopsy (FNB). However, it remains unclear whether EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB is superior for sampling of abdominal lymph nodes. In this study, we retrospectively compared a large volume of patients who underwent lymph node sampling using EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB. Most patients were diagnosed with metastatic colorectal disease. We found that EUS-FNB had a higher diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity compared to EUS-FNA. Both modalities had no adverse events. Thus, the results support the use of EUS-FNB for abdominal lymph node sampling.

Abstract

There is a paucity of evidence on the comparison between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle biopsy (FNB) and fine-needle aspiration (FNA) for lymph node (LNs) sampling. The aim of this study was to compare these two approaches in a multicenter series of patients with abdominal tumors. Out of 502 patients undergoing EUS sampling, two groups following propensity score matching were compared: 105 undergoing EUS-FNB and 105 undergoing EUS-FNA. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, sample adequacy, optimal histological core procurement, number of passes, and adverse events. Median age was 64.6 years, and most patients were male in both groups. Final diagnosis was LN metastasis (mainly from colorectal cancer) in 70.4% of patients in the EUS-FNB group and 66.6% in the EUS-FNA group (p = 0.22). Diagnostic accuracy was significantly higher in the EUS-FNB group as compared to the EUS-FNA group (87.62% versus 75.24%, p = 0.02). EUS-FNB outperformed EUS-FNA also in terms of diagnostic sensitivity (84.71% vs. 70.11%; p = 0.01), whereas specificity was 100% in both groups (p = 0.6). Sample adequacy analysis showed a non-significant trend in favor of EUS-FNB (96.1% versus 89.5%, p = 0.06) whereas the histological core procurement rate was significantly higher with EUS-FNB (94.2% versus 51.4%; p < 0.001). No procedure-related adverse events were observed. These findings show that EUS-FNB is superior to EUS-FNA in tissue sampling of abdominal LNs.

High Diagnostic Accuracy and Safety of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration in Malignant Lymph Nodes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is increasingly being used for diagnosing lymphadenopathy. We aim to systematically review the accuracy of EUS-FNA in differentiating benign and malignant mediastinal and abdominal lymph nodes (LNs).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed on multiple electronic databases through February 2020. A random or fixed effect model generated the pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio (LR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of EUS-FNA. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were used to explore sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies involving 2753 patients with 2833 LNs were included. In the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant LNs, EUS-FNA had a pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive LR, and negative LR of 87% (95% confidence interval [CI] 86-90%), 100% (95% CI 99-100%), 68.98 (95% CI 42.10-113.02), and 0.14 (95% CI 0.11-0.17), respectively. The pooled rate of adverse events associated with EUS-FNA was 1.57% (95% CI 1.06-2.24%). The summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) yielded an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.9912. EUS-FNA performed in mediastinal LNs gained a sensitivity of 85% (95% CI 81-88%), while in abdominal LNs, it reached 87% (95% CI 82-91%). The sensitivity of the subgroup with rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) was 91% (95% CI 89-93%), while non-ROSE was 85% (95% CI 82-87%).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNA is a sensitive, highly specific, and safe method for distinguishing benign and malignant mediastinal or abdominal LNs. However, the sensitivity of EUS-FNA still varies significantly among different centers.

Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration vs fine needle biopsy for pancreatic masses, subepithelial lesions, and lymph nodes

Endoscopic ultrasound tissue acquisition, in the form of both fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB), is utilized for pancreatic mass lesions, subepithelial lesions, and lymph node biopsy. Both procedures are safe and yield high diagnostic value. Despite its high diagnostic yield, EUS-FNA has potential limitations associated with cytological aspirations, including inability to determine histologic architecture, and a small quantitative sample for further immunohistochemical staining. EUS-FNB, with its larger core biopsy needle, was designed to overcome these potential limitations. However, it remains unclear which technique should be used and for which lesions. Comparative trials are plagued by heterogeneity at every stage of comparison; including variable needles used, and different definitions of endpoints, which therefore limit generalizability. Thus, we present a review of prospective trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses on studies examining EUS-FNA vs EUS-FNB. Prospective comparative trials of EUS-FNA vs EUS-FNB primarily focus on pancreatic mass lesions, and yield conflicting results in terms of demonstrating the superiority of one method. However, consistent among trials is the potential for diagnosis with fewer passes, and a larger quantity of sample achieved for next generation sequencing. With regard to subepithelial lesions and lymph node biopsy, fewer prospective trials exist, and larger prospective studies are necessary. Based on the available literature, we would recommend EUS-FNB for peri-hepatic lymph nodes.

Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration Versus Fine-Needle Capillary Sampling in Evaluation of Lymph Node Metastasis of Thyroid Cancer

Background

To compare the sampling adequacy and diagnostic efficiency of ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with 22-, 25-gauge needles and capillary sampling with 22-gauge needle in the biopsy of cervical lymph node.

Methods

A total of 130 cervical lymph nodes from 103 patients were consecutively included in the prospective study. Each suspected lymph node was aspirated with a 22-gauge needle, capillary sampled with a 22-gauge needle and aspirated with a 25-gauge needle. The adequacy rates and nondiagnostic rates of obtained specimen were calculated.

Results

Of the 130 suspected lymph nodes, there were 77 lymph nodes<6.0 mm and 53 lymph nodes≥6.0mm in the smallest dimension. Both FNA_22G and FNC_22G got significantly higher sampling adequacy than FNA_25G for the total lymph nodes. For lymph nodes<6.0 mm, the sampling adequacy was significantly higher with FNA_22G than with FNA_25G for each parameter and the cumulative score (all P<0.05), while no difference were seen between FNA_22G and FNC_22G, and between FNC_22G and FNA_25G. There were higher nondiagnostic rates for FNA_25G compared with FNA_22G and FNC_22G in all lymph nodes and in each size subgroups. FNA_25G yielded more diagnostically inadequate specimens than FNA_22G and FNC_22G did in the total lymph nodes (P=0.002), in lymph nodes<6.0 mm (P=0.014), and in those ≥ 6.0 mm (P=0.000).

Conclusions

FNA_22G and FNC_22G obtained more diagnostically adequate specimens than FNA_25G in cervical lymph nodes. FNA_22G and FNC_22G may be more suitable than FNA_25G in diagnosing cervical lymph nodes. FNA_22G and FNC_22G may yield specimens with similar quality.

High Sensitivity of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB in Lymphadenopathy Caused by Metastatic Disease: A Prospective Comparative Study

Background/Aims

The diagnostic work-up of lymphadenopathy is challenging but important to determine the correct therapy. Nevertheless, few studies have addressed the topic of endosonography (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition in lymphadenopathy. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the accuracy and safety of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling (EUS-FNB) in intrathoracic and intraabdominal lymphadenopathy.

Methods

In a tertiary care center, patients with lymphadenopathy referred for EUS-guided sampling were included prospectively from 2014 to 2019 (NCT02360839). In all cases, EUS-FNB (22 gauge) and EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) (25 gauge) were performed. The patients were randomized to the first needle pass with FNB or FNA. Study outcomes were the diagnostic accuracy and adverse event rate.

Results

Forty-eight patients were included (median age: 69 years [interquartile range, 59–76]; 24/48 females [50%]). The final diagnoses were metastasis (n=17), lymphoma (n=11), sarcoidosis (n=6), and inflammatory disease (n=14). The diagnostic performance of the two modalities was comparable, including a high sensitivity for metastatic nodes (EUS-FNB: 87% vs. EUS-FNA: 100%, p=0.5). The sensitivity for lymphoma was borderline superior in favor of EUS-FNB (EUS-FNB: 55% vs. EUS-FNA: 9%, p=0.06). No adverse events were recorded.

Conclusions

In lymphadenopathy, both EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA are safe and highly sensitive for metastatic lymph node detection. Lymphoma diagnosis is challenging regardless of the needle used.

Improved diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle biopsy with histology specimen processing

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) has emerged as a safe, efficacious alternative to fine needle aspiration (FNA) for tissue acquisition. EUS-FNB is reported to have higher diagnostic yield while preserving specimen tissue architecture. However, data on the optimal method of EUS-FNB specimen processing is limited.

AIM

To evaluate EUS-FNB with specimen processing as histology vs EUS-FNA cytology with regards to diagnostic yield and specimen adequacy.

METHODS

All EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB performed at our institution from July 1, 2016, to January 31, 2018, were retrospectively analyzed. We collected data on demographics, EUS findings, pathology, clinical outcomes, and procedural complications in two periods, July 2016 through March 2017, and April 2017 through January 2018, with predominant use of FNB in the second data collection time period. FNA specimens were processed as cytology with cell block technique and reviewed by a cytopathologist; FNB specimens were fixed in formalin, processed for histopathologic analysis and immunohistochemical staining, and reviewed by an anatomic pathologist. Final diagnosis was based on surgical pathology when available, repeat biopsy or imaging, and length of clinical follow up.

RESULTS

One hundred six EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB procedures were performed. FNA alone was performed in 17 patients; in 56 patients, FNB alone was done; and in 33 patients, both FNA and FNB were performed. For all indications, diagnostic yield was 47.1% (8/17) in FNA alone cases, 85.7% (48/56) in FNB alone cases, and 84.8% (28/33) in cases where both FNA and FNB were performed (P = 0.0039). Specimens were adequate for pathologic evaluation in 52.9% (9/17) of FNA alone cases, in 89.3% (50/56) of FNB alone cases, and 84.8% (28/33) in cases where FNA with FNB were performed (P = 0.0049). Tissue could not be aspirated for cytology in 10.0% (5/50) of cases where FNA was done, while in 3.4% (3/89) of FNB cases, tissue could not be obtained for histology. In patients who underwent FNA with FNB, there was a statistically significant difference in both specimen adequacy (P = 0.0455) and diagnostic yield (P = 0.0455) between the FNA and FNB specimens (processed correspondingly as cytology or histology).

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNB has a higher diagnostic yield and specimen adequacy than EUS-FNA. In our experience, specimen processing as histology may have contributed to the overall increased diagnostic yield of EUS-FNB.

New Devices for Endoscopic Treatments in Gastroenterology: A Narrative Review

Endoscopy is in a period of continuous innovations in terms of image quality, endoscopes, post-processing software and lastly, application of Artificial Intelligence. Therapeutic boundaries have expanded, widening the grey zone between endoscopy and surgery, and increasing endoscopic approaches in clinical scenarios where, until a few years ago, surgery was the only option. New scopes and accessories have made it easier to access critical areas such as the biliary tree and the small bowel intestine. In the field of hepato-pancreato-biliary endoscopy (HPB), it is now possible to directly access the biliary ducts or cystic lesions though dedicated stents and scopes, rather than having to rely only on fluoroscopy and ultrasound, increasing the diagnostic and therapeutic options by applying a three-dimensional approach. This narrative review will give an overview of some of the most relevant emerging fields in luminal and HPB endoscopy, highlighting advantages and main limitations of the techniques, and providing considerations for future development.

Current status of newer generation endoscopic ultrasound core needles in the diagnostic evaluation of gastrointestinal lesions

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition is now an imperative technique for the diagnosis of multiple diseases in the gastrointestinal tract and nearby structures. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and fine needle biopsy via dedicated FNB needles (EUS-FNB) are two standard-essential tools for tissue acquisition. The choice of needle type is an important factor determining appropriate tissue acquisition. Multiple studies have compared EUS-FNA versus EUS-FNB on different lesions also there are several studies evaluated different needles in terms of sampling adequacy and cytological and histological accuracy. Prior studies comparing prior-generation FNB needles to FNA did not show an increased diagnostic yield with FNB. However, the newer-generation needles have demonstrated enhanced performance compared with their predecessors. As they may provide a large amount of tissue for the cytological and histological evaluation, rapid onsite specimen evaluation (ROSE), and immunohistochemical and molecular analyses, which may be very important for targeted therapy. In this review, we discuss current evidence and literature on the use of the newer generation needles for pancreatic and non-pancreatic lesions.

Evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration versus fine-needle biopsy and impact of rapid on-site evaluation for pancreatic masses

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) is traditionally considered a first-line strategy for diagnosing pancreatic lesions; however, given less than ideal accuracy rates, fine-needle biopsy (FNB) has been recently developed to yield histological tissue. The aim of this study was to compare diagnostic yield and safety between EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB in sampling of pancreatic masses. Patients and methods  This was a multicenter retrospective study to evaluate efficacy and safety of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for pancreatic lesions. Baseline characteristics including sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy, were evaluated. Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) diagnostic adequacy, cell-block accuracy, and adverse events were analyzed. Subgroup analyses comparing FNA versus FNB route of tissue acquisition and comparison between methods with or without ROSE were performed. Multivariable logistic regression was also performed. Results  A total of 574 patients (n = 194 FNA, n = 380 FNB) were included. Overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of FNB versus FNA were similar [(89.09 % versus 85.62 %; P  = 0.229), (98.04 % versus 96.88 %; P  = 0.387), and 90.29 % versus 87.50 %; P  = 0.307)]. Number of passes for ROSE adequacy and cell-block accuracy were comparable for FNA versus FNB [(3.06 ± 1.62 versus 3.04 ± 1.88; P  = 0.11) and (3.08 ± 1.63 versus 3.35 ± 2.02; P  = 0.137)]. FNA + ROSE was superior to FNA alone regarding sensitivity and accuracy [91.96 % versus 70.83 %; P  < 0.001) and (91.80 % versus 80.28 %; P  = 0.020)]. Sensitivity of FNB + ROSE and FNB alone were superior to FNA alone [(92.17 % versus 70.83 %; P  < 0.001) and (87.44 % versus 70.83 %; P  < 0.001)]. There was no difference in sensitivity though improved accuracy between FNA + ROSE versus FNB alone [(91.96 % versus 87.44 %; P  = 0.193) and (91.80 % versus 80.72 %; P  = 0.006)]. FNB + ROSE was more accurate than FNA + ROSE (93.13 % versus 91.80 % ; P  = 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed ROSE was a significant predictor of accuracy [OR 2.60 (95 % CI, 1.41-4.79)]. One adverse event occurred after FNB resulting in patient death. Conclusion  EUS-FNB allowed for more consistent cell-block evaluation as compared to EUS-FNA. EUS-FNA + ROSE was found to have a similar sensitivity to EUS-FNB alone suggesting a reduced need for ROSE as part of the standard algorithm of pancreatic sampling. While FNB alone produced similar diagnostic findings to EUS-FNA + ROSE, FNB + ROSE still was noted to increase diagnostic yield. This finding may favor a unique role for FNB + ROSE, suggesting it may be useful in cases when previous EUS-guided sampling may have been indeterminate.